From: friend@logictophysics.com   
      
   [Moderator's note:  I have re-formatted this post.  It arrived with each   
   paragraph as one long line.  While YOUR software might insert line   
   breaks, not everyone's does.  Please format the post as it should look   
   without relying on some softare to do so, i.e. write a text file with   
   explicit line breaks then send that "as is".  --P.H.]   
      
   On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 3:04:18 AM UTC-5, ben...@hotmail.com wrote:   
   >   
   > [[Mod. note --   
   > It seems to me that this approach is fundamentally flawed   
   > because it's based on a sort of "ontological type error".  That is, this   
   > approach is trying to use *mathematics* (which is ultimately about the   
   > logical consequences of various axioms, without reference to what those   
   > axioms might have to do with real world) to make inferences about the   
   > real world (which is what physics is about).   
      
   "fundamentally flawed" can not be asserted without proof. Show me   
   mathematical proof that I made a mistake, and I'll shut up and go back   
   to the drawing board. If my approach is mathematically correct, then the   
   question is whether it is unique.   
      
   If physics can not be derived from logic, then what you seem to be   
   suggesting is that physics might be something that is true though not   
   provable by logic. I can't imagine what observation would prove this,   
   can you?   
      
   Whatever the ontology of reality, it seems inescapable that it is a   
   collection of things that all coexist in logical conjunction. I start   
   with this assumption and assume a conjunction of things down to the   
   smallest conceivable things, that every point in space exists in   
   conjunction with every other point in space. That this conjunction means   
   every point implies every other is a simple logical consequence. That   
   set inclusion also specifies implication is also obvious. That the Dirac   
   measure is about set inclusion is also obvious. All this leads to my   
   approach to deriving quantum theory.   
      
   > *BUT* nothing in this mathematical analysis tells us anything at all   
   > about the real world.  Nothing in this analysis tells us that there are   
   > any things in the real world for which the mathematical concept of (say)   
   > "real number" or "continuous function" is a good model.  *That* would   
   > require actual observation of the real world (which of course is what   
   > physics and physicists do all the time).   
      
   So you seem to be asking what logic has to do with existence. To me it   
   seems we can not escape it. Ontology has to do with what exists. But   
   existence is a binary concept such that binary logic applies. Either   
   something exists or it does not. There is not middle ground. So we are   
   perfectly justified in using propositions which are either true or false   
   to describe what exists or not. This is just the correspondence   
   principle between what is true and what exists. Physicists use   
   propositions to describe what exists without exception. So it is   
   unavoidable that logic should be applied to reality.   
      
   > ... but without experiment we have   
   > no way to know that the path integrals correctly describe the observed   
   > behavior of real-world systems.   
   > -- jt]]   
      
   The "experiment" is the observation that all the various parts of   
   reality coexist in logical conjunction. Surely you've noticed this. Then   
   in order to even talk about the world or theorize about reality, we have   
   to assume we can use proposition which are either true or false to   
   describe various parts of reality which either exist or not. Are you   
   assuming that there is some scale of reality that does not exist in   
   conjunction?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)