Science Forums 2

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I probably would keep my mouth shut--maybe even make some positive comments on the theory itself--if it weren't for the fact that you keep claiming "profound implications" without ever getting around to saying what they are.

I think that for now the thing is to check the arguments from which Dick derives his fundamental equation. It would be interesting to understand them, as he claims to give a very general logical grounding for many things, including Dirac's equation. I'd like to understand the logical basis better, but the effort has been somewhat lengthy.

Originally Posted by Buffy

With reference to your definition of no assumptions, it might be useful to expand upon Q's reference to Kant's a priori knowledge.

Kant, in his Transcendental Aesthetics, discusses what knowledge we may consider to be "a priori" of any logical argument, IOW directly as perceived through our senses. That is where things get to be tricky. However, I really only meant to distinguish "what we perceive" from "what exists" or "das ding an sich" (the thing in itself); the assumptions aren't so much about your perception of things but rather about the things themselves.

Just after having banged your head against a stone wall, you might be inclined to think you have an excellent idea of what those stones are. While you're quite sure of what the bang felt like to you, and you're attributing various qualities to them, do you really know what the stones actually are?