This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20160210
Regressive physics, reform, and progressive physics in relation to the eventual demise of the Big Bang Theory
5 comments:
Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.
For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:
Nitecruzr writes:
[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?
The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html
Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.
Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html
“Sagnac interference” definitely falsified Special Relativity Theory.
ReplyDeleteDoug Marett (2012) provides a good explanation of how this Sagnac effect contradicts relativity. His article concludes:
“It is often argued that the predictions of Special and General Relativity have been continuously verified and that therefore the theory is unquestionable. However, other theories, such as Lorentz ether theories modified to take into account gravitational effects, can also make similar claims. There are in fact multiple mathematical routes by which a correct prediction can be arrived at, but these theories may imply very different interpretations of what our physical reality is. And this is at the heart of what is wrong with the theory of relativity – it may make successful predictions based on math, but implies a nature of time and space which are not only inconsistent with logic and reason, but are even contradictory/”
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html
GB writes:
ReplyDelete"The overthrow of a major paradigm such as the Big Bang Theory cannot be accomplished without replacing its fundamental assumptions."
I agree with 95% of your assumptions, but I don't think it's possible to "overthrow" incorrect assumptions by reference to logical contradictions or incoherence alone. When empirical facts from valid experiments can be shown to refute "regressive" assumptions, then people will notice and reconsider.
That's my approach: take the experimental "proofs" of false theories and demonstrate why the facts conflict with the purported conclusions. For example, GPS doesn't prove relativity theory because that theory has nothing to do with the actual operation of the system.
If "assumptions are just choices and none can be proven", as you indicate, then experimental facts are irrelevant and cannot justify one choice or the other ... even if one of the choices seems intuitively absurd.
I'm not minimizing your contribution: it's important to demonstrate logical contradictions on purely philosophical grounds. I agree with (nearly) all of your arguments for why certain assumptions are consistent and coherent. But, I don't think people will accept them until they've reviewed the facts, established by scientific experiment, and concluded that reality is consistent with your assumptions.
Physicist Steven Bryant takes a different approach, which is to show that the mathematical analysis of experimental results are invalid, either because of a misrepresentation of the variables or improper use of functions. That too is important and valuable. However, if the math is wrong, but it still produces useful approximations, users are not likely to totally reject the theory itself.
It's a psychological issue too. As long as indeterminism is easy, fun, and profitable, most people will adopt it as the "best theory".
Bill, you wrote: "If "assumptions are just choices and none can be proven", as you indicate, then experimental facts are irrelevant and cannot justify one choice or the other ... even if one of the choices seems intuitively absurd."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but that is not true. We assume that "there are material causes for all effects," but we cannot completely prove that without finding the cause for all effects, which is impossible. The reason we choose that impossible to prove assumption, is that it works.
You write that "As long as indeterminism is easy, fun, and profitable, most people will adopt it as the "best theory". Unfortunately, this is true even though it is of little use in real science.
As a hypothetical support for acknowledging "assumptions", imagine Nick Bostrom's assertion that if humans are capable of creating virtual reality that is indistinguishable from actual reality at any point in our future, then we are most certainly already living in a simulation. That alone was enough to move me from "atheist" to "agnostic". We live in a pivotal moment in human history. Is it likely that we just happened to be born right at that moment, or that it is important for some reason as part of an historical simulation that perhaps new humans undergo as a form of schooling prior to being admitted into a society with a technological prowess so advanced that it is dangerous to give access to new personalities without subjecting them to an all immersive experience of what humanity does to itself absent certain values.
ReplyDeleteBrings a whole new meaning to being "saved" - as in control-s.
He who endures until the end... ;)
Even religion can find possible interpretations in a materialist context.
Sorry joogabah, but this life definitely is not a simulation. If it were, you would have been given proper instructions on how to perform. I have heard of this idea of living in a simulation before. It makes no sense to me. I am trying to understand why anyone would want to abandon reality for some willy-nilly simulation. I suppose it results from a disappointment about what this life offers. Remember that life is beautiful and that it only lasts for a few microseconds. You need to get a grip. If you don't like your present "simulation" or whatever you call it, change your environment. Anything would be better than thinking you are living in a simulation. Remember that there are only two mistakes you can make in philosophy: fatalism and solipsism. In the first, you mistakenly believe that the macrocosm (your environment) controls you and in the second you mistakenly believe that you, a microcosm, control what happens to you. It actually is an interaction between both: univironmental determinism. Also, remember that religion assumes the opposite of materialism. Good luck with that.
ReplyDelete