Due to the general interest of the topic, I copy this discussion with Sam to additional lists.
============================= G: Epistemology sees one of the cornerstones of cognition in the polarity of "subjective" continuity and "objective" discreteness. Physics, the fundamental science, embodies the continuity in SPACE-Field and discreteness in its singularities appearing as observable Events. Consequently, physical Models are based upon the polarity SPACE-Field/Events. NOTE: "SPACE" is a mathematical construct, capitalized to be distinguished from its homonym, the "space" of direct perception. Epistemology sees the scientific method as follows: 1.Definition of "interest area" and getting expertise in its existing MODELS. 2.Observations of events pertinent to the interest area. 3.Endeavor to falsify existing MODELS. Next steps only if falsification succeeds. 4.Definition of Axiom(s) intuitively believed to found an improved MODEL. 5.Deducing Theorems from Axiom(s), thus creating a Theory. A Theory bottomed with observable Theorems becomes a rational, factually falsifiable MODEL (eg Extended Relativity or Quantum Field Theory). Otherwise it stays a "pure" Theory, like Spinoza's "axiomatic(?)" Ethic, or String Theory. 6.Endeavoring to verify/falsify the MODEL inductively, proceeding bottom-up from observed facts specified by the bottoming factual (or empiric) Theorems. A verified MODEL is not proved, but not (yet) falsified and, as such, provisorily represents the state of the art of the interest area. Once falsified, it calls for a successor. This is an axiomatic view which underlies science and epistemology since Descartes and which I entirely accept, BTW with Popper. If you prefer to be a new Descartes and Popper and define some other axiomatic, please state it and it may perhaps seduce me. But we have first to agree on some axiomatic before we discuss. I'll shortly comment your post in the light of Descartes/Popper. ============================= S: as long as no conventional physics phenomenon takes place ============================= G: 1.There is no "conventional physics", but Field- and Quantum Models, i.e. Models focusing on continuity or discreteness, but always based upon both.. 2.There are no "conventional physics phenomena". Phenomena happen in Reality and are totally independent from abstract Models. ============================= S: But from the perspective of QM, something does take place when there are changes in entangled particles, and it takes place at both ends of the entangled particles, ============================= G: That's Sam's perspective. Entanglement consists in opposite spins resulting from momentum preservation at the moment of decay/creation. They are not connected by any transcendental cordon ombilical, but just have opposite spins. The claim is that by measuring one I know the other, which is false, as I can only surmise it. ============================= S: As I see it, George, you choose to ignore the calculations that QM can make, and you do so because you prefer to stick to conventional physics, which is your prerogative. ============================= G: 1.I never discussed QM, which - I said it frequently - I consider as a brilliant, if not genial mathematical recipe, but not a physical Model due to its lack of SPACE. I was talking about the asinine C-I. 2.There is no conventional physics, but Field and Quantum Models and I am perfectly happy with the Quantum Field Theory, which is on the one hand a full fledged Model and, on the other hand a next step after QM on the quantal way. Actually, my daughter who described three new stars did it with QFT and GR. (how many did you describe with your QM expertise?) Her colleagues from Heidelberg and several researchers from CERN whom I know, also use exclusively the QFT for particle research. ============================= S: there can be at least two arguments for rejection of a theory: #1. The theory is inconsistent with what testing suggests is real. ============================= G: Clumsy way of saying: "inductively falsified by facts" ============================= S: #2. The theory is internally inconsistent. ============================= G: Then it's no theory at all, so there is nothing to reject. ============================= S: #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. ============================= G: Not "better" but more precise and not "prefer", but partially replace. SR was standing on the shoulders of Newton Model and did not reject it but replaced for about 10% of subluminal phenomena, leaving it as a perfect approximation for low speeds including the space travel. Similarly GR extends SR over 1% of strong Field phenomena, leaving the rest to SR and NM. QFT extends SR over the area of particle research, marking BTW a step backwards with respect to the GR. BTW, the cutting edge of physics is currently the Unified Theory, by definition concerning the unification of the four known Fields and thus, by definition ignoring the QM. One of the UT ideas suggests to extend QFT over the GR SPACE/Field. Another could perhaps stem from my embryonic theory of the Dark Matter http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0h_dark_matter.html Sad to see in this fascinating context, grown up and intelligent people turning their back to it and seeking the wisdom in village idiots almanacs such as the C-I. ============================= S: 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. ============================= G: I don't scrap that pile of nonsense due to its unintended gag: 1.QM has no dimensionality at all, because it does not define any SPACE. 2.GR is founded in 4d curved SPACE embedded in a 10d SPACE (which I associate with the Dark Matter). Not enough dimensions? The perfectly "conventional" Genetics involves 6000. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
