Hi Prof, there's no reason either one of them couldn't be used, iff we parsed our linguistics/semantics/language properly, as to subject matter. It's just everyone seems to want to stick to one field or the other. I years ago used both fields, and failed miserably to reach any audience, therefore from that experience, I learned to write to each audience differently, then finally settled on the scientific over the metaphysical, as the only root that seemed possible to me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat  Hi Lloyd;
Don't you have to get metaphysical to cover "Everything".[Yes and no. It all comes down to how the linguistics is parsed.]
When you are down to the one dimensional planck's length particles, and a universe that is flat with no sides, which may be infinite but then again maybe not....which may have multiverses...created or steady state...
It appears that you have to get metaphysical[My method is to take the metaphysical out of the above, as many ideas mentioned can be removed with dynamic atomic decay math and mechanics of aether/matter and mass densities.]
"beyond physics", because our physical reality becomes more like a conceptual reality, with laws, no with theories governing them such as probability theory,[I didn't say probability theory, I stated probability math, I think...] at the point where we can no longer accurately measure.[That's the thing___We can accurately measure, with atomic decay math.] And so we rely on theories, based on logic from whatever evidence we are able to obtain.[I do not accept that. A-priori logic is one quite valid field, with evidence, and I say the evidence is possible with the accuracy of atomic decay maths. It's just it hasn't been taken seriously, as of yet. Hawking did much of this math from the `70's on, yet seems to have abandoned, what was a very useful field of investigation. We must resume his work, with the accuracy accorded us of the cesium clocks, then we may discover we are able to prove much more than is presently evident. It just seems hard to get peoples' minds to prioritize information processing, to the correct measure instruments, and laws of physics available. If we narrow our investigations, for a moment, to the cesium clock, aether/matter densities and time distances, we can surely make headway. But, I fear not until we do. To get there, it seems we have these semantical/linguistic and parsing hurdles to surmount. So I trudge on.]
Now if you line up 8 different theoritical physicists, with the same evidence, you'll get 8 different answers.[Agreed.] ( Something which was true only for economist ).[Also agreed. All seem to have trouble prioritizing the most useful and pertinant information to base thier ideas on. I hear you loud and clear, but have the optomism to think we will get there, after a while. After studying inter-disciplinary information for years, I came to see how slow the clock of truth truly works. History has shown it taking 100 to 300 years for true ideas and laws to actually be respected by any majority of inhabitants. Yet, with the web, we are accelerating the process___considerably. Keep on trucking___It's all we can do.]
So best to all,
Pat |
Thanks Pat,
Lloyd