4 ms·

Me too, the blind believe in mathematical logic is absurd, just because we could not find a classical model in the past does not mean there can't be one. For e

by poelzi 11y ago

Me too, the blind believe in mathematical logic is absurd, just because we could not find a classical model in the past does not mean there can't be one. For example, for the photon you can have a very promising model that just uses classical kinetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1323&v=0z2RujXPcq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1323&v=0z2RujXPcq4 Problems are ignored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether-drift-exp/ether-drift-exp.pdf But you are free to find the errors in the 11 experiments listed, Your Michelson-Morley experiment people generally refer to is PROVEN faulty - even Michelson said that they made mistakes in their assumption. Then you get stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE I explained this some days ago to a geologist that is into physics as a hobby. When I explained to him hat they did with the substitution he just said: This is nuts, you can't do this. I told him, you can, but then you are not in classical logical anymore, mathematical logic allows you to do this. It is a believe that you can invent a clever formula and use substitution to get solvable solution. Everybody in real logic and philosophy knows, that those logics are not compatible - if you can prove this, you will get a very major price for sure. The Big Bang Theory looks not very likely: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf But hey, if you believe in that, find me in explanation for every mentioned problem - And don't come with bullshit arguments that this site is of nutjobs. All they do is link to papers in other peer reviewed journals, they see problems where they are and not ignoring them - real scientific behavior. My current tip for the most likely model: Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory by Stoyan Sarg 3 Eucledian dimensions. 2 indestructable fundamental particles 1 force of attraction Very minimal set of constants. Classical Logic. Every force/constant or effect from the standard model is derived with 0.2-2% accuracy. If this model is so nuts as some people claim, then bring me the error, show me the logical breakage or math error, because for me everything checks out good so far and the predictions fit much better then the standard model. But people are lazy and don't want to spend month thinking about some alternative concept, this is the feeling I get from scientists reactions. Best books I have ever read: www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified/dp/1412083877 You can start with some of his papers, but the book is the best source as it follows a logical flow that will lead to understanding. If you just open the book somewhere and start reading, you will hardly understand (this is what one of the amazon reader clearly did. Everybody how really tried to understand give the theory full stars). http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev I can promise you this: Once you understand the basic principles of this model, you can think about everything yourself. Every physical phenomena you encounter will only take days to get some really good idea what is happening there. I needed 3 days to have a logical explanation of the electron double slit experiment, just thinking in this model. I explained Stoyan my conclusion and he came to the same experiment and explanation. This is one of my principles of cross validation, thinking about stuff myself and see if I come to the same conclusion - if everything is logical this should very often be the case. Of course, some parts are one of many possible ways, but at least one explanation in this framework exists. This is the power of logic, you can understand on the most fundamental level and don't need some wired theory/believe.

drdeca 11y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by mathematical vs classical logic? By classical, do you mean, intuitionistic? Or something else?
- poelzi 11y ago
  Mathematical logic has more freedom then classical logic. I personally describe classical logic, that when its intuitive logical for you, its classical. Everybody into real logician would scream now, because that is not the definition of course, but I think that classical logic is they way our neural network learns the rules of the universe, because it's logical and we therefor inherit this logic through observation. If things would appear and disappear from thin air in front of our eyes, we would learn this is part of how the world works and therefor would be part of our logic, nobody would say its illogical that something just appeared. I give you an example: You take a equation and you substitute x1 through s1. In mathematical logic, this is always allowed and you can define s1 with whatever as long as it fulfills the rules of math. In classical logic you can't. You have to explain where s1 comes from and in case of physics, what natural law this s1 implements. Hope that helped a bit to clarify, but from my philosophy study I can assure you, logic is a very large field with many different logics and not everything is so clear then most of us think. Very often mathematicians teach logic in the courses, but they are very biased by their mathematical one, while in reality general logic is part of philosophy and much more diverse.

by poelzi 11y ago

drdeca 11y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by mathematical vs classical logic? By classical, do you mean, intuitionistic? Or something else?

poelzi 11y ago
Mathematical logic has more freedom then classical logic. I personally describe classical logic, that when its intuitive logical for you, its classical. Everybody into real logician would scream now, because that is not the definition of course, but I think that classical logic is they way our neural network learns the rules of the universe, because it's logical and we therefor inherit this logic through observation. If things would appear and disappear from thin air in front of our eyes, we would learn this is part of how the world works and therefor would be part of our logic, nobody would say its illogical that something just appeared. I give you an example: You take a equation and you substitute x1 through s1. In mathematical logic, this is always allowed and you can define s1 with whatever as long as it fulfills the rules of math. In classical logic you can't. You have to explain where s1 comes from and in case of physics, what natural law this s1 implements. Hope that helped a bit to clarify, but from my philosophy study I can assure you, logic is a very large field with many different logics and not everything is so clear then most of us think. Very often mathematicians teach logic in the courses, but they are very biased by their mathematical one, while in reality general logic is part of philosophy and much more diverse.