If I could make an addition as well, George, there can be at least two arguments for rejection of a theory: #1. The theory is inconsistent with what testing suggests is real. #2. The theory is internally inconsistent.
Most people on this list will indeed lack a strong background in physics and they will also lack access to and experience with the facilities to test phenomena like entanglement, as under #1. However, contributions under #2 can be very valuable and this group can play an important role in getting such points across, either by following rigorous maths and logic, or by using plain common English. Let me also add another point: #3. There appears to be a better theory. This latter point is not so much an argument to REJECT a given theory. Instead it's more an argument to PREFER another theory. This point is often overlooked by conventional physics, because conventional physics is so much entangled in verification efforts that it can only think in terms of black or white, thus failing to see color, or - as QM is sometimes presented - multi-dimensionality. Cheers! Sam Carana On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Sam, > What we were discussing was not QM but its Copenhagen > Interpretation. Now, we knew before learning it, that > it was a nonsense, by definition. Why? Because since > Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" science does not explain, > nor interpret, nor asserts whatever it might be about > "reality", but strictly confines itself to conceiving > abstract Models in order to coordinate with their help > observable Events. That's all. And if you ask me, it's > a lot. > > And foundations of these Models, viz. Epistemology are > most fascinating. But to start conceiving foundations, > one must know what one wants to found. If one does not > know the first word of science, one cannot even imagine > what Epistemology may be about. > > Now, I put it to you that on this list nobody knows > what's vector, what's dimension, what's space, > what's field. So failing to know the first thing about > science or Epistemology they discuss instantaneous > transfers of information, consciousness created objects, > visitors from outer worlds going in couples through > two holes, panpsychistic revelations and al the rest of > kitchen almanacs. > > I was interested by the title of this thread, but so far > it's only a title. > > Cheers > > Georges. > =============== --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
