Hachem

@vagabanno The intensity with which you are trying to destroy my credibility reeks of hate and despair. Those emotions should be completely absent of ...

@VagabondSpectre I wonder why you are back. Hadn't you decided that enough is enough? Well, I fell the same way. Good day to you.

The issue is not one of contradiction since, indeed, two different persons from two different frames of reference have two different beliefs. As I see...

Yes, I have read it. And, if you have read this thread, you will know that I do not agree with it. It considers light not as a local phenomenon, but a...

yes, the title is in old English "Opticks". What is your point if I may ask?

I would like to go a step further and consider theories that not only predict correct observations but also allow practical implementation. The tempta...

There is an implicit caveat. Observations are theory guided for a large part. And that is in fact one of the reasons why scientific ideas and convicti...

I agree

or less.

I have no problem with that. Except that you should be careful about the second part. Correct is always a judgment carried by a scientific community a...

This is a very modern reading of Ptolemy that does not do justice to the (metaphysical) beliefs that held all theories together. Correct calculations ...

It would be a mistake to distinguish between "true" and "untrue" or "false" theories. Theories that permit correct predictions are not necessarily tru...

You are still sticking to a formalistic approach which, while, again formally, correct, is rather sterile. @"litewave" has a more concrete approach in...

I have no problem agreeing with you on this point, but then you have also to admit the following proposition: An inconsistent universe is a metaphysic...

agreed.

how do you know that?

Yes. What more can you tell me about the moon?

Of course not. The problem is talking about the moon without in someway being there to see it.

I am afraid I have lost one post. I thought it had already been posted, but that is not the case. It preceded my last one. I think it went something l...

An observer in a frame of reference knows that he is moving because of acceleration. But that is something only he can experience, not somebody outsid...

I am afraid your approach leads to a philosophical dead end. Speaking of things as they are without an observer or a mind is a very difficult metaphys...

This is exactly what RT is not. If there has ever been a god-like perspective then it is that of RT. How else could you explain time dilation and spac...

agreed.

I do not agree with this implicit shift from rationality to formal consistency. Physics is not a set of syllogisms or formal logical argumentations as...

If you mean by that that our assumptions, however rational, can be wrong and infirmed empirically, then I can only agree with you. But the infirming i...

how is it not?

For the rat, the lab is the universe. And we, as human beings, can certainly be compared to this rodent.

You are again playing with words. It is true that actions cannot contradict each other, only ideas and propositions. But actions are guided by ideas a...

Maxwell's conception of light has to be distilled from all his remarks on the phenomenon since he never explicitly studied the object, at least not in...

You are playing with words. The world either is rational, in the sense that our logic is applicable to it, or it is not. Rationality is a condition fo...

The question is not addressed to me, still, I will give my own opinion on this matter. I think your question in itself would be considered biased by t...

You took the words right out of my mouth. I don't need to sleep on it.

I wrote that almost one year and a half ago. I haven't thought about this issue since, but I think I can still stand behind what I said. https://philp...

what is consistent about non-locality?

If you believe that, as I do, then you cannot believe in non-locality.

I really do not care what you think. I am not supporting you. I have very little respect for you. And no, non-locality is not an observation. The fact...

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with the logic of modern physics as far as I can see. Once you accept their assumptions of, for instance, non-locality,...

metaphysically speaking?

would be so kind then as to restore the original title of this thread?

I would propose to move all my threads in Philosophy of Science to the Questions section. Maybe then a rational discussion will be possible. edit: but...

I see that you have not only transfered the thread, but also changed the title without my permission. I find the former to be your prerogative, but no...

Science is always a matter of consensus. There is no greater authority than the scientific community to decide at any period whether a view should be ...

Ha @"Banno", you are really endearing in your naiveté. It is not a matter of understanding, but a matter of being convinced. I hope you will not give ...

it's on a need to know basis. And we don't need to know. :)

go right ahead, my lips are sealed.

your wisdom is only equaled by your kindness.

I'm afraid I'm much older than you, but Amen anyway!

Hallelujah, brother! X-)

okay.

I don't know what that means.