On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:07:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 May 2014, at 18:08, [email protected] <javascript:> 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 > If I got you wrong, I won't hesitate to acknowledge that. You have said several times, though, that your theory is falsifiable based on what it will do, or not do, in the future? If not, please clarify, because it'll definitely dramatically shift the situation if it turns out your theory has made *predictions* that are falsifiable by *observations*. The word 'observation' meant very flexibly within reason.
-- 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.
