Re: The problem with physics

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 12:27:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2019 12:30 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2019 4:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 6:57 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:26 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: />>> Only things that are nomologically possible given your particular initial conditions can happen./ >> Or to say the exact same thi

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Nov 2019, at 22:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 11/18/2019 12:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 17

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 12:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about [wave function collapse, it was tacked on by people who wanted only one world. John K Clark True about Schrödinger, but

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 12:30 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2019 4:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 3:59 AM Philip Thrift wrote: >> Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about [wave function collapse, it >> was tacked on by people who wanted only one world. >> > > *> True about Schrödinger, but there are one world formulations in which > there is no wave function collapse,

Re: The problem with physics

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 8:46:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Nov 2019, at 15:28, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:01:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Then a huge technical problem is that the term “model” is used in >> opposite

Re: The problem with physics

> On 19 Nov 2019, at 09:59, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about [wave function collapse, it was > tacked on by people who wanted only one world. > > John K Clark > > > > > True a

Re: The problem with physics

> On 19 Nov 2019, at 01:33, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for various possible > outcomes. But that's not the end of the science. You also > observe/measure/experience some

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:26 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: *>>> Only things that are nomologically possible given your particular >>> initial conditions can happen.* >>> >> >> >> Or to say the exact same thing with different words, everything that >> can happen does happen. >> > > > *Hmmm! You have to

Re: The problem with physics

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 22:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2019 12:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 7:43 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote: >> >> > Adrian Kent's https:/

Re: The problem with physics

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 21:08, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2019 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Testing Z1* or X1*, or even just S4Grz1 would be enough to see if QM is >> Turing-epistemic or not. The test done so far confirms it Turing-epistemic >> character.

Re: The problem with physics

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 15:28, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:01:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Then a huge technical problem is that the term “model” is used in opposite >> sense by physicists and logicians, and the sense of “model” used by >> logicians

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 6:48 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:48 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >> If the Schrödinger equation really means what it says and everything >>> that can happen does happen >>> >> >> *> The Schroedinger equation says nothing of the sort.. Only things tha

Re: The problem with physics

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:08:02 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > True about Schrödinger, but there are *one world* formulations in which > there is *no wave function collapse,* or *no wave function* at all to > begin with. > > @philipthrift > > “The idea that they [measurement outcomes]

Re: The problem with physics

> True about Schrödinger, but there are one world formulations in which > there is no wave function collapse, or no wave function at all to begin with. > > @philipthrift > “The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic

Re: The problem with physics

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about [wave function collapse, it was > tacked on by people who wanted only one world. > > John K Clark > True about Schrödinger, but there are *one world* formulations in which there

Re: The problem with physics

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/18/2019 4:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for various possible >> outcomes. But that's not

Re: The problem with physics

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:48 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> If the Schrödinger equation really means what it says and everything >> that can happen does happen >> > > *> The Schroedinger equation says nothing of the sort.. Only things that > are nomologically possible given your particular initial co

Re: The problem with physics

The sophistication of how to use knowledge is arguable to no end. But for reasons of fascination you may thread two wires between knowledge and consciousness. The more conscious an entity is, the more it can observe and reflect upon its environment and use knowledge to pursue its fundamental goa

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/18/2019 4:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for various possible outcomes.  But that's not the end of the science.  You also observe/measure/experience some particul

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/18/2019 3:23 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via > wrote: >> If you fire electrons at 2 slits and observe the slits then each electron takes a real path through one and only one slit an

Re: The problem with physics

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for various possible > outcomes. But that's not the end of the science. You also > observe/measure/experience some particular outcome. And then you compute > future path i

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:24 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> If you fire electrons at 2 slits and observe the slits then each >>> electron takes a real path through one and only one slit and no >>> inte

Re: The problem with physics

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> If you fire electrons at 2 slits and observe the slits then each >> electron takes a real path through one and only one slit and no >> interference pattern is produced. If you fire electrons at 2 slit

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/18/2019 1:23 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:08:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: Stochastic modeling has nothing (in general) to do with Bayesian modeling. (Though the latter of course can be considered

Re: The problem with physics

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:08:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > >> > Stochastic modeling has nothing (in general) to do with Bayesian modeling. > (Though the latter of course can be considered a special case of the > former.) And quantu

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/18/2019 12:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 7:43 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: *> /Adrian Kent/*/'s/ https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6565 /"real path quan

Re: The problem with physics

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 7:43 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > *> Adrian Kent**'s* https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6565 *"real path quantum >> theory" RPQT* >> > > If you fire electrons at 2 slits and observe the slits then each ele

Re: The problem with physics

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 7:43 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> Adrian Kent**'s* https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6565 *"real path quantum > theory" RPQT* > If you fire electrons at 2 slits and observe the slits then each electron takes a real path through one and only one slit and no interference pattern is

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/18/2019 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Testing Z1* or X1*, or even just S4Grz1 would be enough to see if QM is Turing-epistemic or not. The test done so far confirms it Turing-epistemic character. What does "Turing-epistemic" mean? Brent -- You received this message because you are s

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/17/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 11:23:29 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2019 2:47 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 4:36:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/16/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

> On 16 Nov 2019, at 04:49, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:06:08 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > I notice you habitually avoid

Re: The problem with physics

> On 16 Nov 2019, at 02:51, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:06:08 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > I notice you habitually avoid discussing the problem of ontological versus > > epistemological > > It

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 22:05, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > I notice you habitually avoid discussing the problem of ontological versus > > epistemological > > It is a ontological fact that Bell's inequality is

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 11:23, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 4:02:57 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > >> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell > > ha scritto: >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 11:07, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:02:57 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote: > > > > >> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell > > ha scritto: >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 11:04, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 1:34:40 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 6:20:07 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:09:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > On 11/

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 11:02, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > > >> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell >> ha scritto: >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >

Re: The problem with physics

:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after > many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute > ontolog

Re: The problem with physics

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:01:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Then a huge technical problem is that the term “model” is used in opposite > sense by physicists and logicians, and the sense of “model” used by > logicians is technical and required some good understanding of what is

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 04:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2019 6:30 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 7:18:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14,

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 03:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> Newton is considered superior, not j

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 01:23, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:20:59 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's m

Re: The problem with physics

5:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after > many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute > ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the wf. This leads > to all kin

Re: The problem with physics

> On 15 Nov 2019, at 00:56, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that&#x

Re: The problem with physics

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 11:23:29 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/17/2019 2:47 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 4:36:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/16/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 4:45:5

Re: The problem with physics

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 5:01:58 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:34 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > >> Apply Einstein's Razor too, "make things as simple as possible but not >>> simpler." >>> >> >> *But the MWI is the most UN-parsimonious interpretation possible!*

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/17/2019 2:47 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 4:36:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/16/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 4:45:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/16/2019 2:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 4:36:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/16/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 4:45:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/16/2019 2:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:54

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/16/2019 11:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 4:45:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/16/2019 2:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:54:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: The epistemic interpretation just says the wf is o

Re: The problem with physics

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:34 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > >> Apply Einstein's Razor too, "make things as simple as possible but not >>> simpler." >>> >> >> *But the MWI is the most UN-parsimonious interpretation possible!*

Re: The problem with physics

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:34 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> Apply Einstein's Razor too, "make things as simple as possible but not >> simpler." >> > > *But the MWI is the most UN-parsimonious interpretation possible!* > I don't see why having 2 completely different sets of physical laws, one for when

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 4:45:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/16/2019 2:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:54:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> The epistemic interpretation just says the wf is our mathematical >> representation of what we kno

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/16/2019 2:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:54:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: The epistemic interpretation just says the wf is our mathematical representation of what we know about reality. If that is the definition of epistemic, then any mathematica

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:54:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > The epistemic interpretation just says the wf is our mathematical > representation of what we know about reality. > > If that is the definition of epistemic, then any mathematical physics is epistemic ("ur mathematical repres

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 4:27:50 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:39 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > >> *> Applying an epistemological interpretation doesn't guarantee that >> everything in nature will be explained; rather, it avoids the worst >> interpretations

Re: The problem with physics

Really late, but for the center of the Solar System use Solar system barycentric coordinates. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/15/2019 11:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 9:49:02 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:06:08 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:39 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > *> Applying an epistemological interpretation doesn't guarantee that > everything in nature will be explained; rather, it avoids the worst > interpretations that egregiously depart from common sense. * Common sense is screaming that Bell's

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 9:49:02 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:06:08 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>>

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 2:06:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> I notice you habitually avoid discussing the problem of ontological >> versus epistemological * > > > It is a ontological fact that Bell's inequality is violated

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:06:08 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >> *> I notice you habitually avoid discussing the problem of ontological >>> versu

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:06:08 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> I notice you habitually avoid discussing the problem of ontological >> versus epistemological * > > > It is a ontological fact that Bell's inequality is violated a

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:27 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> I notice you habitually avoid discussing the problem of ontological > versus epistemological * It is a ontological fact that Bell's inequality is violated and there is no epistemological explanation for that fact. You keep wanting a mental

Re: The problem with physics

..@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my > > > conclusion after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, > > > perhaps most, attribute ontological character to what is epistemo

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 4:57:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:48:44 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote: >> >> Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan Grayson ha >> scritto: >> >> The problem with physics is phy

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:48:44 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote: > > Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan Grayson > ha scritto: > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after > many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many,

Re: The problem with physics

> Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan Grayson ha > scritto: > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after > many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute > ontological character to what is epistemologic

Re: The problem with physics

>>>>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson >>>>&

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 4:02:57 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell > ha scritto: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah,

Re: The problem with physics

; >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:56:33 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:02:57 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote: > > > > Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell > ha scritto: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah,

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 1:34:40 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 6:20:07 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:09:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/14/2019 3:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>

Re: The problem with physics

> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell > ha scritto: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my > conclusion after many years

Re: The problem with physics

; >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:56:33 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>

Re: The problem with physics

; >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The problem

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 6:20:07 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:09:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/14/2019 3:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> It's not as accurate because it's not as "true". If the Earth had > approximately the s

Re: The problem with physics

> >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The problem

Re: The problem with physics

> >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion >>>> after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most,

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/14/2019 7:27 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/14/2019 6:30 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 7:18:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2019 6:30 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 7:18:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:0

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/14/2019 6:30 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 7:18:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 7:18:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> Newton is considered superior, not just becaus

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: Newton is considered superior, not just because his theory was more accurate, but because it had a universal

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Newton is considered superior, not just because his theory was more >> accurate, but because it had a universal application. The greatest >> importance of Newton was that he

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:20:59 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after >> many years of studying, argui

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: Newton is considered superior, not just because his theory was more accurate, but because it had a universal application.  The greatest importance of Newton was that he broke the idea that the heavens went by different rules than the E

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:20:59 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after >> many years of studying, argui

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after > many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute > ontological character to what is epistemologic

Re: The problem with physics

25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion >>> after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, >>> attribute ontological character to what is epistemological; na

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/14/2019 3:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion

Re: The problem with physics

> >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion >>>> after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most,

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:56:33 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:56:33 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after >> many years of studying,

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after > many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute > ontological character to what is epistemologic

The problem with physics

The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the wf. This leads to all kinds of conceptual errors, and ridiculous model

<    1   2