kristalris

Not if you assume that it (matter) collects the mass out of the continuum (like a little black hole). It thus causes an under-pressure in the continuum perceived as gravity. The more mass the more gravity exerted on its environment. Exactly what we observe. i.e. spinning mass collects un spun mass out of the Higgs field. Hence the perceived something from nothing illusion. In part it is probably thrown off and in part collected. A 3 D game of super conductive billiards. And you can assume the spinning mass to be in strings (several lumps spinning and forming a string) that spiral. Edit 3: Spiral in the horizontal plane is measured as spin 1 and counter clock wise spin 1/2 and in the vertical measured as 0 or something along those lines (a photon must be made up out of two interlocked counter rotating spirals because it can travel in a straight line. Hence then measured spin 0, I guess)). The spin I'm talking about (for want of no other way to verbally describe it) is the spin of a toy gyro around its own axis that can wobble out in a rotational way when the point of rotation is outside its center. Yet perceived 3 D it is if you could observe it passing by a spiral and traveling with it a sphere when in spin rotation (i.e. partly un-spun). Edit 3b: bear in mind that the measurement of spin (1, 1/2 or 0) is done whilst the earth is turning and spiraling around the sun, whilst turning around the center of our galaxy (+/- 100.000 km/h) and the galaxy as a whole also accelerating through the continuum. This will cause inherent measurement problems and make a difference whether something is turning to the left or to the right relative to the observer. So the simple act of turning the same quantum spiraling object upside down will on average change the outcome of several parameters that can be measured. Or at least that is to be assumed. If two spirals hit head on it is a matter anti matter collision. If they are married and interlocked they form a super symmetric pair and move in a straight line through the continuum of the Higgs field. Otherwise they either spiral to the left or right (boson / fermion? Lepton?.) Edit 2: if no Higgs field would be present then all lumps would fly absolutely straight and their respective speed dependent on the amount of spin. The energy would remain the same. To become un-spun it needs the Higgs field as an at least super conductive railway track, of sorts. (Then the question is: what sort of track could it be to cause a waving motion? & The question where does the spin come from? & The question where is the more order than current science can explain come from?) Edit: and thus this makes QM consistent with Newton and Newton consistent with GR. No conflict whatsoever.

On the topic push or pull I agree that the membrane idea (to comply to the 3rd law of Newton) is extremely improbable and thus falsified on a reasonable norm. So given push as the to be tested hypothesis out of the OP the most probable way that then can be facilitated is by assuming an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of stuff (i.e. particles) that is/are hitting each other and thus providing pressure. The mathematics of which can be taken by seeing any larger part of the universe as a box with infinitely thick walls. That complies then to Newton, now doesn't it? No membrane needed thus. No it doesn't. There are other probable possibilities to be considered. If the Higgs field is a continuum of sorts filled with lumps (i.e. hidden un-split-table variables/ actual atoms) with mass (not exerting gravity but causing it) in an observed (at least) super conductive way, whereby the continuums "atoms" are as such un-spun and the observed SM are spiraling and spinning through that continuum, then it doesn't have to travel faster. And if the Higgs field adds / gives mass to matter (= stuff that exerts gravity) what will the laws of Newton then say happens to that matter traveling through the continuum? edit: what would happen according to Newton if a railway cart is on a slope hiting away logs on the track and traveling at constant speed when you add the logs to the cart? (the slope simulates (at least) super conductivity) I agree his model fails, yet seeing it as push conflicts in no way with current science either. (I.e. you can always describe a movement mathematically accurately as push or pull if you like, depending on the scope that you take into account, as has been pointed out in this thread earlier on.) Pull is believing in magic, if you address all problems, but will suffice if you only look at part of the problem to address say the tides. Physics at the moment only wants to look at part of the problem. That's alright, as long as you then don't pose argument on larger issues. If you state a position you must prove it. The norm in that respect should be verbal logic in first instance, when it is a given that you are addressing a problem whether or not the universe is infinite. What you need to address if you want to deal with the OP. You must learn to crawl before you can run. I.e. if you look at all the observations and address all relevant questions than there is only one by far most probable way to marry it all to current science: it's push.

As an other attempt for a final note: In lieu of the list I gave earlier: Look if you take "choice c" a continuum of sorts with lumps (historical atoms) then you are forced by logic to deal with the question of a TOE. This due to the rule of main stream science that you should address all relevant observations and answer all relevant questions on a given problem. The given problem in the OP is a Higgs field of sorts as a continuum for profound insights. Well that is a TOE as topic then. If you are after absolute truth you should go to the religious section and not science. If you want neigh absolute truth you are talking pure mathematics on the problem of continua of sorts that fit Higgs fieldish problems. A worthwhile en-devour if mathematicians agree that it still has unsolved area's. I don't know that. What I do know is that that question then belongs in the mathematics forum IMO. If you want to deal with the void of our visible universe as a continuum without looking at, thus ignoring, all the relevant questions and all relevant observations, then you are talking mainstream physics. I.e. of the Higgs field. That belongs in the physics forum then IMO. (Although I agree with Feijerabend that physicists should do more on philosophy (meta physics) so it should be possible to deal with your OP there as well. Albeit that mainstream physics has a production department stance to the issue and not a R&D stance. As the latter would include meta-physics.) You (PeterJ) called my way of reasoning earlier on "cheating" . That depends what you expect and what you are looking at. Historically I started off with what I don't believe: Krauss et all something from nothing, pretzel shaped universes and what not, to subsequently answer the question what I do believe. To do that I first dreamt up the relevant question (Socrates). What would be the simplest way to unify it all (Occam)? Then I dreamt up the dynamic crystal with one atom. Nearly fits but needs a God to keep it going. Two atoms fit the entire bill very elegantly. If so, this inductive reasoning also works deductively via reduction the other way as a dictate of logic. It, because it will never constitute absolute truth, will always leave you with the - then most probably correct - prior assumptions. We know this since the cave of Plato (and Occam). This then proves the best concept on Occam if it has the least assumptions. It has, because I can explain this to any high school kid, contrary to the - ONLY - alternate of Krauss et all with his something from nothing. Nobody including Krauss himself understands that yet "mathematics show it to be true". Mathematics does no such thing when you put garbage in you get garbage out dear Krauss et all. This of course - GIVEN - the prior assumption that MN is an illusionist. I.e. that the basic rules of the absolute truth (that we will never absolutely know) are simple. Now that may be different, however given my elegant explanation in fact marrying QM to Newton to GR, with words in a logical way that on Occam gives proof of concept at that level. It is on Occam also the prime suspect. I.e. the first thing to investigate further. The first thing on Occam is the simplest explanation and that is per definition that MN is an illusionist (i.e. that the basic truth is simple). This is thus no speculation but pure logical deduction. Occam is mainstream science BTW. That the concept is new, doesn't make it speculative. That would only be the case if the assumptions you end up with are appreciably more than any other concept that does the same. Present day science has none. None whatsoever. That Krauss et all have mathematics for their position proves nothing, for they agree that what they say is extremely improbable yet true as they say. Yes, though extremely improbable you can win the lottery. I however wouldn't bet my money or life on that lot however. You are betting your and other lives on not reaching TOE quickly if you bet on Krauss et all. A TOE will more quickly solve all sorts of problems such as finding a cure for cancer. (Edit: Same goes if you assume that ignoring the problem will be the fastest way to a TOE. There is no evidence of that, yet my idea and reasoning, as does the history of science show a lot of compelling evidence to the contrary. BTW) In philosophy you don't need to use mathematics. My idea is the only one that reduces all observations to the fewest possible assumptions and explained it all in a common sense way. Division of labor puts it then on science to further it by trying to falsify this concept or come up with a better one. My idea is presented in a falsifiable way, so no problem there. That is a mainstream rule of science because it is indisputable logic. And, like I said earlier mainstream (proper) philosophy is a contradiction in terms.I.e. it may always be new as long as it's logical. Ergo I dealt with the OP in an on topic way given this forum. I can now I've only recently found out how to publish pictures on this site provide pictures of my concept, for those who have difficulty in picturing what I'm on about with this concept, but I'll do that in another thread.

1. You don't have to split infinity you can just take a cube of space containing one universe out of the multi-verse (that correct deduction shows to be most probable, yet inherently un-falsifiable.) And observe that as containing roughly speaking four different fields or continua one of which is the seeming void of our visible universe. All scenario's are then played out all the time. Solving your Schrodinger's cat problem. 2. All the laws of QM must be seen as brilliant laws of physics that only apply IMO as best probable and testable idea in the double dynamic crystal of the Higgs field where we are at. So, what you say is totally correct as long as you stay within our visible universe and don't go smaller than (part?) of the SM. All those particles simply don't exist at a deeper level or outside the Higgs field, neither the laws that are based on those observed particles (our current laws of physics such as GR & QM). Anyway seeing QM & GR etc. as laws and having limits if the continuum is built an other way that also can be a continuum that is limited in scope as the term "field" also implies. I.e. outside or in between the crystal / other continuum with atoms forming a solid within a time frame (choice c thus, see above) they don't apply. Only then can you explain the observations that don't fit current science such as entanglement in a simple (Newtonic) way without resorting to the magic of something from nothing. Being the only other alternate as logic dictates, unless you want to ignore the problem. If you take something as c max that is in fact > c you would indeed observe objects being here there and nowhere at the same time. Simple error in reasoning stemming from an incorrect conclusion that time slows down when speeding up the atom clock. The clock slows down, that is the correct observation. Thus speeds > c are not in contradiction with GR & QM as long as we are talking other particles than SM. The hidden variables that must be assumed on basis of otherwise inexplicable - other than using magic - observations. My way makes it Newton again. MN unveiled as an illusionist. 3. Then you can use "the Holy trinity" of space time within those limits where they apply. Extrapolating that to infinity puts you in the Escher Institute. You extrapolate a formula out of its regime. The wacky and ultra strange phenomena that predictably ensue when you do that, we indeed observe. The idea I postulate solves the problem by having different fields that each can be seen as a continuum. Though not a perfect or infinite single one (of course, might I add.) Again MN doesn't need a clock or a concept of time to run around. We do in order to describe what she's doing and to predict where she's going and where she has been. You can thus in principle use any scale you like, use what ever is the most convenient given the problem at hand: relative, absolute or what not (Occam dixit). Time is what the clock reads, and in physics you use the most accurate one available of course the atom clock. In my idea the crystal of the Higgs field adds mass to the atom clock if you accelerate it more added the higher the speed. This in a very accurate way. Hence the illusion of time slowing down. 4. It is all mindbogglingly larger than we think IMO. The flat expanding "space cake with raisins" idea of the universe is somewhere were we have been with observing our flat earth. This expanding can also be seen as five trains (train = galaxy) accelerating one after the other out of a station. If you are in the middle one when the last train has left the station you have the illusion of standing still, and the other trains speeding away from you in alternate directions, the furthest the fastest. An illusion. To the sides the angular momentum that is "accidentally" (illusion of the mathematics that are involved.) the same (railway tracks diverge). So this continuum is not expanding IMO but moving slowly inward like a (crystal) glacier (= railwaytrack) yet being perceived as stationary.

Okay, on a final note then: a strict division between pure mathematics and the rest is not adhered to where it should be. You in fact are working a pure mathematics problem this way, without the pure mathematics Yet the division between philosophy (meta physics) and physics is strictly applied where it shouldn't be. Physicists ignore the problem because they deem it meta physics and in philosophy the same problem is deemed physics and thus also ignored.

Which form of philosophical reduction do you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction Philosophy Eidetic reduction, a technique in the study of essences in phenomenology whose goal is to identify the basic components of phenomena Intertheoretic reduction, in philosophy of science, one theory makes predictions that perfectly or almost perfectly match the predictions of a second theory Reduction (philosophy), the process by which one object, property, concept, theory, etc., is shown to be entirely dispensable in favor of another Reductionism, a range of philosophical systems Please also bear in mind science at the moment doesn't have a TOE. Nor any concept and not even an idea. So even the act of providing a testable idea not even a concept solves those problems of not having a clue on such a major issue. The problems it - even discarding the idea all together - solves, is it provides two in principle simple tests. If balls in the box simulation go to order that would have major ramifications not only in physics but in philosophy as well IMO. You would have a simulation of a continuum as a theoretical basis for further research into the Higgs field mechanism. That is indisputable. As is the fact that science doesn't know the answer to what will come out of the test. Present day physics says the balls in the box should not go to order, yet have to agree that under the conditions of this test that isn't certain, seeing more order in the universe than present science and philosophy can account for. The latter being the problem possibly solved by the test. If the gyro test shows that speeding up matter causes a rise in its gravity especially if the rise fits the rise needed to account for Dark Matter, then again this would have major ramifications not only for physics but philosophy as well. Normal physics would say it wouldn't rise yet seeing the problem of Dark matter can't be shore of that either. In science as a whole not being shore on these key issues is intolerable. The more so given the possibility of two simple tests both with low cost and effort for possible enormous gain of then actually solving two core issues. To much order and DM. A further ramification for philosophy would be the fact that it has been the use of philosophical reasoning that generated the tests. (I guess if one or both of the tests render a positive result you'd study the idea now wouldn't you? Then you would be able to make head and tails of it I guess, granted I've been very brief in describing the idea.)

You stated in your OP IMO correctly that looking at a Higgs field etc as a continuum will provide profound insights. The insight it provides IMO is a route to a TOE. Not reaching a TOE quickly is a problem (I guess you would agree on that (?)) I claim to have reached a proven concept on a TOE. Why? My idea is consistent with all relevant observations known to science (at least known to me) and addresses all relevant questions in a simple common sense way. And, in a simply falsifiable way. BTW it is the - ONLY - concept of that nature I know of. So there is no clogging of the system, with bad idea's. Prove me wrong on the latter. A proven concept doesn't need mathematics. That is division of labor. I'm a taxpayer I do my job and may expect scientists to do theirs. On them thus if what I say is true to put the test of further science and mathematics to this in order to falsify it. Apart from that I don't have the funding needed for time on a super computer for the simulation, or for the programmers to write the program. If these balls in a box go to (whatever) order it would be an indisputable profound insight on a route to a TOE. In its own right even without my concept that led to the idea of the test. Now explain to me why doing the test can reasonably be ignored? It's a test on building a continuum. Your question BTW. The same goes for the test of a gyro. It doesn't need the full mathematics for the entire concept. It only needs some quick and dirty mathematics to relate the amount of extra gravity is needed to keep a galaxy from spinning apart in relation to the spin and acceleration of the galaxy due to the law of Hubble. I.e. how large and how fast should the test with a gyro be in order to get a measurable result? If we need a gyro the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm we have a measurement problem if it means that everything in the room should fling itself to the toy gyro of my kid the idea is busted. If it is something in between that can be done, then tell me why we don't test it? It would provide a profound insight as well if indeed the gravity rises with acceleration. As I predict. Why should I state by how much exactly? If it rises it rises and then thus provides a profound insight, period. All directly linked to seeing the Higgs field as a continuum BTW, and answering your question in the OP. Getting there via philosophy by first asking the right question (Socrates) then reducing it to either something from nothing that is busted or lumps in a void as a choice, following first where Diocritus took us with one atom, seeing on the more observations than he had that it can't be one. If it fits all observations and answers all questions logic dictates that a pure reduction up to that level can be done. The reason it can't be one atom is that you then get a one off non cyclic affair. Nothing followed by something giving a bang ending in nothing. Further more something like God would to have got it started or keep it going. The observed order and disorder can then not be explained. This leads to the deduction that it then must be another sort of atom. Seeing entanglement it must also be > c yet to solve the problem must be larger and slower than the other atom. Pure deduction and reduction (though I've taken short cuts.) The thing is however: given that I'm right will mean that it will be an insurmountable measurement problem to prove the existence of the smaller atom (and probably the larger one as well) other than via indirect methods Because if you get the fundamental formulas right that will show because the predictions will fit. Do please bear in mind that if I'm right a pure and full mathematical description of say the movement of one photon though the Higgs field to describe one if not all possible ways it would cause a change to that field and the photon would require the mathematical description of the exact movement of say somewhere between a million or a trillion of two sorts of atoms. And that would be only one way the fields go to order in less than a split second. So if I'm right a pure mathematical description will never be possible. That said we can however get extremely close IMO, and much closer than we are now. The mathematics and work to be done is enormous even if I'm right, to ascertain the size, mass, speed and shape of both different atoms and to ascertain how many there are per volume of the Higgs field in its four different stages. Do we need to do that immediately? No of course not. First do the quick and dirty math's on the tests and do the tests. You have to make up your mind what you want. Absolute proof is not a scientific but a religious issue. Demanding a pure mathematical answer on a reality subject of this magnitude is asking to much. Ultimately it is at best going to be very close, but we will remain in the cave of Plato looking at the shadows. Yet we can and must try to narrow it down. And fast. There is no case to argue that MN might not be an illusionist, and a lot to say that she is. If so it must be possible to reach a TOE quickly. That it up till now hasn't been tried has no doubt to do with a confirmation bias. For which there is a enormous amount of evidence. Not in the least by the fact that key laws of physics such as GR & QM aren't defined as such. The best laws we ever had. That key issues are stated as observations yet are conclusions: i.e. time doesn't slow down when accelerating an atom clock the clock does. Stating that photons are mass-less where correct definition would entail them to be matter-less (= not exerting gravity). Seeing my idea it shows why this is important. But mainstream science per definition says it to be important to rigorously look at all relevant evidence and address all relevant questions in the most simple way by using correct definitions. Yet science on this issue indisputably hasn't. Several (not the least BTW) nuclear physicists have taken pot shots at my idea. They aren't convinced it to be correct and want me to provide the mathematics. For the reasons stated that is not reasonable. Yet understandable. No one in the field can run the danger of committing themselves on an issue like this running the risk of being wrong. Everyone would need funding and thus have to put their cards on the table. Even if I had the mathematics it would still be a hell of a job to get a test in. Look what happened to Higgs. So my concept must be: a. improbable / less probable than another availeble concept b. illogical c. un-falsifiable d. incomplete For it to be allowed to be ignored in science. Yet it is none of these.

? Cheating? Starting off with a contradiction? What contradiction? There is none. Of course not. You may/ must assume on Occams razor. The question is not where you start but where you end. I only need two particles un-splitable (no doubt perfect spheres) > c in an absolute void & the physics of Newton and bingo it fits all ALL known observations and answers all ALL relevant questions at a conceptual level in a common sense way. No infringement whatsoever on current science. This then is so simple that (on Occam) this idea beats all other idea's hands down because its so simple it can be explained to any high school kid who knows Newton. (= nice on Occam as the probably (= probabilistic reasoning) the best. Mainstream science likes Occam. So this is defend-ably mainstream philosophy Disprove this by showing where this infringes on logic or is incompatible with known observations. I've even explained entanglement and the double slit experiment for crying out loud (and can do more if you like). Albeit on a concept level but still. Who has as well then? Since I started this idea it has with slight alterations and improvements got stronger and stronger under scrutiny. That is a good sign, and shows rising in stead of declining probability of being correct. It is to science to put it to the test of mathematics if it can't show where I infringe on (possibly) explaining any observations or logic. BTW all other idea's I've come across either are highly implausible, inconsistent, illogical or don't address all relevant problems and can't conceivably do so or are not falsifiable. This idea deals effectively with all that. And science at the moment admittedly doesn't have a clue apart from Krauss (et all). Who's idea is far less probable then having a God. God contrary to something from nothing doesn't constitute a contradiction. The method of reasoning of mine is exactly the same as what the Greek philosophers did. With hindsight with astounding success even Democritus idea of the atom was brilliant. Not absolutely correct, but who is? That is not the issue, absolute proof. The issue is the quickest way to further science in order to reach TOE. Which is in effect the deeper insight when you ask the question on it being a continuum. Do the tests and see. I can even explain God if you like. Either as a further hidden variable or if God is part of the SM as a possible scenario. Yet this model doesn't need a God. Even if I would introduce God to take away our entire universe inclusive all the particles, it would in time only cause a ripple in the cosmos and restore itself. The whole shebang would restart with all subsequent possible scenario's played out all the time for ever. (And we haven't observed such a ripple either.) BTW I'm not saying this is true. I'm saying it is a proven prime suspect yet to be proven on an appropriate norm to be the culprit. The need of which is a given because MN is a mass murderer on the loose (cancer, malaria, et cetera to be more easily cured when a TOE is reached). It is mainstream science to use probabilistic reasoning when not all relevant data are known to this extent. As is the case here. I've done just that. If you demand deterministic proof that simply can't be had. At a deepest level it is IMO both deterministic from a given begin state but then subsequently more and more by all possible chances being played out. I do however believe that at the deepest level we never will have absolutely the same scenario twice. Like two industrial glasses are the same yet absolutely different at the deepest level. The need for this stems from the need that the system never should become repetitive in a way that constantly repeats itself. For then life as a possible scenario would never return. Because this hasn't happened as we can observe it never will. So it makes a difference what we do or don't do. For us it's IMO a one off, so enjoy the ride. (Whether or not you at this moment in a trillion universes from here are doing the same as now, is immaterial. It's not you. And if I'm correct not even exactly you. It's just a scenario being played out. The future is in an increasing way uncertain, yet impossible scenario's will never happen. BTW the practical reason for this way of philosophy is to get ways to test. This idea provides that by providing these tests. And if it's busted well then it is wrong. Trial and error, try again. If indeed the most possible scenario is true i.e. that MN is an illusionist then this per definition can't be that difficult if one goes about it in the correct way. The used method is the proven scientific correct method that also successfully is used in solving crimes. And like Plato in his cave showed us: absolute proof can't be had. ps I forgot to ad earlier on that two dynamic double crystals so very nicely explain why we have waves. Science at the moment can't BTW.

Well, if we take an infinite space filled with say un-splittable identical spheres > c one thing is clear that it will constitute perpetual motion. If they go to order instead of disorder that present theory would dictate yet observing to much inexplicable order, it would explain this in a fundamental non contradictory way. If the order would be that of a dynamic crystal it would not bring us back to Democritus. A dynamic crystal in which each "atom" would remain in its virtual box within a very short time-frame. Thus forming in that time frame a solid continuum. Yet in any point in time an absolute void with static extremely small lumps (i.e. atoms). (The particle to be extremely hard and thus conductive, observed already as super conductivity and shows why movement doesn't stop at zero Kelvin as we observe.) This is testable via a computer simulation with such balls in a box. Accuracy is then critical. Because one particle IMO can't ever form the observed Yin and Yang of order and disorder you need another particle a much larger one as a sphere of the same mass > c yet slower than the small particle. One of these will in the other crystal have a standard deviation both horizontal and vertical for every forward move. Mathematics will, I predict, then show this particle to go into a spiral ending up in the skin of a huge sphere light-years across. The slower one losing out in the movement game. And infinite amount of these will make a medieval chain mail like structure. Adding even more will cause chaos in the fast crystal that will be counteracted by pushing the larger ones into a multi-verse of beginning slow dynamic crystals of these larger particles. Adding more particles the crystals will grow. At a point letting the crystal collapse in the center will cause less rise in the chaos in the fast crystal than rising of the sphere. After that you can see that our visible universe most probably is in the skin of a huge double crystal sphere: the continuum of the Higgs field. In the center of the universe the large particles are crushed so much that they start to spin and are shot out of the center up through the collapsing Higgs crystal into that crystal where a yet to form galaxy nearly stops, and starts to form strings becoming unspun. Strings of particles in a surface tension scenario holding the strings in order. A string spiraling up side down to another is anti matter. If they hit head on they disintegrate. A left string and a right turning string can interlock to form say a photon cept at c in the crystal. Larger particles are slower and get more mass added as they pas through the Higgs field. They take it in like a little black hole and thus accelerate. Law of Hubble. And at the same time create a underpressure in the continuum of the Higgs field. Causing gravity. And causing photons in such a gravitational field to curve in at twice the Newtonian value as the become un-spun i.e. accelerating back to c as we observe by becoming red-shifted as we observe. If all galaxies slowly accelerate we will have the illusion of standing still whereas we are all accelerating out of the crystal. To the sides the acceleration is the same because it is a sphere. I predict thus that a large gyro will show a rise in its gravitational pull. This ca be tested. Galaxies will end up in the black hole in the center and speed up further popping out of the crystal and disintegrate and fall back into the crystal as loose parts. Forming a crystal again slowly moving to the center like a glacier, collapsing again and being crushed again in an endless cycle. Entanglement is nothing more than the forming of an electro-magnetic field of a string breaking and the large particles becoming up-spun > c. It also explains why you can float a living frog in a very strong magnetic field. And it explains why the double slit experiment the energy packet is slowed down in the glass in a way that the wave front can overtake it via the other slit. Causing interference. When observing this act causes an electro magnetic field that either slows down the wave front or lets the energy packet speed up. Hence then no interference. With strings like I mentioned you can of course build the SM. You have then got both a Euclidian and non Euclidian space at the same time with no contradiction at all. The later we observe. In the double crystal the SM exists and so do all our known laws of physics such as GR & QM work brilliantly. Outside the crystal and at the deepest level it is all Newton again. Slowly the galaxies will have a mounting entropy from the perspective of the SM, in which all possible scenarios are played out all the time. No contradiction with anything of current science and a pure logical deduction. So yes: all explained and testable. And, a near perfect continuum.

Yes you are missing the point. I don't see any contradictions at all. I see true paradoxes i.e. seeming contradictions. It can all be explained by pure logical deduction based on all known data and further assumptions based on probabilistic reasoning. you simply inspect the most probable first. Even what is or is not most probable can be ascertained in a falsifiable way. So there is no speculation either if you want to crowd source the issue, even that becomes measurable. In fact doing the same the old Greek philosophers did so successful in the past. You can't get more to the bottom of the issue then this i.e. when you in effect only need an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of two different sorts of atoms moving in a mathematical order explaining it all. These forming the continuum. The mathematics of which is yet to be found, but MN points us in the right direction where to start looking for that and how to test that IMO. The physics of this is so easy that it can be explained to any high school kid, because it is then all simply Newton. Mind you GIVEN that MN is an illusionist, i.e. that indeed the fundamental rules are simple. But this position is the first issue that has to be scientifically investigated in order to falsify that position that MN is indeed or not an illusionist..

No not ex nihilo creation that is what Krauss et all are on about. I oppose that. I say that at the deepest level it is most probable seeing all observations, that the Higgs field is built up of un-splitable lumps of mass (historical atoms) on the move in an absolute void. Mass that doesn't exert gravity but moves in such a way that it causes it in a way that more mass gives more gravity. (Then it is all simply Newton at the deepest level and MN is then indeed an illusionist. Which I believe her most probably to be.) Also we observe a Yin and Yang of order and disorder. We observe more order than we at the moment can account for. The easiest way to look at this is to assume that one sort of of atoms want to go to order in a field causing disorder in another sort of atoms in another field occupying the same space, wanting to go to order that likewise causes disorder in the other field. Together forming the Higgs field of un-spun particles that in part are brought into spin when a particle of the SM (that are all in spin (edit "spin" in this sense like a toy gyro. i.e. in the sense that it is turning more or less around its own center. )) comes along through the Higgs field. What we observe is built up of this. It is obvious that we need to look at the mathematics how things can at all go to order in stead of disorder. As a pure mathematical problem or via computer simulation. That must be inherently testable now you know where to start looking. Then we observe spin: what would be another way to store energy instead of movement through the field. If there are to many of these different lumps to have complete order than a continuous cycle of order and disorder should ensue. Forcing some lumps into spin spiraling through the orderly field of un-spun lumps of the same mass. Yet having a measurable effect on each other. That would then be a very simple and elegant way to look at it all. So it is a true paradox then of seemingly ex nihilo creation. We can't directly observe the mass at this deepest level yet observe its effects. If these lumps of mass are > c it would then be consistent with QM & GR and the rest of science and provide an immediate way to explain say entanglement. Because GR & QM apply to the SM and we are then talking hidden variables outside that model. Taking fields that can create an influence above c makes entanglement for instance in principle easy to explain. Of course given that MN is an illusionist. I.e. that the basic rules are simple. If not (given that we humans are to stupid) then this line of reasoning will of course be proven to be a dead end. It isn't as yet a proven dead end because I can prove that choice "c" hasn't been properly investigated as the prime suspect. And I can elaborate further on this. It's most probably just an illusion of an expanding universe. Easily explainable as a cyclic affair in which all possible scenario's are being played out all the time for ever. No beginning no end. (The impossible scenarios are thus not played out.) Edit: The most fundamental philosophical question to be asked at this moment on a continuum like the Higgs field is thus: what dynamic perpetual movement of lumps of un-spun mass without gravity could cause the surplus of order and also the observed waves? You could try to solve this by looking for analogies in nature where you see matter go to order in a way that has a link with waves. Now what would that be I Kristalris ask myself? Care to guess?

Wel likewise sorry I haven't reacted to your earlier post I run out of time. Now you use "paradoxical" again. Anyway I've been thinking about what qualm Imatfaal had with my list. I guess it is point "e"(ignoring the problem) being unscientific.What I mean to say is that ignoring or worse still opposing the line of reasoning in "c" is unscientific. Not unscientific is supporting it, yet ignoring it further because you yourself don't believe it correct. I.e. the stance: "I think it is incorrect yet it should indeed be investigated via funding, but I'm going to ignore it further." is choice c and not e. What I'd also like to point out is that more than one choice is correct scientifically. I.e. choice a (pure mathematics), c (and e in the context c) are scientifically correct IMO. Choices b, d and e (the latter outside context c) are unscientific. Choice "a" in the context of this thread of a continuum would entail practically speaking (given that the Higss field is probably a fact probably a continuum of sorts) that further effort and funding should go into fundamental/ pure mathematics on continua if mathematicians think there is anything further to gain in that area. (I don't know.) Then you are in the business of making tools that might come in handy later on. I.e. there is all the more reason to concentrate in this area. What I further more would like to point out is that mainstream science holds that on any issue of any nature you must look at all relevant observations and answer all relevant questions (by at least guessing) on a given probandum. You can always work the issue via probabilistic reasoning. Of course if at all possible you use empirical statistics or deterministic mathematics. Choice "c" does this. I claim it to be a verifiable scientific fact that what I state is the most probable scenario in this context of this thread. Correct probabilistic reasoning via words is interchangeable with Bayesian probabilistic mathematics.The first works quicker. Philosophers and lawyers alike have the natural tendency to try and overdo it with being succinct in the use of words. If you want to be extremely succinct use mathematics.If you a priori know that you have insufficient data to be extremely succinct use words. But again don't overdo it. Close is close enough to warrant testing. On the other hand you must be succinct enough. The use of key definitions must be sufficiently correct to play the game on "c "properly. The problem is they aren't in order all across the board. GR & QM should be defined as laws of physics. The best we ever had. Otherwise you will have difficulty spotting that these laws have their limits. Yet they are not defined as such. Certain key issues are defined as paradoxes. Where it is unclear what is meant, unless paradox means seeming contradiction. Yet a lot of so called paradoxes in physics are blatent contradictions. Doing science means you don't believe in magic i.e. let contradictions be as explanation. Time is seen as a physical something thinking that when you go > c that we will travel back in it. This error in reasoning stems from incorrect definitions and not rigorously looking at the observations. Photons should be defined as matter-less and not as mass-less particles. The simplest way to look at choice "c"is that the continuum is built up out of moving mass, that itself doesn't exert gravity yet causes it. The observation that something seems to come from nothing most probably means that it is all the same stuff (i.e. mass on the move) of which some is in spin and the rest isn't in a cyclic event. The fact that the greek Dio... what his name came up with the idea of an atom in a time when we didn't have a slide ruler but only a straight stick, a string on a sandy beach and the use of the apparatus between our ears proves that working "c" works. +++ if you do it properly! ++++ So words in the idea and concept fase: not to strict yet not to sloppy either. It's a bandwidth of accuracy you should try to stay within and subsequently try and get that ever more succinct. You pass it on to pure mathematics if possible to describe it absolutely exact. Yet we will probably never get there. We will be working with very successful estimations of models. Like GR and QM. Yet then covering more ground. Edit: further more keep in mind that the probandum defines what becomes the relevant questions. You can of course always in science state a less broad question and work that. However, once you ask the question, science dictates you look at all relevant data and answer all relevant questions in order to proceed. NO EXCEPTION! That is a conditio sine qua non on scientific method for the furtherance of science. Edit 2: and although science is sometimes furthered by errors in reasoning, mistakes and whatnot, it doesn't mean you should try to make mistakes, it means you should accept errors and take risks and support that in stead of opposing it. It has become far to bureaucratic at the moment. To few dare to take sufficient risks.

A pure continuum is pure mathematics thus off topic then. IMO the line between pure mathematics and other uses of mathematics or logic is / should be a strict one. Taking position c as the choice in a stationary view you get a void as a continuum with some lumps in it making it impure. If you take it in a shortest time-frame where these lumps have been everywhere in space you have a pure continuum if the stuff the lumps are made of is identical. You could however have aeries of higher density if stuff has been in one part more times than other parts in that shortest time-frame. Also then not a pure continuum, but something that in both cases could be defined as a continuum, and studied with the mathematics in that sense. (Very much statistical in nature then, as we already know BTW.) Pure definitions should IMO bring discussions into the realm of pure mathematics. Otherwise you run into paradoxes (now what does "paradox" mean in this context? It's meaningless IMO I'll come back to this below.) The division between philosophy (meta-physics) and physics should not be a strict one IMO. I.e. physicists should do more philosophy when working on certain issues, such as the nature of the Higgs-field. And vice versa. It can IMO be seen as a continuum of sorts, but then you need to deal with several philosophical issues i.e. issues that are inherently un-observable and thus un-falsifiable other than via probabilistic reasoning. You can only link up the two if you have sufficient leeway within either area to discus the issues. Oh it's far more profound then that, within this context of Higgs fields etc. being a continuum. In this context time is to be taken with the most accurate clock available i.e. an atom clock. taking position "c" the continuum is to be viewed in a time-frame. Given this definition of time we immediately can deduce that MN doesn't need time, yet we do in order to describe what we observe. Further more that speeding up the clock doesn't slow down time but slows down the clock (the waves change in an accurate way as a function of the change in speed) Direct consequence is that there is no inconsistency with current science with speeds > c in the continuum and no problem with time then being seen as absolute, So it readily opens up more possibilities to gain profound insights. Disagree. If you want it your way you should be talking pure mathematics. You can not have it both way's. As soon as you leave the pure mathematics which you do when placing the continuum in a context of a Higgs field or any other reality of space time concept, it becomes un-pure by nature. Demanding purity is then a fallacy. No bother. GUT and TOE are inherently unifying goals of physics. Profound insights for these goals to be got IMO via studying Higgs fields etc. as a continuum of sorts. Of course you can. Yet then in a pure mathematical way please. Applied mathematics is a tool that is essential and extremely successful in describing MN. Yet you seem to demand to keep it as pure as in pure mathematics. That can't be done. I.e. you can IMO use the mathematical insights concerning a continuum to describe the Higgs field. That doesn't make the Higgs field a continuum without problems. Yet I think we are quite in agreement that space time / Higgs field indeed can be also / to a very great degree can best be seen as a continuum. agree A pure continuum is unity and a continuum isn't pure. No difference then. You should see it as a useful tool for applied mathematics and not as an attempt to describe the absolute truth of MN IMO. Thanks. I'm not quite clear what bit you don't like. It is not as difficult as you think, the other method. It is exactly the same method of reasoning and investigation you use to successfully solve a crime scene. Given that MN is most probably an mass murdering illusionist, that gives that most probably the answer at a deepest level is a simple set of moving stuff following a simple set of rules, creating an extremely complex observed phenomena. As in a crime scene we simply rigorously look at all the evidence via correct definitions and as a scenario fill in all the remaining questions by educated guesswork, i.e probabilistic reasoning. Using words because these are pliable yet concise enough to get close enough to the truth in order to find where to start looking. And thus testing. This works extremely faster than mathematics. The practical reason for the mental exercise. If you then end up with a logically consistent idea / concept that deals with all problems of physics in a elegant simple way and is testable: you should test it. Al the more so when all parts of the puzzle and subsequent parts of the puzzle neatly fall into place. The probability of then being correct rises. That historically speaking this seemingly hasn't worked (it has BTW) doesn't say that much if no one has actually tried it in the correct way. Why would a present day Einstein as a professor of physics want to run the risk of loss of face and future funding for being deemed a crackpot in a funded failed attempt on TOE when he has a 9/10 probability of failure? He won't try. Now let's look at our Higgs field as a continuum of space time to see if we can get a profound and testable insight. This is a mainstream way to analyse problems of any nature. What do we think the Higgs field does? Slow down matter by providing mass in a continuous field. If the field slows stuff down and is neigh omnipresent it can be assumed to slow down the observed SM particles < c. But also by adding mass ad momentum in order to accelerate: law of Hubble. Also if it adds stuff it also takes stuff away out of the field so you can assume an under-pressure in the field i.e. gravity. If we accept black holes then we can see matter as little black holes in order to let the stuff disappear. If you take MN to be cyclic via moving un-splitable stuff then you have no beginning or end of time but permanent motion. You can then assume the observed spin to be energy stored in a repeated big bang becoming extremely slowly un-spun. Keeping say a photon at c accelerating but paying the price via red-shifting and curving in like a car accelerating in a cure at twice the Newton value in a gravitational field. Now what analogy do we have in nature that could cause the order and the waves? And how many fundamental particles do we need in order to get the observed yin and yang of order and disorder, and make the theoretically needed infinite Euclidian space to be observed as non-Euclidian? If you subsequently take this scenario to be true it must render relative easy ways to start testing whether it is correct or not. Same way as solving a crime scene. A way current science on solving crime scenes is proven to work. Part of current science has mixed up it's definitions, norms and goals. Incorrectly demanding neigh absolute proof before starting to test. It is also current mainstream science not to make such errors in reasoning. Like a said earlier on you shouldn't IMO make a strict division between physics and philosophy. You need overlap. Slight fight with the quote boxes, seem to have come out on top. Philosophy proper is never mainstream. I looked up the German Wikipedia on paradox and that is - typically German - extremely thorough and seems to put it more as "ambiguous". So English paradox: contradiction or seeming contradiction; Dutch paradox: seeming contradiction; German paradox: unsolved possible contradiction; So not just for chauvinistic reasons the Dutch way is IMO most succinct and thus scientifically systematically correct for international scientific use. You seem to agree. All languages are contextual. If you look at the users manual on any technical device when written correctly in these three different languages English seems to me to always be the shortest and German the longest. Dutch is a Germanic language. Agree

Put the marker at the end of the quote you want to take and double click. Then a white bit appears and place your remark in there. That said I also have problems with quote-boxes suddenly seemingly ad random disappearing. Anyway still learning. Well I disagree with dialethism. It's IMO a form of defeatism or appeasement. I.e. you then for instance accept that we humans are say to stupid to comprehend Mother Nature. Now that might be true, yet we can't accept that until we've truly run out of options. And we haven't IMO. But I now, thanks to you have seen that in Dutch a paradox only means a true paradox and in English it can mean both a fallacy and a seeming fallacy. Thus becoming quite meaningless in English without succinct context or an adjective. Are there two PeterJ's? A continuum can be limited or unlimited whatever you like IMO. I.e. you fill up the holes in a limited or unlimited space. I don't see any logical contradiction either way, or I don't know what you mean by an extended continuum. At the same time choosing and not choosing something given the same choice is a contradiction IMO according to Aristotle's rules. Well yes and no. Indeed the question whether the universe is infinite or not is inherently un-testable. Yet if you take (choose) it to be infinite for instance and you fill in a lot of other questions in so doing answering all relevant questions, in a logical way, then that can lead to testable predictions. Leading for instance to an idea how to simulate certain ways in which particles can go to order instead of disorder. If it shows that it goes to order you've achieved a major breakthrough. You can play the same game in which you take the universe to be finite and answer all the relevant questions that way. If the one way provides you with an elegant testable concept, then you should subsequently test that.

I didn't mean to be rude to anyone, and haven't been so either I gather. Very good, thanks, now let's see on this other possibility: Ah, the problem here I've now come across several times: that is that physicists like to euphemistically call a contradiction a paradox. And subsequently quite a few of them get the two mixed up. A paradox is seemingly a contradiction, thus not a contradiction at all: yet an illusion for instance. A contradiction can't be in science, because that would entail believing in magic. Now I'm a bit at a loss. Your OP starts off with a given continuum yet now you leave that be and thus become off topic it seems.Yet it is your thread so I guess you may state on this topic the possibility of there not being a continuum at all. Which you then continue doing under the heading compatibilism. Well given the strong probability of the Higgs field by current science and that having to be an omnipresent field in our entire visible universe everywhere where normal atoms can be presumed to exist, a continuum for our visible universe has at least to be probable as well in current science. The choice of not choosing is a true contradiction and isn't compatible with anything IMO. At least at a deepest level. I.e. the fact that GR and QM aren't fully compatible (yet) doesn't mean you can't practically use either. You can, they are IMO even the best laws of physics we ever had. Yet on the topic of unification, they don't meet. Given the need for unification - your topic - you then can't leave it at that. I only accept meta physics (I'd prefer to call it philosophy) i.e. asking and answering questions that can't be observed such as: "is the universe infinite or not?" as a practical means to an end to find out where to start looking for testable positions. Not true: position c doesn't pose any such problem, is testable and thus falsifiable and based on pure evidence based logical deduction.

I wouldn't, because as you in the OP stated it IMO provides the possibility of profound insights into space time. I don't see any disagreement either. Indeed different perspectives. The question is which one is your topic? Bear in mind I'm talking of atoms in an historic philosophical context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Atomism That is exactly the reason for me to point out to you the necessity to choose. This is dependent on your prior choices / answers on the relevant prior questions. You want unification yet make implicit choices that prevent unification, hence the problem. To narrow it down for you: you have five choices: a. a pure mathematical problem (excludes Higgs et cetera for the time being, that you included in your OP); b. something from nothing (i.e, what Krauss et all are on about) (Being IMO neigh absolutely dis-proven, because a contradiction) c. having one or more sorts of (historical) atoms on the move being in one point of time (thus then stationary) a near void space and in a short time frame creating an illusion of a static solid in space (your table for instance) yet being a dynamic solid (historical atom or atoms) of sorts. (IMO extremely probably correct, and completely consistent with current science.) In fact then thus proving hidden variables to the standard model. d. something else: God, Magic et cetera: all extremely improbable (and thus disproven IMO, and practically no one in science holds this position as far as I know as a scientific explanation. Except Krauss et all because choice "b" constitutes magic: belief in a contradiction.) e. Ignoring the problem (per definition unscientific) Mostly held and personally safe position: you regret asking the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics#Concept_of_a_continuu this is what I'm talking about. If the thread is on an other topic then I'm mistaken. Problem with disappearing quote box: Right - or actually no. end quote Clarify why you think not then. I'm talking about atoms in their historic philosophical context and not current atoms. I.e. un-split-table stuff that might or might not exist as the stuff that is not void in a void. If we are talking about a void sec then we are talking about per definition nothing. Only "solvable" if you believe in the contradiction of Krauss et all with his something from nothing. So that is why you first have to answer prior questions. I.e. relevant questions. If we are talking about a pure mathematical problem then I misread the topic, due to the mentioning of the Higgs field et cetera. Well according to Wikipedia this definition is uncontroversial: maybe you should oppose that Wikipedia page then .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time Quote: Some simple, relatively uncontroversial definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure"[7][15] End quote. No I meant of course all relevant prior questions. Are we talking an infinite absolute void? A void as an "aether" of nothingness that fills up space between two theoretical points, i.e. a pure mathematical problem? If so, then I'm in the wrong thread. As soon as you start talking Higgsfield et cetera however much more relevant questions have to be answered before the question at hand can be answered.Questions such as: infinite space / void? Stuff with a volume as an actual un-split-able atom? If the answer is "yes" you immediately answer the question at hand. All empty space as an absolute void exists then at any moment in time and not as a sort of singularity of nothing as I understand the OP. You clearly don't know what a metaphor is then, because I explained what it stands for.

IMO it depends what you take to be true a priori. That will determine the outcome of your question. I.e. if you take that the prime suspect of mass murdering Mother Nature to be Illona Illusionist or another suspect? (I.e. suspect: to difficult for man to comprehend, suspect: extremely difficult yet unlikely but true; suspect God? et cetera). You have to choose before you can answer your question. (BTW having as suspect doesn't mean it's the culprit. It means you should put effort in eliminating the suspect of the suspect list. Prime suspects first. You work that via taking it that the suspect is the culprit as a hypothesis.) If you choose as a prime suspect MN as an illusionist (i.e. the basic truth can be found relatively quick, given rigorously only looking at observed facts AND answering all questions) then you may assume space as basically infinite and absolutely void per definition. Yet filled with stuff that is un-split-able (i.e. the actual yet as yet unobserved atom or atoms). These atoms then create the observed illusion of curved space. (You may then immediately assume these atoms to have volume and mass yet themselves not have gravity (thus then per definition be matter-less) yet cause gravity. You may then also assume that MN is and has always been on the move. If so, then the concept of time is then per definition a convention. I.e. if you just run around you don't need the concept of time in order to do that. You do need a concept of time when you want to describe what you observe. If the easiest way is to have time as being relative in curved space than so be it. That doesn't mean then that time actually slows down, you then only observe the clock slow down. I think most physicists would agree that time is - per definition - what the clock reads. Given this a priori that would then answer your question as a concept. If you on the other hand take MN as prime suspect that it is extremely difficult and an extremely improbable scenario to be true then as a dogma only working from what you observe gives: nothing moves > c and time is always at the deepest level relative, then you will end up having to believe that something comes from nothing and it all being a one off. And you ending up in an as yet - even as concept - unsolvable conundrum. So if you ask questions like these then you must a priori answer all questions (as a guess or what ever). So there are several answers possible, only very few of which will provide you with a testable concept. Being the latter the practical reason for the mental exercise. edit: BTW it is Occams razor that provides an answer to who is the prime suspect. I.e. what is the easiest way to solve the problem at a concept level at least? Illona illusionist wins that hands down, per definition even.

Yes. If we take that free will doesn't exist at a deepest level even when taking a compatibilist approach of a pre-determined begin state at any point in time followed by chance widening the subsequent possibilities, in which we humans are a sort of self programmable robots, that react in an in part pre determined in part chance way dependent upon our genetic and our personal history and development, then we could reason as follows: So let's say for sake of the argument we are such robots programmed in the pursuit of say dopamine i.e. happiness. We do all that that gives us our daily dose. Problem is that what provides this for the one might / does deprive it for others. So working together helps to all achieve this daily dose with the least losers. All social behavior could then be seen in that context. I.e. blaming rights, morality et cetera. (Base line: we at the moment don't know.) At the moment in working on quantum computers and neuro-scientists are working on entanglement that might also come into play in the working of every individual and even collective working of brains. That might then - given no free will at the deepest level - provide a reason for the illusion in having a free will. But even then at a less deep level you still need the concept of free will in order for all robots to achieve their programmed (and reprogrammed) goals.

Given no free will (what definition and what context do you want?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will You ask is it "right" "blaming"? This implies having morals and that implies the concept of free will: your question is thus a contradiction. Pure determinism: no free will, no rights, no blame thus an incorrect question. Pure chance: no free will, no rights, no blame thus an incorrect question. Combinations of chance and determinism might provide a reasonable definition on free will that what one does effects the future. But then you have a concept of free will that you exclude. So it depends on your definition of free will what do you want to exclude and include in it? I.e. you are thus obviously using different definitions of free will at the same time. I believe that what we do or don't do influences our future. So that requires requires a concept of free will to keep a degree of order via blame having rights et cetera. The concept of free will might also be dependent on the level of observation you choose: everyday observation, quantum level, lower as yet unobservable levels? I hope this provides food for thought.

Oeps, sorry, I thought I actually did provide the link to the page. I've just edited it: here it's again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Criticism I'll try to use the quote box in future Well it's a bit difficult to ascertain what your pinned topic is: I guess (via an on topic historic continuation what it is on an inherently scientific non speculative topic, that covers this discussion as well) you mean to say in an incomprehensibly elaborate way that there is no room for Bayes in physics? Is that your topic? There is something strange going on with the quote boxes? They seem to disappear suddenly ad random. Quote ydoaPs: I'm actually not wrong at all. The OP is simply a historical survey of the evolution of thought in Philosophy of Science. Each view is accurately represented, and that includes Popper's despite your misinterpretation of what he said. End Quote I gave a direct quote of Popper on the issue that actualy falsifies your position on what you say that Popper stated. I didn't interpret anything. Qute YdoaPs: Your quote: "It is true that I have used the terms 'elimination', and even 'rejection' when discussing 'refutation'. But it is clear from my main discussion that these terms mean, when applied to a scientific theory, THAT IT IS ELIMINATED AS A CONTENDER FOR THE TRUTH--THAT IS, REFUTED, but not necessarily abandoned." (emphasis mine) End quote: You are taking what Popper said out of the context that he himself gave on the issue. Simply take the whole quote I gave what he stated on this issue. Again a clear strawman on your part of Popper. Quote YdoaPs: You're confusing epistemological acceptance with pragmatic acceptance. That's a rookie mistake one can make when they learn about people's position via Wikipedia instead of their actual works. Karl Popper most definitely held that a theory is proven to be wrong and should be rejected wholesale "as a contender for the truth" upon falsification. His view is completely wrong, as shown by the Duhem problem and the more correct version of the Lakatosian Research Programme as put forth by Dorling and Redhead-like I said. End Quote: Argument of authority on your part. I've read more on Popper than you might think old boy, and not just via Wikipedia. Though convenient to refute your position. BTW I don't say or have ever taken the position that I fully agree with everything Popper said. I only state that science isn't only about predictions but about making falsifiable predictions. (Whether it stems from Popper or not is immaterial.) Now you clearly dispute this. That is incomprehensible. Got to go will react further later on. Ah well again an argument of authority on your part. What the overwhelming part of frequentists within philosophy think: i.e. that they can wholesale reject Bayes just shows that they know little about statistics and that is the issue then and not philosophy. Any good statistician could set them straight on this. BTW I learned about this via much more than just Wikipedia and had it checked by the highest authority available (and no I'm not going to prove the latter, I just counter your argument of authority dito.) No-one in his right mind rejects the correctness of the Bayes theorem. The actual issue is stating something on anything with to little data. Can you do so in science? Yes you use Bayes. Period. You are pseudo scientific if you don't know this. Any frequentist / Bayes discussion is only done by those who don't know statistics. Again in the overlap they should both render the same result. So a point of personal preference. When sufficient data are available the frequentist (or even deterministic Rutherford approach) is of course to be used in stead of Bayes. Look into the Lucia de B court case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk to show where a frequentist approach went horribly wrong. Had the first mathematician (professor Elfers) used Bayes instead he would have had a direct pointer in the right direction: a priori do you think that nurses often if at all kill patients? In my world I would guess not and thus require a lot of extra evidence to prove this on a given norm. Bayes the mathematics of common sense. And yes also to be applied on physics questions such as: is there pressure in the system of the cosmos as we observe? At last got it: well this cracked pot picture shows where you use Bayes to fill in the picture. And how you thus falsify other positions that are improbable on the question where to start looking.

Rather funny this, continuing a discussion on a locked thread in a pinned one that is a continuation of it. And getting it wrong. Hilarious even. This thread had best be named Effing Popper & Statistics Popper dixit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Criticism : Popper wrote, several decades before Gray's criticism, in reply to a critical essay by Imre Lakatos:It is true that I have used the terms "elimination", and even "rejection" when discussing "refutation". But it is clear from my main discussion that these terms mean, when applied to a scientific theory, that it is eliminated as a contender for the truth- that is, refuted, but not necessarily abandoned. Moreover, I have often pointed out that any such refutation is fallible. It is a typical matter of conjecture and of risk-taking whether or not we accept a refutation and, furthermore, of whether we "abandon" a theory or, say, only modify it, or even stick to it, and try to find some alternative, and methodologically acceptable, way round the problem involved. That I do not conflate even admitted falsity with the need to abandon a theory may be seen from the fact that I have frequently pointed out, that Einstein regarded general relativity as false, yet as a better approximation to the truth than Newton's gravitational theory. He certainly did not "abandon" it. But he worked to the end of his life in an attempt to improve upon it by way of a further generalization.[63] So you performed a strawman on Popper. And further more you are clearly not quite up to scratch in thinking there is a useful discussion between frequentist and Bayesian statisticians the one excluding the other. The ones that go into such discussions are effing statistics. These are simply two tools in the toolbox of a statistician, that both should render the same result when used correctly. The one used best is (primarily) dependent on the amount of available data, whereby ("intuitive") Bayesian statistics has a broader application than a frequentist approach, being the latter a more exact approach needing more data. So you're wrong there as well. Now the problem is I've a cartoon as well that I drew myself. Alas I can't figure out how to post the damn thing here.

Oh dear, oh dear, unmotivated move to speculations by an anonymous moderator. I wonder what caused that, even when reading the rules? Couldn't of been the title "correct scientific procedure, especially in physics" could it? Was it then the speculation on the chance that MN is an illusionist? That would be on unsound reasoning then. Because correct scientific procedure demands that science speculates and takes up position on that issue. Al the more it would be a fallacy because I cover therewith all exits via research that MN can take - including the current physics exit - whereas current physics only covers the exit that fits the current paradigm. Speculating via the fallacy that that will render the fastest results because it has shown to render results. So my critique on current physics if it wants to belong to current science is that it is speculating, in stead of covering all possible exits. And that physics is speculating badly above that as well. Yet it sends my thread to speculation. Well then it might have been all the fallacies that were claimed that I made in the thread. But I made none. Not one. Any objective reader can check this and see it to be true. Is it then sent to speculation because of the speculations of others and the fallacies of others? Such as: argument of authority, circular argument, begging the question, and what not. Or the straw men that I was repeatedly treated on, without ever doing one myself? Or is it the conflating assertion on evidence and proof? Baring in mind that Kuhn from whom the idea on scientific paradigm stems shows that it is just the problem of conflating views that is at the heart of it. This via the metaphor of the rabbit and duck I gave at the beginning of the thread? Or is it that physicists think that they are above the normal rules that define science as science? I.e. that they make the rules? Such rules as: he who states position proves the position. He who infringes on systematic logical (=scientific) formalities such as using incorrect definitions or titles thereof must state and thus prove the position that this poses no problem. Or is it that the current science of psychology doesn't hold that physicists have a paradigm i.e. to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. So Wikipedia as the view of current science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#In_scientific_procedure Quote: A currently accepted paradigm would be the standard model of physics. The scientific method would allow for orthodox scientific investigations into phenomena which might contradict or disprove the standard model; however grant funding would be proportionately more difficult to obtain for such experiments, depending on the degree of deviation from the accepted standard model theory which the experiment would be expected to test for. To illustrate the point, an experiment to test for the mass of neutrinos or the decay of protons (small departures from the model) would be more likely to receive money than experiments to look for the violation of the conservation of momentum, or ways to engineer reverse time travel. End quote. So you lot will have to change this Wikipedia page as well then. Do please bear in mind the topic is correct scientific procedure - in general - especially in physics. This to show that physics is infringing on this. And, we pay a price for this without doubt. But that's history of folly repeating itself, now isn't it? ​So the unmotivated move to speculation provides further strong evidence of my point. An emotional / non rational reaction to fully rational argument as to expected in current psychology when challenging current strongly held beliefs. It isn't physics that is the problem, but physicists not willing / able to understand that they are humans, that follow normal fairly well understood rules of psychology. This to the point that the thread is not even taken as a properly scientifically held view that is opposed but seen as speculative. The problem for me in opposing physics is, that in order for me to hold the focus of physicists in their current paradigm, that I need then to do it in mathematics. But that is just the problem. The over emphasis on mathematics that in itself infringes on the basic rules of mathematics: beware of garbage-in. To prevent that you need to have proper word salad (as a re-appropriation: not well understood either as the thread shows.) in order to answer all relevant questions, before doing the mathematics. And to do that you need proper well kept definitions that systematically cover they entire topic of TOE on what you do and what you don't know. Physicists think they can leave this out in proper scientific procedure. That is un-defensible as being scientific in any way. This because they don't understand its importance and on averedge aren't very good at word salad. Neither are all physicists good at guessing. Or formally trained in the correct rules of evidence and proof when dealing with very little data, yet forced to make timely and above aver-edge correct decisions. They thus don't see that anyone with common sense sees just as especially all good assessment psychologists that you need to get the team in order. The problem is the democratic science of peers in physics. If the majority of peers hold that apples fall upwards, well then they do. Though predictable it remains hilariously noteworthy behavior for scientifically trained people to reason in a way that renders this thread as speculative. It isn't. Its current not understood by physicists science. On which they structurally infringe. That physicists have attained awe inspiring achievements doesn't make this any different. That the Church in the middle-ages built awe inspiring cathedrals didn't prove that the earth was flat, now did it? Just as that CERN doesn't prove the universe to be flat either. You lot are in a confirmation bias of intergalactic proportions. This brings us to the issue of paradigm shift and how that works:

Oh thank you so much for this executive summary: it indeed will be extremely hard for you to make sense of something that conflicts with your paradigm according to current psychology. Taking current science on (textbook wisdom:Data ---> Information ---> Knowledge ---> BOOK Wisdom) psychology conflicting with the current paradigm will lead to an inherent confirmation bias by its defenders unless an authority concurs or the opposing one can hold the focus of the other. The latter also greatly dependent upon the open-mindedness of this other person. Yet current science may be taken as a fact in this. You can't on the other hand take current science on physics as a fact as the appropriate solution for the observed anomalies. Nor any claim that only some tweaking of current theories is needed to eradicate these anomalies. Especially not because it has become more and more wacky and weird in stead of clear the more data have been obtained. More and more proven predictions doesn't cover up more and more data on anomalies that have occurred. Current paradigm in physics: no philosophy to see what prior assumptions are in order or is there any need to explain what waves are or where the observed order stems from. Thus there is no need for word salad but only data and mathematics in order to describe nature. An extremely high burden of proof is on the one that disputes this. So time is relative, c = max speed, and anyone contesting this is a crack pot. Physics is progressing as fast as possible for others to disprove. So someone stating that mathematics dictate proper input of word salad based assumptions is a crack pot. Which is a blatant contradiction, because mathematics dictates non garbage input by ultimately word salad. And someone stating that all the relevant definitions are not in sufficient order, because if they were one would see that there is no scientific base to state that the yet to be found laws of physics at the deepest level are not possibly very simple. And not as current paradigm holds very difficult. We simply don't know either way. To state they are extremely difficult or just as difficult as current known laws of physics is even less probable on Occams razor than to state that they are even probably simple in nature. So instead of extrapolating mathematics into incomprehensible regimes (i.e. something from nothing), simply extrapolating the size and mass of assumed parts of the smallest observed particles below the as yet measurable level does NOT infringe - per definition - on current data, theories or laws of physics. And that poses a simple Newton explanation for everything. Not investigating this via possible tests and organizing this is incorrect scientific procedure. Based thus on data of current science. Given the current paradigm and thus to be taken as fact confirmation bias of that paradigm one is forced to assume that taking a guess with a 1 / 100 of being right on a TOE is extremely unattractive to those physicists who are capable of such feats of good guessing. There is a 99/1 chance to become the laughing stock of science if it indeed - very probably - fails in individual cases. This estimate is forced on physicists by current psychology as the most probable explanation of no attempts as opposed to the explanation that it is to difficult. There is no evidence of the latter in lieu of the given alternate. Which alternate can be taken as fact because it is current science on psychology. The more so because correct definition would even show the need to support even a 1 / 1000 chance of being correct by laymen. GIVEN the even probable fact that MN is indeed playing a simple game of an illusion. The same would even hold if it was only possible BTW. The only route open to science is to get it organised to test and not to argue. It is even inherently cheap to get to a TOE if it indeed is possible. A TOE defined correctly isn't a Law on everything. I.e. you can have many TOE's but only one LOE. Which theories to test first: Occam's razor. That ultimately it is very difficult to prove a LOE isn't the first thing on the agenda. At the moment science hasn't even one contender for TOE. Science isn't even trying. A theory correctly defined is consistent with all current data and laws of science and provides a mathematical prediction on all forces of nature. If science would indeed start to follow the correct route it would probably even show if MN is indeed playing a simple illusion that there aren't that may concepts for TOE's even in word salad that can be consistently formulated. How many cranks as yet have provided contenders for this on this site ever? 0? 1? 500? How many? Simple probabilistic reasoning shows it worth wile to put effort into it, even if it are indeed 500 and thus show it incorrect scientific procedure if it isn't stimulated and tested. Even getting only one in this site is worth it on a 1 / 1000 probability. I.e. how many sites are there? State your estimated probability of a guess by a present day Einstein on a TOE given current data? Why not 1 /10? What is the chance of a current day Einstein even daring to try, not knowing to have this ability? 1/100? How many current day Einstein physicists are there? If you don't organize it it won't happen quickly. If you do and MN is an illusionist after all, you will quickly get there. The technique that current science on psychology shows how to optimally use ones brain is also consistent with this, as I will show.

I of course did so in word salad. And it fits like a glove to the way a physicist explained what all the excitement was about. He showed that the Higgs particle apears and subsequently sticks to the particle to which it provides the mass, whilst at the same time causing the particle to move through the Higgs field as if it were moving through syrup. Now the fact I did so in word salad is even to be deemed correct scientific procedure. It is using the correct "mathematics" so to speak. I'll get back to that later. What is this? a priori hind sight bias? If we would know beforehand that it is impossible then indeed it is useless to try. Point is we don't know how difficult it is exactly at the moment whatever we do or don't do. Yet one thing is crystal clear if you don't venture to try you wont find out ever. And the quicker you start trying the quicker you will find it, if it indeed proves to be much more simple than thought at the moment. Many problems concerning MN and even problems in general are easy with hindsight. If this one on TOE ultimately also proves to be simple you clearly have followed the wrong scientific route for years. I.e. proven then to slow. And, no hind sight bias. The rule applies that historian Barbara Tuchman in "The march of Folly" describes: that peoples / leaders through time continuously follow a route that is counterproductive to their own clear interests even though in their time they were shown that it was a folly and why, yet continued to do so. A nice history of what psychology would call paradigm / CB problem. I would venture to call this a law of history and a law of psychology. Laws in this sense much and much weaker than laws of physics BTW. Yet correctly definable as laws. Thing is that then assuming or even stating to know that there is not a paradigm and CB problem in current physics is like stating that in physics the psychological apples fall upwards. Do you honestly think that? On what basis do you think that physics doesn't have a PD and CB problem? Isn't you dogma that you may not answer physiological questions about physics yet should only address measurable predictions with mathematics and thus not word salad a paradigm? Now you repeatedly perform a strawman on me as stating that I say / imply that this is incorrect procedure. Because it is correct procedure in the production department as part of the research department. Say we deem this Yang. What the critique of mine is that you don't support Yin, the true research attitude as well. So simply not opposing or worse still opposing of that is incorrect scientific procedure even if you can indeed point to an in part correct procedure of Yang. Again, you need to be doing both. Yin and Yang. And, Yin goes before Yang. yang is only a fail-safe if you don't have a clue any more where to start looking. Here you do a straw man on me, as just stated. Correct use of word salad: if you read in a newspaper: "Elderly don't dare go out at night" do you then deem that to be dis proven if you spot one elderly person walking the street at night? You would be a bit of a Dr Spock (Star Track) wouldn't you? It is short hand for: "this is a major problem a great many elderly don't dare to go out any more." Actually physicists and mathematicians do the same. You use shorthand formulas such as E = mc2 to point at an as I understand larger formula that would be more correct. I.e. you are allowed to cut corners as long as everybody understands that that indeed is being done. And of course dependent on the issue at hand. Using word salad to reach a TOE in the idea / concept faze is the correct scientific way to go about it. The paradigm Yang is thus wrong not to actively support and use that. It is in fact the only way to brainstorm your way ahead without getting bogged down in details for fear of making mistakes before even getting started. If someone is in a big building in search for the TOE toilette loo, then using the mark 1 mod 1 eyeball will suffice, unless some specs are in order to distinguish between the gents and the ladies. Now if you are working this problem being a bit pressed for time, then using a microscope to find your way is going to be counterproductive in more ways then one. As we Dutch would say you'll end up pissing beside the pot. First of all it is going to take to long, and you will loose your way and might end up pissing in the pot containing a ficus tree. Then stating that mankind has a long history of pissing against trees and that you are back to watering the roots and certainly not pissing beside the pot, would not cover up a situation that will at a point stink to high heaven. The march of folly. I.e. in search for TOE you first use correct word salad. To do that you need correct definitions. You have even admitted in not having those. Then you use mathematics. I claim claim claim on basis of laws of psychology that imply that psychological apples fall downwards. You say that for physicists they fall upwards. Okay prove it! If you would have had your definitions on idea, concept, theory and law in order you would't of made this - systematic - error in reasoning. Higgs reached his theory 50 years ago. We could of likewise have had a correct TOE then as well. The proven law of that might for ever elude us. Yet if you got the correct formulas in catching MN there is no reason why everything we can measure falls into place without having any anomalies anymore. But if you don't venture to try you most certainly wont get there quickly now will you? Get it organised! Try, test get at it and check to see if it is a barrier and don't assume it. Who is to say that at the deepest level MN isn't simply working the laws of Newton yet > c with actual atoms? Being the illusionist we - know! - she has proven to be in the past. Matter for instance seeming solid yet being much more void of anything as we know etc. etc, etc.. Then why do you do that concerning psychology? And the basics of mathematics and correct use of definitions? Is matter in your opinion correctly defined? Sorry out of time will react to the rest later.