On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:13:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy, > I think that's reasonable but...
> but the topics treated are what nearly everyone else considers to be > science. > Yeah I agree with this. I don't have the skills to feedback on the quality of your theories, but at the structure level which is where I get interested more, I can certainly say I think many of your explanations have good structure and approach that is over and above philosophy. It's not science, but no one would expect to cover the breadth you have and get a science finish. But you know, you've brought it to a good intermediary position. I wouldn't be able to say that about the vast majority of philosophy as in most cases the decisions already embedded as to approach have usually ruled out a science standard in the future. > > In my view MWI, block universes, wavefunction collapse, etc. none of these > are real science, only interpretations of science. > Well look...my view at this stage would be that we'd all have to do a lot of work to get our inner visions of science aligned, for statements like yours above to be computable (by me). What I would say is that I wouldn't read this list if I wasn't interested in the people and their ideas. I enjoy 'trying on' ideas even if deep down I know my gut is never going to let me buy into it on a long term basis. If you're up for suggestions, I'd definitely recommend you try that out for yourself. You're obviously very strong minded, so there's little vulnerability there that you'll try on an idea that isn't your theory, or that is a criticism to your theory, and find yourself whirled off into someone else's vision never to see your own again :o) Try it....it's fun...and you'll find the knock-on effects interesting in other ways. > 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. > What you say is reasonable. Like a lot of people I am in a long term work on a theory, and you probably know yourself that one of the downsides is that there can come a time when your world view is so different that it's almost alien to others....and also that it is isolating because you might not agree with anything anymore, but might not be ready to explain why. I think that's something a lot of people on lists like this know about. One of the things I really like about reading Bruno, for example, is all the crazy talk about worlds and dreams and things being impossible to communicate. I really relate to all that as a position to be in ! > > Your last comments seem to have to do with DOING science, with scientific > method, rather than the actual science that gets done. > That's a fair comment. Something I personally try to remember in this sort of situation, is that the other person - you - probably defined science with a sort of context, or purpose, in mind. I'm sure you have more to say about the nature of science. It might be a case of you, you used a working definition so that you could make the points you wanted to. FWIW - and this is just my opinion - but I've been in a personal study of the structure of Bruno's theory. It so happens I need to try to do that with minimum knowledge of the details...it's just some method I've been working on. Well anyway - his structure is possibly the best I've ever seen bar Newton. Admittedly I haven't got to most of the theories. But I've studied many structures of many theories. You'd probably get something out of studying his theory. Not because you'd agree...that's irrelevant. But the structure. > > Edgar > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:52:06 AM UTC-5, [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
