John W Edser wrote:
>> JE:-
>> My view is that Quantum Theory is is not a theory for anything. What it
>> presents is an astonishing but as yet _unexplained_ statistical
>> observation of nature. You do not explain natural events by simply
>> observing them (!), you have to go on to provide a falsifiable theory
>> which can evolve via its very own falsification e.g. Newton falsified
>> evolved into Einstein's Special Theory. This was only because Einstein's
>> new, unexpected, falsifiable frame of reference c (which is a velocity
>> maximand and not just a constant), replaced Newton's t and m which
>> became reduced to just variables which cannot provide a valid frame of
>> reference for anything.
> I still don't understand why you think a mathematical theory of some
> physical process is not falsifiable.
JE:-
Mathematics can and almost always needs to be used within a theory of
science but cannot constitute a theory of science in its own right. This
is because everything within mathematics remains reversible across the
"=",">" and "<" signs, i.e. remains relative to just nothing defined by
anybody. Only by defining a constant to make everything relative to,
which can only be done via a proposition which is NOT of mathematics,
does it become just minimally possible to incorporate mathematics into
science because a defined constant provides a secure mooring within a
sea of mathematical reversibility.
> Mathematical theories can make
> precise predictions. If these predictions turn out to be wrong when the
> relevant experiments are wrong, that's falsification. The theory then
> has to be modified to correct the predictions.
JE:-
Galileo was the first to prove that precise but reversible propositions
cannot constitute a theory of science simply because empirical cause and
effect may be reversed using them. The relative movement of the sun to
earth can be measured precisely. However, this precise measurement
cannot tell anybody what remains stationary and what moves unless the
movement of both are measured relative to a fixed star which acts as a
critical frame of reference.
> Deep explanations of the physical world are a luxury. I know that the
> trend in science over the last 500 years or so has been to produce
> steadily deeper theories of phenomena, but all trends eventually end.
> These days in physics the trend in theories is toward deeper
> mathematical abstraction. It may be the best we can ever do now.
JE:-
The only valid way to "end" anything within the sciences is to falsify
it. Discarding a theory by using he argument from authority is not
valid. To be able to falsify a theory it must remain falsifiable. The
big problem here is that it is not appreciated by enough important
people that a non verification is not at all equivalent to a refutation.
Most people confuse the two.
The Ancient Greek square of opposition illustrated the three classes of
relationships which exist between the four most basic and entirely
dependent propositions which constitute any theory (can anybody provide
a fifth?):
1) A verification to the right of each corner.
2) A non verification to the left of each corner.
3) A refutation diagonally opposite of each corner.
I remain happy to expand on any of this.
> [snip]
>> JE:-
>> Without either the start or the end of the proposed race acting as a
>> critical _constant Galilean frame of reference_ it remains impossible to
>> build a mathematical model which allows the hare to catch up and then
>> overtake the tortoise which was given a head start.
>>> I'm trying to distinguish such events from
>>> the mostly pseudorandom events in evolution theory.
>> JE:-
>> Please provide an example of a pseudorandom event within evolution
>> theory. Would meiosis be an example?
> Meiosis is a good example. I've never run across a deeper explanation
> of the assortment of chromosomes during meiosis than "assortment is
> random". This translates into "we don't know the detailed mechanisms."
> This is what I would call pseudorandomness.
JE:-
Yes, but meiosis now stands refuted as a random process via the
documented observation of meiotic drive. The point is, any process
defined random can be falsified if it produces just one non random
pattern. The problem here is that random and non random process commonly
provide random patterns so a random pattern cannot UNIQUELY verify a
random process as causative to a random pattern. It remains absolutely
critical within this argument to separate random patterns from proposed
processes, i.e. separate pattens as just documented observations of
nature from the competing processes which seek to explain the same set
of patterns (random or not). What science does is suppose that any
proposed process which can only provide a random pattern to only be a
random process, i.e. a process which cannot be understood. Using
mathematics to allow useful stochastic predications does not providing
one iota of scientific understanding.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@
ozemail.com.au
