Re: Spacetime

On 07/20/2024 06:04 AM, gharnagel wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 6:12:50 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 07/18/2024 07:29 PM, gharnagel wrote:

>
It seems that everyone is married to their own vision.
That's fine, but it seems to me that they should start
their own thread to discuss it.  Then everyone can decide
if they want to discuss it there.  I want arguments
against the ideas I've presented above.
>
“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
>
OTOH, I never learned much from an idiot, either.
>
All ideas fall short of reality, so Carl Sagan suggested
a way to get closer:
>
"Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to
be explained, think of all the different ways in which
it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you
might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right
answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.
>
"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just
because it’s yours."

>
If there's any good theory at all,
it's the one of them.

>
It seems to be an evolution.  Hypothesis A explains facts
of Group A observations, but leads to Group B observations
which require Hypothesis B, ...
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

Well, a Theory of Everything, traditionally in the West it's
a form of, "Mathematical Platonism", that a "Theory of Everything",
includes that idea that there's "A-Theory", a theory at all,
that's "constant consistent complete concrete", that there's
theory at all.
Then, these days are arrived at things like "well it must be
least action so let's call it sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials",
or that any "Prime Mover" is all the usual sort of omni-everything,
and whose work may be already done, that if there's a gradient
at all, there's one of them, and we can call it "Time" and with
regards to "Space" muchly the gravity of the things, while it
may be so that it's more "gravific" like Fatio/LeSage instead
of the usual notion of pull gravity by massy bodies constantly
doing work either pulling other objects or the metrics of the
coordinates of the geodesy itself, either way being same.
So, "gravity" is not even included in modern GR and the Newtonian,
while in QM it's that "it's a field theory" and "it's a gauge theory",
then as with regards to "the real fields are the total potential
fields" and "it's a smooth continuous manifold and a continuum
mechanics".
So, "The Theory" sort of has to balance both including pretty much
everything, while doing pretty much nothing.
Then, it's figured the easiest way that is arrives from some
"axiomless natural deduction" then for example to an "axiomless
geometry" that includes logic and all then geometry and all,
then for the study of the Universe our Space-Time, about this
its contents Matter, Charge, light's motion, and nuclear lifetime,
with matter and charge and infinite velocity and infinite state,
all sort of being one theory, then that the idea is that
the hologrammatic Universe's Space-Time continuum, arrives
at three space dimensions particularly just because of the
infinity and infinitesimals of a one dimension of continuity,
then that time is just the prime aspect of this "gradient",
thusly that it's all quite simple how it unfolds in a
"Strong Mathematical Platonist's Universe Hypothesis"
including "stronger logical positivism with a thorough
metaphysics of a constant consistent complete concrete
theory".
"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.