Assumptions, Inferences, science theory.

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok, so it's a matter of personal preference, Pantheory.

 

That's cool.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

Some of the Assumptions of the BB model are not included within the theory -- like the laws of physics were the same in the past. These require assumptions. But the idea that the mechanics of the universe were the same in the past is part of the BB theory itself and does not require an assumption IMO.

 

In a similar way, the mechanics of the universe were the same in the past according to the progress of the Pan Theory,  therefore no assumption is needed concerning the past or future either because it is part of the theory itself IMO.

 

On the other hand, the BB model views the laws of physics separate from the BB model, so an assumption is required concerning its continuation over time.

 

According to the Pan Theory (APT) there never were pre-existing laws of physics, they are solely the mechanics of the universe, and all relate to each other and none can stand alone; They never could be different. This is part of the theory itself and requires no assumptions IMO.

[walterpthefirst]

45 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Some of the Assumptions of the BB model, are not included within the theory -- like the laws of physics were the same in the past. These require assumptions. But the idea that the mechanics of the universe were the same in the past is part of the BB theory itself and does not require an assumption IMO.

 

In a similar way, the mechanics of the universe were the same in the past according to the progress of the Pan Theory,  therefore no assumption is needed concerning the past or future either because it is part of the theory itself IMO.

 

On the other hand, the BB model views the laws of physics separate from the BB model, so an assumption is required concerning its continuation over time.

 

According to the Pan Theory (APT) there never were pre-existing laws of physics, they are solely the mechanics of the universe, and all relate to each other and none can stand alone; They never could be different. This is part of the theory itself and requires no assumptions IMO.

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but according to the definitions you posted in this thread, your opinions cannot be correct.

 

Definition apriori:

 

"The terms a priori (Latin; “from former”) and a posteriori (Latin; “from later”) refer primarily to species of propositional knowledge. A priori knowledge refers to knowledge that is justified independently of experience, i.e., knowledge that does not depend on experiential evidence or warrant. In contrast, a posteriori knowledge is justified by means of experience, and depends therefore on experiential evidence or warrant. The distinction between apriori and a posteriori knowledge may be understood as corresponding to the distinction between non-empirical and empirical knowledge. Mathematical knowledge is a paradigmatically a priori, whereas, the truths of physics, chemistry, and biology are instances of a posteriori knowledge. 

 

When it comes to inaccessible eras of time we cannot obtain any experiential evidence from them.  Therefore, there is no possibility of gaining any a posteriori knowledge about them.  This means that we can only employ a priori knowledge to say anything meaningful about them.

 

The example of M31 is helpful in understanding how this works.  Light emitted by it's stars from the end of Carboniferous Period on Earth is forever inaccessible to us.  That's because it has travelled 60 million light years.  Because we are 2.5 million light years from M31, that Carboniferous Period light passed us by 57.5 million years ago and is getting further away from us all the time.  We can never detect it with any instruments and so we can never say anything about what conditions prevailed in that galaxy 60 million years ago.

 

So, if we want to say anything meaningful about M31 at the end of the Carboniferous Period, we can only do so by employing a priori assumptions.  This means assuming that the laws of nature there and then were the same as they are now, here on Earth.  Anything and everything we discuss that is not directly accessible with a posteriori knowledge can only be discussed using a priori knowledge.

 

In other words, we have to assume that which we cannot observe.

 

This applies to any era of time or any region of space that the Pan Theory (APT) is applied to where a posteriori knowledge is not available.  This is not a matter of personal choice or preference, it is a matter of necessity.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

55 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but according to the definitions you posted in this thread, your opinions cannot be correct.

 

Definition apriori:

 

"The terms a priori (Latin; “from former”) and a posteriori (Latin; “from later”) refer primarily to species of propositional knowledge. A priori knowledge refers to knowledge that is justified independently of experience, i.e., knowledge that does not depend on experiential evidence or warrant. In contrast, a posteriori knowledge is justified by means of experience, and depends therefore on experiential evidence or warrant. The distinction between apriori and a posteriori knowledge may be understood as corresponding to the distinction between non-empirical and empirical knowledge. Mathematical knowledge is a paradigmatically a priori, whereas, the truths of physics, chemistry, and biology are instances of a posteriori knowledge. 

 

When it comes to inaccessible eras of time we cannot obtain any experiential evidence from them.  Therefore, there is no possibility of gaining any a posteriori knowledge about them.  This means that we can only employ a priori knowledge to say anything meaningful about them.

 

The example of M31 is helpful in understanding how this works.  Light emitted by it's stars from the end of Carboniferous Period on Earth is forever inaccessible to us.  That's because it has travelled 60 million light years.  Because we are 2.5 million light years from M31, that Carboniferous Period light passed us by 57.5 million years ago and is getting further away from us all the time.  We can never detect it with any instruments and so we can never say anything about what conditions prevailed in that galaxy 60 million years ago.

 

So, if we want to say anything meaningful about M31 at the end of the Carboniferous Period, we can only do so by employing a priori assumptions.  This means assuming that the laws of nature there and then were the same as they are now, here on Earth.  Anything and everything we discuss that is not directly accessible with a posteriori knowledge can only be discussed using a priori knowledge.

 

In other words, we have to assume that which we cannot observe.

 

This applies to any era of time or any region of space that the Pan Theory (APT) is applied to where a posteriori knowledge is not available.  This is not a matter of personal choice or preference, it is a matter of necessity.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

As far as the so-called laws of physics are concerned, there aren't any separate from the mechanics of the universe, according to the Pan Theory, as I previously explained. Such physics is explained very differently by the Pan theory itself and need no apriori assumption  IMO  As far as the passage of time is concerned, I think both theories propose how time passes in galaxies, and what should be expected according to theory, past, present and future. If you wish, we can agree to disagree on these points. Obviously most BB theorists agree with you on both assumptions for their theory since they are both listed as assumptions.

[walterpthefirst]

29 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

As far as the laws of physics are concerned, there aren't any according to the Pan Theory. Such physics is explained very differently by the Pan theory itself and need no apriori assumption  IMO  As far as the passage of time is concerned, I think both theories propose how time passes in galaxies, and what should be expected according to theory, past, present and future. If you wish, we can agree to disagree on these points. Obviously most BB theorists agree with you on both assumptions for their theory since they are both listed as assumptions.

 

It's not a matter of disagreement, Pantheory.

 

I simply can't understand how your theory can say anything meaningful without the use of a priori assumptions about constant conditions across time and space.

 

I also can't understand how you can gain a posteriori knowledge about regions of space and eras of time that are inaccessible to you.

 

We have agreed that M31 is 2.5 million light years distant from us and that is a measure of distance.

 

We have also agreed that it's light has travelled for 2.5 million years to reach us and that is a measure of duration.

 

So, if you happily use the terminology of distance and duration here, are you using them differently in your alternative theory?

 

Quite frankly I'm mystified and your Pan Particle Theory now seems more incomprehensible than ever.

 

What do you suggest?

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

25 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

It's not a matter of disagreement, Pantheory.

 

I simply can't understand how your theory can say anything meaningful without the use of a priori assumptions about constant conditions across time and space.

 

I also can't understand how you can gain a posteriori knowledge about regions of space and eras of time that are inaccessible to you.

 

We have agreed that M31 is 2.5 million light years distant from us and that is a measure of distance.

 

We have also agreed that it's light has travelled for 2.5 million years to reach us and that is a measure of duration.

 

So, if you use happily use the terminology of distance and duration here, are you using them differently in your alternative theory?

 

Quite frankly I'm mystified and your Pan Particle Theory now seems more incomprehensible than ever.

 

What do you suggest?

 

 

 

You might consider that the Pan Theory is an entirely different, and far simpler theory of modern physics IMO, not just a simpler theory of cosmology.

 

Just read the first page here which I believe explains it, if you wish.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

But this thread is about Assumptions and Implications of theory, at your request -- so further discussion of any particulars of theory beyond cursory examination  and explanations would not be appropriate here IMO. I try to stay on topic. 

 

regards,  Forrest

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

You might consider that the Pan Theory is an entirely different, and far simpler theory of modern physics IMO, not just a simpler theory of cosmology.

 

Just read the first page here which I believe explains it, if you wish.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

But this thread is about Assumptions and Implications of theory, at your request -- so further discussion of any particulars of theory beyond cursory examination  and explanations would not be appropriate here IMO.

 

regards,  Forrest

 

I will do as you suggest, Pantheory.

 

However, there's just one point of order that needs mentioning.

 

The use of a priori assumptions isn't just confined to cosmology.

 

Any branch of the sciences that deal with inaccessible regions of space and time are obliged employ them as well.

 

Geology and palaeontology being two examples that come to mind.

 

So, it sounds like you Pan Theory stands apart from much, if not most of mainstream science and not just cosmology.

 

Anyway, I must away to bed, because sleep calls.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I will do as you suggest, Pantheory.

 

However, there's just one point of order that needs mentioning.

 

The use of a priori assumptions isn't just confined to cosmology.

 

Any branch of the sciences that deal with inaccessible regions of space and time are obliged employ them as well.

 

Geology and palaeontology being two examples that come to mind.

 

So, it sounds like you Pan Theory stands apart from much, if not most of mainstream science and not just cosmology.

 

Anyway, I must away to bed, because sleep calls.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

My published theories only drift away from modern physics, which includes cosmology. Most of my other theories and scientific work do not involve the Pan Theory and might be considered extensions to mainstream science rather than apart from it -- so I have not examined what might be considered assumptions and Implications of theory outside of physics.