Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

A Priori Physics and Economics

rated by 0 users
This post has 46 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 7:05 AM

Clayton:
Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity do not involve conceptually more basic entities that serve as the "causal agents" of gravitation and that is what we mean when we say that they do not "explain" gravity. Rather, they organize the phenomena of gravity into mathematically elegant form. We have not advanced as far as we might like from the Ptolemaic view of the planets: they are at this and this and then this position at this and this and then this time and here is the very mathematically elegant equation which computes the relationship between them.

That's really it exactly. Ptolemaic "explanations" are not something the mind can grasp and grapple with to shake out new, deeper theories. This is everywhere in physics, though: what causes a magnet to attract another? "Lines of force." No, that's just a elegant description of what happens in the region around the magnet. Whatever happened to HOW?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 7:12 AM

Clayton:
In my spare time, I'm working on a widly speculative theory based on digital physics. The idea of digital physics is this. A computer can compute any function. So, the problem of "modeling" the universe can be thought of as searching for the right computer with the right program on it that, when executed, causes all the state information of this actual Universe to be computed.

Digital physics? If the universe is digital, surely something like this is going on.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 8
Points 175
gokuju replied on Fri, Feb 24 2012 9:42 AM

Although of course the issue with LaFreniere's hypothesis is that assuming matter is "made of" waves begs a central question.

We need to hypothesize an object (shape) contoured by space (no shape, nothing) in order to explain anything.

LaFreniere is stuck without any objects to begin with; what are his "waves" contoured by? Do they extend "infinitely"?

Gaede assumes a single closed-loop thread. I think this accounts for much, but I still have some issues with it. E.g. mechanisms of 'touch', formation of surfaces, then of atoms, etc. Perhaps I can't quite visualize what he means yet but I think it needs elucidation anyway.

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Sun, Oct 28 2012 7:18 AM
For LaFreniere's theory I always imagined a giant block of latex in which the waves propagate.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Science can never answer the why, only the how.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 11:51 AM
Indeed, and the problem with modern physics is that it only pretends to answer the how.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

AJ:
Indeed, and the problem with modern physics is that it only pretends to answer the how.

 

That's true. It's extremely intellectually disingenuous of the scientific community. However, as with other things, there's always an agenda behind it, with the attendant propaganda.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (47 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS