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?
Why anarchy fails
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.
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.
Science can never answer the why, only the how.
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.