• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

"Theories"

Pizzabeak

Banned
Local time
Today, 08:03
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,668
Correct anything that appears to be wrong, I beg, because I know there are people here smarter than I am, plus who have the necessary training/education & discipline in this stuff.

So we're operating under the assumptions that, while theories offer a close enough explanation of the phenomena they examine, they can never be proven 100% true due to our limited perspective (if we met sentient life from elsewhere could we compare & contrast notes?)...
So while there are models & theories such as Darwin's Natural Selection, which is largely a consequence of our environment & limited resources and perhaps the type of life that arose here (I'd imagine there may be a type of life out there that doesn't need to participate in these games, but this is rather speculative, maybe groundless, and probably irrelevant) and other phenomena that science is able to explain & back up, justify. An example would be lasers, and how, say, Planck introduced his constant followed by Einstein laying the groundwork for stimulated emission of radiation while stimulated absorption was already a well known thing I believe. The scientists that proposed and eventually developed a working laser must have had a decent enough idea of how certain theories or laws worked, and the practical implications that came along with such an understanding. Especially after working with and developing 'masers' for a while, they must have figured visible light amplification was possible based off their understanding of the currently available & widely accepted theories, laws, physics and what not at the time.

So the point is that all (unless there are some I am not aware of that don't happen to fall under the category of philosophy or some psychological behaviour) these scientific theories that explain phenomena are material based. I understand this makes experimenting with repeatable results easy, objective, and... Empirical? However, is it possible for there to be a theory, perhaps widely accepted, that is not based off physical material, but rather action or something? Something more or less cause & effect that can probably be quantified for testing and experimentation to see if results can be repeated upon will. If not, could there be some "formula" that would explain why said phenomena can't necessarily be repeated by will? Such a model will concern physical perception, but the materials would be affected as a consequence of... Something, unless it's all one in the same. This may or may not be concerned with holonomic brain theory, in which thought & consciousness are apparently particles of some sort. Even the string in string theory would be classified as a physical material, for example.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 04:03
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
It's possible to theorise beyond the boundaries of time/space/matter as we know it, for instance the klein bottle is a mathematical form that cannot actually exist in three dimensional space, people still make and sell what are called klein bottles, though they lack the properties of the actual thing.


So yes theories can go beyond the purview of the material universe as we know it, however when you go beyond the edge of the map, well here be crackpots.

This may or may not be concerned with holonomic brain theory, in which thought & consciousness are apparently particles of some sort.
Yeah probably not.
Physicists do love to reinterpret other fields and they're very good at expressing whatever wild notions they come up with mathematically, which to your average joe gives them a lot of credibility, however there are experts in these fields who know a lot more about the subject and can usually deconstruct these new theories pretty quickly.

As a rule, unless you're talking about subatomic particle physics, avoid the word quantum like the plague.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 16:03
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,692
Correct anything that appears to be wrong, I beg, because I know there are people here smarter than I am, plus who have the necessary training/education & discipline in this stuff.

So we're operating under the assumptions that, while theories offer a close enough explanation of the phenomena they examine, they can never be proven 100% true due to our limited perspective (if we met sentient life from elsewhere could we compare & contrast notes?)...
There are. They're just called mathematical theorems, because they rely on using extremely reliable logical tools, that make the theory's predictions very reliable. Accordingly, they are very axiomatic, i.e. they state the theory's requirements so that they can be rigorously tested in each situation they might apply to.

So while there are models & theories such as Darwin's Natural Selection, which is largely a consequence of our environment & limited resources and perhaps the type of life that arose here (I'd imagine there may be a type of life out there that doesn't need to participate in these games, but this is rather speculative, maybe groundless, and probably irrelevant) and other phenomena that science is able to explain & back up, justify. An example would be lasers, and how, say, Planck introduced his constant followed by Einstein laying the groundwork for stimulated emission of radiation while stimulated absorption was already a well known thing I believe. The scientists that proposed and eventually developed a working laser must have had a decent enough idea of how certain theories or laws worked, and the practical implications that came along with such an understanding. Especially after working with and developing 'masers' for a while, they must have figured visible light amplification was possible based off their understanding of the currently available & widely accepted theories, laws, physics and what not at the time.

So the point is that all (unless there are some I am not aware of that don't happen to fall under the category of philosophy or some psychological behaviour) these scientific theories that explain phenomena are material based. I understand this makes experimenting with repeatable results easy, objective, and... Empirical?
Physics is considered one of the most reliable of the sciences, and so is the hardest of the "hard sciences". It it the most heavily reliant on mathematical theorems. Chemistry is less reliant on maths, and is considered slightly softer, with its results being seen as less reliable, and so on, into the soft sciences. The more maths your theory is based on, the more reliable it will probably be, because the less it is reliant on a single interpretation of results that might have other interpretations that we haven't thought of yet.

However, is it possible for there to be a theory, perhaps widely accepted, that is not based off physical material, but rather action or something? Something more or less cause & effect that can probably be quantified for testing and experimentation to see if results can be repeated upon will. If not, could there be some "formula" that would explain why said phenomena can't necessarily be repeated by will? Such a model will concern physical perception, but the materials would be affected as a consequence of... Something, unless it's all one in the same. This may or may not be concerned with holonomic brain theory, in which thought & consciousness are apparently particles of some sort. Even the string in string theory would be classified as a physical material, for example.
Gibbs' Free Energy Equation is a reliable equation that applies to any systems in which its axioms hold, not just physical systems. Cauchy's Integral Theorem and its corollaries, Cauchy's Residue Theorem and Green's Lemma, can apply to anything that can be expressed as a function whose values add up over any thing or group of things that can be expressed as a closed entity of some kind, whether real or virtual, whether inanimate or animate, whether physical or meta-physical. If the axioms fit, the results must be true.
 

Pizzabeak

Banned
Local time
Today, 08:03
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,668
That's pretty good, I think.
 
Top Bottom