On 06 May 2014, at 18:08, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:59:12 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:32:38 PM UTC+1, John Ross wrote:
All 101 of my "predictions" are predictions. I looked up
"prediction". It means: "Something foretold or predicted". Many
predictions turn out to be false.
I think the issue is, "How many of my predictions will sooner or
later be recognized by the scientific community as true and how many
will be recognized as false". For some of my predictions, we may
never know for sure whether they are true or false. I believe there
is a significant probability that they are all correct. If any of
them are proven incorrect, I will eliminate the incorrect
predictions or correct them. So far no one has proven to me that
any of my predictions are wrong. For those "predictions" that
cannot ever be proven right or wrong, the question would be whether
my prediction is more likely to be correct than other explanations
dealing with the same issue.
I predict that tronnies are the source of the Coulomb force. And
that each tronnie has a charge of plus e or minus e. And that the
electron is comprised of two minus tronnies and one plus tronnie and
that the positron is comprised of two plus tronnies and one minus
tronniie. I also say that entrons are comprised of one plus tronnie
and one minus tronnie and that there is one entron in each photon.
These are all predictions that most knowable people would disagree
with.
However we know that a 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon is required to
produce an electron and a positron and that electron - positron
annihilation processes creates two lower energy gamma ray photons.
This is pretty good evidence that electrons, positrons and photons
are made from the same things. Those things are tronnies.
I explain that there are two additional photons (that scientists are
not aware of) involved in the pair production process and that one
additional photon (also undetected) is involved in the annihilation
process.
The question is: "Am I right?"
About the prediction matter you are right in the sense you describe.
In that sense a theory is, itself, a prediction. While also many
predictions, for each distinctive step of its construction. The
sentence I just wrote is also a prediction, and so is this one.
This one, however, is not a prediction. This is the falsification of
the sentence, because it said it wasn't, but anything that asserts,
predicts.
Not taking the mick John - I can see you've done a serious piece of
work.
The serious point here is, a 'scientific prediction' is a special
case of the generic 'prediction'.
There are contexts in which your predictions would be scientific
predictions. If for example, your theory was that all things
correspond to the fractal z=exp(1/z) or whatever...and from that you
derive the tronnie and its properties, maybe.
But anyway...regardless of that......a biggie here is the two slit
experiment....so would it be ok for you to explain your take on
that, based on the tronnie?
by the way, you wouldn't be the only one to be unclear what a
prediction is supposed to be. No one much understands it these days.
The guy with the major theory on this list, Bruno, thinks his ToE is
falsifiable on the basis as a ToE it has to describe the forces of
nature and everything else, and if that doesn't happen at some point
in the future then his theory is falsified.
You seem to have clearly missed the point Gibbsa. UDA just leaves no
choice (except reifying matter with a magic ability to select a
computation).
UDA explains why we have to translate the mind-body problem into the
problem of deriving physics from arithmetic, and AUDA makes the
translation constructive, indeed we can already test the logic obeyed
by the observable.
Which makes all ToE's by definition falsifiable of course
That follows from what you said, indeed. But what you said has no
relationship with what I explain.
I just show that if the brain is turing emulable at a level such that
consciousness is preserved (something believed implicitly or
explicitly by most current scientists), then physics (and actually
something bigger than physics) is reduced constructively into the
study of a variety of self-referential fixed points. I solved the
propositional case.
With comp, the notion of primitive matter becomes a "god-of-the-gap".
It explains nothing, and worst, it is an obstacle to the understanding.
I am not proposing anything new. I just show that adding mechanism and
materialism gives something epistemologically inconsistent. Now, you
can choose your favorite poison.
The theory is falsifiable, but not as a base of a TOE. That's exactly
what UDA explains. You should tell me if you have a problem and at
which step.
Bruno
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
