John, (01)
> You could say that about a circle or a sphere. If its volume
> is finite, it's misleading to say that it's infinite. (02)
That's exactly what I tried to say, but I tried to dig out the
relevant sense of Michael's comment. (03)
> AS
>> What would be the best objective criterion in selecting between
>> two models whose predictions match the observations equally
>> accurately? (04)
JS
> Simplicity is an important criterion. But simplicity (like
> beauty, taste, elegance, etc.) is in the eye of the beholder (05)
Do you really think that simplicity is in the eye of the beholder? (06)
Is it subjective that a 65' Cadillac consumes 40 litres (or more)
of gas in a 100 miles and a 2015 Cadillac consumes less than 20
litres? (07)
Is it subjective that the standard model requires that around 70%
of the total energy must be dark energy, whereas DU does not require
dark energy at all? Recall that dark energy was added in the 90's
in order to make the model match the observations. (08)
I don't understand what you mean by saying that simplicity is in
the eye of the beholder. Do you mean that the ontological commitments
of a scientific model are irrelevant? The why not stick with the
Earth-centered model with its epicycles? If you commit to the idea that
the Earth is the center of the Universe, and if you commit to the
resulting epicycles and couple these with the best modern formulas,
you get predictions which match the observations. Why do you think
that people wanted to get rid of the Earth-center model? The reason
why I take economy as the evaluation criterion is that I have
not found any better criteria. But I'm all ears if you have better
criteria in mind??? (09)
> space, time, matter, and energy are intimately related
> by all known theories of physics (010)
Apparently, the role of the conservation law of energy (CLE) is ambiguous
in the standard model. The relativity principle alone makes it ambiguous.
If you commit to the relativity principle, you must reject absolute time.
Energy in Joule units is in the form kg×m^2/s^2, i.e., mass times distance
squared divided by time squared. If time is relative, also energy is
relative, and therefore the notion of total energy is incompatible with
the rejection of absolute time, or the notion of the total energy
gets at least ambiguous. How can you talk about total energy at time t,
if you cannot talk about the Universe at time t in the first place? (011)
Also the dark energy makes CLE ambiguous. Is the amount of dark energy
constant, does it increase, or does it decrease? These are open questions
in the standard model. In contrast, CLE is incorporated in the basic
structure of DU, as well as absolute time. (012)
Avril (013)
Ystävällisin terveisin, (014)
Avril Styrman
avril.styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx
puh. +358 40 7000 589 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (016)
|