On 23 May 2014 08:57, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/22/2014 12:59 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > Why not? No physicist is going to take your theory seriously or even > call it a theory if you can't calculate with it, if you can't get numbers > out of it so it can be checked with observation. Why is the proton 1836 > times as massive as the electron? Why is the neutron almost the same but > not quite, why is it 1842 times as massive as the electron? Why do > independent protons have a half life of an infinite number of minutes but > independent neutrons have a half life of 10 minutes 11 seconds? > > > See, JKC knows why the world of physics is described by mathematics - no > other kind of description is as explicit and predictive. >
I'm still not convinced that it isn't "out there" though. Anyone who became interested in the same mathematical problems would get the same answers, as far as I can see, regardless of whether they are living in a universe with protons 1836 times as massive as electrons, or one made of completely different constituents. I want a more convincing answer for why maths kicks back than all this vague hand wavy stuff - yes it's explicit and predictive, but why? Why does it work? It still seems unreasonably effective to me. -- 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.
