On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:18:18 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Dear Ghibbsa, > > Thanks for the warm and friendly tone of your posts! That's rather the > exception here and you set a high standard and a great example for other > posters. > I think you've been treated really well. It's kind of a given people reject a theory unless they say otherwise.
> I certainly disagree with your opinion on Bruno's theory > All I remember saying was the structure was really excellent. You haven't looked at it to disagree > and some other things as well, but you always present them in a friendly > intelligent manner benefiting an objective discussion of MY ideas among > fried nds. > Only tongue in cheek but I've corrected your sentence for how you show up to other people. > It always baffles me why so many here and elsewhere get so incensed and > combatative when discussing what are just abstract ideas and theories. So > many seem to have such a strong personal investment in their beliefs which > makes one suspect they are as much faith based as based in reason. > Get your house order in dude. They listened and criticized and at no point gratuitously trashed your theory. What did you do for them? > > But thankfully you seem to be the happy exception here. Much appreciated! > the quality I admire is to see someone treat praise no different than criticism. > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:29:59 PM UTC-5, [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. >> >>> >>> 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.
