Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Why What?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 25, 2003 23:36:03 UTC


I really do not understand all of your comments!

From Harv's post, a quote from me:

"It is only an interesting side issue to my work that it turns out that most of physics is true by definition. It is none the less a very interesting issue."

With a rather unspecific question: WHY???

Why does it turn out that way or why is it interesting? In order to understand why it turns out that way, you would have to understand what I did which I doubt would ever happen. As to why it is interesting; you will find no one in the field who believes Physics is a tautology and yet it turns out that it is. I think that is an interesting result.

Harv: Choose your option:

A) Your paper has mistakes and this conclusion was arrived at hastily.

It is very probably true that there are mistakes there as I have almost never read it carefully without finding one and it is very difficult to carry out a complex deduction in the complete absence of discussion with others; however, I think the central thesis is on very firm ground and I would not call the conclusion "hasty". I think others should look into the problem. I really don't think it would hurt them.

Harv: B) The paper only has equations that look like well-known physics equations, but upon closer examination the definitions of variables actually have quite different meanings.

I wouldn't use the word "only" there. They look exactly like the well-known physics equations. Now, the definitions of the basic concepts are a little askew of the common definitions; however, a careful examination of the common concepts will reveal that there is no experiment which will differentiate between the definitions. For example, conceive of an experiment which will invalidate the concept that the past is defined by the fact that it cannot be changed and that the future is defined by the fact that it is not known. I am afraid my definitions are a lot better justified than the common ones and provide sustantially less constraint on possibilities. One would expect the results to be less constrained, not more constrained.

Harv: C) It makes assumptions that all physicists make when constructing a physical theory (e.g., certain symmetries), and therefore you reach the same conclusion.

Now here you have been swayed by Richard who simply does not understand the finer points of symmetry issues. My approach is fundamentally different from the assumptions made by common physicists. They assume that these symmetries are characteristics of the universe.

What I point out is that (since the mechanism by which we obtain information from the universe is a part of our explanation of the universe), it is an "after the fact" construct.

That being the case, since our conscious awareness is separated from reality (what we are trying to understand) by an unexaminable mechanism we certainly cannot assume that an apparent symmetry we are aware of on a conscious level can be attributed to reality.

If we can conceive of a method by which the information available from reality can be manipulated into a symmetric illusion, we certainly must allow for the possibility that the symmetry is being generated by that unknown mechanism: i.e., we certainly have no justification for attributing it to reality.

So in my general attack, I allow for the possibility that all symmetries I can conceive of can be generated by that mechanism. This is not at all what is done by physicists. I put that down in spite of the fact that I know full well that neither you nor Richard will understand the difference. (I keep hoping something will open your eyes when I least expect it!)

Harv: D) The paper was constructed as an 'after the fact' event in which you carefully constructed the equations to come out just so - which only makes it appear that physics is true by definition.

Now here you are simply calling me a liar! Which I can easily prove is false if the case ever were to reach the courts. I discovered that my "fundamental equation" had to be true some five years before I was finally able to find the first solutions to it.

Harv: E) Your paper captures the assumptions that actually restrict human perceptions, and since science is based on human observations, these correct assumptions restrict the kind of science that we can construct.

Here, I might actually agree with you although I certainly would not put it exactly that way. Human scientists are assuming they have direct contact with reality when their own mental model of reality includes this thing they call senses which (in that very model) stands between them and reality. Essentially they are presuming there are no errors in their understanding of their senses. This is why I keep harping on the subconscious constructs we assume are true without examination; the ideas which are full blown and accepted before we even begin to consider logic.

I say, open up that mechanism to logical examination. The fact that it stands absolutely and completely between our observations and reality produces some severe limits on what we can prove is true. In particular, absolutely nothing can be concluded about reality based on any observed symmetries. In fact, I would suggest that only cases where symmetry is broken are telling us anything real; however, even there, we should be very careful in our analysis.

Harv: F) It captures assumptions that are actually true of absolute reality, and therefore all scientific results mirror what must be true of absolute reality.

Definitely not true as my analysis comes to the conclusion that reality need not contain any of the symmetries assumed by the scientists in order for our senses to yield results which display those symmetries. The symmetries should be attributed to our subconscious mental model and not to reality.

Harv: G) You don't know

H) It's a complete and utter mystery

I don't know a lot of things! I have no idea what you are referring to here. Likewise for "It's a complete and utter mystery"; exactly what does "it" refer to. Why I think my work is interesting? I think I answered that up above.

Harv: I) We simply cannot comprehend anything so why even bother offering these options

Who are you referring to here? You and the rest on the forum? Or are you speaking of the human race itself? Whatever you have in your mind, I certainly do not believe what I have seen is incomprehensible by any of you. It's just over your head. You keep thinking I am talking about something you already understand and in fact, I am talking about something you have never thought of. Every time I get you close, you look around it to something else. If you begin to think about the issues I bring up, you might be surprised what you see.

Have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins