Jump to content
Science Forums

Toward an Intelligent Design Science


James Putnam

Recommended Posts

The process of evolution for the universe followed direction dictated by the fundamental properties of the universe. Being dictacted means being controlled. I do not know the nature of the control other than it was sufficient to eventually reveal both life and intelligence.

 

This is the kind of statements that make it impossible for me to accept your theory as scientific. You make circular assumptions. Because A, then B, and because of certain properties of B, then A must logically have other certain properties. But you cannot prove them and you cannot make predictions from it.

 

If I am mistaken, then please provide at least ONE prediction that springs naturally from your theory.

 

This is a fact. No one knows what is electric charge. It is a name for a proposed cause of electromagnetic effects. We only know about effects.

 

You keep saying this and it makes no sense to me. Electric charge is (as you write in your own paper) a property of sub-atomic particles. Electricity is the flow of charged particles. It's like "vastenss" is a property of space. What is the mystery?

 

If we know only causes, then the same is true for the entire universe. We only know about the effects of the Big Bang (or whatever we want to think was the beginning of it). The rest is pure speculation. Theoretical physics do not care if the laws of nature were put there by a god or not. They merely try to develop new theories. You make it sound as if there is a big conspiracy to mislead us normal beings!

 

So your philosophy is another way of trying to put together a world view based on theoretical physics. You do not offer a tabula rasa. Instead you ridicule the breakthroughs in physics for the past centuries and claim to have found a new way to see things.

 

Fine! If you are the visionary who will solve all the mysteries, great! Nobody would be happier than me to see that become true.

 

But...

 

Scientific analysis should begin from the point of view of using empirical knowledge learned in all fields to formulate a unified approach to determining the nature of the universe. The key or foundation to this approach cannot be the mechanical theory of physics. The key is to look to the common interpretive approach used by our collective intelligence. That is where the nature of the universe is contained. Life can provide the answers because life is where all answers are contained.

 

...statements like this make your philosophy meaningless to me. I have seen page up and page down of equations in your papers. But nowhere do I see where this warrants a leap of faith from accepting that energy is the basis of all matter, to a philosophy that intelligence is the end product of the universe.

 

Reading John Barrow and Frank Tipler's "The Anthropic Principle" was a nightmare. I won't even say it made sense. But they did not resort to strange intelligences from before the Big Bang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I fully understand your idea, so let me try to explain your idea to you, and then you can tell me if I'm wrong. It hinges on the idea of intelligence, correct?

Yes. My position is that intelligence is the first property of the universe, and, that all effects are different aspects of this property. All other properties are our interpretations of these different aspects.

 

So, anthing that we know of the world comes in the form of photons, which are interpreted by our mind to provide information as to what our environment is. However, we cannot know whether this information is false or true, because any test for it would require photons.

No, I do not take the position that we cannot know whether this information is false or true. I do take the position that there is incompleteness and approximation. I take the position that there is anticipation by our intelligence, and, that this anticipation can contribute to us jumping to wrong conclusions. This anticipation can be severe enough to prevent us from reaching correct conclusions.

 

I think that this is the reason why optical illusions work. I think the most graphic example is the use of still pictures to communicate motion. We see something and interpret it as being something else. We do not see it for what it really is. How could it be that we are endowed with this type of misleading tendency? I think the answer is that all of our data comes in the form of photons. Photons begin with change of velocity and end by causing change of velocity. In other words, change and variation is the means by which the universe communicates with our intelligence.

 

Therefore, our intelligence expects, and maybe is only capable of, understanding change. Even a still object is communicated by means of motion. The particles of matter in the object are whizzing around and changing their velocities. They emit photons that communicate this change of velocity. So we are informed of lack of motion by information relayed to us by motion. However, we are informed that the motion is restricted to a very small local. We approximate this event as stillness. If there is such a thing as a photon that does not cause change of velocity, we would not even notice it. Such photons could bombard us constantly and it would not be sensed or recognized. This is very close to what happens to us constantly with nuetrinos.

 

The main point of my answer is that I am certain, for information that is important for us to know, we are capable of determining, with a high degree of certainty, both true and false conclusions. Our intellingence exists for the purpose of interpreting the universe. Our intelligence is loaned to us by the universe. The properties of our matter is not unique from the properties of all other matter. Whatever the universe has to communicate to us, we have been given the ability to discern this meaning.

 

There is the limitation that we receive data in very tiny and very quick pieces, mixed, always changing, and varying widely in frequency. No life form has ever seen the same array of data twice, and it is seen only for the very small period of time that it takes for the photons to effect us. The universe has never given us the opportunity to view a still image of data and study it carefully for meaning. In order for us to make use this meaning, we must slow things down. We average data, approximate data, and select certain data while rejecting other data.

 

We cannot handle all the information we receive. Most of it is ignored. The result is that we take a small portion of the data, detect significant patterns, sort of smear each of them, and then evaluate what is left to see if it matches something similar that is contained in our internal store of knowledge. Oftentimes we match the correct pattern. Sometimes we match the wrong pattern. The result is that usually we think we see what we really are seeing. Other times we think we see things that we definitely are not seeing. So, both understanding and illusions are possible.

 

Is this part of it? I'll admit that I haven't had much time to read your site, and I apologize for that, but I think that, if you will be patient with me, we can learn from each other.

 

And if you will be patient with me, maybe I can become better at communicating my ideas.

 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I go back to the programmer analogy, James? What you call cause, would be the written code, and scientists within the program would be studying that code. Is it important for them to discover the exact code, or something that does the same thing? I think that you are philosophizing science too much, and misunderstanding what science aims to do. Science makes predictions, the validity of a theory is related to how accurate the predictions are. Science does search for a form of truth, but not all truths are scientific, at least not in my opinion. The purpose of this search for truth is to better understand our universe, so that we can make more accurate predictions. Whether or not we can identify the underlying cause of a theory is irrelevant to science, because the test of a theory is its prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could it be that we are endowed with this type of misleading tendency? I think the answer is that all of our data comes in the form of photons.

I would tend to think this is more of a short coming of our brains and bodies. We know our senses can lie to us, that idea has been held since Plato, but to say that science is flawed because of that is difficult. Science tries to be as objective as possible, so as to not allow limitations of human senses come into play. This is why we are able to know things like relativity, and quantum mechanics, that go against common sense. We understand that there are limitations, and work around them.

 

Our intellingence exists for the purpose of interpreting the universe. Our intelligence is loaned to us by the universe.

I disagree, perhaps you have some more information on this, something that led you to this conclusion?

 

If there is such a thing as a photon that does not cause change of velocity, we would not even notice it. Such photons could bombard us constantly and it would not be sensed or recognized.

If these particles existed, science wouldn't need to study them. If something exists that has no effect, then it is irrelevent. However, you cannot prove something exists simply because you can't prove that it doesn't. While I don't disagree that there COULD be something there that doesn't affect us in any way, I believe that the chances are much greater that there is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My short answer is that intelligence is the ability to generate information and the ability to discern meaning in information.

Okay, so I think what you're saying is that intelligence is not actual facts, it is interpreting meaning. But doesn't that mean that because of those physical interactions that the interpretations are false? And if its only in the interpretation where do the facts and knowledge come from? I mean, what I guess you are calling "true" intelligence, not all those false conclusions we draw because we can't see things as they are? Are you saying that there are no facts to know?

The emotions I am stressing now are special. They are emotional responses clearly programmed into us. There is another kind. For example, we can learn to feel happiness from possession of material things. I am reaching for the emotion of happiness that is unique and has permanence. I will refer to it as real joy. Real joy is very different from the happiness of learned pleasures. Real joy is the feeling you experience while witnessing the birth of a loved baby. There are many more examples that could be given; however, it is the uniqueness of the emotion I wish to clearly identify. The emotion is unique because of the response it elicits from us.

 

The emotion of real joy does not cause us to laugh. It causes us to cry. It does not cause us to squeal with delight. It causes us to become mute. Even if we try to speak, we may find we have lost that ability. It does not cause us to leap into the air. It is likely to cause us to feel weak in the knees. It does not cause us to act proud and haughty. It reduces us to a posture of humility and humbleness. It is a different and wondrous feeling indeed. It is the feeling that this joy is different from the other emotion called happiness. It lets us know this is the real happiness we are programmed to know.

 

This is an example of our being naturally directed to fundamental truth. There is a general process by which natural truths are revealed to our conscious minds. We still have to learn how to use it to its fullest extent. We are not programmed to always cry when a fundamental truth is being revealed. The process is more complex than that. However, there must be preset physical responses, if we will recognize them, for confirming truth.

So, are you saying that the "true" intelligence behind the universe is emotion? And there's a fake and a real kind? It sounds like the fake kind has to do with greed and the real kind has to do with love. Is that because greed has to do with physical objects that are obscured by our senses? But then how do we know the real love of seeing a baby? Aren't mothers who steal other people's baby's greedy? But you also seemm to be saying that there are "preset physical responses": but if we are programmed to react the wrong way because our perceptions are inaccurate that we can't know some things? If that's so then I would think that they would be unnecssary and would not have been included in the intelligence programmed into the universe. Am I missing something?
If we allow our thoughts to be guided along this natural path of intelligent thought, then we can understand everything we are capable of knowing...
I think I missed something here: is the "natural path" love? I'm not sure I understand what love has to do with intelligence.
I am sure you do not mean the same level of intelligence. My answer, then, is that the mouse's intelligence has the same source as yours. It is far more limited. However, the mouse's intelligence must be capable of interpreting much of the same data that we do. It also must be capable of discerning meaning from a very complex mix of always changing incremental data arriving at the speed of light.
I'm not sure I understand. How is the mouse's intelligence limited if it comes from the same source? I thought that because all interpretations are misleading that there's no reason the mouse should be just as smart as me. I mean he receives the protons at the same speed I do, maybe its just that because our perceptions are false that the mouse actually is smart and maybe could play chess, but we aren't able to perceive it because our preconceptions that we're the only intelligent species are getting in the way?
It is not that we are aware of knowing everything. However, the means by which we can learn everything about the operation of the universe is contained within us. It is our birthright. We are the means by which the universe comprehends itself. It gave us our properties, but they are only on loan.
Now I'm really confused. So the universe is an entity of some kind? But it came from something outside that gave it its original intelligence? And I'm not sure I asked the question right, but why can't I get at information like how to play chess as well as my youngest daughter who always beats me? Am I like the mouse? Somehow my ability to get at the intelligence is limited? Why should that happen?
The data received by us from other matter is the catalyst that draws out our intrinsic knowledge contained within our subconscious mind. Our subconscious mind then offers a conclusion that is presented to our conscious mind. In other words, everything we can learn is already contained within us. However, it has to be stimulated by outside data in order to be caused to rise to the level of consciousness.
So if i got the right input I could learn everything? So with the right inputs a specific mouse could be smarter than all people? But aren't all those inputs misleading? Shouldn't it make many of the conclusions I make false, just like the scientific experiments that fail to prove their theories? And are the results random because the matter that affects us has random properties?

 

I'm not sure I'm following you, but I'm trying. Also, I am really anxious to understand what you mean by "programmed in" but I haven't seen what you mean by that anywhere. Could you explain that?

 

Lazlo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I was reading this part again:

The data received by us from other matter is the catalyst that draws out our intrinsic knowledge contained within our subconscious mind. Our subconscious mind then offers a conclusion that is presented to our conscious mind. In other words, everything we can learn is already contained within us. However, it has to be stimulated by outside data in order to be caused to rise to the level of consciousness.
Doesn't that mean that anything that opens our subconcious mind will reveal the intelligence of the universe? I've heard that that's what that Dianetics stuff is supposed to do. And of course, a lot of my contemporaries read Carlos Casteneda and took lots of illicit substances back in the 60s: some of them became much smarter after, and while there were clearly some bad side effects of LSD, I don't know anyone who stuck to smoking marijuana who suffered very much, but they're much more thoughtful and contemplative than most other folks I know. Also psychotherapy seems to make people clearer about things. Shouldn't we promote these activities more?

 

Lazlo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of statements that make it impossible for me to accept your theory as scientific. You make circular assumptions. Because A, then B, and because of certain properties of B, then A must logically have other certain properties. But you cannot prove them and you cannot make predictions from it.

 

There was direction evidenced in the evolution of the universe. You either accept that direction is automatic for no reason or you accept that it occurs because of some controlling cause. I feel forced to accept that I cannot know the first cause of all things, but I cannot see the logic in accepting uncontrolled consequences and effects, for the development of the universe, after the allowing for the unknown first cause. Control is what physics theory offers to explain to us. Mass is the controlling cause of spacetime. spacetime is the controlling cause of gravity. Electric charge is the controlling cause of electromagnetism. A wave nature is the controlling cause of wave effects. A particle nature is the controlling cause of particulate effects. Now, I do not believe these explanations, but for those who accept them, both cause and control is represented by orthodox theory.

 

If I am mistaken, then please provide at least ONE prediction that springs naturally from your theory.

 

There are predictions. The foremost prediction is that the speed of light is not a fundamental constant. It varies widely. I recognize that this seems ridiculous to say following a century of experiments that give results consistent with the speed of light being a constant. I can't refute all of that in a forum message. However, I can give a reason why everyone should question these results. It is known that when light passes through a solid or a liquid it slows.

 

The same matter that constitutes solids and liquids is not restricted in its effects by the perceptual image we imagine to be the object. I expect that this point appears to be obtuse. However, it is a fact that we see objects as having definite physical size. So, if the light that slowed down while passing through the object exited the object, it seems reasonable to expect that the speed of light would return to its maximum and constant value. Lets place the object and the measuring device in otherwise empty space. This is to avoid any other influences.

 

Now I will state that when the light exits from the object, it is not reasonable to expect it to resume its maximum constant speed. The reason for this is that the speed of light within the object must have been slowed as an effect of the object. However, our perception of the physical limits of the object are not the limits of the object insofar as the universe is concerned. In principle, all objects affect all other objects. Gravity is an example of an ever present effect of all objects upon all other objects.

 

The effects of objects may change sharply at the point we perceive to be the object's physical limits. However, they do not end there. They may, afterwards, reduce inversely proportional to the distance from them. But, they do not end. If the effects of the object control the speed of light inside the object, then it can be expected they continue to control the speed of light outside the object. In principle, there is no limit to the effect of each object no matter how small it may be. If there is even a very minor variation in the speed of light outside of objects, then all effects can be derived from this. Even if the variation is as minor as gravity, it is the right amount of variation needed to derive all other effects.

 

You keep saying this and it makes no sense to me. Electric charge is (as you write in your own paper) a property of sub-atomic particles. Electricity is the flow of charged particles. It's like "vastenss" is a property of space. What is the mystery?

 

I explain on the Theory Introduction page, the method I use to introduce change to theory.

 

"My approach to introducing the theory is to move step by step away from accepted fundamental theoretical interpretations. I feel it is best to carry along familiar concepts as long as is practical. I think this method reduces the uncomfortable feeling that often accompanies first impressions of radical changes. In addition, this gives me the opportunity to demonstrate it is possible to combine ideas from standard accepted concepts with new ideas that bring sweeping changes.

 

A benefit gained is the demonstration that even in radical change there still exists a kind of compatibility between opposing theoretical ideas that adhere closely to empirical evidence. The impermanence of theoretical interpretations is made clear when useful equations can be formed from combinations of competing interpretations. I then progressively move away from the inclusion of previous theory. As a result of following this practice, my claim of having achieved unity beginning at the fundamental level is not fully supported until the derivation of the new theory is complete."

 

"This theory offers new definitions for fundamental properties. These definitions lead to new theoretical interpretations inconsistent with the popular theoretical ideas associated with fundamental physics terminology. For example, electric charge in this new theory is completely different from its common interpretation. Rather than coin new terminology, causing unnecessary difficulty in communication, I borrow the standard names. Therefore, even though electromagnetism in this new theory is completely different from its interpretation in standard theory, it retains the same name. This is an example of a general practice followed throughout the theory's development."

 

I do begin by using most of the standard definitons and common usage of theoretical physics. I do speak about electric charge as a unique cause. This is a temporary measure. If you were to read the development of the theory, you would be astonished at the conclusion of what I believe electric charge really does represent. So, I am guilty of speaking about electric charge in its orthodox sense at an early stage, and then speaking radically different about its nature at a later stage.

 

In this forum, I can only resort to emphasizing that the nature of electric charge is unknown and physicists recognize this. It is somewhat analogous to the nature of mass. Does it not seem, as a result of instruction by physicists, that mass is a material physical property of the universe? This is a case of what seems to be is not what is to be. The nature of mass is unknown and physicsts acknowledge this. They will say that mass is defined only as the ratio of force to acceleration. It is nothing more than a mathematical definition.

 

If we know only causes (Here I assume you meant effects), then the same is true for the entire universe. We only know about the effects of the Big Bang (or whatever we want to think was the beginning of it). The rest is pure speculation.

 

I do not say it is necessarily speculation. I say that the disunity introduced into physics theory at the level of its fundamentals and later is the reason for the need for speculation.

 

Theoretical physics do not care if the laws of nature were put there by a god or not.

 

Neither do I.

 

They merely try to develop new theories. You make it sound as if there is a big conspiracy to mislead us normal beings!

 

No I do not think there is a conspiracy. I think they sincerely believe in their theories. I also think they would be sincere if they declared me to be a crank. Successful predictions are used as the measure of validity of a theory. They make very successful predictions. Therefore, by this measure, they are sincere in concluding that they must be viewing nearly all things correctly. However, there remain some problems for them. For example, relativity theory cannot be united with quantum theory. The force of gravity cannot be united with the other three forces.

 

Mass isn't included in the standard theory except in an meaningless way. We know that mass is a real property. It is the name for resistance to force. Resistance to force is a real property. It is a fundamental property. All theory derived after the introduction of mass depends upon the definition of mass. Yet, in the standard theory of physics, mass must be arbitrarily added. The proposed Higg's field and the predicted Higg's particle were invented to find a way of including mass in the standard theory. There is no evidence of a Higg's field. The experiments to detect the Higgs particle have found nothing. This is crucial. Physicsts either find the Higgs particle or all of theory will have to change. This is not my opinion. This is a problem they recognize.

 

 

 

So your philosophy is another way of trying to put together a world view based on theoretical physics. You do not offer a tabula rasa. Instead you ridicule the breakthroughs in physics for the past centuries and claim to have found a new way to see things.

 

My physics theory is only intended to demonstrate that orthodox theory is incorrect. It does not describe the real nature of the universe. It cannot because it is only another mechanical interpretation. I remove everything except electromagnetism which I refer to as light. I change light in its most fundamental sense. I say it varies. After the introduction of this change, I derive all the rest of the theory as being different aspects of the variation of the speed of light. All other causes are systematically discarded and replaced.

 

My theory has one cause only. I do not ridicule theoretical physics. I simply say they are wrong. I do not know how to separate that from your perception of ridicule. In my defense I simply say if something is wrong it should be pointed out. I expect that's what a critic of my theory would do. Ridicule would be if they stated that I was a fool because I was wrong. I may be mistaken, but I am not a fool.

 

Fine! If you are the visionary who will solve all the mysteries, great! Nobody would be happier than me to see that become true.

 

Even if I am correct, I will not have solved all of the mysteries. In fact, offering another mechanical physics theory is just an imitation of solving the mysteries. The mysteries will be solved by a combined effort of experts in many fields. It will be solved by learning the nature of intelligence. The discovery process is still in its infancy. We are not close to a theory of everything. We are not close to knowing the nature of the universe. The need for learning and discovery is wide open before us.

 

 

But...

 

...statements like this make your philosophy meaningless to me. I have seen page up and page down of equations in your papers. But nowhere do I see where this warrants a leap of faith from accepting that energy is the basis of all matter, to a philosophy that intelligence is the end product of the universe.

 

Ok. I feel I understand. You consider energy to be scientific. And, you think the things I say are just a personal philosphy. You face a few major problems. One is that energy is defined only as force multiplied by distance. It is quantitative not qualitative. It is the calculation of a force being applied across a distance. This is not my opinion. This is a fact. How can a measurement be turned into the substance of the universe. I recognize that this belief was assumed into physics theory, but I am certain this cannot be substantiated by anyone. It is the modern day fullfilment of the discarded caloric theory.

 

Reading John Barrow and Frank Tipler's "The Anthropic Principle" was a nightmare. I won't even say it made sense. But they did not resort to strange intelligences from before the Big Bang.

 

I did speculate that there are some reasons to suppose that there was a greater intelligence that existed before the origin of the universe. This speculation really means almost nothing. It is only my opinion. The scientific analysis of the universe begins after its origin. The most important properties of the universe are life and intelligence. It is my position that any attempt to propose a nature for the universe must account for these two properties. I resist fully any attempt to attribute them to mechanical origins. Mechanical theory cannot even begin to recognize life and intelligence let alone explain.

 

I appreciate your opinion.

 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, I applaud you for trying to meet our demands for clarity and predictions. It makes it easier, at least for me, to understand what you are trying to say. I understand that your theory is extremely complex and that it is based on things which we will probably never agree upon (like the roles of intelligence, love, and emotions in the universe).

 

That does not mean that I am correct, of course. I am not schooled in any science and cannot claim a deep knowledge of quantum physics nor of cosmology. All I have is about 15 years of reading books and interviewing scientists (from my work as a science reporter for national radio here in Norway). Yet I do feel that I understand what modern physics is built upon.

 

I strongly disagree with the idea that I am a "believer" in science. I rather feel that I am a person with a curious mind who is not responsible for what scientists discover. If one day they tell me that neutrinos do not exist, fine. Show me the evidence so I can understand it. Then the next day they tell me neutrinos have been discovered. Fine, show med the evidence. So I subscribe to the scientific method of learning, that ideas need to be tried and tested, and that claims must both be backed up and put into a larger perspective. I like to learn new things and feel that I have a better grasp of what is going on. Nothing that I know constitues a final truth, and as such I do not "believe" that science will reveal all of nature's properties to us. I would rather say I accept things but not on face value. Our understanding will ALWAYS be biased. That was why I mentioned Barrow and Tipler to you, because the anthropic principle is a way to try to incorporate the human bias into cosmology, for example the very idea that if the universe could not harbor intelligent life then we would not be here. So our universe must have the right properties for that.

 

So when you say "either you belong to group A or you belong to group B", as you keep doing with your arguments, you are in fact telling me that you need to place me in some category before I can start to comprehend your theory. This is a good way to end up in argumentative fallacies which do not help your cause. There is no such thing as "either A or B" in science, nor in philosophy. There are always other points of view and they must be respected, no matter how right or wrong they are. I think perhaps this attitude in your post is what made me go against you right from the bat.

 

Your post is so long that I will probably need to step back and reread it but I would like to bring some input on a few points:

 

There are predictions. The foremost prediction is that the speed of light is not a fundamental constant. It varies widely.

 

I don't think anyone has said that the speed of light is a fundamental constant. The constant is the speed of light in vacuum. What it is is an absolute reference frame in Einstein's theories. He showed that Newton's ideas of absolute time and space where incompatible with electromagnetic theory. He also showed that nothing can move *faster* than the speed of light. So the fundamental constant here is the *speed limit* of light. Does your theory predict faster than light speeds?

 

Recent research has shown the the speed of light may have varied, as may the fine-structure constant. This research was done by Paul Davies et al, and is presented among other places in John Barrow's book, The Constants of Nature.

 

Now I will state that when the light exits from the object, it is not reasonable to expect it to resume its maximum constant speed. The reason for this is that the speed of light within the object must have been slowed as an effect of the object.

 

But in fact this is exactly what we measure. When light escapes a medium and travels into empty space, it instantly reaches the speed limit. This is because light *always* travels as fast as it can, and being light it does not need to be accellerated. Electromagnetic waves have no mass and as such they always travel as fast as they can.

 

If there is even a very minor variation in the speed of light outside of objects, then all effects can be derived from this. Even if the variation is as minor as gravity, it is the right amount of variation needed to derive all other effects.

 

I can see why this is important. Have you found any experiments which confirm this? It would possibly be a breakthrough in physics.

 

When photons escape a star, they are not slowed down by the star's gravity. Rather, they are redshifted (ie, change frequency). This is called gravitational redshift. If a star is unable to slow down light, then how can smaller objects do so?

 

In this forum, I can only resort to emphasizing that the nature of electric charge is unknown and physicists recognize this. It is somewhat analogous to the nature of mass. Does it not seem, as a result of instruction by physicists, that mass is a material physical property of the universe?

 

I commented on this before. What is "color"? What is "existence"? We can say that all dogs are black, and it is false. We can say that some dogs are black, and it can be confirmed by observations.

 

But we cannot say "some of the dogs exist". By definition, color is a property of existence. But existence is a prerequisite for having color. The same is true with mass. We need a universe to have mass. We have the universe. The universe is full of energy. This energy manifests itself as radiation and matter. This is the fundamental basis for all science. If you are able to prove that this is not so, then I will be very impressed (and that is not meant to be an offense, James).

 

This is a case of what seems to be is not what is to be. The nature of mass is unknown and physicsts acknowledge this. They will say that mass is defined only as the ratio of force to acceleration. It is nothing more than a mathematical definition.

 

As far as I know mass is defined as the amount of matter in a physical object. The mass changes with acceleartion because more energy is converted into mass, but this energy is returned as heat and radiation when the object slows down or moves against friction.

 

So what if it is a methematical description? That is perhaps what I don't grasp here.

 

I also think they would be sincere if they declared me to be a crank.

 

The only way to avoid being a crank is to make predictions and through successful observations, prove that they show your theory to be right.

 

Successful predictions are used as the measure of validity of a theory. They make very successful predictions. Therefore, by this measure, they are sincere in concluding that they must be viewing nearly all things correctly. However, there remain some problems for them. For example, relativity theory cannot be united with quantum theory. The force of gravity cannot be united with the other three forces.

 

This is another assumption, though. There have been breakthroughs in the understanding of what gravity is. Gravity waves have been observed and will be studied more closely in the coming years (like the LISA project). It may be that relativity theory cannot be united with QT, but there is absolutely no evidence that the forces cannot be united.

 

My physics theory is only intended to demonstrate that orthodox theory is incorrect. It does not describe the real nature of the universe. It cannot because it is only another mechanical interpretation. I remove everything except electromagnetism which I refer to as light. I change light in its most fundamental sense. I say it varies. After the introduction of this change, I derive all the rest of the theory as being different aspects of the variation of the speed of light. All other causes are systematically discarded and replaced.

 

This is the core of the issue. Calling theoretical physics "orthodox" is interesting. Relativity theory was so controversial that people are STILL getting Nobel prizes for confirming predictions Einstein made a hundred years ago. It is hardly orthodox. Einstein revolutionized our perception of space and time. He may turn out to be wrong. All paradigms change and evolve. There might (nay, will) come theories to replace him.

 

I commented on the variable speed of light above. If it is the basis of your theory I think you may be building a card house. Because you need first to prove that light does not instantly reach it's ultimeate speed when it leaves any medium. But you are of course aware of that requirement. If it fails, everything else in your theory will also fail.

 

My theory has one cause only. I do not ridicule theoretical physics. I simply say they are wrong. I do not know how to separate that from your perception of ridicule. In my defense I simply say if something is wrong it should be pointed out. I expect that's what a critic of my theory would do.

 

Your approach up until now has NOT been to ask for us to point of fallacies in your own theory. You have asked us to defend a concept you claim we subscribed to ("mechanistic materialism"). I sense that that is about to change.

 

It is usually not common to start a theory by explaining that others are wrong. Rather, you use your own theory to PROVE them wrong. There is a huge difference!

 

Ok. I feel I understand. You consider energy to be scientific.

 

No. "Energy" is not scientific. It is the word we use to explain the basic property of spacetime as we know it. You may choose to call it whatever you like. But our current scientific understanding is based on the assumption that energy and matter are interchangeable, and that they are the main properties of the universe. Superstring theory may have a thing or two to say about that.

 

And, you think the things I say are just a personal philosphy. You face a few major problems. One is that energy is defined only as force multiplied by distance. It is quantitative not qualitative. It is the calculation of a force being applied across a distance. This is not my opinion. This is a fact. How can a measurement be turned into the substance of the universe. I recognize that this belief was assumed into physics theory, but I am certain this cannot be substantiated by anyone. It is the modern day fullfilment of the discarded caloric theory.

 

No, I don't face these problems, James. You do. You are the one who have to discard these ideas, not me nor anyone else of your readers. I have no problems accepting the definitions for energy, which are (for example) "the capacity to do work" or "the potential for motion". Measurement is all we are capable of doing. You admit yourself that it is all YOU can do. The "caloric theory" argument is just another way for you to use ridicule! (If you don't see that then it is difficult for me to explain it).

 

Mechanical theory cannot even begin to recognize life and intelligence let alone explain.

 

After a very long post I think it is sad to see it end with another unfounded assumption. I still don't understand why a new theory of the variable speed of light will recognize (not least explain) life and intelligence.

 

With regards,

Tormod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...