OK, so you were not accurate when you said that QM can explain the macro universe. I will accept your retraction of your claim when you offer it.Divine Insight wrote:It doesn't explain it in detail. But in theory it could. It could explain it in terms of subatomic particles called gravitons. In fact, this is the proposal in the Standard Model. It's not a completed or experimentally verified hypothesis, but it's a hypothesis that is at least compatible with the theory and plausible within that theory.JohnA wrote: You claimed that QM can explain the macro universe. So, tell me how does QM explain gravity (me standing on earth and not floating away)?

There is nothing in General Relativity that even remotely allows for quantum effects.

So my point is that QM is potentially upward compatible to the macro world, at least in theory. But the opposite is not true of GR.

You seem to always avoid my questions.

How many physicists do you know who are searching for Continuum Theory to replace Quantum Mechanics?

I reject the a set theory based on an idea of an Empty Set.JohnA wrote: Which areas of math do you reject? And Why.

The reason I reject this is because it is extremely logically flawed. It's based on totally illogical constructs, and it produces absurd conclusions. It is a formalism that by its very own predictions has proven itself to be false by contradiction.

The very idea that there are endless collections that are more endless than other endless conclusions is itself an absurd conclusion. Thus it proves itself to be a false formalism by it's own absurd contradictions.

It's also totally unnecessary.

There are many other areas of mathematics that I disagree with. There is no need to speak of "Absolute Negative Numbers". That's an absurdity too. The negative property of a quantity is a relative property that requires an external context.

Things like negativity are not absolute properties of quantities such as a set or collection of objects. On the contrary negativity is only produced when one set is doing something relative to another set. Therefore negative is not an "absolute" property of the concept of quantity. It's a relative property between sets.

Yet our current mathematical formalism treats negative quantities as though they are some sort of absolute concept, which they are not.

We also don't need to treat irrational relationship as though they are cardinal properties of sets. That's absurd, and totally unproductive. There is no such thing as a collection of things that has the quantitative property of pi for example. Unless you treat distance as though it's a thing, but that's a folly that we should have avoided early on. Unfortunately we didn't so now we're stuck with this folly.

I can't think of too much of anything in actual science that I reject. Now I do have some problems with calling something like String Theory "Science". It's far from science, and most physicists will own up to that. In fact, many very prominent scientists question whether String Theory is "science" or "philosophy".JohnA wrote: Which areas of science do you reject? And Why.

I can argue that String Theory is nothing more than an attempt to continue mathematics beyond where mathematics may even apply physically. If QM is true, then mathematics as we know it may break down at the Planck scale. If that's the case then describing "strings" that are smaller than the Planck scale to be vibrating according to known wave mechanics is silly. Yet this is what String Theory depends upon.

So I don't view String Theory as valid "science". But I accept the more obvious things like evolution, the age of the Earth, and even the age of the universe, and possible a "Big Bang" of some sort. Although it's unclear precisely how we should think of the "Big Bang".

I don't know of any logic that I reject. I do, however, realize that ALL LOGIC is dependent upon foundational unprovable premises. And therefore any logical reasoning is always suspect because it may be based upon false premises.JohnA wrote: Which areas of logic do you reject? And Why.

Logic is only as sound as its underlying unprovable premises.

Like most professionals I prefer to use dictionaries that are created specifically for the discipline under study. I would never run out and get a layman's dictionary to be used in a mathematics class. I would get a dictionary of mathematical terms for that. And even then I would realize that it's only a guide.JohnA wrote: Which areas or words of dictionaries do you reject? And Why.

I have used mathematics dictionaries quite often throughout my life. I've have found disagreements between dictionaries published by different publishers. I have also found contradictions, or at least ambiguities within single dictionaries when looking up terms used in various definitions.

I have also come to the realization that dictionaries of any sort cannot be trusted to be perfect nor complete. After all, if they were complete, then the subjects they are defining would need to be complete as well. And we know that's not the case.

Conditional statements are used in Discrete Mathematics.JohnA wrote: A conditional statement refer to logic and math (subset of logic which uses by logical reasoning)

A conditional statement, symbolized by p -> q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion.

The conditional is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis leads to a false conclusion.

Conditional statements are part of Discrete Mathematics!

You are right a conditional statement is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis least to a false conclusion. But it is also considered to be true if the hypothesis is simply false.

See:

And this is exactly why I am using a conditional statement for this purpose.

I claim that my conditional statement offered in my first post of this thread is TRUE.

Well there are three conditions where the statement is TRUE, and only one where it is FALSE.

If you reject the truth of the hypothesis P, then the conditional statement is given a truth value of TRUE.

Therefore if you disagree with P, you automatically must conceded that my conditional statement is logically true. You simply don't care because you reject the hypothesis. It doesn't matter to you that it's true precisely because you have rejected the hypotheses.

The only case where it can be false is when you accept the hypothesis to be TRUE, and then refuse to accept that the conclusion is also TRUE.

I am simply saying that if you accept the truth of the hypothesis then I can show why the conclusion necessarily has to be true. I haven't had a need to do that yet because no one is willing to accept the truth of the hypothesis.

This is precisely why I have chosen to present it in this form.

There is no point in my even bothering to argue with people who reject the hypothesis. That's just a total waste of time for everyone involved.

You don't seem to understand this.

If you reject the truth of P, then you're wasting our time to continue to argue with me about it. You have already conceded Q when you have rejected P.

This is precisely what I have chosen this form to present my case.

This was no accident.

But that is precisely what you will need to show if you wish to discuss this topic with me.JohnA wrote: This is what I disagree with:

This is very sneaky of you to define your 'argument' using a Conditional statement since the only way we can show it false is when the hypothesis (p) is true and the conclusion (q) is false.

All of that comes later John.JohnA wrote: But your forgot to say:

1) You need to demonstrate there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the hypothesis and conclusion of your conditional statement.

Your conditional statement (you can even use truth tables if you wish) that one hypothesis / premise is enough to make a conclusion is unfounded. You need a valid sound argument (at least 2 P's and 1 C) for this nonsense you are trying to conclude.

You need to accept the truth of P before we can even begin to move in that direction.

If you reject P before we start, then what's the point in even bothering to move forward? You've already conceded at that point.

So? Just because thereJohnA wrote: 2) There are problems using conditional statements in normal English language to make conclusions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_c ... onditionalcanbe problems doesn't mean there has to be in every case.

All I'm doing with this conditional statement is trying to weed out unreasonable people. Clearly it doesn't always work for that intended purpose.

My purpose it to try to get off on a good solid start. There's nothing "sneaky" about it at all. If you reject P, fine. How many times do I need to say that?

If you reject the truth of P, then I have nothing to prove to you. I'm not even interested in trying to prove anything to you at that point.

It's just a way to avoid superfluous arguments like you keep presenting.

But clearly, like I say, even this approach doesn't appear to be working in your case.

No John you are totally wrong. I'm not demanding that that Q must be true.JohnA wrote: 3) Now, you said you are not trying to make a conclusion, yet conditional statements refer to a hypothesis and conclusion (if hypothesis true, then conclusion = true). You even stated that you want to make a conclusion in your 1st post in this thread!

All I'm saying is that if you accept P then I can show that Q is true.

Clearly you aren't understanding. There is nothing in this conditional statement that demands that anything needs to be true or false.

I'm the one who is claiming that this conditional statement is TRUE. Therefore it's up to me to prove it.

However, if you reject the truth of P, then I'm done. The conditional statement is then automatically TRUE (see the truth table above). Anytime P is said to be false, the conditional statement then takes on the truth value of TRUE.

That's precisely why I chose a conditional statement as the format John.

No they don't. They are logic, not math. They don't rely on a concept of quantity at all. They have nothing to do with the concept of number. They are Boolean. they are either TRUE or FALSE, no numbers or quantitative ideas are required at all.JohnA wrote: 4) Conditional statements rely on discrete math, which your reject (both in saying you reject parts of math and that conditional statement are math indeed).

But then again, I suppose you do have a point academically speaking, because the "Mathematical Community" thinks it OWNS LOGIC.

In fact, you have already spoken before like as if there is no difference between logic and mathematics, if you reject one you automatically reject the other. That seemed to be your view on that.

I disagree with that view as well.

So we're back to a point where we can simply agree to disagree again.

If you reject P then my conditional statement P -> Q is TRUE.JohnA wrote: You reject / ignore this for some UNKNOWN reason, offering obtuse obscure projections of obscurantism.

Therefore, I reject your conditional statement "argument" since it is logically flawed. I reject P and Q and P -> Q. Happy now?

Look at the TRUTH TABLE for P -> Q John.

If you reject P as being False, then P -> Q is automatically TRUE.

Are you going to deny the TRUTH TABLE?

Continuum Theory: Call me boring, but I read science that has been accepted to the point where the author and source becomes irrelevant to the knowledge gained. I do not see scientists as authorities. I do not read conjectures such as gravitons can by some DI mystical experience explain GR or Newton's Gravity at the macro scale.

And gravity is not the only thing that QM can not explain in the macro world.

On your rejection of stuff:

Math:

i) set theory based on an idea of an Empty Set. Well write a paper and show them it is false. Let me know when they have accepted it.

ii) Absolute Negative Numbers: I think it is useful. Do not use it of it bothers you. It seems to me you do not like it because you think numbers are properties of quantities. LOL. Obscurantism here we go again.

iii) cardinal numbers / sets. I think they are useful. I agree that Cantor's reservation of absolute infinity for his god is ridiculous. Actually, I have not seen any argument that can convince me that we can not have an actual infinity ( - am not referring to a god or 'DI mystical spirits').

Science:

i) String Theory. Agree, it is conjecture.

ii) Possibly the big bang. So, why and what do you suggest?

That is just rubbish and I think you know this. I already told you about that recent astrophysical experiment that showed that Lorentz symmetry holds even below the Planck length. Why on earth would Math break down at the Planck scale? Gee. Don't even answer, as you and I both know that your claim is pure rubbish.

Logic:

i) So, you do not want your own system of logic anymore?

Dictionaries

i) You do not reject any. You are just not happy with disagreements and contradictions between dictionaries. Maybe you should write a book and point these out. I will buy it!

AH. am glad we cleared that up. OK, so you were not accurate when you said that conditional statements are not part of math. I I will accept your retraction of your claim when you offer it.

I ignored the rest of you post. I already told you that I reject your conditional statement as the tool you are using to make a conclusion. I am the critique, so you need to convince me to MY standards, not the other way around --- and I explained to you why your conditional statement is not acceptable. Even you yourself just wrote: "ALL LOGIC is dependent upon foundational unprovable premises. And therefore any logical reasoning is always suspect because it may be based upon false premises. Logic is only as sound as its underlying unprovable premises. " So, based on your statement on logic, I also use that to dismiss your conditional statement as rubbish. You had to walk into it.....