Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[EWright]

If you don't enjoy it, why bother reading it. ;)

I thought that was what I said??? :P

"Different strokes for different folks". I have a lot of fun thinking and would enjoy talking to others who have that same penchant. :(

I'm very sorry, I had no intention of upsetting you. Please just ignore my posts if you do not enjoy reading them. ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

It's not a matter of not enjoying them, as I do find interest in what you have to say. But I have no desire to the initial long-*** post on a philosophical point that I'd only have a moderate interest in, in the first place. Surely what you have to say there can be summarized to a large extent. Or, pose an initial thought and then expand on it with responses to those who reply.

 

Perhaps this is somewhat hypocritical of me, as I tend to get lengthy about things that I am passionate about as well. But a lot of the topics on this site are rather 'deep'; and personally, I tend to get 'worn out' thinking too deeply about too many different things for too long. So when I come across something I'm only moderately interested in, and my mind is already getting full, I tend to pass it by.

 

Just my two cents.

[Turtle]

___Very interesting! Some of us do do things which make us sick, in the hope & anticipation of reward in the form of emrgence/synergy.

___I believe part of this hinges on the 2 different approaches to logic, i.e. deduction & induction; the specialist vs the generalist. The generalist approach is less apprehended in my opinion; it does not arise anyway without considerable excursions into the specifics. Many people reach a specific plateau & remain there engaged in its nuances with little regard or knowledge of general principles. :P

[Qfwfq]

Try thinking of it this way DD, if a squirrel eats 'cause it's hungry, hunger is a reason for eating. It's very much a terminological issue. Apart from this I didn't find much that was enlightening.

 

If the squirrel needed to ponder it over, instead of having been born with the instinct, by the time it logically deduced that eating would alleviate the discomfort it would likely be too late. It took several tens of thousands of years before homo sapiens sapiens started to formalize the inference rules of logic. Yet, if people hadn't been naturally making an intuitive use of logic long before Aristotle, we wouldn't have survived. It's what we had instead of other things.

 

After saying in the other thread that these things would be better discussed here than there I took a look here, that's why you got the response you did get during a month. Your reply came on the first day of my break.

 

Lots of people think I'm a dumb blonde, but that's okay, it doesn't really bother me much!

I had absolutely no doubt Buffy, that you're far too smart to let such things bother you!!! :evil:

[Doctordick]

Sorry I have not been following this forum. My wife's mother lives in Biloxi Mississippi and we had not heard from her since Katrina so we had to go down there to check it out. If anybody tries to go down there, make sure you have sufficient food, water and fuel to complete a round trip (we did) because you won't buy anything down there. Her mother and brother are alive and well. We brought them water and some food and they can pretty well survive a month. (They would not come back with us – fear of looters.) Her mother's house is still extant but her brother's house is totally gone (he couldn't even identify his lot). At any rate, it's not a pretty sight.

Try thinking of it this way DD, if a squirrel eats 'cause it's hungry, hunger is a reason for eating. It's very much a terminological issue. Apart from this I didn't find much that was enlightening.

Yes, I understand exactly where you are coming from. I tried very hard to make myself clear but no one seems to have picked up on the issue I was trying to convey. It reminds me of that old cliché "there are none so blind as those who will not see". ;)

 

I am probably wasting my time with this post but I will try again. :)

 

All of us have a world view from which we work when we think about anything. That world view springs from two very different phenomena: there is the instinctive component (which I have referred to as "squirrel decisions") and logical analysis.

Yet, if people hadn't been naturally making an intuitive use of logic long before Aristotle, we wouldn't have survived. It's what we had instead of other things.

It is exactly the presumption of "intuitive use of logic" which I am trying to direct attention to. That is, the presumption that their intuition has lead them to valid conclusions. It is exactly the validity of those intuitive conclusions which must be separated from the "examinable" logic we have come to think of as scientific.

 

What I am trying to bring to the forefront is that everything we think we know is a consequence of two very different procedures. The issue being that neither procedure can be ignored. We must, nevertheless make it very clear where the assumptions are being made. In my opinion, this is exactly where the whole philosophical approach goes astray: they do not make this separation.

 

Try reading my initial post again and see if you can grasp what I am trying to communicate. :eek2:

 

Good Luck -- Dick

[Dark Mind]

If anyone here finds fault with my arguments, please make your complaints clear.

What argument?... That was a manual...

A further problem with logical thought is that the number of specific steps in the process cannot be excessive as we must be consciously aware of each step.

:)

You did not just say that! Look at your own post!

What I am getting at is the fact that logical thought is actually a rather worthless endeavor when it comes to life and death decisions. It is often much better to "go with your gut"; let it be a squirrel decision. In fact, in the absence of mathematics, logical decisions are so limited as to be almost entirely inapplicable to any day to day activities.

So.... What you were getting at didn't even have anything to with the Title of the Thread... Well, that was rational ;).

 

However, when a problem can be approached with math and logic, one can be quite sure of the absolute validity of their conclusions. Well, "absolute" to a certain extent: it is possible that an important factor was omitted or that some axiom thought to be true is, in fact, false.

Wait, wait, wait... what does absolute mean, again?

 

Well, I had been hoping for an intelligent response to this thread. It has been over a month since I posted and only seventy nine people have even read it so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Well, congratulations... You got a very tired, *YAWN*, seventeen year old boy to read through a small novel that I thought contradicted itself on several occassions :D/:(.

 

The fact that so few people have even taken the trouble to look appears to imply that "Defining the nature of rational discussion" isn't an issue held in high regard here. That is too bad as it is actually the veritable key to understanding the universe. So I will respond to the only reply on the thread in the fond hope that further responses might occur. :D

I do believe many people hold this in high regard, but many people probably don't want to read a manual on something most of us already feel we are capable of doing... Holding a rational discussion.

 

I was also faintly reminded of the thread "How can Telepathy be Possible in Perspective of Science", by your first post.

The issue I tried to communicate is the difference between beliefs and deductions.

Failed miserably in my case :eek2:.

 

Sorry for these quick replies... But I really am tired, I would wait until tomorrow... But I'd probably remember how much time I spent last night copying and pasting and quoting and reading and replying... and eventually get to exasperated and never reply, so this is what you got ;).

 

Moving on :D...

What I was trying to point out is that, anytime we lose sight of the verifiable issue, we are blinding ourselves to the possibility of error.

I think I lost sight of the issue after one third of the first post.... wonder how many times I've erred since then ;).

I never said I had no interest in explaining things. What I was trying to communicate is...

Dr. dick, your posts are long (EXTREMELY :D), use proper English, and I have yet to find a single spelling error ;). You do seem to have trouble conveying your thoughts through text though. Perhaps you should rehearse what you're going to write in your mind (To make sure it will be clear to readers, and not just yourself) or at least revise what you have already written, so all excess material is removed and just the gist of what you're getting at remains ;).

 

Buffy's turn :D.

Well, one piece of advice: even smart people have short attention spans,...

I'm right here :D. And actually it was this post and this sentence that caught my attention and inspired me to wade through the plethora of paragraphs and posts I am now encountering :D.

 

CURSE YOU BUFFY! ;)

...and the length of your initial post in combination with the lack of a summary of your thesis in the first paragraph probably lost a lot of people early on.

Couldn't have said it better myself ;)

...now that I've read it, it seems to be a bit on the "obvious" side, so I think a lot of people may have had few "complaints" so didn't bother to respond, or like Q, ended up with what you might have considered a somewhat flip response.

I felt the same way... where was the "argument" he spoke of?...

If you really want to get into an argument here (or anywhere else for that matter) you've got to say something controversial, and yes, do say it in the first sentence, or better yet the title....

TAKE NOTES!!! You definitely missed this part ;).

 

...Read over many more lengthy posts... Hey! Another one by Doctordick :D!

 

Sorry for the length of my posts. It is no more than an attempt to be clear. I can see so many ways my comments can be misinterpreted I try to cover all the bases. In the end, the readers usually misinterpret me anyway. I guess I am just not a decent writer. But I try! ;)

Suggestions above ;).

In my life, I have never met anyone who's mind I would condescend to rank superior to my own. I was always told that intelligence was a measure of one's ability to solve problems: i.e., if two people know exactly the same things, the more intelligent one can do more with it. Think about that. Considering what the top people know, why is it that most of the breakthroughs are accomplished by youngsters? Now is that controversial enough for you Buffy? :D If you have a good answer for that one I would like to hear it. I have one; a very specific answer. :D

So... essentially you measure "intelligence" based on knowledge and creativity/ingenuity?... FINALLY, we agree on something :D. I find that last part to be rather flattering, thanks :D. :)

 

You know what?.... I'm too tired to finish... seriously :(.

 

I'll get back to this tomorrow, starting at post number 9, after your third quote from Buffy... SO TIRED!!! NEED SLEEP ;)!!

 

Well, good night all ;).

[Doctordick]

What argument?... That was a manual...

Apparently you missed the point.

I do believe many people hold this in high regard, but many people probably don't want to read a manual on something most of us already feel we are capable of doing...

Exactly, they don't examine the question because they feel they understand what they are doing. They make no separation between their "squirrel decisions" and their "logical decisions". If you want to have a "rational" discussion, you should make an effort to understand the separation I am talking about.

I think I lost sight of the issue after one third of the first post.... wonder how many times I've erred since then :D. Dr. dick, your posts are long (EXTREMELY :D), use proper English, and I have yet to find a single spelling error :). You do seem to have trouble conveying your thoughts through text though. Perhaps you should rehearse what you're going to write in your mind (To make sure it will be clear to readers, and not just yourself) or at least revise what you have already written, so all excess material is removed and just the gist of what you're getting at remains ;).

It appears to me that the problem is one of attention span. That's the basic problem in trying to have a rational conversation: i.e., when it comes to logical analysis, people simply fail to keep a sufficient breadth of relevant information in mind and instead, rely on their intuition to keep them safe. They essentially lose sight of what they can defend and what they cannot defend.

FINALLY, we agree on something :D. I find that last part to be rather flattering, thanks :). :lol:

What was it that we agreed upon? That most breakthroughs are accomplished by youngsters??? That is a well known fact. I asked for your explanation of that fact and you simply ignored the issue.

If you have a good answer for that one I would like to hear it. I have one; a very specific answer.

It appears to me that you just blindly read what I wrote hoping that understanding would arise within your mind by some Zen process ("squirrel decisions"); you seem to presume that you should be able to understand what I was talking about without any logical analysis of it at all. You should have stopped after the first sentence that didn't make sense to you and asked me about that statement.

I'll get back to this tomorrow, starting at post number 9, after your third quote from Buffy...

Attention span is not a measure of how long one can continue to accept incoming information. It is rather a measure of how long and how much information can be considered on a conscious level without resorting to compartmentalization (which is essentially ignoring the connections). I think you have already compartmentalized most of what you read. It will never make any sense to you if you cannot comprehend the difference between the two modes of thought.

 

Please do not take offense at anything I have said; I do not mean to depreciate your efforts. Success can not be achieved without effort.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Dark Mind]

No offense taken...

 

Perhaps I should wait another day before replying... You know, to let it sink. And give me time to analyze it.

 

Be back tomorrow :). And glad to hear you didn't take offense at anything I had written :lol:. Sorry, but I was REALLY tired and was getting a headache from staring at my monitor in the dark while trying to read...

[Qfwfq]

Sorry to hear your story, things are certainly bad down there.

 

What I am trying to bring to the forefront is that everything we think we know is a consequence of two very different procedures. The issue being that neither procedure can be ignored. We must, nevertheless make it very clear where the assumptions are being made. In my opinion, this is exactly where the whole philosophical approach goes astray: they do not make this separation.

:lol:

 

Who doesn't? I still don't find much novelty in what you say.

[Doctordick]

Sorry to hear your story, things are certainly bad down there.

And they are not getting better very fast. :frown: My wife and I have just returned from a 30 day tour of the far east (scheduled long before Katrina showed up) and will be spending substantial time on the coast in the near future sans internet access so please don't expect any rapid responses. :(

What I am trying to bring to the forefront is that everything we think we know is a consequence of two very different procedures. The issue being that neither procedure can be ignored. We must, nevertheless make it very clear where the assumptions are being made. In my opinion, this is exactly where the whole philosophical approach goes astray: they do not make this separation.

:confused:

 

Who doesn't? I still don't find much novelty in what you say.

I can only assume that you have not clearly comprehended the dichotomy I have attempted to bring to your attention. In this day and age, we have at our fingertips all the information we need to understand the true nature of reality and the answers to most all the philosophical questions which can be asked. What is missing is the fortitude necessary to examine what we know objectively and carefully. That examination can not be accomplished without a mechanism capable of maintaining the clear separation of the two phenomena above without neglecting either.

 

The common scientific method makes the assumption that all "squirrel conclusions" (that is, our instinctual beliefs) are valid truths unless they can be proved invalid: i.e., that our perceptions are correct so long as they cannot be shown to be illusions. This is clearly an invalid proposition which competent philosophers have pointed out on many occasions. However, the scientific position is to ignore the difficulty and proceed with "logical conclusions" on the presumption that those "squirrel conclusions" (the fundamental components of their world view) are correct. They derisively label any attempt to question that presumption as "solipsism" and utterly refuse to make any attempt to handle the difficulty. :shrug:

 

Philosophers on the other hand, while deriding the scientists failure to handle the difficulty, make exactly the same error only in slightly different clothing. They make the assumption that they know what they are talking about: i.e., they fail to comprehend that the meanings they personally attach to the words they use are also "squirrel conclusions" (once again, instinctual beliefs) which cannot be proved correct (as regards the issue of communication). Their position is also to ignore the difficulty and proceed with "logical conclusions" on the presumption that those "squirrel conclusions" (the fundamental components they use in their arguments ) are correct (are providing a valid communication of their thoughts). :(

 

I hold that a "rational discussion" must include both components and cannot ignore the problems inherent in those "squirrel conclusions". In my opinion, any argument which presumes those "squirrel conclusions" are valid cannot be regarded as "rational" but is instead should be thought of as "emotional". I would tend to categorize most all discussions on this forum as fundamentally emotional. ;)

 

The problem I am trying to bring to the forefront lies both in the scientific approach and in the philosophical approach, but I will excuse the scientists as they make their intentions quite clear; science is not concerned with truth but rather with "solutions" and the solutions must presume a problem (the problem is, of course, explaining their world view and, without a world view, no problems exist). I hold that the philosophical approach has gone astray because, if they also are going to consider only the "logical" aspects, they are providing nothing beyond the scientific approach and, under that constraint, the scientists are doing a much better job, leaving philosophy as a back seat issue. Establishing a valid world view is fundamentally a philosophical problem and I have some very important things to say on the issue. :surprise:

 

Has anything I have said make any sense to anyone here? :confused:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

We are aware of our limitations. At least, many of us are. We know that we must watch out for illusions and we know the axioms of a given theoretical structure must be checked with reality etc...

 

Who do you say has gone wrong and where, about which squirrel decisions?

[Doctordick]

We are aware of our limitations.

No, I don't think that is true. I am afraid everyone simply presumes they understand what they are doing. :confused:

At least, many of us are.

Most everyone, when pressed, will admit that they can not prove that reality, as they perceive it, is not an illusion; but none of them have made any effort, that I am aware of, to handle that problem. :frown:

We know that we must watch out for illusions and we know the axioms of a given theoretical structure must be checked with reality etc...

Yeah, everyone checks to see that their axioms are consistent with what they "believe" to be "reality", but none allow for the fact that their idea of reality is possibly erroneous. :surprise:

Who do you say has gone wrong and where, about which squirrel decisions?

Everyone! And I am talking about all their squirrel conclusions. Actually, if you understood what I am talking about, you would be able to give me at least one example of a "squirrel conclusion" which you can prove is correct before asking me which squirrel decisions were suspect. The issue is actually quite simple, all squirrel decisions must be held as suspect. What is important is that one have a logically consistent method of handling that all pervading aspect of rational thought. :confused:

 

I have come up with such a method but have found no one who will take the necessity of such an issue seriously. Actually, the consequences of taking the issue seriously are quite astounding. :shrug:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

Most everyone, when pressed, will admit that they can not prove that reality, as they perceive it, is not an illusion; but none of them have made any effort, that I am aware of, to handle that problem.

Which problem?

 

I have long been aware of that but there's not much you can do about it. :surprise:

 

What you maybe don't see is that logic and math aren't concerned with reality at all.

[Doctordick]

What problem? The problem is that the entire body of squirrel conclusions underlying all our logic deductions constitutes, from an objective scientific position, a fundamentally insupportable hypothesis . At the same time that same body of conclusions constitute the fundamental basis of any logical reasoning which can be developed. If you cannot comprehend the difficulty with that state, you simply haven't thought the issue out.

I have long been aware of that but there's not much you can do about it. :)

That sounds like you recognize the problem but decided long ago that it wasn't an issue worth thinking about. That seems to be the general attitude of the scientific community. At least it conforms perfectly with the reaction I have always received from the academy. There is never "much you can do about it" if you make no attempt.

What you maybe don't see is that logic and math aren't concerned with reality at all.

Now that is a rather sweeping statement isn't it? I rank it right there with magic: the essence of magic is misdirection of attention and it is my experience that the scientific community seems always to use such a maneuverer whenever it wants to deflect attention from issues they have difficulty explaining. (Now that is merely an opinion so please don't take me to task for it.)

 

Firstly, your comment certainly depends on the definition of the word "reality" and, secondly, it depends very much on exactly what you mean by the phrase "concerned with". Is physics concerned with reality? And, if it is, how far do you think you could get with physics if you removed both logic and math from the mix of tools you are to be concerned with?

 

If you will not recognize the validity of my complaint and insist on refusing to consider objective examination of the difficulty it seems to me that any attempt to go further is somewhat a waste of my time. The solution is neither trivial nor easy to communicate and takes an attention span somewhat beyond what seems to be the average. Unless you are ready to put some serious thought into the issues I present, I would prefer you just let me know before I spend too much time fighting a useless battle against willful ignorance. However, if you are ready to put a little serious thought into what I have to say, I am prepared to show you some very interesting facts.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

PS. I am off to Biloxi for a few days and will not be back until sometime next week.

[Qfwfq]

What problem? The problem is that the entire body of squirrel conclusions underlying all our logic deductions constitutes, from an objective scientific position, a fundamentally insupportable hypothesis.

Now, there you sound just like Popper with his ferocuios anti-inductivism!

 

I quite agree with his black swan argument, actually I've always considered it obvious, but when he argues there is no ground at all for induction as a method of inquiry I find him mistaken and pointless.

 

At the same time that same body of conclusions constitute the fundamental basis of any logical reasoning which can be developed.

;)

 

Once you have the inference rules of logic, you choose your axioms, wich can also include extra inference rules, and your ready set to go!

 

There is never "much you can do about it" if you make no attempt.

What do you propose to do about it?

 

 

Now that is a rather sweeping statement isn't it?

Have you ever seen a point, or the number three, of a function such as log, or any of the far more complicated objects that can be constructed?

 

Is physics concerned with reality?

Of course!!!!! Does that mean math must be?

 

I am prepared to show you some very interesting facts.

Which facts?

[Doctordick]

Sorry, I have been in Biloxi helping with some problems created by Katrina (and FEMA's handling of it).

Now, there you sound just like Popper with his ferocuios anti-inductivism!

Well, I guess I am quite adamant on the issue. I went into physics because I wanted to understand the world I found myself in and physicists seemed to at least be honest about what they knew and what was opinion. But, by the time I got to graduate school, my enthrallment with physicists began to pall. The further I got into it, the worse their defenses got. And it all has to do with the issue of induction. :(

I quite agree with his black swan argument, actually I've always considered it obvious, but when he argues there is no ground at all for induction as a method of inquiry I find him mistaken and pointless.

That is apparently the position of the entire physics community. Now I would say explaining what we think is going on is an extreamly important issue and, with regard to that issue, induction is a significant component as induction is little more than the logical presumption thatwhat we "think" we know is true; however, from a theoretical perspective, the fact that it is an unsupportable hypothesis is neither mistaken nor pointless. Ever since I got my Ph.D., I have been appalled by the total failure of the theoretical physics community to even admit the issue is serious. If no one never looks, how can one ever expect to resolve the problem. :shrug:

 

I am personally of the opinion that the sole reason for their refusal to look is their overt concern with "success" in their profession; i.e., fear of ridicule by their comrades and/or superiors. True understanding was never unraveled by the faint of heart afraid to look at what others called ridiculous problems. :D

:umno:

I don't quite understand exactly what you are saying "no" to. :)

Once you have the inference rules of logic, you choose your axioms, wich can also include extra inference rules, and your ready set to go!

This is no more than a mechanism with little use beyond arguing against looking at the fundamental problem I am trying to bring up. :)

What do you propose to do about it?

Some very sophisticated things as a matter of fact. In essence, I solved the problem over forty years ago and the solution is fascinating in its own right as it points to some very subtle errors in the current scientific view. :lol:

Have you ever seen a point, or the number three, of a function such as log, or any of the far more complicated objects that can be constructed?

Your question itself is based on a world view totally constructed from "squirrel conclusions" which, as I have already said, are logically undefendable from the word go. :naughty:

Of course!!!!! Does that mean math must be?

Of course??? Are you really going to assert that physics is concerned with reality without defining reality? Likewise, when it comes to math, without argument, all you are giving me here are opinions. Belief based on an undefendable opinion is called religion. :hammer:

Which facts?

Which facts??? Shouldn't that be what facts? Well nevertheless, the first fact is the fact that the problem does indeed have a solution. So long as you refuse to even consider that possibility I am certainly wasting my time. :( As I said,

The solution is neither trivial nor easy to communicate and takes an attention span somewhat beyond what seems to be the average.

Consider the following conundrum: most rational scientists will admit that they could be wrong about most everything, including most importantly exactly what is real. Yet they work very hard at understanding reality. This implies they believe they can understand reality without knowing what is real. That statement raises logical hackles all over the world. But yet it turns out to be true and I can prove it: it is indeed possible to understand reality without knowing what reality is. The critical factor is recognition that one is speaking of a mapping problem here; the fact that one can prove reality can be mapped into a finite set of concepts without knowing what reality is.

 

Unfortunately, to date the only people I have found with an interest in considering my logic also lack the mathematical background to follow me. I have read a great number of your posts and they contain strong evidence that your understanding of both mathematics and physics is substantial. That is one of the major reasons I continue this discourse; I still have some hope of getting your interest. :smart:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

I'm beginning to see that you're concerned with metaphysics, even more than epistemology, except where you talk about math as something to prove the reality of. Not surprising that you don't find many physicists interested in these issues.

But yet it turns out to be true and I can prove it: it is indeed possible to understand reality without knowing what reality is. The critical factor is recognition that one is speaking of a mapping problem here; the fact that one can prove reality can be mapped into a finite set of concepts without knowing what reality is.

Do you mean, along the lines of mapping certain aspects of realiy (shapes and sizes) onto concepts such as points, lines and surfaces, lengths and areas?

 

Are squirrel decisions something like the way Kant used the term "intuition"?

 

Unfortunately, to date the only people I have found with an interest in considering my logic also lack the mathematical background to follow me. I have read a great number of your posts and they contain strong evidence that your understanding of both mathematics and physics is substantial. That is one of the major reasons I continue this discourse; I still have some hope of getting your interest.

Exactly what mathematical background do you mean, that is necessary? I might be interested if I could understand more about where your aiming to get to.

[Doctordick]

I'm beginning to see that you're concerned with metaphysics, even more than epistemology, except where you talk about math as something to prove the reality of.

Seriously, I have been trained in physics and my interest is physics (at least as I understood it when I was young). As a graduate student, I found much of what was being put forward as physics to be based on undefendable hypotheses. Every theoretical physicist I ever met was a total believer in the correctness of physics theory and none even seriously considered the possibility they could be in error. It seemed (at least when I was involved) that the consensus was that the job of a theoretical physicist was to figure out ways to create valid approximations to what was known to be valid representations of reality. Everybody was doing what we used to call "number crunching". And it was all being done on machines which were wholly inadequate to the job. No one was considering the basis of their beliefs. :D

 

I had utterly no interest in pursuing a career of that nature. As a consequence, after I received my degree, I pretty well dropped out of the field and earned my living outside physics. However, I continued to think about those issues which had bothered me and, some ten years later, I had a breakthrough which I considered significant. I attempted to publish and was rejected. I don't think a referee ever saw it because the rejection was "this isn't physics, it's philosophy". I showed it to some philosophers and they said, "this isn't philosophy, it's mathematics" and the mathematicians said, "this isn't mathematics, it's physics". So they all refused to look. :)

 

So I guess metaphysics is as good a title as any other as I believe it means "beyond physics" though I would rather think of it as being "beneath physics" as it forms a foundation upon which physics can be built. I just call it logical deduction. :lol:

Not surprising that you don't find many physicists interested in these issues.

It was surprising to me forty years ago but I am not surprised by it much any more. In 1971, there was an editorial in "Physics Today" where physicists were being urged to make physics more relevant (so that they would get more public financial support). It was at that time that I realized that becoming relevant is about the worst thing that can happen to a science. If it's relevant, peoples incomes depend upon their being correct and they will fight tooth and nail not to face the possibility that their beliefs are wrong. It is only when people have no financial investment in the answer that they will be objective in their examinations. That's just human nature. :umno:

Do you mean, along the lines of mapping certain aspects of realiy (shapes and sizes) onto concepts such as points, lines and surfaces, lengths and areas?

No; as soon as you think of "shapes and sizes" you have already overstepped the bounds I am talking about. The concepts "shapes and sizes" are squirrel concepts themselves and cannot be logically deduced. And I don't know how Kant used the term "intuition" but I do use the term as a common usage reference to the same thing am talking about. I also see it as quite analogous to what is commonly called "zen". However, I don't think either term exhausts the range of phenomena I include in the adjective "squirrel". From my perspective, if it isn't logical deduction, its source is a "squirrel" conclusion and is subject to doubt. :)

Exactly what mathematical background do you mean, that is necessary? I might be interested if I could understand more about where your aiming to get to.

My aim was to understand the universe without making any assumptions. I am sure you understand the severe constraints imposed by disallowing induction as it is exactly that constraint which induces everyone to confidently state that success along those lines can not possibly be achieved. In fact that is the central reason everyone with any scientific education refuses to waste their time even thinking about my approach. (I will admit that I am often quite put off by their refusal to consider anything unconventional and seldom make much of an effort to relieve them of their ignorance. :hammer: )

 

However, as you well know, those ignorant of science will consider almost anything. :shrug: As a consequence, most everyone who has disdained to consider my thoughts tends to lack a comprehension of "exact" analysis; in particular, they tend to disregard mathematics as a tool useful to abstract thought. Exact statements in English are not easy to make. As a language, mathematics is the most exact language available; it is widely understood with minimal probability of misinterpretation. All one has to do is think about it a little.

 

The math necessary to follow me depends on how far you want to go. Unless you have at least some familiarity with setting up and finding solutions to partial differential equations there is little I can communicate to you. If you want to follow me all the way through general relativity, some knowledge of Euler-Lagrange relationships would be quite valuable. The logical path I take is somewhat devious as it goes through some unexplored abstract conceptual morass; however, it eventually leads to a clearing where much that you currently know can be seen confidently with some rather extreme clarity. :smart:

 

The starting point is a careful definition of exactly where one wants to go. One needs to comprehend that the desire to understand something is fulfilled by the ability to explain it. This requires an exact completely general abstract definition of an explanation. Asking the right question is the crux of solving any problem. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity