kristalris

Indeed the Higgs field was predicted 50 years ago. And, I with my very limited knowledge of these fields predicted something very similar more than a year before CERN showed it was probable and before I understood what was meant by it's mechanism. That only came about when a physicist after the test started to explain what it meant in simple terms. The reason I could do this was because I followed correct scientific procedure. When you do so you converge on a problem in stead of diverging on average. The pieces of the puzzle start to fall in place. If MN is indeed an illusionist then there is no reason not to at least get a correct theory without testing within a few months even. Because you are then looking for something simple at the heart of it. (If indeed it proves to be so complex that we as human apes are simply to stupid to comprehend anyway, well then we won't succeed what ever we do (baring building a big computer that will generate our 42. And subsequently building an even bigger one for reasons I forgot.) I don't contest that fundamental research is being done. I contest the speed at which it is done. Well, at least you concede the possibility of it. I don't claim it to be the only reason, but I do claim it to be a probably main reason. The prediction on the speed one can reach a TOE is an inherent guess. On basis of evidence we readily have available I'd say very probably possible within the decade if organized differently. Maybe even within month's having the answer in the way Higgs had his on the Higgs field. Is it taboo for anyone to state that the Higgs field is an aether? I'd say it is. (Although I indeed think it better defined as not to be that, because the aether would then indeed be nothing that surrounds the particles (what is the definition of a "particle"? Building block?) providing and receiving mass. And the general idea of an aether is that it is something.) Scientists and physicists are humans. Humans have prior convictions and beliefs that form a paradigm of such rules. A priori (as the prior odds) current science would thus deem a paradigm with its inherent confirmation bias (CB) an important hurdle. This is a high prior odds on bases of current psychology and even history) The subsequent evidence (or likelihood ratio's) should thus show quite the sme. Now if we see that Steven Hawking called Higgs a crank or words to that effect without being chastised for that, it can be seen as evidence for a CB. If we see Krauss et all making video's on You Tube depicting something from nothing not understanding that he is extrapolating E = mc2 into a regime even prior or during the big bang where it extremely probably doesn't hold true. Because it then is prior the probable forming of the particles on which it is based. Which everyone would of probably spotted sooner if E = mc2 had been defined as a law with its inherent limits, shows that he is beguiled by the beautiful mathematics and mesmerized by the indeed great achievements of physics, to a point that he evidently can't even contemplate that this could even break down in area's. If we see that I as a non scientist physicist can show improper definitions on key issues that can be taken as evidence of a CB at work. There is no other probable explanation than a CB. Again, without proper definitions you can't give an estimate on how fast a TOE is reachable. Yet you have and even stated earlier that no one as yet is working on it. In other words a waste of time. Whereas if you simply put the definitions in order, and keep them in order it clearly points in a direction where most scientists would agree that one should look, if it weren't for a CB. Yet this could be tested using a correct secret ballot done by good psychologists (aided by physicists) Producing questions along the lines: Do you see MN as an illusionist? Guess most would agree. Do you thus suspect some simple mathematical rules and physical structures at the heart of it? Guess most would say yes. Do you believe the Cosmos to be infinite and being cyclic? Guess most scientists would guess this to be true. Well if you then look at all the correctly defined state of affairs on observations and anomalies I guess it won't take long to figure out what MN is probably at. Yet your physics dogma (= paradigm) states that you don't answer questions but only do observations and testable predictions. Well indeed then you don't have need for proper definitions, now do you? But then you can't make any prediction pro or con the speed at which a TOE can be reached either. I have proven it wrong. Having a title for a definition holding part of the answer is per definition begging the question unless it is true that it is used to limit the scope what you stated, but haven't proved. Like with Fokker if ants are eating at the definition, for the one stating to have solved the problem, to prove that it has.So even if you thus have solved that logical problem a new one arises namely no definition for the whole scope. DM could only be correct when used as a title for all anomalies concerning matter. The latter not even being properly defined either. I have never stated that we would otherwise have a complete understanding of DM. I have only stated that it is easily (for physicists / scientists) to define matter in a concise way giving all we know as observations including anomalies. You Swansont should be able to do that in an afternoon. Yet then I guess you now agree that saying that electro-magnitism most certainly exerts gravity is a wrong definition for the reasons I pointed out. It attracts yes, yet it pushes as well. Gravity only pulls. Now these are important definitions to get right. Word salad done correctly provides the correct bandwidth to work quickly on as yet unclear issues. As long as you stay within the scientific bandwidth i.e. to succinct and it will go wrong and to inaccurate it will also fail. I have stated the reasons, why it hasn't progressed faster. They are obvious, and measurable as well if you like. Because of the prior odds however, I don't even have to do that much now do I? Argument ad hominem and of authority. You don't know whether or not I've done actual research. No it has been presented as a probability statement. If indeed God exists then I'm wrong. But that would then be hindsight bias. Based on what we know of current science of psychology and physics etc. it should be possible to reach TOE within the decade, maybe much sooner. Science at the moment isn't like you stated even trying. There is no valid reason why not. There are a lot of reasons that I already gave to show why this isn't seen at the moment. The same reasoning applies for any given moment in the past since more than fifty years at least. If you get your theory right then even quick and dirty testing will start to render results. Everything should start to fall into place. Maybe that some deeper questions will elude proof due to yet to be developed technology and that may take a hundred years, however having a full theory or theories on TOE to test will speed it up, if it is at all attainable. yet somewhere along the line we will probably run into insurmountable measurement problems. But that shouldn't prevent attempting to get to a TOE right now. This by stating it, organizing it and funding it. Which science up to now without a given valid reason hasn't done. It has primarily only followed one route: the production method route at nigh exclusion of the true research route. The latter states its goals as high as possible after correct analysis of - all - the data and answering - all - the questions via out of the box (= paradigm & CB) thinking. Being deemed crackpot even to the degree that the great hero's of science are certifiably deemed mad by current DSM standards. Again evidence for a CB problem. BTW history on CB problems shows it slows much needed progress down. It is inherently conservative. Which is good in production. Well I tried to post a "paint" picture but failed, but I'll try again (slight John Cleese moment there, being in part digibeet, Yet fiercely proud of it.(Does yelling and hitting the enter button more forcefully help?) Anyway still learning.)

Like I said earlier it's actually not my job to provide correct definitions on matter or mass. Like the Wikipedia-link states there in fact isn't a concise definition of matter at the moment. That is strange because it requires only knowledge and very little creativity to supply one. Just state what everybody agrees on and formulate all the anomalies. That's it. That I in my second attempt didn't hit the mark as such says nothing. That science as yet hasn't done so has a reason. It provides evidence to the effect that improper scientific procedure has been followed. The providing and updating the definitions on these issues in a systematic way is important. And the fact that it hasn't been done is evidence of a confirmation bias. Clearly no one dares to work large issues anymore. Other wise why not? In correct scientific procedure you need concise definitions on everything, the more so on key issues like what is matter and what is mass? As you see in my in part failed attempt to do so, having a definition points in certain directions for further investigation. We know in the link I gave earlier that Einstein showed the prior definitions before him to have been wrong. Getting it right as matter of course shows the way. No creativity needed. Just describe what you do and what you don't know. l thought that electromagnetic radiation goes in and out: i.e. can repulse and attract whereas gravity sec per definition only attracts? See above. Correct scientific procedure is the issue. DM was just IMO the easiest to prove wrong. Again using DM as title is committing for the reasons stated and neigh absolute proof given the fallacy of begging the question. It is a 2 + 2 = 5 discussion otherwise. Your correction like Fokker stating to have corrected it provides you as Fokker with the burden to prove that. BTW Fokker didn't sit back to wait if the ants indeed could bring a plane down. You simply don't take that risk. Ants eating glue from planes is a problem. Incorrectly defined key issues in science likewise. Wait a minute. Since the start of the thread I've been on about just this point as the main point I'm making. Yeager not waiting till someone finds the needle in the haystack on what's wrong with the Sabre. The Ferrari fast track versus the too slow plodding track with a tractor. If I state that and more to that effect and you counter with examples in which you only show that science is (slowly) progressing, I subsequently haven't made a straw-man. You have, in "willfully" disproving a point I even explicitly didn't make. I have stated that science is indeed slowly progressing. It being to slow is the issue. Getting to a TOE before the end of the decade. Now how could that have happened other that it being evidence for a confirmation bias at work? BTW every human is susceptible to confirmation bias. Some more so than others. The way the discussion in this thread has been going on is evidence of a confirmation bias at work. You missed my main point. Confirmation biases slow down progress that is a scientific known fact both in history and in psychology. It works conservative against the risk of change. Which again in production is good and not bad. Science at the moment doesn't even have a correct definition on what matter is. How on earth can you then subsequently ascertain how difficult or not it is going to be to reach TOE before the end of the decade? That starts off with having a definition on all these key issues. The fact that you don't have them coupled on your statement earlier / the fact that no-one is working on a TOE at the moment is only explainable through the existence of a strong confirmation bias, and the problem for anyone posing argument to get through due to the problem of focus. So textbook psychology shows I must try and get on the same wavelength with you. Now I for instance know you make cartoons, let's see if that works?

In reaction to this post and as promised earlier: definition of Matter and Mass. Followed by burden of proof and research and a bit on focus. Definition of Matter & Mass (second attempt as work in progress): Matter is often directly observable ,exerts gravity and usually has a measurable volume. De volume being determined by 3D space it occupies at different levels of observation. I.e. matter can be part of other matter as a particle. The amount of exerted gravity has a mathematically understood relationship with mass, that is always present in matter, except in an anomaly concerning non disintegrating galaxies. Another anomaly of matter concerns the accelerating away from us of galaxies the further away the faster. Matter at a deeper level always moves relative to other matter, and there has well understood wavelengths the cause of which is unknown. The relationship of electromagnetism and matter is well understood, what magnetism is, is yet unknown. Matter can be brought to further order via life forms, and acting as a fractal or as a crystal (and… ?). The deeper reasons for this is unknown. From our perspective there is however mounting disorder. Mass is never directly observable and has an intricate mathematical relationship with energy and the speed of light as a law of nature (and currently thus incorrectly defined as to be only a theory). This law is observed to hold true as far as observable particles are concerned, baring observed anomalies. I.e. mass can fully disappear and reappear at that level of observation. Whether mass has volume or itself exerts gravity or is just the cause of gravity at a deeper level is unobservable at the moment. CONCLUSION The existence of anomalies even between laws of nature at observed levels show a measurement problem that dictates to search for hidden variables. Baring in mind that current laws of nature probably don’t apply at that level. Mass-less particles such as photons are thus incorrectly defined and should be defined as being matter-less because they don’t exert gravity. Dark matter is a correct title for the definition for all current and yet to be discovered anomalies concerning matter and incorrect as portraying only part of that as a general description of a problem via a disputable hypothesis on only one of the anomalies. Dark energy is only a correct title for the definition of all anomalies that concern energy. Because all anomalies do, it is useless as a distinguishing title. Even in this second attempt to properly define these issues it is clear that should have been clear since it was shown that incorrect definitions plagued science before Einstein, as shown in the earlier link in Wikipedia that defining the issue shows how to start a systematic search for TOE. DM To further prove the incorrectness of the term Dark Matter: Fokker built the F27 Friendship aircraft and sold it to an African nation, where it was found that ants there liked to eat the glued aluminium structures that Fokker was the first to have used. Fokker changed the additives in the glue and swopped the sold planes. Now the question is, who then had to prove that the additives solved the problem? I.e. that the changed glue was up to spec and not yummied anymore by these ants? The one who pointed towards the existence of the problem or Fokker? Of course the research department of Fokker did that and took care of it. Now I pointed towards there being an illogical ant eating at the title Dark Matter as a begging the question fallacy. You, as Fokker, claim to have fixed the problem in order that the speediest expedition of science/ continuation of flights is unhindered. You (et all) do this by showing that science is still progressing via Neutrino’s and Whimps. Does that prove the ** speediest ** expedition - being the probandum - for the one like Fokker carrying the burden of proof? No of course not. FOCUS Now there is the problem of focus. Mother Nature makes it so as current psychology shows that especially with people who are highly conscientious and low on openness even more so when they score high on alertness, communicating on a paradigm issue is walking an emotional tightrope. Usually in psychology / communication depicted by the analogy of the iceberg. The rational bit pops out and is visible the emotional bit is under water. As soon as even the slightest loss of focus is induced by one wrong word, tone of voice or whatever the most commonly held view in science at the moment is that this exerts a fear that blocks a fully rational response via an algorithm: “This is wrong, because:….” And, if that doesn’t work an emotional response is to be expected: anger, laughter mockery, etc. Excellent for survival of the species on production issues, a hindrance in proper research.

You mist the re-appropriation bit I guess. That's word salad for ya then ain't it? Loss of focus? Well, I have demonstrated and even proven that it is, but what compromise would you like to reach? Glad that I've contributed to your psychoanalysis of me. Funny the way psychologists always resort to this when discussing a subject after getting cornered by anyone. BTW what DSM number should pun on focus hold according to Higgens? And, what does your reaction to my pun on focus say about you? Ever heard of an argument ad hominem? Would you like me to explain this to you? First sentence could indeed be. Second sentence is in starch contradiction to the third. In the end: likewise. Bare foot is not for wimps but for heroes on socks. (Inside (Dutch) joke.) Does this post of yours prove your point?

I never said or even implied anything different. Fallacious reasoning is Illogical reasoning. Using fallacies is unscientific. Dark matter as a title of this problem is a fallacy and thus unscientific at any level seeing the problem. That's why I chose that one to show evidence of a broader problem of sloppy definitions which I mentioned earlier. If you were for instance to use the title Dark Matter for all problems concerning matter it would't pose a problem. The proof of that is on the one who uses the title on this problem. I didn't at first grasp what you were on about. See it as I state 2 + 2 =/= 5. You say he prove it. I say well 2 + 2 = 4. Then you say that doesn't prove that 2 + 2 =/= 5 is correct. Well, that may be but he, can you understand that I have a bit of a problem then ascertaining what you are on about? I'm not in the business of computer programming. As I'm trying to convince humans. Well indeed if I were a zealot or puritan that would be. Yet, I'm not. I even would oppose that. Word salad should't be used that way. It is up to a degree inherently vague or ambiguous. Which is good at the concept level! Because there close is close enough. When however an extreme or exact degree of exactness is needed to play the zealot you must convert to another "language" the unambiguous language of mathematics. (No, that doesn't mean or imply that mathematicians are to be deemed zealots.) I.e. word salad only goes "so far" so to speak. When the problem is inherently vague you can (sometimes even best) use word salad and not mathematics (though the latter is always allowed). That again doesn't mean that you can just muck around with word salad either. It has psychological consequences even for physicists IMO. But if I catch physicists out on fallacies the burden to disprove is on them. I.e. word salad isn't that vague either. It has an appropriate bandwidth of exactness so to speak. Using scientific definitions you are at the top end. But then again don't overdo it. Proof is ultimately conviction driven. Like I stated earlier only if you are convinced that it might indeed pose a problem, should you oppose. (Otherwise you are indeed a zealot) That however doesn't then constitute a burden of proof because that has been met by the proof of the prior fallacy. I have yet to find time to provide a better definition of matter that applies even at the current deepest level. But physicists should be red at the cheeks ashamed of themselves that they can't provide a good definition for matter given the current state of affairs. It is simply describing accepted observations and anomalies in a concise systematic way. I guess that it will lead if done correctly to calling photons matter less in stead of mass less for instance. I.e. we can observe them not to exert gravity, but we don't know whether they don't have as yet undetected mass. If you define GR, SR and QM correctly as laws (a zealot would then say that they only contain them, and physicists at the moment would incorrectly deny them containing laws.) you can't be sure that these are valid at a level where the particles that are observed to comply to these laws may not exist any more. And, again the history I showed that incorrect definitions played a role in not identifying the solutions that Einstein provided. The reason that "Dark" doesn't pose that much of a problem is that it only states a problem. No-one would contest the correctness of that I gather. I'm convinced it doesn't, yet indeed I could be wrong.

Like this sentence of yours. Which first response do you mean? Again: the rule is called the fallacy of begging the question. Probandum (or question) in part A : evidence in part A answer in part A is a fallacy of logic. A problem poses a question in science that begs for evidence and proof. If you already give the answer (or part of it) as evidence and subsequent answer you commit this fallacy. Do you want proof that using fallacies is against the formal and accepted rules of science? If you had focused properly you would of spotted this easily. Ah no, and again: the title of a definition can be seen as part of it: Dark matter = not in some way to be seen as matter that is dark? You would be right if it was titled Dark Oort, as I again and again have stated. But it isn't and it should of been. No, yet I haven't reread the thread to see exactly where. Please provide the number of the post. If you put it like that yes. It's part of the guts of the argument. Yes, and I have already done that. Again: In using "Dark matter" in the title you commit a fallacy (see above) that CAN have primary effect etc.. For you then to disprove this proof based on the proof of a committed fallacy. I reacted to your irrelevant joke with an irrelevant joke, that you now take serious. I see you're now resorting to quotes of Shakespeare to clarify this issue? I don't think it's going to do that, so we'll leave William out of it shall we? No, you should have been more patient. And if impatience got the better of you, you should have reminded me first. And you should of focused more beforehand. Well I have again done that, see above. Further more, I wonder: if you were arrested and before being tried and convicted your police dossier would be titled the Dark Ophiolite, if your name was indeed Ophiolite? Even if there were no more other suspects. I wonder what your full awareness of the nature of confirmation bias then in seeing the application of this arbitrary name to your dossier indeed therein just defining you to be the suspect, would yield? Being such a staunch fan of Khun's thesis. Wonder what Khun would of made of that, and the title Dark Matter for that matter? Care to guess? Maybe some more focusing by you on that thesis is in order? Further more if we look at the Wikipedia page on Matter stating that a "bewildering variety" of definitions thereof exist you then see that the definition problem clearly exists. This where science is per definition to be executed in a systematic way. Although not my job not being a physicist or scientist I think I can do better taking the Wikipedia page as being correct. The definition of matter would start off with: exerts gravity, the amount of which is in a linear (?) way related to the always present mass except concerning anomalies observed in galaxies not disintegrating and accelerating (the latter conform the law of Hubble). It has volume except..... and that is how far I got up till now. Anyway a definition should be possible to provide science on the deepest level with one definition of matter. Anyway that would immediately knock the title Dark Matter out. This because there are evidently several dark matter problems. Haven't got time now got to go.

Talking about difficulty in staying focused, I just in the previous post of mine absolutely clenched the point on dark matter. Again then for you: Swansont said that I was making the fallacy of begging the question, by stating in effect the same as what you are stating now. Now you might indeed think that when I state a rule but fail to see that it is the actual rule that is in dispute that you could indeed think this. I.e. that I was begging the question. The reason I failed to spot this is that it is so bloody obvious that I didn't spot it but for a moment after Swansont had got more and more cornered had switched to even explicitly disputing the validity of the stated rule. Now the hilarious thing is, I too had failed to spot that calling the problem dark matter is in itself committing the fallacy of begging the question. It is thus quite literately begging the question using the title dark matter as such. Now do you really want me to explain this in depth to you? It then would be a bit like explaining someone that it's already check and check mate over and over again. Because the only line of defense open then is to dispute the rule in science that fallacies aren't allowed. Luckily however the site rules prohibit this as well. First of all again I don't carry the burden of proof in showing this on a point where a fallacy has been made, that fallacies are prohibited in science because they have a negative effect on science. Secondly I have shown evidence by the Wikipedia post on the burden of evidence in science and the history on just this subject in effect. You are a geologist I understand. Your position on dark matter is strange. Swansont stated - if I understand him correctly - that it limited the scope of the problem and thus the cost to fund research in the direction you think the answer might be sought. I.e. the non existence of dark matter. What if you are right, you wouldn't find that if it isn't funded now will you? Now Ophiolite would it be help-full to call ophiolite Prince Charles instead because he resembles a crusted rock? Actually I think we should call Dark Matter Dark Oort after the Dutch guy Jan Oort who I gather first postulated the problem. Does your focusing entail that you think I was only in discussion with you and that I opposed others that did. Anyway thanks that you don't say I've committed any fallacy in this thread. Study a bit more psychology and the paradigm thread I gave you as the through link to confirmation bias then. SM is in discussions on this topic as I understand it means Standard Model. I had already done it, and for you especially I did it again. If it still isn't clear I'll be more than pleased to fully explain the fallacy of begging the question to you. This about covers it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter The term "matter" is used throughout physics in a bewildering variety of contexts: for example, one refers to "condensed matter physics",[87] "elementary matter",[88] "partonic" matter, "dark" matter, "anti"-matter, "strange" matter, and "nuclear" matter. In discussions of matter and antimatter, normal matter has been referred to by Alfvén as koinomatter.[89] It is fair to say that inphysics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier. How to define Dark Matter: well best then: Dark Oort after the guy who I gather first postulated the problem. Now you got that wrong then. I see that you're a double major in biology and psychology? Yet you chose to only pose argument on a definition problem concerning physics when physics was at that moment excluded from the discussion? Well, I don't claim more on physics / astronomy & mathematics than high school science level. The basics there of I do claim to know and understand. The basics of which I see infringed upon. And have now proven to be so. Automatically not only DM but DE gets hit by the same fate. The basics entail a rigorously applied taking into account only all observations, and accounting for all laws (if defined correctly including GR, SR, QM and FT (as containing these). Point is laws have their inherent limits. And to answer all relevant questions, even without data. The latter for instance answering the question whether Mother Nature is an illusionist or not? As I think she is. This is what I call adhering to the rules of string and stick on a sandy beach as my maths teacher years ago explained that with this all - proper - mathematics can be done. If you take a sand clock along as well you can travel in your minds eye to any place or level in order to observe how it would look if you combine all these observations we know, and answer all questions as concise as possible. Staying with the guesswork as close as possible to analogies we readily observe in nature. In fact the game of Occam's razor. That game is a means to an end to see where to start looking for TOE in order to figure out how to if possible be do some quick and dirty testing. And testing again in order to get more relevant data. The limits of these laws (GR, SR, QM & FT) can be assumed to lie there where the atoms and sub atomic particles can't / don't exist. (Per definition then you get a sub sub atomic level) That could not only be outside our visible universe but also at a much smaller as yet un-observable level even within ourselves. There these laws of physics can be assumed to break down because they are based on the existence of just these observable particles that simply don't exist at that level. Now what is time other than a convention we humans need in order to observe our world with string and stick, and sand clock? That in no way infringes on relativity taking that as a convention, that extremely accurately predicts what happens when we still have subatomic particles in reality. The convention (of relativity) however will never thus become that reality. It only accurately describes that reality within its limits. That doesn't mean you are subsequently allowed to extrapolate that outside our visible universe or to deeper as yet unobserved levels. Otherwise you end up in the Escher Institute believing that water streams upwards. A simple measurement problem is thus quite obvious. This immediately means that you can have - and thus should consider and fund research into - speeds > c at this deeper level. Providing thus a very elegant and simple possible if not even probable explanation for the entanglement / Schrodinger's cat problem. The observations linked to that problem - are - the evidence for this. If you define it all correctly it becomes far more easy to see. There is thus no infringement on the laws of GR SR QM or FT just as there is no infringement of these latter on the laws of Newton. The present dogma however call for physicists to immediately start screaming about fairies and unicorns. Forgetting the simple fact that even our present day atom and the entire standard Model is filled with former unicorns. So also it is a problem to state that mass exerts gravity. It seems to me far better to define it so that matter per definition exerts gravity and has mass. So photons should't be called mass less but matter less. That we can't measure the volume of certain particles doesn't prove they haven't a volume. That more closely describes what you actually observe. That we haven't measured photons to have mass doesn't prove they don't have it just as my weight watchers scale reading zero when a marble is put on it proves the marble to be weight or even mass less. That photons don't exert gravity is observed at an extremely high observed level because light that is known to have traveled billions of years must have behaved differently, if even the slightest bit of gravity between photons would of existed. That leaves some more very fundamental questions to be asked and answered if you want to get to a correctly defined TOE quickly: what are waves and is it all cyclic or not? Where does the order we observe come from, and why doesn't it disintegrate faster or how is it we observe pressure? So: set our common goal, and set it high for all to see. that goals is TOE within the decade. Get the team in order using current insights of the science of psychology. The open minded cranks lead the team. And fund it. Stating to think out of the box but within the box of science. I.e. no fallacies, no magic et cetera. As Krauss et all is doing with his something from nothing. That is a contradiction and thus believing in magic. Because wisdom is creative intelligence with relevant knowledge and experience using crowd sourcing via internet is a cheap because free way of getting a lot of work done filtering out idea's. This will work if the goal is stated like Kennedy stating that we should go to the moon within the decade. This will silence the unicorn stance prohibiting this at the moment.

Oh I didn't understand that you contested the general rule that you are not allowed to put the answer in the question. That fallacy by the way is indeed begging the question. Of course except exceptions such as proven limitations in the scope of the problem. Well it is thus proven by logic. Contesting it is a fallacy of logic. And indeed that is not allowed. So no fallacy on my part but on your part then. The other rule is on burden of proof (unless you want to contest that to): he who states a position carries the burden of proof of that position. You claim an exception. Well then prove it. Limitations on the scope of the problem are allowed when proven. But they aren't proven they are the question. You physicists are begging the question. The Wikipedia article perfectly fits and supports what I'm on about and it shows clearly that defining properly - especially in physics - is essential as these episodes of great progress in science show. That's right up my ally. So, stop arguing that it isn't important to get the basics such as definitions in order as if they are mere formalities. Or that they are in order where they clearly aren't. It's bloody important. Again psychology and history show it. As does logic.

Qoute of mine Your reaction: No, that's not science. Some of that is politics and some of it is pure guesswork and naiveté on your part. It's also self-contradictory — you want to minimize spending but also want to fund cranks; you talk of perfectly defining a problem and admit that solutions will only seem obvious in hindsight. Can't have it both ways. Remember? What did you mean then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence New theories are sometimes developed after realizing certain terms have not previously been sufficiently clearly defined. For example, Albert Einstein's first paper on relativity begins by definingsimultaneity and the means for determining length. These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, "I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all." Einstein's paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were approximations. Francis Crick cautions us that when characterizing a subject, however, it can be premature to define something when it remains ill-understood.[53] In Crick's study of consciousness, he actually found it easier to study awareness in the visual system, rather than to study free will, for example. His cautionary example was the gene; the gene was much more poorly understood before Watson and Crick's pioneering discovery of the structure of DNA; it would have been counterproductive to spend much time on the definition of the gene, before them. You carry the burden to prove that the infringement on the general rule not to put the answer in the question of a definition, has no consequence, the way this history of science on this topic on scientific burden of evidence in this Wikipedia link clearly shows as well.

Now the point in discussion was - with the temporary exclusion of physics - what the general rule is. An infringement thereof lays the burden of proof on the one who states an exception on that rule. So then prove your position that physics should be exempt from this rule. Now before we further examine your view on psychology. Current textbook science of psychology though not explicitly written on the psyche of physicists as far as I'm aware of is quite clear that it doesn't quite work the way you think. History shows it to be different as well BTW. In science general the burden of proof is on you. So why would physics be any different? I'm touching on the core beliefs of a group i.e. physicists. Science on this is sum-mend up I just found quite nicely in the following link on paradigm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm And you clearly don't agree with the following: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Paradigm What usually then happens is that the one who gets pushed against his paradigm gets anxious and thinks the one who does that is out to get an emotional response. And think it a Troll in internet slang. Whereas a rational response is hoped for (yet not expected especially from cookie monsters) That's the current science on this issue. And the pure rational is that I nowhere in this thread made any fallacy whatsoever. As I see no further reaction from Swansont pending we can I guess subsequently that we should see what this means for and what changes are in order in physics given this current scientific view on the issue. BTW do you agree with Swansont who - if I understand him correctly - in fact stated that it would't be worth the effort to fund the present day teamed up Einsteins, Newton's etc. set on a goal of reaching (the systematic) TOE within the decade? This should be worth it if one can't rule out the possibility of MN being an illusionist: i.e. that there are a relative few mathematically based systems of particles at the heart of it all. Can current physics prove that that is not the case? And, isn't the SM a model of former unicorns? Big jumps in science don't happen often because they aren't usually being organised because the paradigm opposes. If the leader for instance says lets go the moon, or lets get to a TOE that will change current science on psychology as does history clearly show. Edit: and again I agree with the observational evidence that Dark matter exists, I don't agree with the definition, that shows incorrect procedure: As do a lot of other definitions physicists use. Again for you to prove that these incorrect definitions don't slow down progress.

Ah, the mentioned Dark stuff doesn't concern physics, because we would come back to that later, remember? But indeed your question does strike at the heart of it: what indeed is the matter? To understand this you must be aware of the history and goal of the thread as clearly stated in the title. You must understand the intricacies of word salad used as a "mathematical language" of logic so to speak. What are it's strength's and weaknesses? When and how do you apply it? What has it to do with psychology? My point is that it must be rigorously back to basics for mathematics that is applying what I call the rules of string and stick on a sandy beach. For physics I'll add the sand clock. Anyway if you don't, I'm convinced Mother (of human, as well) Nature will have you for breakfast in reaching your goal in a timely, cheap and easy way. See it as what would happen when a worker on the production line of the Sabre were to say to the other workers: oh lets not chafe our fingers anymore but put the bolts in upside down. That's better for all. That would if and when the point is pushed hard be resisted with religious fervor as psychology shows. If the one that defends the point of production gets corenerd, others will feel compelled to come to the aid. Very good in production, yet not so in research. Because then it might indeed be better to do so with the bolt and produce 12 in stead of 10 planes a month, that also can roll faster giving the edge in combat. In stead of crashing. So after the game of cat and mouse with Swansont ends in him having to change his "No" into an unequivocal "YES", I'll let him of the hook if he likes and immediately return to his comfort zone of physics. And then I'll answer your question as well.

Question is this rule correct as a general rule : Rules on definitions: Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science. Your answer: "No" You subsequently provided an - even invalid - exception. General rules are general rules because they deal with most cases. The exceptions to the rule deal - per definition - with less frequent cases. It is a fallacy of logic to try and refute a general rule via giving only exceptions, worse still via giving only one exception, and worst of all topping this with an invalid exception. Now first of all you provide something that is like I already stated an exception at best, i.e. - one - counter example; and even that is as said invalid. The existence via observation of the moon wasn't part of the problem. Observation of "Dark" i.e. unobserved stuff inherently is. And, you can only limit the scope of a problem if you don't leave part then of the problem unattended/ undefined Science is about dealing with the whole problem.

It's like Cluedo: let me guess: Cookie monster is Sir Flamelot? And, you got it wrong again then. Ah, forgot to state the rule that dodging the issue isn't allowed either in proper scientific procedure on debating an issue. No worries here: you're not allowed to. Okay have it your way: we'll go through the tedious task of checkmating the one that doesn't know when to topple his King. Science is systematic. We'll further reduce the issue: general rules excluding physics. We'll come to that later. (As to the rest, don't worry) Rules on definitions: Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science. Simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice to state the prior rule. Of course every rule has exceptions but we'll come to them later in a systematic way. As science dictates.

Now Swansont let’s get some things straight, as a point of order in debate: Science is scientific because it has rules. You are part of science if you adhere to them, and it is scientifically incorrect procedure when you don’t. In shorthand then the rules in general as I understand them: Procedure is per definition formal and not material. Rules on definitions: no biased definitions of problems. Stating part of the answer in the definition of the problem is against the formal rules of science, because it’s biased. Rules on evidence & standards of proof and burdens of proof: Proving a formal infringement on the rules may assume (= taken as proven if convinced undue risk) of having material effect. This because formal rules without assumed material effect would be meaningless. He who states a position must prove the position => the one stating position: “moot i.e.: no risk of material effect (given a formal infringement” is the one who carries the burden of proof of that position. As this site correctly has defined fora: On a probandum with holes in the data, these holes – must - be logically filled in – by science - with philosophy on inherently un-falsifiable questions. Standard of proof: word salad logic suffices, mathematics if possible allowed. On falsifiable (potentially testable) issues speculation is allowed. Same standard of proof for idea or concept (= speculative) level, if shown testable. Standard of proof when using word salad: close is close enough, unless perfection can be attained. Perfection =/= absolute proof but potentially mathematical proof that all highest possible norms have been fully met. Rules on proper scientific debate: no fallacies => incorrect claiming of a fallacy = a fallacy of logic. Fallacy begging the question = ( probandum A ; evidence A => proof A). You don’t disprove a probandum by disproving another, or query a probandum when having the burden of proof because it being a probatio diabolica. Fallacy of authority = (prior odds = posterior odds). Straw man = ( statement by A: (Problem doesn’t fit the law) counter by B => statement A (Law is incorrect) ) The goal of science (science as defined earlier) is to find the truth (= knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions) of everything possible as quickly as possible, with the least cost, effort and risk in the broadest sense in an orderly way, yet accepting great cost, effort and risk, whereby finding this truth has the highest possible priority within science. Being/seeming naive and open is proper scientific procedure in the inductive faze as is the subsequent necessity of being conscientious in the rigorous (mathematical) scrutiny in the deductive faze of research. Do we agree that these are the proper rules of science as a condition sine qua non for correct scientific procedure sec and thus also of physics? If not, then we must first debate these. If you do, then I’ll react to your previous post in detail. Unless you wish to rephrase them in lieu of this post? We can of course also let that be if you agree with these rules and see a fresh how this works out for physics especially. Then to the anonymous cookie monster who has been distributing cookies: it would be nice if you did it on the record so that I can duly thank you for providing credence to my point that fear for losing one’s cookies helps sustain taboo’s and thereby hinder the progress of science. Not that I’m against anonymous liking / disliking, yet it did recently cross my mind that it should in fact be considered bad form to do so. Not everybody is like I not bothered by it. And, it is always nice to know if it's an authoritative or tough cookie or not.

A perfect definition of a problem doesn't contain part of the presumed answer as does DM. Now that is extremely simple to do. First of all by not putting part of the answer in the title. So say you made the discovery of DM you could call it Dark Swansont. Perfect title then. The further definition then is just an accurate description of what you observe and separate why that is to be defined as a problem. The latter of course because what is observed doesn't fit current laws of physics. (That is if you correctly define them as laws, which isn't done correctly either. Anyway in current scientific lingo: because it doesn't fit current theory.) Anyway you should strive for perfection because in this sense it should be attainable. So if you spot an imperfection in your definition of the problem you should at least point that out and strive to correct it. I'm not a physicist so physicists may provide the definition. As a taxpayer I am entitled to point towards evidently flawed definitions on key issues, and to subsequently assume that this may play a significant role in not getting the problem solved in the quickest and least costly manner. For you to prove that this incorrect scientific procedure in defining properly doesn't cause undue delay in solving the problem. That then is a probatio diabolica. You must strive in science for perfect definitions; period. You can't afford even the slightest risk that it indeed does pose a problem. Especially on key issues as DM. (and DE, and TOE and GR & QM as to not containing laws are all incorrectly defined (TOE by some and not Wiki see below).) BTW see it as I as a taxpayer point towards physicists working on these issues as coughing. They state this not to be serious, they state their health is adequate it being a slight irritation. I on the other hand see it as a possible even probable sign of something more serious. Something nothing to do with physics directly but psychology that then does effect the physics indirectly. Hence somewhat difficult for physicists - being humans - to spot, not being psychologists or duly interested in such subjects. If it were not a serious problem it should't be such a big issue striving to perfecting the definitions then would it now? It even touches taboo's. Having taboo's in production isn't a problem, in research that's usually a major issue. DM, DE, TOE are key research questions. The correct defined problem is: lets find the TOE before the end of the decade. TOE being then correctly defined as: finding A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle.[1] I I agree on this Wikipedia definition because it then per definition includes DM and DE. IMO a perfect definition. That this theory ultimately could become something like the laws of Newton isn't of immediate concern. "Everything" is an open title and doesn't even suggest a per se deterministic or what ever answer as is stated in a critique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Present_status (Something happened to the quote box: quote) Since this is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, your conclusion is invalid. It's also wrong: GPS works, for example. How can that be, if incorrect procedure is followed? end quote; edit: I don't see why it is invalid to state that we only observe measured time slow down as a more correct way of stating the observation as opposed to time slowing down. (Again that depends on how you define "time" again wrong definition if you were to define that as being what the clock reads.It leads to incorrect conclusions that when you exceed c you travel back in time which being deemed impossible leads to the subsequent error of thinking that c = max. And if it isn't, that then leads to a conundrum we're in now. Start funding research in speeds > c as well. Edit 2: Defining time to be what the clock reads means that we can already travel back in time. I.e. by plane in crossing the time zones we then fly back in time. With time defined as a physical reality it isn't possible to travel back in time because that causes a contradiction. The probability of which is smaller than having a God because that doesn't constitute a logical contradiction (even though extremely unlikely as well but far less so.) So yes, it is important to keep the definitions in order. Well with GPS obviously a sufficiently correct scientific procedure was followed. But there was no (as far as I'm aware) fundamental research required into GR, SR, QM or FT. These as far as needed could be taken of the shelf so to speak. So I'm not wrong. I.e. the problem that I'm pointing to is a common psychological problem that runs right trough any society. Take it as the "laws" of history that history (of science as well) repeats itself. (Because we don't learn from the past, because we now know of DNA we could start to) And the "law" of history that what is forward will become backwards. Then, again, I'm not saying that everything is wrong in science either. (Take GPS as you correctly point out.) It's a bit like Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson's "The Best is..." when comparing a tractor with a Ferrari. Current scientific method can be seen as a tractor. Slow but steady low risk progress. I don't state that we should stop in doing that. What I'm opposing as an incorrect scientific procedure is not also using the Ferrari when you think you see a road that is quicker. Putting our present day Einsteins, Newtons, and Leonardo da Vinci physicists or closest that we can find (all open minded cranks BTW) in a team with the goal: get us to a TOE before the decade is out and here's the funding, will render results. Especially if you explicitly make it clear to everyone that a lot of failed attempts are taken for granted. So I'm not suggesting that all funding be done this way. You don't put all your eggs in one basket, especially not because this then is the new to be tested correct scientific method. The latter BTW being both: you keep doing the tractor AND the Ferrari method because only that is the correct scientific procedure. It's doing BOTH and not just one with the exclusion of the other because that is being un-scientific. If Mother Nature is indeed - what I'm convinced of - an illusionist, then it must be possible to fairly quickly ascertain what illusions she is playing at. The solution will in the end if found with out a doubt be deemed idiotically crank by current standards yet extremely simple with hindsight. If you are indeed convinced that this is indeed what MN is doing, or even if you think it possible then the fast high risk Ferrari method is the essential and premier correct scientific method to be done ASAP (on fundamental issues like this.). This because Mother Nature is a mass murderer and getting to a TOE quicker than later will - I'm convinced - save - a lot - of lives and suffering. THAT'S SCIENCE! as in correct scientific procedure.

Well the problem with absolute nothing is that it implies that it as well as any particles in it is un-observable. Only when the objects that go trough this absolute nothing hit something else can that something else detect something and then be effected by the time speed mass and effected area and vector that the next occurrence takes place. You thus assume that the observer can observe this inherent un-observable phenomenon in order to describe what is actually happening. You theoretically overcome an inherent measurement problem. I.e. we have to figure out what is happening anyway on basis of what we can observe, knowing we'll never be able to observe it at the deepest level anyway. I.e. time and distance in space are constructs we humans need in order to describe what we observe. They can exist without the need of objects yet then they only don't have meaning yet. That is if the reality is in infinite amount of un-splittable always colliding mass in an absolute void. I.e. Mother Nature then doesn't need time or distance to let things happen. We need that in order to describe what we observe.

I found this link on this subject from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism Given the way they split the different parties I guess my view would then fit Compatibilism. I.e. making determinism fit free will. This because I believe in hidden variables that stem from a measurement problem. I.e. Newton in his day didn't have hidden variable either. Yet we know now they were there. Especially so when confronted with rising unsolved problems, do the later enormously heighten the probability of hidden variables being there. Given unsolved problems there is no way to disprove the existence of them, you are forced to account for the possibility of their existence. That in the field were the laws of Newton are known to work there is no need to assume hidden variables thus doesn't prove they don't exist. Likewise that QM within the field were it neigh absolutely holds true, doesn't mean that the cosmos or even our universe in an as yet un-observable part QM collapses for the simple reason that all sub atomic parts disintegrate into these or part of these hidden variables. These hidden variables provide thus a pre-determined begin state (that we never can observe this begin state absolutely exact is irrelevant.) We can observe a begin state at a certain level and know the probabilities that ensue through science and experience. To a degree that is then determinism, because the begin state determines to a degree what can't happen in the future. Especially if the begin state is to be taken as inherently dynamic when everything is cyclic. That would be consistent with the find that it all didn't stop when reaching zero degrees Kelvin. I guess a lot of the dilemma stems from the question how to define free will? This because I don't believe in an absolutely free will. We know that our DNA limits the choices we can make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will Like I said not having the concept of free will would IMO result in chaos. If so we have the free will to cause rising chaos or not at least to influence that. So dependent on the level of the question in the OP the answer is: we don't know at an absolute level. On a level of for instance must we have a free will concept in courts of law? I'd say yes. Although I'm a staunch defender of taking far more into account the limits of someones actions due to DNA upbringing etcetera than someone taking hard free will and thus responsibility into account. EDIT This would mean that depending if you want to define free will only looking at an individual the answer could be yes free will exists, and if you look at the entire surroundings as well you could say no free will doesn't exist because then you would have to either split it out in the pure chance or pure deterministic combination that both as such exclude the possibility of a free will.

If you assume the Big Bang to be the beginning and thus a one off. That is indeed if you only want to look and look hardly further than you can observe. In the production department of physics that is understandable in a research department attitude and philosophical approach it is incomprehensibly shortsighted. A one off meaning there was an infinite time of nothing (or no time or space or anything) then suddenly God or something decided or made a Big Bang and i all started. This is extremely unlikely. So scientifically you are at least forced to also go through the mental exercise of contemplating an alternate in which there was something before the BB. An see if that would change the way you have to view the data you do see, and see if that shows you directions of acquiring more data that possibly can be measured. Well this tweaking a bit in order to marry GR & QM has now taken how long? The claim that there are no hidden variables can't be true seeing all the admitted incomprehensible phenomenon that we observe: double slit, entanglement, DM & DE etc.. It is a belief vested in the assumptions that have gone into QM and GR in the first place. Those phenomenon - are - the - obvious BTW - evidence. Like the sail of a ship in the middle ages was that air was a something even though unobserved directly at the time. Only if you've made a mathematical model with clocks instead of time slowing down and extremely small particles > c could you state that there are no hidden variables. I already left that point. I was wrong not to change after I saw I didn't need absolute conductivity to get an infinite cycle. No it doesn't need infinite energy to do so. I can prove concept of that in a word salad thought experiment (being the philosophical forum). And thereby answer the question of the OP. Assume a sphere-like particle with mass > c in an absolute void as a given. It will travel in a straight line. An infinite amount of these particles assuming they can't be split and that they are (maybe needed more than) super conductive in an infinite space. They will start hitting each other and will remain in permanent motion. This would already provide pressure in the system. Now we observe order in the system. Actually more than we can explain it should disintegrate much faster. Lets assume these particles will go to order in a dynamic crystal. This is testable in a computer simulation using a super conductive box to see if it goes to order (like we observed fractals earlier on in a simulation.) If you now would introduce one larger particle with mass that is slower yet > c it then could't travel in a straight line. For every forward movement a standard deviation both vertical and horizontal would ensue. I assume that current off the shelf mathematics would show it to go into a spiral, in the skin of a huge sphere. Being super conductive there is no reason why it wouldn't then remain > c. An infinite amount of these would provide an even distribution of these two sorts of particles per given volume of space. The smaller particles will win the movement game in order to have the least chaos in the small particle crystal. To cut this short given the correct ratio of the two particles the larger ones will form a non Euclidian-space in a Euclidian space crystal of the smaller one. Surplus large particles will be forced in this theoretical beginning (there is no beginning or end) in starting there own crystals far apart from each other. Adding more and more large particles these will rise in a crystal sphere. At a certain point the amount of chaos in the small crystal will be kept smaller when the center of the large particle crystal collapses in the center. After that we have the for stages of the Higgs field in an infinite amount of cubes each containing one universe. Ours being one. Inside more and more large particles are crushed but can't be split. They start to spin ultimately a yet to form galaxy being shot out > c up the collapsing Higgs field. Nearly coming to a stop just at the edge where the crystal is still intact. Here the larger particles become unspun a bit and are forced by the unspun large particle crystal together with the small particle crystal into strings via a surface tension scenario. The strings form spirals that can spin either way and wave through the crystal. Forming pairs of interlocked counter-rotating particles. If the strings are large the crystal will short track them in the crystal at c max. They can build even larger particles that I guess even have 1/3 c max. They continually receive more unspun large particles out of the crystal. Being the Higgs mechanism. This causes an under-pressure that is perceived as gravity and curved space. It also accelerates the large stringed particle causing DE (Law of Hubble) due to gained momentum. The higher the speed the more the gravity rises being DM. Magnetism is the temporary becoming unspun of larger particles when two counter-rotating strings start "shaving" each other breaking the surface tension of the string. This also causes entanglement. Spiraling outward ultimately ending up in a black hole in the center of each galaxy we finally pop out of the double crystal into the single crystal in order to disintegrate and fall back in a never ending cycle. Small strings like photons are so small that they seemingly instantaneous accelerate but they are short-tracked by the crystal and the photon kept at c. These particles are percieved mass less because they are to fast for the Higgs field to add mss. Yet they curve in a gravitational field, because the pressure then lets go a bit they become a bit unspun i.e. red-shifted in order to accelerate in order to hold c in the crystal. Like a car in a curve holding speed photons curve in a twice the Newton value. Now that has the potential to marry Newton, GR and QM. No infringement on any observation. Now this assumption exercise shows you where to start looking: test the computer simulation and see a galaxy as a spinning gyro. Downsize and see if raining the speed of a gyro causes a rise in gravity. Outside that sphere large particles are traveling in a medieval chain-mail in equilibrium. Our observable universe is then that we are in the middle of the double crystal of the Higgs field that is like the earth's crust. We can only see part of it because no particles we can up till now observe travels in a straight line even if space wasn't curved. Which it is as well. Like the earth in the Middle ages it looks flat. The large particles of the double crystal of the Higgs field slowly travel inwards like a glacier. I could be wrong, probably even are. But what if I'm not. This has no infringement on logic, Newton, GR or QM or what ever, AND it addresses all problems, such as whether it is deterministic and how it relates to free will. Again it is both deterministic AND pure chance in a Yin and Yang structure of order and disorder. The latter we observe. And it fundamentally explains waves. Something physics or even the philosophy of it up to now can't. And it provides a way to explain free will being neither deterministic sec or pure chance sec. So the question in the OP is answered. And yes it adheres to the rules of string and stick and is testable i.e. falsifiable. And no it doesn't for this concept level require mathematics in order to prove concept. Due to proof of concept it should have the science put to it including the mathematics. See above. You keep on saying that I say it's deterministic. I don't. The multiverse I'm talking about is only an un-falsifiable construct OUTSIDE our universe. Needed in order to devise tests that I gave you. And you've dodged several of the questions I put to you, about you infringing on proper scientific procedure as i stated them to be.

Well, stating as I did that its a guess on a broad subject implies that it near absolutely certain will be in (even a large) part completely wrong. And then again in another part possibly correct. If the latter leads to looking in a certain corner and testing, following this method often enough will generate a result. Simple probabilistic reasoning. And, using the brain for what it was built for and at which we humans are very apt: guessing. This is a tried and tested method at crime scenes, this is Mother nature mass murder scene is no different. This game does however have rules. Look at - all - the primary data AND answer - all - relevant questions. The question by the thread starter is such a relevant question. It is BTW not only the question is it deterministic? But also if you read the OP how then with free will? Problem with free will is, if it exists, it is contradictory to both it being deterministic sec and also to it being pure chance sec. I haven't seen you go into that question. I have at least answered the question. That doesn't thus per se mean that I say it is thus correct. It's a rough sketch. A sketch is something you alter as you get a better view of the object of study I.e. more data that on this question is obviously not only missing big style but also will never be had either. Hence it is philosophy. But you should use it as a tool to quickly get more relevant data after transforming the philosophy into a speculation. The latter needs then to be testable. The only way to "test" a philosophic idea it is to view the logic, the completeness (addressing all questions) and the non conflict with what we do know, i.e. all the data. You can subsequently compare these on Occam's razor. A common mistake I see quite often is to do a comparison on Occam on part issues. Such as a single universe wins out on a Multiverse on Occam. That is wrong procedure. You should only compare ideas that comply to the above stated rules. Because it is all so bloody vague the correct "mathematics" is word salad logic, for getting to a concept. So Sam, you've left a lot of questions unanswered. Please then do so. Because otherwise you actually can't state anything on the issue at all. You first place all your pieces on this chessboard of reason and then play. You haven't as yet. I think you didn't quite grasp that I hold an intermediate position on the question whether God plays dice or not. See above. Further more I state that my idea doesn't infringe on any observation and thus doesn't infringe on physics, as far as there is any physics on this issue. And it is the latter where you have another problem. You state to have backing by physics for your point of view. I.e. science in the sense of knowledge. You get this by extrapolating quantum mechanics that incorrectly isn't defined as holding the by far strongest laws of nature that mankind has had up till now outside its regime where it brilliantly holds true, into a field where it near certainly doesn't hold true. I.e. the Big Bang. And you claim then to be backed by physics. My old maths-teacher more that twenty years ago taught me that all math's can be done with a straight stick and a string on a sandy beach. And that all formulas have there regimes in which the apply. The latter you forgot. So you've marched right into the renowned Escher Institute of Silly Mathematics. You know that GR and QM aren't married yet. Yet you boldly extrapolate QM into the big bang and claim that atoms there already existed. And, you simply ignore the question what came before the BB. Yet you state to have knowledge on that point. Let me help you there. We have a lot of questions and hardly any knowledge on that issue whatsoever. So you are stating pseudo science. So, you will adhere to the rules of string and stick, as stated above. Ergo: back to basics mate. And that starts off with word salad. We have obviously an enormous measurement problem. Don't draw to many conclusions then on what small and fast stuff might actually be around. You might be correct in pointing out a logical flaw in my reasoning. Maybe I can get round that in assuming instead that every hit of these (quite certainly) as yet (probably in part) as yet unobserved most fundamental particles can be dented. (Problem is I first held the prior assumption of these assumed fundamental particles to be absolutely conductive. Then I needed to get some chaos into the system in order to keep it to always be able to regenerate life in a cyclic way. I should of seen that leaving absolute conductivity I should of left the need for absolute not dead center strikes as well. Anyway work in progress. IMO this whole SC problem stems from the fact that physics at the moment doesn't even want to contemplate speeds > c. If you don't then you obviously can expect exactly the kind of conundrums you are in now observing particles to be here there and nowhere at the same time. Easily explained if you accept speeds > c of extremely small particles. QM can then at the deepest level be seen as Newtonian and easily be married to GR. Assuming (? we actually know this, but anyway) a measurement problem in stead of all the blatant magic as a explanation is far far more probable. On the deterministic bit see above. I said - like - a fractal. I.e. simple basic set of elegant rules, an be assumed at the heart of it all. That as probably the best bet. MN is an illusionist IMO. What do you think? An educated guess is not a random guess. And as I stated elsewhere you had best get the most creative physicists together in a research project on reaching a Grand TOE funded to do these educated guesses. If you agree that MN is just an illusionist then writing the goal on the straight stick and saying to the correct research dogs by heart go fetch! Will render fast results. Just as Kennedy stating the goal to get a man on the moon before the end of the decade. tried and tested. That is the way it works. (Grand TOE BTW being historically defined TOE with a bit more being DE & DM: again proving that physics doesn't define it's key objectives properly. You aren't historians but should define TOE and thus take it literately and thus systematically meaning marring all fundamental forces of nature the ones yet to be discovered as well.) Anyway with my hardly educated guess I still don't see where I state anything other than what was stated in the link where they couple SC to a Multiverse, if I'm not mistaken that is. And I got there sooner than they did on that point. And that is just my point: speeding it up. (BTW there is nothing wrong with the extrapolation method. Just don't overdo it. )

I'm answering a question of the thread starter. That not right? Or is your understanding the norm? Yes, and I have my conjecture. Difference is that my conjecture has a nice probability because it answers questions even though it is just as un-falsifiable as yours or any other on this subject. Mine is logically consistent. Does your conjecture (or that of others) answer all the relevant questions? Mine does. Ah, now I'm talking about the most fundamental particle or particles (without having to state how many different ones there are) that can't be split anymore I.e. actual atoms.and thus assuming that it isn't built up out of nothing. Believing in something from nothing is believing in a contradiction. I.e believing in magic. Do you believe in magic? The reason I need to assume that these fundamental particles never hit - absolutely - dead center is that otherwise there would be a chance it would all stop being cyclic and playing out all scenario's all the time. I.e. if there's a chance that it will become infinitely stable and only one scenario it will happen given infinite time. It hasn't as we can observe. To have that I must logically assume that it can't even happen once. And this has nothing to do with Fermi lab. Much smaller particles. You are either forced to believe in a one off, or you leave the philosophic question unanswered if it is cyclic or not. A one off is IMO extremely improbable. Nothing => big bang (with your instant atoms) => nothing? That computers can't model this: so? Well what are these chaps on about then? http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424073/multiverse-many-worlds-say-physicists/ Well assuming that you could measure the begin state. I know you can't and never will. It's a thought experiment. You are in fact objecting to the question of the thread starter. Why do this thought experiment? It is the same as you should do in a CSI. Make probable scenario's on what you do know and then fill in all the relevant questions on which you don't have as yet the data. This in order to see where you can best look and spend your limited resources in search of the culprit. In this case mass murdering Mother Nature. So yes, it's practical to do so. It is correct scientific procedure.

I think this belongs in the religious forum. It starts off with the first guy posing an atheist but soon it's clear both have a christian values point of view to put across.

My guess is it is deterministic if you were to know the begin state and one as short as possible time frame later as a second state. Yet it subsequently becomes more and more governed by pure chance in which any of all - possible - scenario's is played out. I assume thus an absolute truth yet also the absolute attainability of knowing that truth. As I understand Gerard 't Hooft also feels there's an infinitely small chance of two particles ever to hit absolutely dead center. And if we were to take what I understand to be the most commonly held view by scientists that there is an in essence stable infinite multiverse then all scenario's are played out all the time. Scenario's that would cause an unstable multverse are absolutely (i.e. predetermined) impossible. Look on it like a ship that is sailing by. By this predetermined begin state knowing its speed and direction I know a priori where the ship will probably be in time t + x. I also know that it will be absolutely impossible for the ship sailing near New York to be sailing near Tokyo within the hour. I don't know whether there is an atom bomb in the ship that might go off or that a meteorite might hit it. Being possible yet extremely unlikely scenario's. This would then solve Schrodinger cat. All possible scenario's are being played out all the time. If you then also take the assumption that it can't be a one off and that every universe like ours is thus cyclic then there is no beginning or end of time. We are then unique yet as unique as two industrial glasses are at a given level exactly the same yet at a deeper level absolutely different. It is thus that I believe that structure formed by particles from a basic beginning like a fractal can create extremely complex structures. So complex that they can think about themselves. I thus believe that there is - on a reasonable definition - something that can be called free will. Yet it still eludes us what that exactly could be.However I'm convinced that without a notion of free will, and thus accountability for say crime the scenario that we are uniquely part of will turn for the worse. EDIT: So I also think that besides a deterministic and a pure chance side to it there is also a Yin and Yang of order (going to structure) and disorder (going to chaos) that is a result of what happens in the begin state. So given the begin state the rest is mathematics both deterministic and statistic. We observe Nature acting in a mathematical discernible way and we also observe more order than can be explained. Where did this order come from if it doesn't come back seeing mounting entropy? I also find that it should be part of properly executed research into the physics of all that we can observe to address problems like these, in order to ascertain which a priori assumptions suit all known observations best on Occam's razor. This as part of correct scientific procedure. To which I believe Feyerabend would agree (i.e. that physicists should also do philosophy in to physics).

Thanks, I'm quite aware of his idea's and even agree with them. As far as I understand Feyerabend (nice name BTW: it means (sounds like) celebrating the evening off at the end of the day in German) he actually, like I do, wanted to urgently organize getting free spirits to roam free. Exactly as I do. I.e. he was fighting exactly the same fight I am. The problem is, and in that I agree with him as well (if I understand him correctly), is that any system has the tendency towards bureaucracy. This bureaucracy has taken over science more and more and that is IMO based in funding. The problem of the latter and the tendency towards bureaucracy is psychological. I think (based on current insights in psychology (that have I guess also been around in another guise for longer)) that this can effectively be counterbalanced. So on the one side science should cultivate a culture (and does BTW, it isn't all gloom) of free spirit in which the oddball crank is supported by the means to do so and supported via criticism to follow his or her own route. Of course. Yet on the other hand we can't spread all our resources evenly over all the odd ball cranks. Now my idea is to get the most creative of these (in say physics) to decide what to do with part of the pot of gold (a percentage of the funding). (This leads to the subsequent question how to determine you then are these creative ones and can they fund themselves etc.. Yet that is a later point. First the question do we need a research department in science, and who do you put in there? ) So there is such a thing as a common goal in science that makes science and the scientific method to what it is. Say we were to state a goal like reaching a Grand TOE (= uni-fining all fundamental forces in one theory including thus at the moment DM & DE), like Kennedy stated to put a man on the moon within a decade That got things going. Then it is no longer odd ball crank to try and jump directly at it and fail. Psychology and group psychology providing funding and common goal. I.e. you state a goal and organize support. Yet support of the creative ones as well. But let them subsequently free in to figure out how to get there. I guess Feyerabend would agree. The idea that it is out of reach at the moment is probably a self fulfilling prophesy. The only way to prove or disprove (I was just coming to the point to show Swansont he also carries that burden of proof) this point is to actually state that goal get the funding organized in this way. I predict results and fast. Why? Well, it depends on what you believe. And here I again agree with Feyeraband if I understand him correctly. Physicists leave out on the philosophy and that is wrong. Yet it is practical and shows correct scientific procedure (Feyeraband might then disagree): It's as practical as solving a crime scene. I think Mother Nature to be a mass murderer posing as a magician yet being an illusionist. => we are in a hurry! If I'm indeed correct in that illusionist then I'd expect to see a few elegant basic rules emerge when going at it in the way you do a CSI. If you do a CSI not looking at the big picture making plausible scenario's with your imagination and testing them, yet go by a pre written book swiping DNA systematically from the scene I would expect the amount of suspects to rise and the problem to diverge into a conundrum. If you get the good guessers to guess what happened via a scenario, and swipe accordingly I would expect the pieces of the puzzle to fall into place and the investigation to quickly converge on the likely suspects and ultimate villain. Physics at the moment is not converging but diverging into more and more of a conundrum DE and DM being recent add on's. As you would expect when you don't look at all the data and also address all the problems: c = max of everything! Incorrect scientific procedure: the correct observation is: only of what we can at the moment observe (and what we do observe can actually only be explained by speeds > c) Time slows down! Incorrect scientific procedure: we observe the clocks slow down. Length contraction! Incorrect scientific procedure: we observe frequency changes. DM, DE and TOE all incorrectly defined: incorrect scientific procedure. (Science is systematic, so you must split this from the effect. It is wrong thus infringement on scientific procedure thus, I have proved this. I don't even need the subsequent science of psychology or risk assessment, that BTW also point in this direction as does history) This subsequently means you may assume that to have effect and on key issues thus an intolerable effect. Hence the burden of proof shifts. But that also comes to the same test via building a new research department on what to fund on a stated goal. That science is plodding along doesn't mean it is okay and that the definitions are adequate. It should plod along faster, start jumping! And organize it accordingly! I totally agree.

Well rereading the Wikipedia page I first quoted what I'm on about is under the first link. Because the other link mentioned "statements" I didn't expect it to link too quantification's From the first link then: Subjective informationSometimes it is useful to incorporate subjective information into a mathematical model. This can be done based on intuition, experience, or expert opinion, or based on convenience of mathematical form. Bayesian statistics provides a theoretical framework for incorporating such subjectivity into a rigorous analysis: one specifies a prior probability distribution (which can be subjective) and then updates this distribution based on empirical data. An example of when such approach would be necessary is a situation in which an experimenter bends a coin slightly and tosses it once, recording whether it comes up heads, and is then given the task of predicting the probability that the next flip comes up heads. After bending the coin, the true probability that the coin will come up heads is unknown, so the experimenter would need to make an arbitrary decision (perhaps by looking at the shape of the coin) about what prior distribution to use. Incorporation of the subjective information is necessary in this case to get an accurate prediction of the probability, since otherwise one would guess 1 or 0 as the probability of the next flip being heads, which would be almost certainly wrong.[6] Do you agree with this? I do. The link on proof shows that there is such a thing as a proper way to prove things in science as part of proper scientific procedure. Well then we finally agree on something. But when I then say that your "adequately" means / is synonymous with "(possibly) less than perfect" where a perfect definition is possible it is not a false dichotomy because if the standard is perfection, not being so is per definition then substandard as would "adequate" be so; nor is what I stated a strawman. Is this: "DM is a (possibly) less than perfect definition, yet to all (as stated above) intent and purposes adequate" indeed what you mean to say? And do you agree that a perfect definition for DM is possible what I state it is, for instance in the definition I gave earlier? This just to narrow down to what I indeed carry the burden of proof of.