IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

science = determinism?

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 8 03:39:29 EST 1999

Maynard Handley wrote:

> In article <384D0FC9.8267DEAE at earthlink.net>, kenneth Collins
> <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >since a response, quoted below, was redirected by a prior poster, i've
> >copied it, and reposted it here. ken collins
> Listen, kenneth,
> You may well be a decent gentle person in real life, somewhat like John
> Winston (anyone here remember him from the late 80's?). So I'll try to
> make things clear for you.

ad hominum B. S.

> Physics as practised by the rest of the world is based on experimentation,
> prediction, and how well the two match.

you cannot point to a reproducible experimental result that wasn't already
explained in Tapered Harmony long ago.

> Although mental models are an
> important aspect of physics from the point of view of trying to figure out
> in one's mind as one lies in bed what is happening, at some point the
> mental models have to be translated into mathematics so that they can make
> predictions which can be tested.

the unified theory of physical reality that i've developed, Tapered Harmony,
is founded =solely= in experiment. every reproducible experimental result that
i know of is integrated within it. if you doubt, select an experimental
result, with respect to which i can obtain the data independently, and i'll
show you.

> As far as I can tell your mental models have no such mapping into
> mathematics and make no predictions.


i'll gladly demonstrate, in-person. the 'state' of my work is reminiscent of
the 'state' of Copernican theory relative to Ptolemaic theory when Copernican
theory was first introduced. because Ptolemaic theory had been in use for
~1000 years, folks were well-versed in it (familiar with it), and the
'precision' of its calculations exceeded the precision of the newly-introduced
Copernican theory.

but, look and see, such has everything to do with the way nervous systems, on
'automatic pilot', process-information, and nothing, whatsoever, to do with
physical reality. Copernican theory was correct, even though it's
computational precision was less than that yielded by Ptolemaic theory, which
was incorrect.

this same sort of thing is True with respect to Tapered Harmony and 'quantum

> Examples of predictions that most physicists expect from a new improved
> version of framework physics might include an explanation of why there
> appear to be three generations of particles but no more (or no less),
> along with an explanation for the mass spectrum of the observed particles.

such is already in Tapered Harmony. i've repeatedly publicly discussed TH's
reification of such, beginning in the early 90s, when i first began to discuss
TH's stuff publicly. the discussions are archived.

> A less original result, but still useful, would be if your theory could
> explain in a reasonably simple fashion the spin-statistics theorem, a
> result that seems sufficiently simple that it deserves a simple
> explanation, but we don't appear to have one within standard QFT.

such is already in Tapered Harmony. i've repeatedly publicly discussed TH's
reification of such. the discussions are archived.

> If your theory cannot make new predictions (or, at the very least pedict
> things that we already know to be true, only explained in a different
> fashion), then it is not physics.

Tapered Harmony does all of such, robustly.

> It's best described as, I guess,
> religion or possibly (charitably) philosophy. Either way, calling it
> science and discussing it on usenet newsgroups devoted to science is
> wasting the time of the readers of this newsgroup which is not a very
> friendly thing to do.

i discuss my work on usenet because no one will allow me to either publish it
or discuss it in-person, which has everything to do with the way nervous
systems, on 'automatic pilot', process-information, and nothing to do with
physical reality.

so, i stand on what i've posted.

K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net