🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 24, 12:39 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 2:23 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
> > > through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
> > > wrong!!
>
> > That is bad science. The judgment of a theory is NOT based on the
> > "logic" or "causality" of its postulates. Those kinds of presumptions
> > are dangerous, because they are dependent on the structure of the
> > human mind.
>
> It is dangerous to underestimate the role and potential of human mind
> and brain. All theories, models and infact all science is the product
> of human mind. We are not 'gods' to produce any knowledge base without
> using the structure of the human mind.

That is not correct. If there is a conflict between what measurement
tells you and what the human mind conceives, then what must change is
the human concept set. Even basic human conceptual assumptions can be,
and are frequently, undermined by evidence presented by nature. This
is as it should be.

What follows such a realization is a mental shift to embrace a new set
of conceptual assumptions. Some people are more agile at this than
others. Those who are not, typically insist that it is a bad thing to
do so.


>
> > The ONLY criteria for a successful theory are:
> > a) mathematical self-consistency
>
> Yes, the mathematics itself can be considered as a system of symbolic
> logic.
>
> > b) accurate prediction of experimental data, to the degree that there
> > are no data that are inconsistent with the theory's predictions where
> > the theory claims to apply.
>
> Yes, accurate prediction of experimental data has to be ensured
> through strict application of causality. As I mentioned earlier, "If a
> sequence of events is causally connected, we may attribute such causal
> connection between events to certain physical law of nature. If
> appropriate logical explanation is available for the causal connection
> between events then such  causal connection plus the appropriate
> logical explanation is called a physical theory of the associated
> phenomenon."
>
> The causal connection between events or between inputs and outputs of
> a physical system is ensured through appropriate mathematical model of
> the physical theory. If it is incapable of making accurate predictions
> of experimental data, then it is obviously a faulty model.
>
>
>
> > You have simply the wrong metrics for the validity or strength of a
> > theory.
>
> > PD
>
> You have obviously got it wrong.
> A physical theory must be logically consistent and must incorporate
> causality in its mathematical models to ensure accurate prediction of
> experimental data.
>
> GSShttp://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html