God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Care To Discuss? Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Aurino Souza on June 26, 2001 20:05:03 UTC

Dick, I feel you have no respect for me but I'd like to ask you something anyway.

So physics is a tautology, I have no argument with that. What I'd really like to understand, and the issue you seem to be avoiding the most, is, how come it works?

Before you send me back to my little world please think about this. Anyone can come up with tautologies, it's a simple exercise in logic. You can lock yourself up in a room for a month and come out with the most intricate set of mathematical equations which eventually reduce to 0 = 0, although few people would ever suspect that. In a sense that is what you have done yourself, but demonstrating that physics is a tautology doesn't explain why not all tautologies are physics, if you know what I mean.

The reason physics is a tautology is because everything we define as physics is symmetrical. It's not that the universe is necessarily symmetrical, it's only that we assume it is and our assumptions have sort of worked. I don't think the kind of leap of faith that Alex takes is warranted but no one can prove him wrong and there are good chances that he is right.

In any case, back to tautologies, can you explain what makes some tautologies better than others?

Another question, and I think this is a serious problem in your ideas, is that you start with a very generic mathematical model which has nothing to do with physics, and then you start introducing physics back little by little without stating or even recognizing that you're doing it. You extract quantum mechanics and relativity out of concepts such as space, time, energy, momentum, mass, object, but that has already been done. If your model were really generic you should be able to demonstrate how the existence of, or at least the fact that we observe, space, time, energy, momentum, mass, object are logical consequences of some abstract metaphysical entity which we can assume exists.

In my book it doesn't seem right to steal concepts of physics which have been refined over the centuries and then claim that you have found valid relationships between them on your own. For instance, the equations of Relativity are easy to figure out once you have Einstein's insights on the mistaken assumptions people have made about space, time, gravity. Once you get Einstein's concepts, all you have to do is work out the math. I wonder if you believe your model would be capable of generating the equations of relativity if you had never heard about Einstein. I doubt it, and the reason I do is both because Einstein's concepts are embedded in your work and because you haven't generated any new theories.

I hope you can take this not as criticism on your person or attitude, it's just my honest desire to exchange ideas with someone who has very interesting ideas, some of which don't seem quite right. I hope you don't hold any grudges and can leave your emotions aside and have a stimulating intellectual debate.

There's also the possibility that you have no respect at all for me because I don't have a PhD and don't like to drop fancy philosophical terms here and there. I'm simple but, despite the appearances, consider myself intelligent enough to understand anything logical.

Best regards,