Sorry about the delay; but we have had house guests. Consider this answer to be no more than a FYI post: just something to let you know what was going through my mind as I read your responses.
***Dick, you are controlling this dialogue.***
I didn't say I wasn't! What I said was that I wanted this ridiculous trash out of the way before discussing what I have to say!
***I consider it crying when someone comes back in a complaint that is not a logical argument. No crying - just content!***
When we get to logical argument, this sentence might have some meaning!
***That would be a ridiculous notion since you need confidence of your position to believe that even that position was not in error. Obviously confidence has a great deal of bearing on whether an error exists - the relationship can even be a probablistic one (e.g., there is a 98.7% probability of such n' such). In any case, it appears that you are not holding that position as your clarification shows.***
Whether or not an error exists and whether or not you believe an error exists are totally different issues which have almost nothing to do with one another!
***In your original statement ("[o}ne of the fundamental issues of my position is that it is an *error* to believe that your confidence has any bearing on the issue of whether or not an error exists!") you said a statement which surely cannot be taken literally.***
Again, I will say that there exists no evidence whatsoever that belief has anything to do with truth! And again, either you haven't thought the issue out or bringing idea up is no more than a debating ploy to cloud the issue.
***Notice the contradiction in both replies: (1) "What I have done stands on its own merits and makes no claim on any authority other than the accepted rules of mathematics." (2) "These issues are part of my presentation and not a part of mathematics".***
The two statements are not contradictory at all. The validity of mathematics is taken as understood. It is used as a tool to connect the definitions I begin with. What I have done, "shown that these definitions lead to the *fact* most of what is called the "laws of physics" cannot be false, stands on its own merits and makes no claim on any other authority.
***So just eliminate those terms from your paper and submit the paper to a math journal.***
???? So just eliminate what I am saying and submit ??? The only thing I can conclude from this statement is that you have utterly no concept of what I am doing.
I am guessing that the problem here is that you cannot follow mathematics and therefore cannot use it as a tool.
***In addition, how do you justify your particular definitions (a week ago you said they were the same as how they are used in science, but recently you've backed off from that statement). ***
You are again confusing the issue of definition and assignment!
***We are discussing your presentation (not mathematics), right?***
My presentation cannot be understood in the absence of mathematics! If it could I would have no need for the mathematics.
***My contention is that you made your mistake in the presentation when you began defining and assigning those meanings. ***
I know that! And it is my contention is that you are wrong! So long as you do not comprehend the process, you will be incapable of judging the issue.
*** [I don't mean that as an insult, but as a conclusive statement - don't take it the wrong way].***
I take it the only way it can be taken: i.e., you have no comprehension of what you are talking about!
***(1) If you have the right results to start with, it is fairly straightforward to recreate the results using other means if you have the time and you are creative enough to do it,***
Well then, at least you admit I am creative I suppose that is something! This sounds almost exactly like what I would expect some priest to say to Newton. It's a joke Harv! At this point you have not even begun to comprehend what I have done.
***(2) the mathematics allows multiple meanings (e.g., t=daisycups), so it isn't a straightforward process of knowing the meaning of the mathematics as you suggest, ***
That is 100% beside the central issue! What I said was 1.- "look, if you analyze any data set from this perspective, these relationships must be true (it is purely a consequence of how the examination is organized and nothing else)" and 2.- "if you identify the terms this way, those *required* relationships are laws of physics". Since any data may be viewed from that perspective, it follows, as the night the day, that any arbitrary set of data may be seen as obeying the laws of physics and the fact has absolutely no bearing on reality (it is a tautology)! It is purely a consequence of the assignments.
***(3) your physics results are based on definitions of terms that do not altogether agree with your definitions in your presentation, so there isn't any justification to say that you derived the same physics equations, ***
That statement is simply a false statement! It demonstrates your lack of comprehension of those definitions!
***(4) it is not known the effect of playing with mathematics so as to create physics (e.g., setting up wavefunctions might be what causes you to obtain certain physics equations),
That statement simply doesn't make any sense at all!
(5) the actual meaning of your mathematics (versus your presentation) might be that physics is a consequence of mathematics - which is not compatible to the claim of your paper.
Please explain how that is not compatible to the claim of my paper! I don't think you have the slightest idea what the claim of my paper is.
***(otherwise mathematicians would be the discoverers of physics laws instead of physicists).***
Harv, haven't you noticed that most discoverers of physics laws are excellent mathematicians?
*** That's why I say your model is not properly validated since it does not rely on experimentation but rather your own defined terms (which could be spiritual energy if we so selected to do it this way). ***
And I hold that you do not understand what I have done therefore you can not yet judge the what validation is required.
***If you are providing human inventions, then it should do something.***
It makes the Universe (that is everything) a lot easier to understand!
***It is not a matter of there being 'rules', it is a matter of what falls in the range of possibility.***
Yeh I know! You hold that it is not possible that I am right so it serves no purpose to look!
*** Stop and think! (I'm sure those words sound just as degrading when said to you as they seemed to me when you titled your post with those words). ***
Personally, I have never found the words "stop and think" to be degrading! Only authorities seem to be afflicted with that problem.
***You may not care, but that epistemological trail is part of whatever assumptions you make of the word (including what math axioms you consider valid). If we made contact with an alien civilization they might have a math that is completely contradictory to our math.***
Not understanding the nature of mathematics, I would suggest you refrain from making such absurd statements.
***Okay, let's pursue that idea that a definition is different than an assignment.***
Now here you seem to have a serious issue. I get the distinct impression that you do not comprehend the difference between definition and assignment of symbols. I suppose that is due to your lack of mathematics education. I think this is worth a separate post and I will take it up as such.
Don't take anything I have said above seriously as it was only said for your information so that you would understand how what you said struck me. None of the issues mentioned are worth the time it takes to discuss them as I believe most all of it can be ascribed to misunderstanding.
Please wait until I have composed my comments to the issue of definition and assignment!
Have fun -- Dick