Dear Avril and John,
John wrote:
RC
> How do we determine, when a new theory is
postulated, where its
> predictions mismatch experiment? There should
be a tool for that.
There is a tool. It's
called mathematics. For a theory that covers as much territory as DU
(namely, all of physics), the amount of testing required is huge. If DU
merely changed a few minor assumptions, it would be relatively easy to check a
limited number of implications.
Yes, our knowledge of Math is a finite database of states
and equations among them, as imposed by observed rules of physics and other
constraints. We can model all kinds of universes and postulate diversities
of various types, dipping into various mathematized constraints, which we use to
simulate the universe. That way we can simulate the system to the degree
that our theories predict the outcome of the simulation. That can rid you
of some seriously expensive mistakes that are only obvious after you first encounter
them.
But DU makes fundamental changes
in the basic definitions. There is a century of experience in using those
definitions to make predictions that agree with observation. Physicists
are not going to make a revolutionary change without a lot more testing and
analysis.
John
That is why there is a need for that tool. Does
something like Mathematica do that? I haven’t used any algebra software
in years.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
www DOT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 10:59 AM
To: Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Grand Unified Theories
Avril and Rich,
JFS
>> Simplicity is an important criterion. But
simplicity (like
>> beauty, taste, elegance, etc.) is in the eye of
the beholder.
AS
> Do you really think that simplicity is in the eye of
the beholder?
I mean it in *exactly* the same sense as beauty, taste,
and elegance.
You can find cases where the difference is so great that
most people
will make the same choice. But there is an
overwhelming amount of
disagreement about intermediate cases.
Nominalists, such as Quine, have used Ockham as an excuse
for the
claim that a theory without abstract entities is
"simpler" than
a theory that postulates them. But even Quine
admits that you
have to admit the existence of sets (or something
similar) if you
want to define all of mathematics. That
"simple" admission opens
the door to the unending hierarchy of infinities.
I enjoy citing Alonzo Church's talk about the ontology of
women
and abstract entities. He deliberately presented
that talk at
Harvard -- because he liked to annoy Quine:
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
AS
> 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.
Even the physicists who proposed dark energy agree that
it's a
complication, and they've been searching for ways to
explain it
or eliminate it.
RC
> How do we determine, when a new theory is
postulated, where its
> predictions mismatch experiment? There should
be a tool for that.
There is a tool. It's called mathematics. For
a theory that covers
as much territory as DU (namely, all of physics), the
amount of testing
required is huge. If DU merely changed a few minor
assumptions, it
would be relatively easy to check a limited number of
implications.
But DU makes fundamental changes in the basic
definitions. There is
a century of experience in using those definitions to
make predictions
that agree with observation. Physicists are not
going to make a
revolutionary change without a lot more testing and
analysis.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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