- 1,304

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Some say that quantum mechanics defies all logic and is not intuitive. They will state that there is no "Ontology" to help us understand it.

But over the last couple of days I've come up with a possible model of logic that may give us some ontology, restore the intuition, and possibly even help derive physics from logic itself.

What I have is an equation of propositional calculus that explains why reality can be described by the conjunction of every possible path. This would explain the necessity of path integrals. I don't have a derivation of why the lagrangian, yet. But the non-intuitive part seems to be the path integral which I think I can now explain.

I would like to discuss this description to see if others can help identify issues, and help fill in the blanks. Someone else may have already thought of this before, and I'd like some comment. One of the major issues for me will be can a "path" be described by one point in the path logically implying the next point. Or are paths beyond the scope of logic.

Dear Moderator, I ask permission to post this first because I don't want to waste my time if I'm going to be bumped into theory development just because it's new or too oversimplistic. Should I post or not?

But over the last couple of days I've come up with a possible model of logic that may give us some ontology, restore the intuition, and possibly even help derive physics from logic itself.

What I have is an equation of propositional calculus that explains why reality can be described by the conjunction of every possible path. This would explain the necessity of path integrals. I don't have a derivation of why the lagrangian, yet. But the non-intuitive part seems to be the path integral which I think I can now explain.

I would like to discuss this description to see if others can help identify issues, and help fill in the blanks. Someone else may have already thought of this before, and I'd like some comment. One of the major issues for me will be can a "path" be described by one point in the path logically implying the next point. Or are paths beyond the scope of logic.

Dear Moderator, I ask permission to post this first because I don't want to waste my time if I'm going to be bumped into theory development just because it's new or too oversimplistic. Should I post or not?

Last edited: