Ghibbsa, I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy, but the topics treated are what nearly everyone else considers to be science.
In my view MWI, block universes, wavefunction collapse, etc. none of these are real science, only interpretations of science. Yes, if we understand reality better it should definitely lead to better real science, and most certainly to better understanding. Meta-science helps us to UNDERSTAND real science in human terms. Your last comments seem to have to do with DOING science, with scientific method, rather than the actual science that gets done. Edgar On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:52:06 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:33:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> All, >> >> 1. In my view real science means only the equations that actually work to >> predict events and the logical framework in which those equations are >> meaningfully applied. In a more restrictive sense real science is only the >> ACTUAL computations that actually compute the actual state of reality. That >> would mean that most of the equations of science which apply at the >> aggregate level are just descriptions rather than actual reality >> computations which I would claim occur only at the most elemental level. >> Thus e.g. the laws of motion and the behavior of gases are accurate >> DESCRIPTIONS of emergent behavior but are not actually involved in >> computing that behavior. The real computations are programs at the >> elemental level, and are those that compute the conservation of particle >> properties in particle interactions, and the bonding of matter, etc. So one >> can make a case that it is only these equations or programs that constitute >> real science. >> >> Also note that real science does not consists of static equations that >> require scientists to apply them, but must consist of actual running >> programs that apply themselves without the help of scientists. Real >> science, in my strict sense, is programatic simulation of those actual >> programs on silicon computers of the actual programs that compute reality. >> This is because programs, as opposed to static equations, include the >> implicit logical context of the mathematical equations by embedding them >> within that logical structure. Real science in this sense does not require >> a scientist to apply it. It computes predictable results all by itself when >> fed inputs. >> >> >> 2. All the rest is not real science but meta-theories, philosophy, or >> interpretations of science. This is NOT to say that it is not useful or >> valid, but just to point out its actual status. From this perspective >> almost ALL of what currently passes for science, on this list and >> elsewhere, is not actually science, but interpretations of science, or >> META-science. >> >> 3. Meta-science is NOT in a one to one correspondence with the underlying >> science it interprets because there can be and often are multiple competing >> interpretations of the same areas of real science. >> >> 4. Interpretations of science thus obviously include projections of >> personal world views onto the underlying science, and are creatures of >> personal belief systems designed to help make sense of the underlying >> science in terms of personal and socially current memes. As such they are >> always suspect, especially because in general they are NOT always subject >> to empirical confirmation or falsification AND they are based on personal >> world views designed to make sense of the mundane logic of things that have >> evolved to facilitate our functioning in our day to day environments rather >> than to provide insight into the true nature of reality. >> >> 5. Thus we must be careful to judge interpretations of science by their >> logical consistency with the underlying science they interpret, and always >> be on the lookout to eliminate our personal prejudices and the mundane >> views of reality programmed in our minds by evolution, and the syntactical >> logic of language which has evolved to make sense of mundane rather than >> deep reality. >> >> >> 6. Given the above, what my book, and my posts, attempt to do is: >> >> a. Accept all current established science as it is (always subject to new >> advances). That means I accept all the actual science (the actual equations >> in their logical matrix) of QM, SR, GR, Chemistry, Biology, Information >> science, Geology etc.etc. I accept everyone of these as it stands to the >> extent it results in empirically verifiable predictions. >> >> b. Propose an entirely new and unifying INTERPRETATION of this science >> across its entire scope, which I believe is more consistent with it and >> more unified and explanatory than other current interpretations. If this is >> true then it provides a much deeper insight into the true underlying nature >> of reality... >> >> Whether I succeed at this only time will tell... >> . >> Edgar >> > > OK so you are saying your theory is not real science, but > philosophy/interpretation. > > Are you then saying real science comes out of philosophy/interpretation? > In that, presumably the value you see in creating your interpretation is > that it will eventually lead to real science? > > I think the way you see science is ...incomplete. Because what > distinguishes science is approach. If the result wasn't also distinctive > the approach wouldn't be too special either. But I don't think you the > approach out of the nature of science. > > A theory that is scientific has structural traits...only seen in science. > A structural trait in the end theory isn't put there in an arranging > process, but is the outcome of methodological application. So you > know, it's very hard to think of what is science absent these > method/structure drivers. Opining. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
