What's the story with physics?

[AlexPontik]

Argument

 

Physics as a science, progresses as follows:

1.There is a current theory, at any given time.

2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.

3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.

4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.

5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.

6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.

7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.

8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

 

 

And all the above in summary  is 

 

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, something can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

 

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

 

Isn't it?

 

because for mathematicians...

1.    “If a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete”

2.    “The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system”

3.       …and if you ask me reality for mathematicians, either is inconsistent, or incomplete…and the opposite they cannot prove to themselves within the system…before they lose their balance in reality…they have no idea…and let’s say ok with all of these but…

 

...didn't their mothers teach them anything in their lifes?

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, AlexPontik said:

1.There is a current theory, at any given time.

2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.

3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.

4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.

Are you serious or is this just an attempt to stir the pot ?

Try googling accidental discoveries ie those with no prior theory

eg

https://interestingengineering.com/15-accidental-science-discoveries-that-changed-the-world

 

There are many many important examples where observation preceeded theory.

eg  X rays, radio-activity, cosmic background, penicillin, .........

 

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, AlexPontik said:

...didn't their mothers teach them anything in their lifes?

Mine taught me not to base an argument on a false premise.

Your post mixes vague aspects ("seems to be happening") and generalizations with specific assertions, so it's not very reasoned (logic is for maths and philosophy, not physics).

Where does prediction fit into your assumptions? It's one of the most powerful aspects of theory, and you've significantly omitted any mention. Many discoveries are made because the theory predicts it must be so. 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you serious or is this just an attempt to stir the pot ?

Yes, as happens often on science forums...game time for the kiddies!

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, as happens often on science forums...game time for the kiddies!

Don't think this guy is a kiddie.

Someone with that handle has been to many debating, christian and maths sites over at least the past year and a half peddling the same stuff.

here is a comment forma member on a maths site

Quote

http://mathisfunforum.com/search.php?action=show_user_posts&user_id=222031

Mathegocart wrote:

I have also noticed that you have posted these same arguments on a couple of other forums.. so far, practically no productive discussion(this is not an insult; just an observation, so don't get enraged..) do you think there might be a reason with why no one is attempting to engage with you? Or are they all just asinine fools who don't get the true nature of humanity?

 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, AlexPontik said:

 

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, something can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

 

 

...as opposed to an experiment conducted somewhere else?

Here, I've got an axiom for you, now: Brontosauruses are thin at one end, thicker in the middle and thin at the other end. Ha! 

 

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, AlexPontik said:

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, something can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

 

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

Nothing vs something is a binary proposition. You can't add a second "something" and call it "something else" without violating your original proposition. I'm not sure why you can't see this plainly, and instead consider your proposition to be consistent. It's not even consistent grammatically, much less physically or scientifically. 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, AlexPontik said:

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.

An axiom is not a system. Neither is tortured logic.

[AlexPontik]

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you serious or is this just an attempt to stir the pot ?

Try googling accidental discoveries ie those with no prior theory

eg

https://interestingengineering.com/15-accidental-science-discoveries-that-changed-the-world

 

There are many many important examples where observation preceeded theory.

eg  X rays, radio-activity, cosmic background, penicillin, .........

 

 

you are not making sense my friend, what is the argument that you are making?

Because if you observe something, and then you simply summarize your observations, if the summary you made is still complying to reality, it is a theory.

If that is not a theory to you, and you use a different meaning, when you read theory, theory means a summary of observation about reality...

any more arguments from you?

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

...as opposed to an experiment conducted somewhere else?

Here, I've got an axiom for you, now: Brontosauruses are thin at one end, thicker in the middle and thin at the other end. Ha! 

 

As opposed to an experiment conducted in your imagination, genius...

10 hours ago, swansont said:

An axiom is not a system. Neither is tortured logic.

an axiom is not a system, fair enough, an argument from you is still not present here, sweetheart... try to make sense and if you do, don't worry you will be surprised how apologetic I will be to you if you make sense in the end.

So, how about you try to make some sense in what you write down, and not waste our time and effort here...

...even I want to see myself get proved wrong by one of you I am not doing this to pretend to strangers on the internet that I am smart, I don't exactly care if I am smart or not sweetheart

 

...the only thing I care about is what seems to be happening in reality, because it seems to me that something else than anything I imagine is happening in reality...however funny enough it also seems to me that the same thing is happening to the rest of you, and simply some of you have no idea about it.

 

And for the last ones, the one who don't know that reality is something else than anything you can  imagine, and the thing that something they imagine is reality, here's a question to all of you?

 

you think you are funny? Because reality is something else than anything you can imagine, and therefore reality seems funnier than all of you, doesn't it?

11 hours ago, studiot said:

Don't think this guy is a kiddie.

Someone with that handle has been to many debating, christian and maths sites over at least the past year and a half peddling the same stuff.

here is a comment forma member on a maths site

 

Excellent someone is looking around at least...any comments from you as well welcome...I am waiting for all of your comments.

 

hit me baby one more time

Is there anyone from you geniuses here worth my time?

 

Prove it to me geniuses...I am waiting...and don't waste our time and effort with sorry-ass excuses for arguments.

 

Read and think, I don't worry I will actually thank you if you prove me wrong.

 

All honest efforts are welcome, but don't waste my time with smartass answers...

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, AlexPontik said:

an axiom is not a system, fair enough, an argument from you is still not present here

Yes, because I’m not making an argument. I’m pointing out that your claim is wrong.

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, AlexPontik said:

Is there anyone from you geniuses here worth my time?

I may not fit your definition of a genius, I'll follow this thread and see if you post something worth my time.

In the meantime:

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Many discoveries are made because the theory predicts it must be so. 

I agree! And I may add that new discoveries sometimes are triggered by thought experiments* about established theories, illustrating paradoxes or other issues that may be investigated. Einsteins "Pursuing a beam of light" is one example I think of.

 

*) Whether this is an example of experiments in "reality" in the context OP discusses I do not know

[joigus]

I think the premise, "nothing happens, something happens, or something else happens" is extremely vague, and far too inclusive to be meaningful.

The story with physics as just prediction/discovery or prediction/refutation is far too simple, as others have pointed out. Accidental discoveries, imagination, and other elements, like precision tests, play a role. Sometimes there are even uncomfortable compromises one must reach.

On the theoretical side, most of the time it's about parametrizing the world, and then mapping it with those parameters. You could say that physics is more akin to cartography. A very sophisticated cartography.

On the other hand, physics is not under the same strictures as mathematics. Obtaining a theory that's a mathematical delight would be wonderful, but it's not the main drive of most physicists, I think. I think most physicists have come to terms with the fact that good physical theories don't have to be logically complete. Good physical theories are not as directly affected by mathematical necessities either. I'll give you an example: Whether Planck's constant is a rational or an irrational number is not only uninteresting, but completely meaningless from the physical point of view.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, AlexPontik said:

...the only thing I care about is what seems to be happening in reality, because it seems to me that something else than anything I imagine is happening in reality...however funny enough it also seems to me that the same thing is happening to the rest of you, and simply some of you have no idea about it.

Also one of the definitions of delusion. What steps have you taken to rule out personal cognitive biases?

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think the premise, "nothing happens, something happens, or something else happens" is extremely vague, and far too inclusive to be meaningful.

Agree. nothing vs something is a tautology. It’s always true, so there’s no predictive value.

something vs something else is some of the tortured logic; Phi gave details. 

As applied to science, it’s just wrong. Something always happens in any properly designed physics experiment, even if it’s measurement that’s consistent with zero. If nothing happened you wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a null result and broken equipment. So the OP is describing bad science. (which happens, no doubt, but shouldn’t get past cursory self review, much less peer review)

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

So the OP is describing bad science.

This may account for the attempts to personally demean those arguing against the OP. It's difficult to defend bad science without resorting to bad arguments, so lashing out with ridicule is often the go-to position.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I think the premise, "nothing happens, something happens, or something else happens" is extremely vague, and far too inclusive to be meaningful.

The story with physics as just prediction/discovery or prediction/refutation is far too simple, as others have pointed out. Accidental discoveries, imagination, and other elements, like precision tests, play a role. Sometimes there are even uncomfortable compromises one must reach.

On the theoretical side, most of the time it's about parametrizing the world, and then mapping it with those parameters. You could say that physics is more akin to cartography. A very sophisticated cartography.

On the other hand, physics is not under the same strictures as mathematics. Obtaining a theory that's a mathematical delight would be wonderful, but it's not the main drive of most physicists, I think. I think most physicists have come to terms with the fact that good physical theories don't have to be logically complete. Good physical theories are not as directly affected by mathematical necessities either. I'll give you an example: Whether Planck's constant is a rational or an irrational number is not only uninteresting, but completely meaningless from the physical point of view.

I admire your generosity. I think your first line is the understatement of the month! 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I admire your generosity. I think your first line is the understatement of the month! 

Somehow I didn't felt the need to be blunt here.  

At times just quoting the other is enough.