alt.sci.physics.new-theories

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote

>> Please take a serious look at it. Thank you.
>
> Wrong guy to ask. Clear as mud. Motivation unclear. I am an engineer.
>
> David A. Smith
>
Wow dude! What do you mean motivation unclear? Is it not clear why you
should read it to begin with? Or is it unclear why we might want physics to
be derived from logic? If physics can be derived from logic, then we have a
TOE since there can never be any more basic explanation than reason itself.

PS. I am an electronics engineer. So I wrote it with sophomores in mind,
maybe even for advanced high school students who have taken first semester
calculus. I've not explained where the path integral formulation of physics
originally came from. But if you accept this formula for the path integral,
then you can appreciate my deriving it from logic.