Re: Predictions from Mathematical model [Archive]

dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk

Feb4-05, 08:35 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nAssuming that your _ o represent individual particles, the problem with\na physics that contains models with as many components as the system\nunder study (the ultimate process physics) is that it is simply\nre-running experiments in a substitute medium. Such a strategy will\nprobably work and may provide a lot of work for technical staff.\n\nHowever, natural philosophy is about understanding as well as\nprediction. Mark Palenik summarises this when he talks of things being\n\'meaningful\'. According to Bertrand Russell understanding requires\nacquaintance and acquaintance involves the transformation of data into\nthe form that we call \'experience\'. This suggests that Physics is NOT\njust "a collection of mathematical models constrained by empirical\nobservation with the object of accurately predicting measurement\noutcomes", it is a collection of models framed in terms of experience,\nthe stuff of acquaintance knowledge, that accurately predict\nobservations of measurement outcomes.\n\n\nBest Wishes\n\nAlex Green\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Assuming that your _ o represent individual particles, the problem with
a physics that contains models with as many components as the system
under study (the ultimate process physics) is that it is simply
re-running experiments in a substitute medium. Such a strategy will
probably work and may provide a lot of work for technical staff.

However, natural philosophy is about understanding as well as
prediction. Mark Palenik summarises this when he talks of things being
'meaningful'. According to Bertrand Russell understanding requires
acquaintance and acquaintance involves the transformation of data into
the form that we call 'experience'. This suggests that Physics is NOT
just "a collection of mathematical models constrained by empirical
observation with the object of accurately predicting measurement
outcomes", it is a collection of models framed in terms of experience,
the stuff of acquaintance knowledge, that accurately predict
observations of measurement outcomes.

Best Wishes

Alex Green

Mike Helland

Feb5-05, 08:11 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk wrote:\n> Assuming that your _ o represent individual particles, the problem\nwith\n> a physics that contains models with as many components as the system\n> under study (the ultimate process physics) is that it is simply\n> re-running experiments in a substitute medium. Such a strategy will\n> probably work and may provide a lot of work for technical staff.\n\nYou are correct. We are re-running experiments in a substitue medium.\n\n> However, natural philosophy is about understanding as well as\n> prediction. Mark Palenik summarises this when he talks of things\nbeing\n> \'meaningful\'. According to Bertrand Russell understanding requires\n> acquaintance and acquaintance involves the transformation of data\ninto\n> the form that we call \'experience\'. This suggests that Physics is NOT\n> just "a collection of mathematical models constrained by empirical\n> observation with the object of accurately predicting measurement\n> outcomes", it is a collection of models framed in terms of\nexperience,\n> the stuff of acquaintance knowledge, that accurately predict\n> observations of measurement outcomes.\n\nIf I were to show you an untested prediction made by this approach that\nis unique, even at odds with general relativity, would you give the\nconjecture some serious attention?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Assuming that your _ o represent individual particles, the problem
with
> a physics that contains models with as many components as the system
> under study (the ultimate process physics) is that it is simply
> re-running experiments in a substitute medium. Such a strategy will
> probably work and may provide a lot of work for technical staff.

You are correct. We are re-running experiments in a substitue medium.

> However, natural philosophy is about understanding as well as
> prediction. Mark Palenik summarises this when he talks of things
being
> 'meaningful'. According to Bertrand Russell understanding requires
> acquaintance and acquaintance involves the transformation of data
into
> the form that we call 'experience'. This suggests that Physics is NOT
> just "a collection of mathematical models constrained by empirical
> observation with the object of accurately predicting measurement
> outcomes", it is a collection of models framed in terms of
experience,
> the stuff of acquaintance knowledge, that accurately predict
> observations of measurement outcomes.

If I were to show you an untested prediction made by this approach that
is unique, even at odds with general relativity, would you give the
conjecture some serious attention?

Mark Palenik

Feb8-05, 02:26 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:1107542961.077841.9000@l41g2000cwc.g ooglegroups.com...\n> dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk wrote:\n>\n> If I were to show you an untested prediction made by this approach that\n> is unique, even at odds with general relativity, would you give the\n> conjecture some serious attention?\n>\n\nNo. It sounds like your technique is a bad version of a thought experiment.\nIf it\'s at odds with GR, that indicates to me that your method is flawed.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107542961.077841.9000@l41g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> If I were to show you an untested prediction made by this approach that
> is unique, even at odds with general relativity, would you give the
> conjecture some serious attention?
>

No. It sounds like your technique is a bad version of a thought experiment.
If it's at odds with GR, that indicates to me that your method is flawed.

Mike Helland

Feb11-05, 02:48 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mark Palenik wrote:\n> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\n> news:1107542961.077841.9000@l41g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...\n> > dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk wrote:\n> >\n> > If I were to show you an untested prediction made by this approach\nthat\n> > is unique, even at odds with general relativity, would you give the\n> > conjecture some serious attention?\n>\n> No. It sounds like your technique is a bad version of a thought\nexperiment.\n> If it\'s at odds with GR, that indicates to me that your method is\nflawed.\n\nThe prediction in question is the surface area of an event horizon.\n\nGeneral relativity predicts some value, whereas the Multiple Natures\nConjecture predicts zero, or the inability to complete a direct\nmeasurement altogether.\n\nThis measureument, and hence, this prediction of GR has not been\nconfirmed by experiment.\n\nYou say that because a different hypothesis predicts something\nempircally unknown differently than an existing theory, that the new\nhypothesis is flawed?\n\nThat sounds completely and utterly unscientific.\n\nAm I the only one who thinks so?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mark Palenik wrote:
> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107542961.077841.9000@l41g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> > dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > If I were to show you an untested prediction made by this approach
that
> > is unique, even at odds with general relativity, would you give the
> > conjecture some serious attention?
>
> No. It sounds like your technique is a bad version of a thought
experiment.
> If it's at odds with GR, that indicates to me that your method is
flawed.

The prediction in question is the surface area of an event horizon.

General relativity predicts some value, whereas the Multiple Natures
Conjecture predicts zero, or the inability to complete a direct
measurement altogether.

This measureument, and hence, this prediction of GR has not been
confirmed by experiment.

You say that because a different hypothesis predicts something
empircally unknown differently than an existing theory, that the new
hypothesis is flawed?

That sounds completely and utterly unscientific.

Am I the only one who thinks so?