Hi Richard,

I believe you might be right about the similarity of results. But it is in the starting points where Dick's and Hall's approaches differ significantly.

As I have said many times, I think Dick has discovered a theorem of probability theory that belongs in the subject of statistics. It could very well be that this is the same theorem, or something close, that was discovered by Fisher.

If so, my guess would be that the primary scientific interest in the theorem would be to help George Gallup convince people that he has something to say. I expect that whatever Hall has discovered will generate interest only as a novelty or curiosity.

***He starts from classical mechanics and Fisher information based on pollester mathematics and derives both Schroedinger's equation and an exact form of the uncertainty principle.***

This is the fundamental difference between Hall's work and Dick's work I alluded to. Dick did not start from a basis of classical mechanics at all. He started from a basis of pure mathematics alone. His arbitrary "set of numbers" is a purely mathematical construct.

As a result of this difference, the implications of Dick's discovery should shake the very foundations of philosophy and the methods of science themselves. That is what I think all of you are failing to see. No disrespect intended.

Warm regards,

Paul

• It's all math - yanniru - May 13, 2002 - 22:58 UTC
  • "Our" longest sustained topic ever here thus settled? - occupant - May 14, 2002 - 07:27 UTC
  • I think your insight is as keen as your wit, Mike (nt) - pmartin - May 15, 2002 - 23:03 UTC
    • Although I'm residential, I'll pass along your remarks to Mike - occupant - May 15, 2002 - 23:26 UTC