Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 108

Thread: Spacetime and matter as emergent phenomena, unified field theory

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Fixed most of formatting for equations.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Thanks for the answer. I prefer discussion with specific statements instead of exchange of vague assertions.
    There is no circular reasoning here. However, probably this part needs to be expanded to improve explanation.....
    This expansion does not improve the explanation. It is mostly irrelevant.

    I will retract "circular reasoning". You start with a "definition" *, add a trivial postulate (rational beings can think that they do not exist?), and make an unsupported assertion about the definition and postulate.
    * in quotes since the definition is dubious because it is conditional, vague, ignores that spacetime is mathematics, and has intelligent life in a "timeless system". If the intelligent life is in the "emergent spacetime" then the definition is just wrong. Spacetime in physics exists regardless of the presence of life.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ...The equation later will be used to derive Schrodinger equation
    It will be interesting to see how you get from your state vector Ψ with what look like real values to the seemingly unrelated wave function Ψ used in the Schrödinger equation.

    Note that your PDF says: "Although it can not be said that the Schrödinger equation is derived, but one can say that it satisfies all the requirements of the proposed theory." (from equation 9 which is the last on in your post).. That "satisfies all the requirements" assertion is wrong until you show that your Ψ matches the wave function Ψ .

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This expansion does not improve the explanation. It is mostly irrelevant.

    I will retract "circular reasoning". You start with a "definition" *, add a trivial postulate (rational beings can think that they do not exist?), and make an unsupported assertion about the definition and postulate.
    * in quotes since the definition is dubious because it is conditional, vague, ignores that spacetime is mathematics, and has intelligent life in a "timeless system". If the intelligent life is in the "emergent spacetime" then the definition is just wrong.
    You think that postulate of my theory is trivial? Am I understood correctly, you agree what intelligent life is possible for timeless system and you think it is trivial?
    As for unsupported assertion. Again, very vague statement. What is unsupported, where you see logical flaws? You did vague assertion without any specific details.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Spacetime in physics exists regardless of the presence of life.
    Heh. It is debatable question in phylosophy. Realism vs antirealism, lots of discussions.
    As for physics - physics say nothing about it. If you think otherwise, may you provide experiment which shows existense of spacetime without observer? Note what even in the question there is logical contradiction - show experiment, where observer will observe spacetime without observer.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It will be interesting to see how you get from your state vector Ψ with what look like real values to the seemingly unrelated wave function Ψ used in the Schrödinger equation.
    Transition from real values to complex numbers is relatively simple, there is section in article where I match my state vector Ψ with wave function Ψ. However, before proceeding to next part, I prefer to finish discussion of previous parts. I see that there is no full understanding of ideas of my theory, so better to discuss basis of theory before going to next parts.
    And question - do you see any other problems in that part, except match between state vector and wave function?

    And side note: There were several posts from peoples, asking where is math? Ok, first part with math here in forum. And where is peoples who asked? Not here. Seems as all they wanted was to post something, not really wanted to read and discuss my theory.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    And side note: There were several posts from peoples, asking where is math? Ok, first part with math here in forum. And where is peoples who asked? Not here. Seems as all they wanted was to post something, not really wanted to read and discuss my theory.
    I prefer to wait until your explanation is complete before weighing in.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Transition from real values to complex numbers is relatively simple, there is section in article where I match my state vector Ψ with wave function Ψ. However, before proceeding to next part, I prefer to finish discussion of previous parts. I see that there is no full understanding of ideas of my theory, so better to discuss basis of theory before going to next parts.
    And question - do you see any other problems in that part, except match between state vector and wave function?

    And side note: There were several posts from peoples, asking where is math? Ok, first part with math here in forum. And where is peoples who asked? Not here. Seems as all they wanted was to post something, not really wanted to read and discuss my theory.
    Ans

    Your last paragraph is inappropriate. Do not make judgments about the motivations of others. They are under no obligations in this thread, only you are. This will earn you another infraction. One more and you will be suspended.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    You think that postulate of my theory is trivial?
    I think that "intelligent life is possible for timeless system" is an unsupported fantasy. The evidence is that time is needed for any life at all to exist. Life is chemistry. Chemistry needs elements and time to pass.

    I think that your actual postulate is trivial:
    Postulate:
    In the emergent space-time-matter, a rational being can think, feel that it really exists, that it is in being.
    Rational beings think (that is basically what rational means). Rational beings know that spacetime exists. Rational beings know that matter exists. Ditto for "in being".
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-14 at 09:01 PM.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    As for physics - physics say nothing about it. If you think otherwise, may you provide experiment ....
    You are the one who thinks otherwise, Ans, with an against the mainstream idea. It is your task to provide evidence (e.g. experiments) to support your idea.

    What mainstream physics says is that there are vacuum solutions of general relativity. These are universes with no matter or energy in them. There is no intelligent life which is your criteria in these universes.
    What mainstream physics says is that observers are hypothetical people or machines. They establish a frame of reference and make local measurements.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Transition from real values to complex numbers is relatively simple, ...
    Then it will be simple for you to show that here ("matching" the Ψ though sounds dubious). Remember the difference is more than just somehow turning real numbers into complex numbers. This is the wave function Ψ
    A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ or Ψ (lower-case and capital psi, respectively).
    The way I was taught about the wave function is that it is a mapping of every possible state of the system to a complex value. In position space, every possible position of a particle has a corresponding complex value. In momentum space, every possible momentum of a particle has a corresponding complex value.

    ETA: The "Wave Function and Expansion Functions of the Field" section in your PDF does not show that your Ψ is wave function Ψ. There is no justification for assumptions of "quasiperiodic" or probability in your expansion function. This is in fact ruled out by a previous section where your Ψ appears in an incorrect "Newton's second and third laws are obtained" derivation (remember that you begin with basically F=ma). In classic physics, particles can have any position (are not "quasiperiodic") and their positions are deterministic (no probabilities).
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-14 at 09:38 PM.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I think that "intelligent life is possible for timeless system" is an unsupported fantasy. The evidence is that time is needed for any life at all to exist. Life is chemistry. Chemistry needs elements and time to pass.
    The "intelligent life is possible for timeless system" may looks as fantasy. However, my theory is build around it. Scientific method says that "looks as fantasy" is not an argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I think that your actual postulate is trivial:

    Rational beings think (that is basically what rational means). Rational beings know that spacetime exists. Rational beings know that matter exists. Ditto for "in being".
    Seems as you not notice "emergent space-time-matter" in the postulate. And the emergent space-time-matter relates to timeless system. So, the postulate also means that intelligent life is possible for timeless system.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You are the one who thinks otherwise, Ans, with an against the mainstream idea. It is your task to provide evidence (e.g. experiments) to support your idea.
    If look at my question, in next sentence I shown that experiment to observe spacetime without observer is logically impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What mainstream physics says is that there are vacuum solutions of general relativity. These are universes with no matter or energy in them. There is no intelligent life which is your criteria in these universes.
    There are such solutions in GR, like closed timelike curves etc.
    Anyone observed them? No. So, current status of them is speculative, they are not mainstream. Spacetime without observer contradicts to my theory, but the solutions cannot be used against my theory because of absense of experiments supporting them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What mainstream physics says is that observers are hypothetical people or machines. They establish a frame of reference and make local measurements.
    What is observer currently is question of phylosophy, not question of physics.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Scientific method says ...
    That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

    Scientific method says first and foremost, follow the evidence. Is there any data, computation, or observation that supports your hypothesis? (Note: Philosophy is not a computation)

    Seems as you not notice "emergent space-time-matter" in the postulate. And the emergent space-time-matter relates to timeless system. So, the postulate also means that intelligent life is possible for timeless system.
    Try as I might I cannot make sense of this statement. Can you expand on what you mean by emergent space-time-matter?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Then it will be simple for you to show that here ("matching" the Ψ though sounds dubious). Remember the difference is more than just somehow turning real numbers into complex numbers.
    Yes, but before going to next parts better to finish discussion of previous parts, to have good basis. Your questions looks simple and easy to answer, but answers are on basis on that we discuss now.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Spacetime without observer contradicts to my theory, but the solutions cannot be used against my theory because of absense of experiments supporting them.
    That's getting science backwards. You don't prove a negative.

    What is observer currently is question of phylosophy, not question of physics.
    Well there's your problem! This is a science forum.


    (Also, just to note, there's only one Y in philosophy. It goes at the end.)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

    Scientific method says first and foremost, follow the evidence. Is there any data, computation, or observation that supports your hypothesis? (Note: Philosophy is not a computation)
    Yes, scientific method says follow the evidence. It also means nothing can be thrown away just because it looks as fantasy, it should be checked for evidence.

    As for that support my theory. Goal of my theory is unification of general relativity and quatum mechanic in one theory. As far as I can see it, the goal is achieved. Both general relativity and quantum mechanic arise as some limit cases. Also, lots of other fundamental questions looks resolved. That unification in framework of my theory is main evidence that support my theory. The theory is falsifiable. Fot example, it predicts absense of quant of gravity.
    Anyone can check is theory contains some logical errors or other flaws.

    As for experiments. Mathematical model of theory is not fully completed. So, there are no experiments where some mainstream theory predicts A and by theory predicts B. However, there are such differences with theories from beyond standard model area.
    Problem with not fully completed mathematical model, I think, is normal state for any new nontrivial theory. It can be resolved with further development.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Try as I might I cannot make sense of this statement. Can you expand on what you mean by emergent space-time-matter?
    In my theory, I assume that fundamental structure is Euclidean space with some unknown number of dimensions, the number is not less that 4, and defined on that space scalar field, described by some differential equation. Nothing else. No matter, no time, no some other fields, no dynamic on fundamental level.
    Absense of time leads to absense of observer on fundamental level - all models of intelligent life requires time.
    Let's imagine that somehow on that timeless structure was build spacetime with matter and fields. It can be only emergent spacetime, because time absent on fundamental level. Space in such spacetime will be different space than fundamental space. Can such spacetime contains intelligent life? Postulate of theory say yes, it can.
    How to build spacetime on system without time? Time, as we know, is parameter of evolution in equations. So, it should be build in such way that it would have such parameter of evolution. Part of approach, for flat spacetime with long range action, was already posted in the forum.
    Next. It can be possible to build multiple spacetimes from one timeless system. What if some spacetime is not contains intelligent life? In such case, the spacetime will be just mathematical abstraction, because nobody will observe it and it not affects to any other spacetimes.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    That's getting science backwards. You don't prove a negative.
    I think with further development of my theory can lead to new experimental predictions. And they can be used to verify my theory.
    Also, my theory is not prohibit mathematical solutions with spacetime without observer. However, it says that spacetime exists only subjectively, not objectively. Without observer, spacetime is not exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Well there's your problem! This is a science forum.
    Part of my theory goes to area, traditionally belonging to philosophy. However, if theory will be proven, that area of philosophy will become part of physics.
    Also, I would note. seems as it cause main part of problem with publication in peer reviewed journals.
    Last edited by Ans; 2018-Oct-15 at 07:21 AM.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    That unification in framework of my theory is main evidence that support my theory.

    Can such spacetime contains intelligent life? Postulate of theory say yes, it can.
    ...You are using your own hypothesis to try to prove your hypothesis. o_O


    What if some spacetime is not contains intelligent life? In such case, the spacetime will be just mathematical abstraction, because nobody will observe it and it not affects to any other spacetimes.
    That's not at all how the observer effect works. Things don't just fail to exist if no one's looking at them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
    The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[3][4][5] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
    Once one has measured the system, one knows its current state; and this prevents it from being in one of its other states−−it has apparently decohered from them without prospects of future strong quantum interference.[7][8][9] This means that the type of measurement one performs on the system affects the end-state of the system.
    (bold mine)

    In other words, something has to be interacting with an effect to observe it. It doesn't just react to your existence. There has to be light reflecting off it, heat being given off, vibrations or other energy or information,, all of which affect the subject in some way.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solips...nd_testability
    Solipsism is not a falsifiable hypothesis as described by Karl Popper or Imre Lakatos: there does not seem to be an imaginable disproof.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2018-Oct-15 at 07:41 AM.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    ...You are using your own hypothesis to try to prove your hypothesis. o_O
    No. I say it is good argument supporting my theory, but it cannot be considered as full prove of theory. More evidence is necessary, include experimental.
    So, logical consistence, consistency with mainstream theories (in some limit) are supporting my theory.
    Also, there is no mainstream unified field theory. So, it also hints that all other less extreme approaches and ideas cannot lead to unification and something extreme should be considered. My theory use very extreme approach, if it will be proved it would means falsification of materialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    That's not at all how the observer effect works. Things don't just fail to exist if no one's looking at them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
    (bold mine)
    In other words, something has to be interacting with an effect to observe it. It doesn't just react to your existence. There has to be light reflecting off it, heat being given off, vibrations or other energy or information,, all of which affect the subject in some way.
    And? In my theory spacetime and matter with fields arise during interaction with conscience. Conscience also consists from matter with fields, so it is not something immaterial. So, there is same effect of influence of observer to observed system, no contradictions to experiments in the part.
    However, all it happens on basis on timeless system without dynamic. Without conscience, spacetime will be just mathematical abstraction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    My theory not means solipsism. It is based on subjective idealism and eternalism. Subjective idealism is name for lots of conceptions, include solipsism. However, subjective idealism not equal to solipsism.
    It seems there is no existing conception in philosophy precisely matching ideas of my theory, so the theory propose new philosophical conception.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    No. I say it is good argument supporting my theory, but it cannot be considered as full prove of theory. More evidence is necessary, include experimental.
    So, logical consistence, consistency with mainstream theories (in some limit) are supporting my theory.
    Also, there is no mainstream unified field theory. So, it also hints that all other less extreme approaches and ideas cannot lead to unification and something extreme should be considered. My theory use very extreme approach, if it will be proved it would means falsification of materialism.
    It's not a theory without evidence. In this case it's barely even a fleshed out hypothesis by the scientific definition.

    And? In my theory spacetime and matter with fields arise during interaction with conscience. Conscience also consists from matter with fields, so it is not something immaterial. So, there is same effect of influence of observer to observed system, no contradictions to experiments in the part.
    However, all it happens on basis on timeless system without dynamic. Without conscience, spacetime will be just mathematical abstraction.
    Do you mean consciousness? Conscience is a moral sense.

    My theory not means solipsism. It is based on subjective idealism and eternalism. Subjective idealism is name for lots of conceptions, include solipsism. However, subjective idealism not equal to solipsism.
    It seems there is no existing conception in philosophy precisely matching ideas of my theory, so the theory propose new philosophical conception.
    I'm not a philosopher, so I can't comment on this except to point out that it's not science.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It's not a theory without evidence. In this case it's barely even a fleshed out hypothesis by the scientific definition.
    Interesting. So, lots of equations were derived from model of the theory. How well they were derived, are they really were derived, it is debatable question. Part of goal of the discussion is to understand correctness of that derivations.

    So far, that looks as were derived:
    * Anthropic principle
    * Causality principle
    * Three laws of Newton
    * Shrodinger equation
    * Finite maximum speed of interactions
    * Same maximum speed in all intertial frames of references
    * Special relativity with all its equations
    * Klein-Gordon-Fock equations
    * Dirac equations
    * It was shown that speed of light is exactly equal to maximum speed of interactions
    * Maxwell's equations are derived, with some assumptions.
    * Partially, were described how and why gauge approach works and that the theory may be consistent with standard model.
    * General relativty with its equations were derived.
    * and some more were derived. For example, physical foundations of mathematics were found.

    You think it is not enough to be argument supporting the theory, if it was really correctly derived?
    And how many theories had more during its first days?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Do you mean consciousness? Conscience is a moral sense.
    Yes, of course. Mistake from me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I'm not a philosopher, so I can't comment on this except to point out that it's not science.
    If my theory is correct, it will become part of physics, not part of philosophy. My theory, as far as I see it, is scientific and falsifiable. It have consequences affecting philosophy. If it will be proven, it would means falsification of materialism. It is very unusual for scientific theory to go into area typically belonging to philosophy, but scientific method not prohibit it.
    Analysis of results of the theory, how well it describe experiments etc should be used to answer is theory valid or no.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Interesting. So, lots of equations were derived from model of the theory. How well they were derived, are they really were derived, it is debatable question. Part of goal of the discussion is to understand correctness of that derivations.
    You think it is not enough to be argument supporting the theory, if it was really correctly derived?
    And how many theories had more during its first days?
    Not all of those are theories, but the ones that are started out as hypotheses before being supported by evidence and graduating to the status of scientific theory.

    And you are still using derived incorrectly.

    If my theory is correct, it will become part of physics, not part of philosophy. My theory, as far as I see it, is scientific and falsifiable. It have consequences affecting philosophy. If it will be proven, it would means falsification of materialism. It is very unusual for scientific theory to go into area typically belonging to philosophy, but scientific method not prohibit it.
    Analysis of results of the theory, how well it describe experiments etc should be used to answer is theory valid or no.
    Physics is science. Philosophy is not science. If your "theory" starts out as philosophy, it is not science and cannot be measures or tested as science.

    If your theory is only scientific "as you see it", it's not actually scientific by the literal definition of science. And yes, the scientific method DOES prohibit it.

    In any case, I'm done. You just keep repeating the same assertions and misunderstandings. I won't continue to bang my head against an unyielding wall
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    The "intelligent life is possible for timeless system" may looks as fantasy. However, my theory is build around it. ...
    Which is a minor point that makes your theory look like a fantasy. Build a theory on a fantasy and you undermine the foundations of that theory.

    You did not understand what I wrote: "Rational beings think (that is basically what rational means). Rational beings know that spacetime exists. Rational beings know that matter exists. Ditto for "in being"." applies to rational beings in any spacetime especially an emergent spacetime like this universe. For example: We are rational beings. We know that spacetime exists. We know that matter exist. Ditto for "in being".

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    If look at my question, in next sentence I shown that experiment to observe spacetime without observer is logically impossible.

    There are such solutions in GR, like closed timelike curves etc.
    Anyone observed them? No. So, current status of them is speculative, they are not mainstream. Spacetime without observer contradicts to my theory, but the solutions cannot be used against my theory because of absense of experiments supporting them.

    What is observer currently is question of phylosophy, not question of physics.
    The evidence for a scientific theory includes experiments that have been run and give results that match the theory, Ans. The evidence you have to give is an experiment that has been rum and shows a spacetime without intelligent life or a rational observer (your assertion) is impossible.

    There is no experiment I can see "in next sentence". A quick scan shows no experiment in this thread.

    The solutions of GR exist. This is not speculative, it is real mainstream physics.

    Read the link that I gave you which is to the definition of observer in physics.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Interesting. So, lots of equations were derived from model of the theory. How well they were derived, are they really were derived, it is debatable question....
    Which is why you need to give derivations here.
    You failed to derive Newton's laws based on your PDF because F=Ma (M = mass as a function of some variable) pops out of nowhere and you make M = m (inertial mass). Likewise the connection to QM is dubious because you have a classical, real valued state vector. And we have not even got to SR yet. Somehow you will have to show that an Euclidean space + hyperplane (without time) gives a Minkowski spacetime or is Lorentz invariant.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    And you are still using derived incorrectly.
    Not sure I understood that you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Physics is science. Philosophy is not science. If your "theory" starts out as philosophy, it is not science and cannot be measures or tested as science.
    My theory starts with model. In order to be able to use the model, necessary to use postulate which go into area, traditionally belonging to philosophy. Unusual case, but it happened in past, when some parts of phylosophy become part of science.
    As for science vs nonscience. It is demarkation problem, and there are solutions how to distinguish them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If your theory is only scientific "as you see it", it's not actually scientific by the literal definition of science. And yes, the scientific method DOES prohibit it.
    There is Popper's criteria that in order for any idea be scientific, idea must be falsifiable. As far as I see it, there are possibilities how to falsify my theory. For example, discovery of quant of gravity would mean falsification of theory.
    Are the possibilities to falsify my theory really exists? You not checked it, simply discarded possibility that they exists. This is definately not scientific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    In any case, I'm done. You just keep repeating the same assertions and misunderstandings. I won't continue to bang my head against an unyielding wall
    I ready to read and analyze arguments. But I simply not see them. You discarded all my arguments without analysis and without answers.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Which is a minor point that makes your theory look like a fantasy. Build a theory on a fantasy and you undermine the foundations of that theory.
    It does not matter how crazy idea looks. Scientific method requires analysis of consequence of the idea. If such idea leads to results consistent with experiments and provide new experimental prediction, it is good idea regardless how strange it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You did not understand what I wrote: "Rational beings think (that is basically what rational means). Rational beings know that spacetime exists. Rational beings know that matter exists. Ditto for "in being"." applies to rational beings in any spacetime especially an emergent spacetime like this universe. For example: We are rational beings. We know that spacetime exists. We know that matter exist. Ditto for "in being".
    Rational beings know that spacetime exists - agree.
    I not undestand why you apply "emergent" to spacetime of our Universe. My theory propose that spacetime is emergent phenomenon, but in mainstream spacetime is not emergent phenomenon. There are theories like LQG, there spacetime have complex structure on microlevel, but they are not mainstream theories.
    Also, rational beings know that spacetime exists. But they not knows is it emergent or no.
    Rational beings knows time exists. But they not knows is time and dynamic exists on fundamental level or no.
    Rational beings not know is spacetime exists objectively (regardless of observer) or subjectively (requires observer for its existense).
    In my theory, I propose model of spacetime which is emergent phenomenon and spacetime exists subjectively.
    It is unusual vision, but it not contradicts to our observertions.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The evidence for a scientific theory includes experiments that have been run and give results that match the theory, Ans. The evidence you have to give is an experiment that has been rum and shows a spacetime without intelligent life or a rational observer (your assertion) is impossible.
    Hmm. My assertion is: no spacetime is possible without observer.
    Why I should show spacetime without intelligent life? It contradicts to my statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There is no experiment I can see "in next sentence". A quick scan shows no experiment in this thread.
    Copied: "Note what even in the question there is logical contradiction - show experiment, where observer will observe spacetime without observer."
    I shown that experiment to show spacetime without observer is logically impossible, because of the logical contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The solutions of GR exist. This is not speculative, it is real mainstream physics.

    Read the link that I gave you which is to the definition of observer in physics.
    I read it, and I read much more during development of theory. Observer in my theory, as far as I see it, not contradics to any experimental data, like influence of observer to measurements. There is difference - in philosophical interpretations. Well, it is expected because my theory trying to convert part of philosophy to physics.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Which is why you need to give derivations here.
    You failed to derive Newton's laws based on your PDF because F=Ma (M = mass as a function of some variable) pops out of nowhere and you make M = m (inertial mass). Likewise the connection to QM is dubious because you have a classical, real valued state vector. And we have not even got to SR yet. Somehow you will have to show that an Euclidean space + hyperplane (without time) gives a Minkowski spacetime or is Lorentz invariant.
    I thinking about posting next part, but I not understood yet - do you see any obvious logical errors or flaws in already posted parts? Especially, in derivation of anthopic principle and causality principle, they would be used a lot in next parts.
    Better to discuss it now than return back from next parts.

    In next part, I think to post "Elementary Particles" section and "Wave Function and Expansion Functions of the Field" section, with answers to your questions to that part, to discuss wave function before Newton laws.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I thinking about posting next part, but I not understood yet - do you see any obvious logical errors or flaws in already posted parts?
    Read my previous posts where the obvious logical errors or flaws in already posted parts have been listed

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •