A Non Fiction Trilogy

# APPENDIX H           LOGIC & EXPERIMENT

What we call fact is what we know to be consistently true.

For example, if we find a red crayon always marks the color red on white paper, and make a statement concerning the same, this is what we call a statement of fact, because we find it consistently to be true.

The same is also a statement of logic, and the simplest type of logical deduction (equivalent to a statement of fact).

The next level of logical deduction is a slight extrapolation of that.   For example if we know a crayon of any color marks the same color on white paper, then we can logically deduce that a green crayon will mark a green color on white paper.

Experiment is a matter of consistent results that can be consistently repeated under the same conditions.

Therefore statements of facts based on everyday observation and statements of facts based on observation in experiments are essentially one and the same.   Both are then logical statements, therefore simple logical statements about the physics of phenomena are no less valid than experimental results because they are the same type of logic.

Refutable & Irrefutable Logic

Refutable logic has unknown parameters.

For example, we see a blinking light on the horizon in the evening, and we know lighthouses produce blinking lights.   We deduce that there is a lighthouse on the horizon.

This is refutable logic, because unless we have proven the only thing that blinks is a lighthouse, then we can refute the statement because there can be something else causing the blinking.

We may still call it logic for the sake of postulation, but it is not irrefutable logic.

Irrefutable logic, or fact, is based on logical deductions from which all contrary explanations are eliminated (that is facts are based on facts!).

More on Logic

I believe fundamental principles of Physics are given by God, beyond logic, but need to be fundamentally logical as proceeding from that given state. Now there are those who might say that logic itself is an illusion created by men.

That begs the question then of why are we paying salaries to university professors if nothing has a logical meaning?

Likewise those who say there is no right and wrong. Well this is philosophically true in a sense, that if you don't care if you live or die, and don't care about life in general, then indeed there is no right and wrong for you. But if you want to live, and care about the survival of life in general, on this planet, and indeed maybe in the universe, then by needs of reality there is right and wrong. To promote life on earth there are definite requirements, clean water, food etc. i.e., there is right ways and wrong ways to meet the goal of life. This is the meaning of the concept of right and wrong. Likewise with logic, it's fundamental to determining right from wrong, truth from falsehood, and reality from illusion. It is a fundamental principle. To disregard it is to be falling toward failure in the above goal of survival.

CONCEPTS AND MATH

1.          Language is related to objects, feelings and concepts (relationships between objects), time, motion, etc.

2.          a) Math is abbreviating language from longer to shorter speech.

b) Therefore abstract math is perhaps bogus (math not related to the reality of something)

c) Abstract math can have calculations that later fit real observed phenomena but on its own

may also be just be nothing of real structure in the universe.

3.          Concepts are relations between known factors or objects.

4.         Everyday common observation is the same as an experiment, observing a particular relationship or reality is what an experiment does, likewise common observation does the same.

5.         For Physics theory to be valid it must encompass experimental results and common observation, particularity several of the same, under a common explanation relating these different phenomenon.

Concepts of everyday experience such as aggregation of matter and 3-D space are just as valid as any other experimental discoveries, and experimental discoveries need, through hypothesis of relationships, to be matched with everyday concepts, not contradict them. Contradiction show in general, not that everyday experience is an illusion as such, but that the theories are likely not correct.

So a principle

Principle 26:   Everyday experience shows reality consists of aggregates

(in one quality or another), and voids (or/and less dense areas).

This sounds stupidly simple but is an extremely important point! Not only did ancient philosophers recognize this, but it is the basis for many con-current logical ideas on the microscopic and atomic/sub-atomic levels as well as on the cosmic level, that our everyday experience and experiment ties to and proves. On all these levels aggregation and less dense areas are found. It is a primary type of UNIFIED THEORY, that is it occurs on many levels of reality.

6.           God is infinite; our world is finite, at least in speed of motion. That is why at some point there are givens, our task is to determine from evidence what those givens are, point forces or atomistic principles, or others.

7.          To have aggregates there must be something to aggregate and there must be the motion of the same. See also “The Incorrectness of Point Forces” Appendix K.

So the beauty of all this is the primary factors are indeed the simplest of fundamentals

-   The void, 3-D space- absolute in nature.

- Matter- primary particles of a “non-void” quality (same size and shape in my theory)

- Motion of matter

- Time- absolute in nature.

While I have concluded neither mathematical points nor corpuscular matter carry forces and mathematical points are not matter, nevertheless they are real in the sense that motion can travel though a mathematical point, so long as there is no void between points, though maybe no matter either, one concept beyond everyday notions, but needs to be true for my hypothesis to work, as curvilinear shapes touch at mathematical points only

So current physics, by logical reasoning, deduced from common experience, shows itself to be quite off the mark and a return to a traditional atomistic theory based on classical mechanics, but with some appropriate new mathematical notions – such as compounding motions – is my suggestion.

*(this term to me means Euclidean dimensions of 3-D space, other "dimensions" are qualities or variables or characteristics or whatever word, but perhaps the word dimension is used differently by other people to mean qualities etc., but certainly there are not real spatial dimension other than three, as three spatial dimensions make all of space, a whole, nothing else can be added as such).