# Exactly what is theory all about?

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Every theory I have ever heard is an attempt to explain something. It seems to me that the first issue is to understand the nature of an explanation. We can start with a very simple statement: all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. I don't care what it is that is to be explained, it can be categorized as information.

It follows (as the night the day) that "explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. It follows that the first question which must be answered is, exactly what does an explanation do to (or for) information? If you cannot answer that question, you are wasting everyone's time.

It is my humble opinion that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood (via that explanation we are all attempting to present), then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known. (If it isn't consistent with what is known, it is quite reasonable to egnored it without examination.)

If there is anyone out there who thinks that proposition is flawed, please let me know about it.

I am only trying to find a starting place for rational communication. If you agree with me, give me a little support .

Have fun -- Dick

Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org
Alkatran
Homework Helper
Or, in short: Some things you know, some things you don't. Find patterns to know more than you know.

Doesn't have quite the same "omph", does it?
And now I'm thinking about compression.

Great post.

DrChinese
Gold Member
Absolutely! A theory becomes useful because we don't know everything there is to know about something. If we did, a theory would not provide any utility.

Assuming a classical scenario in which there are a large number of variables of a deterministic system and we only know few values: a theory may in some cases give answers to questions we might not otherwise be able to answer. In this case, the theory is useful. Theories that provide greater accuracy or require fewer input variables are superior to other theories.

Michio Kaku gives some excellent guidelines for constructing a unified theory:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml [Broken]

What to Do If You Have a Proposal for the Unified Field Theory?
..and what not to do

By Michio Kaku

[...]

Last edited by a moderator:
I agree; great reminder ! I think Karl Popper had similar ideas.

Now if we could condense that down into a couple of sentences and hang it onto our theory making machine it would be even greater

Vern

Chronos
Gold Member
No disagreement here. I think in terms of observation and theory, where observation is the independent variable and theory is the dependent variable. Confusion creeps in when we attempt to shoe-horn observations to fit theory. We need not drop and run from our precious theories at the first hint of contradicting observation, but, should do a better job explaining the observations that do not quite fit. It is a safe bet we will not learn much from observations that perfectly fit theory. Most, if not all new knowledge resides in the observations that don't quite fit. We have probably already found most observations that fly in the face of everything we think we know.

Well, surprise, surprise! I have received unbelievable agreement! Apparently, everyone who has chosen to respond to my post has no serious disagreements with what I said. That (for me) is a singular achievement; however, I do note that no "mentor" has chosen to respond. How am I supposed to judge this particular fact? Either they agree (in which case, kindness would push them to say so) or they disagree (in which case, their expertise should push them to put forward their complaints). I can only conclude that I have stepped outside their expertise and they fear to comment.

Since I appear to be the "expert" on the issue under discussion, let me proceed and see if agreement can be obtained to the next level. Will you all allow me to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information?

From that perspective, it seems to me that any explanation must possess two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate those expectations.

Please, if any of you have disagreement with that suggestion, please let me know.

Have fun – Dick

What? Have I exceeded everyone's attention span already?

yes, unless you have a point, what you are musing is already "instinctual" to the human mind.

we're not seeing the reason you're fascinated with this topic.

in other words, you're providing a lot of explanation for something that doesn't need that much explanation.

jcsd
Gold Member
Theory is about, subjective statements, wild speculation and unsupported assertions. Any good theeory should contain the incorrectly spelt name of a famous physicst and the less maths and the more vague philosophizing the better.

Chronos
Gold Member
Russell E. Rierson said:
Michio Kaku gives some excellent guidelines for constructing a unified theory:
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml [Broken]
I entirely agree with Dr. Kaku. Good post Russ

Last edited by a moderator:
Doctordick said:
What? Have I exceeded everyone's attention span already?
Here is a reference thread for everyone interested Dr. D:

Doctordick said:
I will suggest that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered. That could be regarded as the definition of "knowing". On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

Thus I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. It follows that a model of an explanation must possess two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate expectations for possible additional information.

The first fundamental component is, "what is to be explained"; thus our first problem is to find an abstract way of representing any body of information. Let "A" be what is to be explained and proceed with the following primitive definitions:

1. A is a set.

2. B is a set, defined to be an unordered finite collection of elements of A

3. C is defined to be a finite collection of sets B.

[...]

Chronos
Gold Member
I find no flaw in what DrD said.

Chronos said:
I find no flaw in what DrD said.
In that same thread Dr. D derives the fundamental equation:

Doctordick said:
It follows that our model may state that the Probability of any specific B is given by

$$P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)dv$$​

without introducing any limitations whatsoever on the nature of the explanation being modeled. The $\vec{x}$ stands for the complete collection of x and $\tau$ defining that specific B. The "dot" indicates a scalar product, $\vec{\Psi}$ is to be properly "normalized" and "dv" is dxd$\tau$. Since no constraint whatsoever has been placed on the problem by this notation, it follows that absolutely any explanation may be modeled by the function $\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)$ where the argument is the collection of points which are mapped from the elements of the appropriate B (it should be understood that "B" is a reference to a specific expectation).
Dr. D appears to agree with special relativity yet he has said that general relativity is not necessarily true.

There are no tensor equations, thus no coordinate independence. Then again Dr. D states that the above equation can model any explanation.

Interesting...

DrChinese
Gold Member
Doctordick said:
Will you all allow me to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information?

From that perspective, it seems to me that any explanation must possess two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate those expectations.

Have fun – Dick
I think I agree with this, tell me if my terminology is diverging...

a) A theory is a useful model of a subset of reality.
b) [Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]
c) It is implied that there are variables on the Input side that are held constant or are unknown.
d) It is implied that there are variables on the output side that are not explained.
e) Theories can then be compared based on Input Variable requirements, scope of Output Variables, and in some cases on relative accuracy.

Am I close? :)

DrChinese said:
I think I agree with this, tell me if my terminology is diverging...

a) A theory is a useful model of a subset of reality.
I would have to agree with that 100%.
DrChinese said:
b) [Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]
c) It is implied that there are variables on the Input side that are held constant or are unknown.
I would say that the "Input variables" are either known or at least presumed.
DrChinese said:
d) It is implied that there are variables on the output side that are not explained.
I would say that the "->" stands for the explanation. The "Output variables" are the prediction of the theory under the assumption that the "Input variables" are what is known.
DrChinese said:
e) Theories can then be compared based on Input Variable requirements, scope of Output Variables, and in some cases on relative accuracy.
I would say, in all cases, on their relative accuracy.
DrChinese said:
Am I close? :)
About as close as one can get at this point.

I am sorry but it appears that my presence on this forum is in the process of being terminated. I have already been constrained to only post on the "Theory Development sub-forum" and now the privilege of starting a thread has been rescinded. I also note that this is the only open thread started by me which has not been locked. When they lock this thread, the thing is all over. Anyone who wants to talk to me is welcome to e-mail me at "doctordick01" at yahoo.com.

The reason for this exclusion is apparently justified by the published standards:

1) Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. That is, if you have any arguments with the adequacy of those standards, go away.

2) There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. That is, those discussions must acquiesce to the present interpretation of the proper way to attack those questions.

3) Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. That is, we want total control of anything that is inconsistent with the currently accepted catechism of "Physics".

4) Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. What does this mean? That the mentors no longer feel adequate to the defense of positions against what is being posted?

5) Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Now this one is being used against my posts under the assumption that what I am posting is "theoretical" and thus an "unfounded challenge of mainstream science". That is, they know what is correct and they are not going to countenance any pressure to think!

6) Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum. Now they can officially fix it as the "Nuts are us" sub-forum!!!

With regard to the standards published, I didn't intend to be "defensive and combative". I was only trying to get a little attention to the issues from the more educated members of the forum. If you have followed very many threads on the forum, you should realize that the educational level on the "nuts are us" forum (a term used by the mentors themselves, not invented by me) is quite low. There is a strong possibility that the mentors (plus a few minority posters) are the only people with sufficient understanding of fundamental mathematics to understand what I am doing. I really have been drawn to the opinion that they are not interested in thinking but rather in getting ego boosts by pointing out the intellectual inadequacy of the people who post here.

It would appear that my efforts to reach anyone on this forum has effectively come to an end. I guess I have just pissed too many people off. I will continue to read and post to this thread until they lock it.

Have fun -- Dick

Doctordick said:
I am sorry but it appears that my presence on this forum is in the process of being terminated. I have already been constrained to only post on the "Theory Development sub-forum" and now the privilege of starting a thread has been rescinded.

[...]

I really have been drawn to the opinion that they are not interested in thinking but rather in getting ego boosts by pointing out the intellectual inadequacy of the people who post here.

I cannot post a new topic either. But it probably is not a matter of "ego-boosts" Dr. D. It is probably a matter of worry over the possibility of being overrun by "nutz & cranks"

As far as not being able to post a new topic, I think it is unfair! I love to brainstorm! But of course, beggars can't be choosers

Now back to the question of coordinate independence Dr. D...

I had lost my ability to do anything the other day.

I was Erck, now I'm using my real name.

It is allowing me to do everything but post a new thread.

As my old username I posted one of the most popular ones on the forum... "what is nothing?"

What will make me worthy of starting another thread if I want to.

What's going on here... could a moderator please explain.

chroot
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
We are attempting to maintain high standards of academic quality on this site. In other words, we do not permit personal theories, attacks on established science that are not immaculently in accordance with the scientific method, and so on. We encourage you to continue your discussions elsewhere. Two suggestions are the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics and the forum www.sciforums.com.

- Warren

chroot said:
We are attempting to maintain high standards of academic quality on this site. In other words, we do not permit personal theories, attacks on established science that are not immaculently in accordance with the scientific method, and so on. We encourage you to continue your discussions elsewhere. Two suggestions are the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics and the forum www.sciforums.com.

- Warren
Doctordick appears to have derived some very abstract ideas, that would meet almost anyone's criteria for "high academic standards". Yet those who would be the most qualified here at PF remain silent and quietly attempt to
brush Dr. D aside.

What's up with that???

russ_watters
Mentor
Russell E. Rierson said:
Doctordick appears to have derived some very abstract ideas, that would meet almost anyone's criteria for "high academic standards". Yet those who would be the most qualified here at PF remain silent and quietly attempt to
brush Dr. D aside.

You answered your own question. His abstract ideas, quality aside, are largely unscientific.

Unscientific???

russ_watters said:
You answered your own question. His abstract ideas, quality aside, are largely unscientific.
I would love to see your definition of "scientific".

If you had the attention span to follow the arguments given in the presentation at:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm [Broken]

You would understand the fact that, under the definitions of the concepts I lay down, the equation I deduce:

$$\left\{\sum_i\vec{\alpha_i}\,\cdot\,\vec{\nabla_i}\,+\, \sum_{i\not=j}\beta_{ij}\delta(\vec{x_i}\,-{\vec{x_j}})\right\} \vec{\Psi}\,\,=\,\,K\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}\,= \,iKm\vec{\Psi}$$

constrained by the requirement that

$$\sum_i\vec{\alpha_i}\,\vec{\Psi}\,=\,\sum_{i\not=j}\beta_{ij}\,\vec{\Psi}\, =\,0.$$

must yield the correct probability of any specific element of any conceivable explanation of anything! That is a fact and not an opinion. All it takes to understand the fact that it is not an opinion is sufficient care to step through the logical arguments presented.

It follows that any explanation of anything must have, in its foundation, elements which obey my fundamental equation. That is not a trivial statement. A careful examination of the solutions to that equation shows that it is an extremely powerful tool.

Nowhere have I presented anything theoretical. What I have presented is nothing more than an alternate perspective on the nature of reality; a new paradigm.

The fact that the paradigm is 100% consistent with what is known of the universe flows from two directions:

1.) The abstract proof that, under my specific definitions, the equation must be valid; it cannot be false. That proof is given at the site cited above.

2.) The solutions of the equation which I have managed to find. Which are presented starting at:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_II.htm [Broken]

These are facts which the scientific community is, in general, ignorant of purely because of their failure to look. And there is nothing "unscientific" about my presentation. The fault lies almost completely with the non-scientific bias of the academic community.

Have fun -- Dick

Last edited by a moderator:
In a section called "Theory Development"... who's to say personal theories are not allowed? Who's to say what "scientific" means?

Isn't that bordering on the narrow-mindedness that new theories never spring from?

Who's to say that logic isn't the root of all inquiry?

Who's to say that all that has come before, must be followed, in order to make progress?

Sure, there's people of different levels of intelligence on this forum, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Unless of course, this is becoming a private club of people who agree with each other.

chroot
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
We reserve the right to prohibit any sort of discussion we, the staff of PF, want to prohibit. You accepted these terms when you registered. If you want to discuss personal theories, you must do it elsewhere.

- Warren

Warren, I guess I misunderstood what "Theory Development" means.

I gather it means "Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories.

Where do people go who have personal theories and would like to disucss them?

Is there a place on this forum for such a thing?