How can science ever hope to explain everything?

[DaveC426913]

So logic can't exist without observation/experience/experiment.

No, that is a non sequitur - it does not follow.

Logic can exist perfectly fine without observation and experiment. It's just that it has its limits when trying to explain the natural world.

 

[LostInSpaceTime]

No, that is a non sequitur - it does not follow.

Logic can exist perfectly fine without observation and experiment. It's just that it has its limits when trying to explain the natural world.

So logic is experience put to use then? How we are able to make sense of the world? Like we take the worlds "output" and logically apply it to life?
I don't see how logic would come before understanding.

 

[Mike2]

How did I managed to control all of the physics journals of the world? I don't buy the Fleishmann and Pons cold fusion paper, but they still managed to publish it in some electrochemistry journal. Somehow, my rejection of something will block such publication everywhere? This is absurd and one of the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

This is still besides the point. If you can't cite any peer-reviewed journals to back your claim, it doesn't belong here. You knew perfectly well what you were getting into with this forum.

Zz.

I don't really think Physics Forums have equiped its visitors to do professional research into little explored territory... like you're asking me to do. Do you expect me to actually buy those publications just to prove to myself they don't pubish what would interest me? Maybe Physic Forums should have a link or section to some tutorial on how to do physics research so they know if they are asking about something new and speculative.

I don't know how main stream they are, but I've found a few people doing work on foundational issues that might be relevant.

1) You're probably already aware of the work of Max Tegmark who thinks that the "physical world IS an abstract mathematical structure". See 5 Apr 2007:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

2) There is also the work of Frank J. Tipler who tries to answer the question, "Can the structure of physical reality be inferred by a pure mathematician?" He goes into some interesting detail between the relation of mathematics and physics in section 1 of this paper at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

3) But the work most closely related to my work is that of Ariel Caticha at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9804012

Caticha deliberately shys away from calling it a derivation of logic. I suspect he would probably have difficulty publishing it as physics if he did. But it talks in the language of logic using terms such as proposition to describe a generic experimental "setup". And using ANDs and ORs to construct more complicated experimentals setups from primitive setups. He distinguishes states with only space-time parameters, as I do. He uses the terms source and detector where I use premise and conclusion. He uses setup, denoted [x_f,x_i], where I use implication, denoted (x_i => x_f). He uses ^ and V for conjunction and disjunction where I use * and + from my engineering background.

His approach is to show that if setups are assigned an imaginary number (for "mysterious reasons"), then the conjunction of subsequent setups and the disjunction of parallel setups results in the multiplication and addition of the imaginary numbers, respectively. However, I start with the multiplication of implications in conjunction and the addition of paths in disjunction simply because it is part of a sample space. So I wonder if this algebra itself determines the imaginary numbers to each implication/setup. Both of us end with a path integral formulation of QM.

Comments welcome. Thanks.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sorry, but none of these things have anything to do with reinforcing the validity of what you are selling. You are not them, nor do you have their credentials. If it is not published, and it is your own pet project, do it in the IR forum.

Your attempts at getting free publicity of your work on here AND in the Philosophy forum, of all places, should cease immediately. This thread has run its course.

Zz.