From: Christian Szegedy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 29 2004 - 05:13:32 MDT
Marc Geddes wrote:
>Now in my own theory of FAI (and everything!) I've
>taken something like Barbour's idea and generalised it
>to a higher level of abstraction. I've then carried
>over the same abstract logic to areas of science
>outside quantum physics.
This statement is already 1000 pts worth according to my
own scoring scheme. ;)
>My theory is that *exactly the same logic and
>mathematics* (suitably generalized) that applied to
>Barbours scheme for quntum physics, applies to
>everything else in reality.
Altough Barbour's ideas are already mathematically formulated
for the non-quantum case, he does not pretend to have
an exact theory for the case incorporating quantum-mechanics.
He wrote down his intuition, but he clearly indicates where
the formally justified thinking ends and where the intuitive part
begins. He is quite honest to admit that he is not sure about
the general case which is an open problem.
In fact Barbour's ideas would be rightly stamped foolish had not
he already demonstrated the viability of his approach by
giving a novel description of Einsteins general relativity.
This is his real achievment. Barbour can tell the difference
between mathematically backed part and and speculative part.
Your postings however show a complete lack of differentiation.
You talk about mathematics, where there is none, instead you
bore us with psudo-equations and pontification.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT