alt.sci.physics.new-theories

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

>
>> If physics can be derived from logic, then we
>> have a TOE since there can never be any more
>> basic explanation than reason itself.
>
> No, we do not have a TOE. We simply have (perhaps) a connection between
> two places well understood. That does not unify quantum chromodynamics
> and classical theories. Or explain the dichotomy of the male and female
> minds. Or explain why I have to hear about presidential elections for
> more than a year, from people that are talking about last century's
> problems and "solutions".
>

What does it mean to derive the path integral from logic? As it stands now,
QM is just a curiosity of nature. We don't know where QM comes from, and we
don't know when to apply its principles. We are just groping in the dark,
coming up with mathematical theories, and comparing them to measurement. We
have no idea if there is some more basic structure. So now we are applying
it to quantum gravity, and we don't know if that is the right procedure. And
we may never know since we can't test it. But deriving the path integral
(and therefore QM) from logic give us more insight into what we are doing
and when to apply it.

If physics can be derived from logic, then we can't argue with it and must
accept it. We get an undeniable foundation, and we know when to apply it.
The question remains if I did come up with physics from logic or not.

http://hook.sirus.com/users/mjake/QMfromlogic.htm