Currently unverifiable theories
The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.
Using the above as guidance I would have to state that most of the " theories " , if not all, posted on this site are really BELIEFS and not theories. This would include my An Idea.
My explanation is much simpler. The graviton is like a guitar string which has a node at either end. If the guitar string is vibrated then it becomes stretched and exerts a force on the pegs which hold its ends. But the pegs of a guitar are held rigidly apart by the body and neck of the instrument. Gravitons are not rigidly held so the ends move towards eachother resulting in the warping of the gravitational field - as in GR.
No knots to get tied up in - they're not necessary - just a simple vibrating string.
regards
Felix
PS - I'm don't think the debate about the nature of 'space' is going anywhere.
Well, I actually claim that Gravitons are unraveling because of the holes in the fabric (black holes), and that is where the accelerating expansion of the universe is coming from.
Lay down a bunch of black threads along the x-axis.
Lay down a bunch of them along the y-axis.
Repeat that with the z-axis.
Now populate each axis with the threads from the other two.
You get a mesh of blackness.
Tie a knot among the various threads, you get a distortion in the mesh, the knot is mass, the distorted mesh gives gravitational effects, the mesh itself is spacetime.
__________________ Simply Relativity: The Signature of the Gardener.
Following discussions that go nowhere? It ain't the destination, but the trip that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
...In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.
Using the above as guidance I would have to state that most of the " theories " , if not all, posted on this site are really BELIEFS and not theories. This would include my An Idea.
I think it is interesting that our neurons use a similar process to scientific method to build those beliefs.
Modern brain imaging applied to basic conditioning experiments, seen through the lens of computer science theory, has produced an amazing new understanding of how the subconscious mind functions. The behavior of these dopamine neurons shows some pretty sophisticated “thinking” going on at the cellular level. These neurons act as if they are predicting the future.
The conditioning experiment, much like the flatworms in the aquarium, requires the subject to learn a simple sequence of events. In this case, the stimulus was followed by a reward instead of a shock.
“His experiments observed a simple protocol: He played a loud tone, waited for a few seconds, and then squirted a few drops of apple juice into the mouth of a monkey. While the experiment was unfolding, Schultz was probing the dopamine-rich areas of the monkey brain with a needle that monitored the electrical activity inside individual cells. At first the dopamine neurons didn’t fire until the juice was delivered; they were responding to the actual reward. However, once the animal learned that the tone preceded the arrival of juice — this requires only a few trials — the same neurons began firing at the sound of the tone instead of the sweet reward. And then eventually, if the tone kept on predicting the juice, the cells went silent. They stopped firing altogether.”
Computational Behavior
This behavior had everybody stumped. It seemed like the dopamine was carrying information about the reward, but why would it stop firing? The answer came when the data from these experiments cross pollinated with a theoretical computer model called, temporal difference reinforcement learning (TDRL). From the field of artificial intelligence, this model was an attempt to program “neuron like” performance, using simple protocols for goal oriented action.
“The basic premise is straightforward: The software makes predictions about what will happen — about how a checkers game will unfold for example — and then compares these predictions with what actually happens. If the prediction is right, that series of predictions gets reinforced. However, if the prediction is wrong, the software reevaluates its representation of the game.”
These neurons were acting just like theoretical neurons would act. These cells were making predictions!
“Once the cells memorize the simple pattern — a loud tone predicts the arrival of juice — they become exquisitely sensitive to variations on the pattern. If the cellular predictions proved correct and the primates experienced a surge of dopamine, the prediction was reinforced. However, if the pattern was violated — if the tone sounded but the juice never arrived — then the monkey’s dopamine neurons abruptly decreased their firing rate.
“What’s interesting about this system is that it’s all about expectation. Dopamine neurons constantly generate patterns based upon experience: If this, then that. The cacophony of reality is distilled into models of correlation. And if these predictions ever prove incorrect, then the neurons immediately readjust their expectations. The discrepancy is internalized; the anomaly is remembered.”
Seems to me that information processing is fundamental to cellular activity and that such activity constitutes intelligent action. To memorize, make predictions, evaluate results and readjust expectations are all intelligent actions that we would normally expect from individuals, but these same kinds of “computations” are being accomplished at the cellular level.
In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future. Using the above as guidance I would have to state that most of the " theories ", if not all, posted on this site are really BELIEFS and not theories. This would include my An Idea.
Not so, Pat. You have latched on to a mechanism of the scientific community to discourage original ideas. My dictionary defines 'theory' in five ways of which the first is: "a supposition or system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained."
In my view this fits exactly what we are about here. My theory, like many on this site, is a paradigm which seeks to explain the underlying structure of our real world. It uses the apparent phenomena of this world as a basis for the propositions made and hence, if they are in argreement, it can be argued that it is being tested - if only in retrospect.
I do have beliefs which underly my TOE but it is not necessary for me to believe something to incorporate it into a theory. A little more 'heuristchen' might be good for all. It did Einstein no harm.
regards
Felix
__________________ And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.
Using the above as guidance I would have to state that most of the " theories " , if not all, posted on this site are really BELIEFS and not theories. This would include my An Idea.
I agree!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger
It did Einstein no harm.
I really wish people would stop trying to compare themselves with Einstein. Note that Einstein's theories did predict some new, testable phenomena, be that the constancy of the speed of light, or the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (amongst many others) which were, at a later date, tested.
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Indeed there are many definitions for the word theory. One that I came across is " An assumption based on limited information or knowledge, a conjecture " That definition would not be the scientific definition, but one based on faith. This is what Fredrick and I were discussing. Remember when you assume you make an ass out of you and me ASS U ME.
Don't get me wrong I am a true supporter for this site, but I don't know if any of our " theories " are testable or would aid in making predicitions, at this point in time.
So again I believe most if not all of our theories are really based on FAITH that they are correct, and not on testable evidence.
Best to all,
Pat
P.S. Good to hear from you again Neutralino. I hope everything is going well for you sir.
So again I believe most if not all of our theories are really based on FAITH that they are correct, and not on testable evidence.
Best to all,
Pat
Howdy Pat,
I agree. I think that research into how our systems and subsystems assemble beliefs in the first place, shows that our view of reality is based on a learned process, that is less than perfect. When we look at "testable evidence", it is through the lens of those beliefs. Then we encounter the evidence from quantum mechanics, that our testing equipment is also influenced by those pesky beliefs.
What all this does is narrow the gap between what must be accepted on faith and what is provable. One advantage to this discussion process is that we can see just how hard it is to communicate these concepts when our individual definitions and "beliefs" can be so different.
We are all talking about the same reality, we should be able to work this out.
I don't believe Space is empty, I believe it is a thing, with an energy level, a measurable mass.
I believe Dark Energy is a misidentification of that energy, and the acceleration attributed to Dark Energy would be better described as an unraveling.
I have no problem understanding what you are saying here, Max, yet we are using concepts and language that has rules on their own. And it is important to understand the constructs we are using to identify what is so important about language.
Let's take the word nation. There is no such thing as a nation, unless it is kept in place by the people within that nation. The border that delineates a nation cannot be found back in nature (unless it coincides with a natural feature, such as river or mountain range). I think you are with me when I say there are a lot of people and a lot of land in a nation. If we take out a nation, we take out all the people and all the land.
If we then use the concept world, we both will also say that there are a lot of people and land on it. Now if we place both world and nation next to each other, with all that is considered to exist within them, then we are actually describing certain people and certain land twice, once in the concept world and once in the concept nation. The only way that is possible is when at least one of the concepts is not real, or when both are simply just constructs created within language. In language, we can conjure a lot that overlaps.
So, looking back at nation, we can state that it involves a lot of people and land, but that it only exists in the minds of the people. We can quickly divvy up the nation in three parts, combine it with another nation, or have it been taken over by another nation; all examples of what has indeed happened to some extent to nations around the world.
The concept of world is more an actual concept, because it refers to our planet, which is really there. Yet, we can also think of theworld and then only consider the people on this planet, like the world gathering together at the United Nations in New York. This second use of world would then be a different use of the real thing, because it is meant only for a specific part.
The best way to go about this is to recognize that the various words belong to frameworks that are correct in themselves, that can have overlapping values within that framework to begin with, while also can have overlapping values with other frameworks. People belong to a people framework that can be divvied up many different ways. Land belongs to a land framework. The world belongs to.... etcetera. The framework explains the truth of the contents, the different frameworks explain the overlapping aspects of the same contents that exists without a problem in both.
Here is yet another aspect of language: when I say house, I can actually say various things. I can talk about the house I live in, or I can talk about a habitation in general as in people live in a house, without specifically talking about a location I have to point to.
Aan another: a famous painting of a pipe has as description: this is not a pipe. This quickly shows how the thing is not the object shown in the painting. The object is really the painting, not what's in the painting.
What I am trying to show is that language is a very versatile tool, that often allows for making a choice what a word means. Your description of Space is not incorrect, but you have made a choice on what the word means; you did not discuss/discover the concept in all its variations.
That's why I am asking about the context in which you place space, matter, and light, because in language there is always a context 'next' to a content. So if you include everything with Space, without separating it one way or another, you are talking about the contents only. What is the context, Max?
Additionally: when I say Space is empty, I do not say there cannot exist anything within Space. I say I can separate one from the other, just like earth takes in space, but lets go of that space just as easily. Dark energy tells us something more, but I am not willing to discuss that yet, because if we can't come to an understanding on what we are actually talking about when using language, we are not communicating properly enough yet to move on to a next part.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Currently unverifiable theories
The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.
Using the above as guidance I would have to state that most of the " theories " , if not all, posted on this site are really BELIEFS and not theories. This would include my An Idea.
Since you are the master of Venn Diagrams, Pat, please show us a nice Venn Diagram where belief and theory overlap, and where they differ.
Again, I do not have a belief when I say I have a pentaist ToE. I have actual information that I can show to you, to me, to anyone, tomorrow, today, or any time of the year. It is there, and it exists. To believe that it is the only ToE is actually also not what I claim, because other frameworks may exist that are also ToEs. To believe that the pentaist ToE is correct can indeed be called a belief, as it stands today, because I need peers to review it for it to be considered a general truth. I have no doubts, it is a certainty for me, but facts are those things that others also have acknowledged. If they don't look, I don't have others that also see the information. So, I consider it true, but without others acknowledging the (importance of the) information, it is considered polite to call my certainty a belief. Yet the information itself is not a belief; it actually exists. Peers would accept it or reject it, but they would not believe in it, because believing is not a possible option in that case. One does not believe in paper, one does not believe in cheese, one does not believe in information. One can believe that paper is the source of what's wrong in the world, one can believe that cheese makes people more beautiful, and one can believe that information will lead to mankind's salvation. One can also believe in leprechauns but one cannot have a scientific theory about them.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Building Beliefs 
Linear Mode
