Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Essentially, what I have shown to date is that if one takes the position that the job of a research scientist is to search out the rules which separate the "true" universe from all possible universes, then no classical experiment can provide any guidance on the subject whatsoever. What I have presented up to this point is a pure tautology applicable to any body of information which can be referred to. Classical mechanics is itself a tautology. And I am ready to extend that tautology well beyond what I have already laid out. This thread is nothing but a side note on how relativity arises in that tautology and arguments that the result is experimentally exactly what is produced by Einstein's theory.
Have you perused the thread “What can we know of reality?”?
Have fun -- Dick
|
...and again, I agree with your point above.
As I first said, I'd like to quote this for folks who need help understanding concepts like fact, truth, reality, law, etc.
Regarding “What can we know of reality?”
I'm sure I've seen it (I'll look again), but for the same reasons you point out, I try to avoid nailing down a vision of reality; and so don't want to get too involved in a discussion.
Quote:
|
NOW about my first post and reply:
|
My apologies for being so obtuse; in an attempt to be subtle, I suppose.
Allow me to start over; re: your formalism,
I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion.
I especially liked your sentence:
"But it is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about your expectations, quite another matter."
...and similarly:
"What you need to recognize here is that this is no statement about reality, it is merely a statement about your expectations and the method you use to achieve them. "
The mistake I may be making is equating "statement about reality" with your elegant, simplified, all-inclusive, formalism; but I don't think that is my mistake (but..?).
I think you are saying that your formalism still does not necessarily describe, or make a "statement about reality."
...and that as a formalism it is still limited to describing only what we can perceive or think of to perceive (or think of to measure).
...or maybe: It can function only to explain what we are capable of expecting it to explain?
When you referred to "expectations," I hoped to elaborate and added parenthetically, that expectations are "limited by one's perceptions and preconceptions;" asking finally, if that was a fair assessment.
I see elaboration like that as a way of confirming if I understood what you were saying.
I did read all of your post. It's been several years since I "learned" all that stuff, but it still looked familiar and coherent; and I liked where you led it to.
