On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:29:59 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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. > >> >> > p.s. great structure doesn't mean being correct, or that I think he is correct. I don't know the truth on that one yet, even for me. I've been trying communicate an issue I have to him and others, but so far haven't managed to get my point over. We're all currently on a rain cheque waiting for me to get my act together and try again with their collaboration this time. I'm still sort of working out what I want to try.
> >> > 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.
