Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 60.0: The Nonstandard Analysis Attempt To Relate to the U. Texas Rigged Hilbert Space View

From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx

Mpilot wrote:
Because these theories are beyond
the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, in my opinion, these theories
will never be experimentally provable, so are Mathematics instead of
Physics.

I regard Experiment/Observation as one of the Foundations of physics,
but Theory also is, and there are parts of theory that aren't
experimentally provable as we know from mathematics and logic and
philosophy as well as scientific analysis. Robinson's Nonstandard
Analysis is definitely mathematics, but it's been so heavily applied to
physics that the boundaries between fields is not as severe as you
indicate. Herrmann of Annapolis Naval Academy, a major applier of
Robinson and a major further theoretical development of "Physics
Nonstandard Analysis," agreed with you that some of the key things will
never be experimentally provable, but there's no question that his work
(both theory and practice) is both physics and mathematics. Probable
Influence/Causation (PI) has some advantages over these in not
explicitly requiring an "infinitesimal". PI's 0 is expressible as
zero/nil Probability, and its 1 (even when coding for infinity) is
expressible as a Probability of 1. Roughly speaking, you can't banish
"infinity" from physics any more than from mathematics even if you
don't "experimentally prove infinity", either as a limit or as a
transcendal cardinal/ordinal. Also, in Cosmology probabilities of 0
and 1 are commonly used with regard to the Universe and certain of its
subsets without expecting anybody to go out with a Statistical Survey
or random sample to the Big Bang or whatever, and Cosmology is a branch
of both Physics and Astrophysics.

I've heavily criticized Heisenberg in the past (see my early threads on
sci.physics, sci.stat.math or sci.math.stat (I forget which
abbreviation comes first), geometry.research, and math-history-list of
Math Forum as well as others, or read Max Jammer's The Philosophy of
Quantum Mechanics, Wiley: N.Y. 1974, which is the best evaluation of QM
up to and including 1974 (Jammer clarifies and finds problems with
Heisenberg's Uncertainty and Indeterminacy quite effectively). T. Y.
Cao (1997) of Boston U. in his volume does similarly for Quantum Theory
from 1974 through 1997 (the title slips my mind, but look him up in my
previous threads or as keywords on the internet).

Osher DOctorow

.