From: jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl   
      
   [Moderator's note: New text moved to bottom and quoted text trimmed   
   somewhat; top-posting means that one has to look to the bottom first for   
   context. -P.H.]   
      
   On 20/01/01 9:58 AM, Majik Won wrote:   
      
   > 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?   
      
   >> [[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.   
      
   Why do you believe that? If someone says:   
     "I know 2+2=4 because I had a revelation telling me so"   
   is that fundamentally flawed or not? Can you prove it?   
      
   What you seem to say is: (admittedly not the same as above)   
     "Feynmans path integral is the correct description of the universe   
      because certain mathematical equations that I have derived are   
      consistent with it."   
   That does not sound as a proof, not even as something interesting.   
      
   I have only glanced through your paper and, like most other   
   physicists, will not do more than that unless you first tell   
   us why it is relevant. Basically your abstract has to explain   
   this, it doesn't do a good enough job right now, I'm afraid..   
      
   We already know that the path integral describes the time evolution   
   of quantum mechanical amplitudes [*], and does so in a logically   
   consistent way (that's actually why states become *entangled*   
   the way they do).   
      
   Is your approach simply restating this with a new notation?   
   Or are you offering something new? If the latter, then please   
   answer: "what do we know by using your approach, that we would   
   _not_ know without it?"   
      
   [*] Here I'm assuming that this is the path integral application   
   you mean, the mathematics of it can most likely be used for many   
   other things like finance, biological evolution, etc.   
      
   Regards,   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   not read you paper (only  beyound the first pg   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)