Journal of Nonlocality

reply to post by 1Agnostic1

Anyone challenging Quantum Mechanics/Theory can ONLY do it because he's too dumb to understand QM concepts?

It would take a very stupid person to interpret my earlier remarks in that way.

I adressed that point in my last comments. Did you read them?

Since you obviously aren't qualified to to have an opinion on the subject, I didn't bother.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1


For someone who claims to be logical, your reasoning is highly illogical. Aristotelian Logic is entirely grammar based. All of the objections you make to mathematical reasoning apply to Aristotlian Logic as well. Quantum Theory is based upon empiricism, not mysticism.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1

 

For someone who claims to be logical, your reasoning is highly illogical. Aristotelian Logic is entirely grammar based. All of the objections you make to mathematical reasoning apply to Aristotlian Logic as well. Quantum Theory is based upon empiricism, not mysticism.

So, when you run out of arguments, because faced with a compelling analysis, you just state that my propositions are 'highly illogical' (without providing any counterargument) and you think it‘s good enough?
For anyone who reads my last 2 posts and is enough open-minded (has no agenda) to at least consider the points made, I’m sure that they make a lot of sense actually.

As for your last reply:
(Aristotelian) Logic is NOT grammar based. Logic is at a higher cognitive level than grammar (therefore than mathematical rules).

Logic (or dialectic) is the "mechanics" of thought and analysis; grammar is the mechanics of a language; rhetoric is the use of language to instruct and persuade.

This is the trivium, btw.

I don't want to get into too much details, but Logic determines if a speech (language) is sound, grammar 'simply' allows us to agree on common rules establishing the FORM language should/must take to be intelligibly expressed and received/perceived by an interlocutor.

In other words, Logic is about the soundness (the ’truth’/rationality) of ideas/thoughts/hypotheses).

Grammar is about the validity of the expression of ideas/thoughts/hypotheses. It 'simply' intervenes (at a lower cognitive level, then) to determine the compliance of speech to rules on the FORM speech should take; rules that we arbitrarily agree upon and, therefore, have no intrinsic cognitive value.

Formal Logic is a subset of logic since, and there your answer would be correct, it is about the form that an argument/demonstration should/must adopt in order to be adequately presented.

We, indeed, must follow a set of rules (a grammar) to be able to express ideas/thoughts in a understandable manner by someone else (any interlocutor sharing the same language or knowing it).
But they don’t determine the soundness of the idea expressed.

Thus, Mathematics, which are nothing more than a language, have their 'grammar' (their set of rules) BUT compliance to these internal arbitrary rules only goes so far as to determine their own validity.

The problem is that we have mathematicians that push the idea that Mathematics are not created by man but discovered by him. - They’re like God/Nature’s language. -
Again, for them, the simple fact that an equation is valid makes it, de facto, sound/true.
Therefore we see mathematicians developing maths with no consideration with Reality whatsoever. They truly believe scientific concepts and theories (our understanding and interpretation of Reality/phenomena) should conform to their equations… This is preposterous and ridiculous. The exact OPPOSITE is true.

In NO WAY valid mathematical equations are, de facto, SOUND (no, they are not God‘s language)! They don’t teach anything about reality.
Mathematics should be a language used by scientists to express (in a quantitative way) their interpretation/hypotheses of phenomena, no more, no less.

Any hypothesis should come in a LOGICAL/sound metaphysical/philosophic content and form and expressed by words BEFORE to be translated into mathematics and equations.
Like an idea, a thought is formed (in your brain/mind) before its expression via speech/language. (Except for people speaking out of their a$$es of course.)

This is so basic that I’m baffled by the fact it can be argued against and not applied, today, by scientists.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1

Any hypothesis should come in a LOGICAL/sound metaphysical/philosophic content and form and expressed by words BEFORE to be translated into mathematics and equations.

Here is where you go astray. An hypothesis needs to "explain" observations and experimental results. If the arbitrary rules of the a priori logical system one applies are incapable of explaining the phenomenon, one must consider the possibility that the system of logic being used is inadequate to the task.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1

 

Any hypothesis should come in a LOGICAL/sound metaphysical/philosophic content and form and expressed by words BEFORE to be translated into mathematics and equations.

Here is where you go astray. An hypothesis needs to "explain" observations and experimental results. If the arbitrary rules of the a priori logical system one applies are incapable of explaining the phenomenon, one must consider the possibility that the system of logic being used is inadequate to the task.

I agree with your statement… Completely. Surprised?
BUT it doesn’t mean that’s what’s happened (happening) with (Quantum and, in a less profound manner, astro) physics, mathematics and logic.

Logic (NOT intuition though) CAN explain ALL the phenomena that are claimed to be intrinsically a-causal or non-deterministic (those which are declared unexplainable and simply described), therefore non-logical, by Quantum Theory. (Here you’re thinking: “Prove it”… But you should know I already started in my various posts on different threads. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, though. I just try to put a dose of sanity back into the minds of the readers.).
Alternative theories CAN be proposed, tested and validated. I try to do just that at a theoretical and ontological levels.
The problem is trying to do so is not ALLOWED and, when (poorly, most of the time – which is a problem for sure -), done anyway, ridiculed and/or hidden.

More, when scientists encounter, in their own experiments, evidence that contradicts or threatens the dominant theory, it’s dismissed or explained in so preposterous a way that it becomes ridiculous (not to mention disheartening). They have to create even MORE stupid concepts to reinforce the already nonsensical ones! This is without end!
They keep on digging Physics’ grave and I don’t see them stopping anytime soon. (When you know they’ve been at it for a century, you can imagine how low we are by now).

They even justify their ‘cover up’ by brandishing the specter of the “broken laws of Physics”:
As the laws of Physics cannot be broken (something which I agree with), it is their DUTY to find an explanation (to the discrepancies) that conforms with them…
The ‘only’ thing they forget to mention is that Quantum and Relativity THEORIES are just that: THEORIES.
They aren’t the laws of physics at all. They are simply INTERPRETATIONS of phenomena.
So, what they truly should do is re-examined their theories. But this isn’t allowed, remember?

And this goes for astrophysics as well. Thankfully not to the same extent as Quantum physics since they can’t model the macro level as they would like to because, well, causality is UNDENYABLE at this level.
Trajectories do indeed exist; planets do orbit around stars; their position and speed can be BOTH OBSERVED (at the same time), calculated and predicted…
These pesky facts prevent them from pushing concepts like non-locality (which is the cornerstone of QM theory) in astrophysics. No, they can only hijack the quantum level and make a mystical/magical reality out of it.


To conclude, there is a reason I placed the statement you quoted at the end of my post. It is its conclusion and maybe the most important point I can make. Since, ONLY when one does accept that, ‘truth’ can be accessed. Or at least one can stop BELIEVING non-causal theories (more like nonsensical mystical mumbo jumbo).
Following this simple principle will even stop someone to formulate these preposterous ideas in the first place.