>...It has been *proved* that physics as a whole
> > does not have a consistent foundation. (01)
Not true. Physics is *incomplete* but not inconsistent. No one has
yet developed the hoped-for Grand Unified Theory that encompasses
both quantum theory and General Relativity, but there are perfectly
good, incomplete theories of each separately, and they are consistent
with each other. (02)
Specifically, Tomonaga and Schwinger showed how von Neumann /
Copenhagen quantum theory can be made consistent with general
relativity by requiring wave function collapses to occur along a
timelike separated sequence of spacelike surfaces in spacetime.
Their theory does not resolve the divergence problems that occur in
general relativity at high energies, and it does not resolve the
foundational debates within quantum theory about whether
wave-function collapses really happen or whether a theory will be
found that dispenses with them. Therefore, the theory is incomplete
-- it doesn't fully describe what happens at very high energies and
it doesn't explain when or how wave-function collapses occur. But it
is consistent. And very well confirmed empirically. (03)
>And every field other
>> than physics is in even worse shape. (04)
Every other field is less complete. As for inconsistencies, one has
to attempt to put everything into a single formalism even to attempt
to find inconsistencies. To my knowledge no such attempt has been
made in most fields. (05)
>...the conceptual
>defining vocabulary will be underspecified in the sense that it will
>not **include** any of the theories of physics that are inconsistent,
>but will be able to **describe** those theories. I do have protons and
>neutrons as constituents of (most) atomic nuclei in my ontology -- is
>there any serious debate about that? (06)
Yes, there is. (07)
In the incomplete foundational physical theory I described above,
there are no protons. More precisely, there are no individual
distinguishable entities possessing the characteristics we associate
with protons. There is only a proton wave function, which specifies
probabilities of outcomes of various experiments we can carry out to
measure phenomena associated with protons. It is not correct to say
"Proton P1 is located at L1 and Proton P2 is located at L2." All we
can say is "Two proton-localization events were observed: one at L1
and the other at L2." For these kinds of events, quantum theory
gives stunningly accurate probabilistic predictions. (08)
Kathy (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|