Chapter 12
Physics
mstaple@insync.net (Mark Stapleton) wrote: nickrich@netcom.com (Nicholas Rich) wheezed:
It comes down to this: everything in existence is some thing, by the law of identity. The NT physics is a collection of hypotheses which have no known contradictions with anything known, are generally falsifiable if in error, and are generally verifiable if valid.
Challenge
So! Finally, we come to the nut of the problem, and the difference between NT "physics" and reality.
Scientific method implies that no statement is true until proven by verifiable, repeatable means. NT "physics" implies that everything is true until proven false. So, NT "physics" flies in the face of the tenet of logic and argument which dictate that those who make positive statements are required to prove them.
Response
He's requiring that one prove an idea prior to possessing it.
Challenge
No, merely that one prove it before accepting it. Claims that have been proven neither true nor false have the status of arbitrary. Arbitrary claims have no place in either philosophy or physics.
Response
Well it's interesting that this post pops up at this particular moment.
First off, there is nothing in NT literature which suggests something should be accepted without proof. The closest it gets is that in a business-mode, one must visualize the future by being able to conceive of *what is not.* And if what-is-not can be shown to be a tremendous value, is possible and plausible, does not contradict anything known, etc., then the businessman sets out to validate it.
Now to the subject of NT Physics. Seems there has previously been alot of activity about "how absurd and off-the-wall it is". I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a gentleman during Thanksgiving dinner. He was present as the friend of a family member.
He teaches college level physics in Sacramento CA, has his undergrad degree from Berkley and a Masters in Physics from the Naval Postgraduate School. I asked him some questions because he indicated that what he teaches is basically classic physics and layman's understanding of relativity, but that he also keeps up-to-date with the latest ideas, hypotheses and theories.
So, I asked specifically about String Theory. Much of what he said I really didn't grasp, but what I did specifically grasp (keep in mind he knows nothing about NT/Z) was where he said that string theory seems to be showing that "space is something which will be shown to be the common unit of which everything is composed (I'm paraphrasing)." I asked, "so we're back to an ether or sorts?" He said, "we're back to an ether." I then asked, could string theory possible answer a basic question: what is existence, and whatever it is could be called an 'existence field?'' He replied in the affirmative.
I then objected on the grounds of the Michaelson-Morley experiment which disproved a fixed frame of reference and so discounted the notion of an either. He replied that that experiment, though valid, is not in the same context, and gave some reasons I did not completely grasp.
Anyway, we then discussed why I had been seeing so many objections from "physics majors" and former "physics teachers" when raising these same ideas. He suggested that they were simply out-of-date and did not have the benefit of new knowledge.
Now I have further confidence that the Neo-Tech physics are really onto something important. And the big distinction is that it integrates these ideas with sound Objectivist principles and the identification that consciousness controls existence.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com