How do we find the ''best'' explanation?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    658
    Money. If you want to figure out if everything is true then you need to be able to afford to buy the equipment needed to test it all.

    For instance if you think a food company is doing ingredients fraud then you need to pay the money to have their food tested and to be sure the ingredients are true.
     
    river likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TheFrogger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    752
    I doubt it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    If it is reducible to a logical mathematical equation, IMO
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    And this equation is based on what mathematical logic ?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    I could try to answer this myself but I believe this says it better than I could.
    There is this

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic

    And this;
    Such as the Fibonacci sequence which is found throughout the Universe and is based on the ratio of "Phi"
    Therefore Phi is an axiomatic (self-evident) mathematical aspect to the Universe's fundamental functions
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

    Our symbolic representation of mathematical functions is less important than the adherence to consistency in using those symbols. IOW, any mathematical equation has to be consistent to self and relatively consistent to its environment.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  9. river

    Messages:
    11,058
  10. socratus Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    Write4U likes this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    It's the best we've got. And it hasn't failed yet.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Yet A=A is not proven , nor is , 1 + 1=2
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Physical observation always yields a mathematical equation as to values and functions.
    Ask any theoretical scientist. They all experience the sensation of "discovery" (not "creation") of pre-existing mathematical functions based on the inherent values and conditions of the set under observation.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    It needs no proof, its an self-evident axiom. It is never different than A = A and 1 + 1 = 2
    An equation is an axiom by definition.
    Does anybody ever check out my links? Roger Antonsen explains this very clearly, even to the most uninitiated mind.
    https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    I agree completely. Verification is fundamental to Science.
    However that does not prohibit the use of mathematics in theoretical or predictive science.

    A beautiful example is the Higgs boson, which had never been seen but was theoretically predicted with the use of mathematics. The verification of the maths was confirmed when the experiment actually produced the boson at the Cern collider for a brief instant in time.

    The mathematics were proven correct and the particle achieved expression in our reality.
    I believe this was a profoundly important mathematically anticipated discovery.
    It proved several things at several levels. The Universe understands mathematical language.

    As one scientist said; "If you ask the universe something in a language she understands (mathematics), and you ask it nicely (good mathematics), she will provide the answer".
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592

    I believe Max Tegmark is still convinced that mathematics can be combined into a single universal set to form a TOE.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    But does every physicist agree ?
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    That would assume no exceptions. There are always exceptions
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Well, Higgs et al received the Nobel prize for their efforts, a pretty strong endorsement by the body Science.
    That's why I said it was a landmark discovery of a previously hidden but suspected to exist particle.
    I'm not so sure. Bohm proposed a "Hidden Variable" theory, which might account for the apparent mathematical exceptions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Bohm's_hidden_variable_theory
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Well the body of science is political
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    By the definition you use every organization is political. But Science is founded primarily on the acquisition of knowledge and evidence, not grand social oratory.

    I would not call public recognition and a monetary reward for 20 years of hard study a political event, other than as incentive for other scientists to stretch mind and pioneer new areas of inquiry and other interested organizations to offer scholarships or otherwise fund the sciences.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  22. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Evidence that suites the mainstream narrative . Not reality .


    Really ?

    So where is the funding for Halton Arp and Hannes Alfven research ? You know to " stretch mind " .
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Apparently they did not do a great job of distributing their area of inquiry.
    I've never heard of either name. Could it be that their premise or proposition has already been tested and found wanting?
     

Share This Page