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 hap pens 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 mak ing here and below. And all the above in summary is AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing 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? Mathematicians… in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life… so breathe idiots…breathe… Why say that the following phrase is nonsense? “The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.” Because: A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself. If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but… if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself. 1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians… When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise… When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you… If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians? 2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones… When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but… If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you? 3. When numbers happen after words happen, all… When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but… If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you? Link removed by ICGreen
Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path. In the Physics, experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory. By this blog link you may know better about things.
I am a fan of logic and physics but I didn't gain anything from this. It the first half seemed like you were going somewhere and the second half didn't seem to follow from the first half and made no sense to me.
In regard to the beginning I was going to bring up the double slit test. Very briefly: They wanted to know if a Photon is a wave or particle. Shoot 1 photon at a time at a double slit and review the results. Result A would show that it is a wave. Result B would show that it is a particle. They ran the test and got a result. (I forget which one). But as they were conferring over the results nobody turned the test off. And got the opposite result. Summary: If you run the test and observe it as it runs you get a result. If you run the test without observing it as it runs, you get the Opposite result. Replicated numerous times. Wondering if this fits your first Axiom.
In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations that caused the bridge to collapse. They did not have electronic computers. And yet in 20 years how many American engineering schools have made physical or virtual models of the North Tower collapse? Physics is History! What difference does it make whether the Big Bang was 13, 9, 27 or 46 billion years ago? Physicists can't talk about planned obsolescence in automobiles that puts more CO2 into the atmosphere.