Re: If someone just took a minute to listen to me

On Mar 20, 12:48 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:19 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 11:37 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 1:35 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 10:25 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Michael Helland wrote:

I could explain it all clearly.

It would be 50 seconds wasted and the last 10 abandoned.

Well then. Let's save some time.

What is the appropriate interpretation of QM?

I'm taking a minute to *listen*, and you took that time to ask a
question.

I didn't realize you were listening.

Thanks for the sincere consideration.

Physics is the study of matter in space and time.

Physical theories are expressed in mathematics that has variables that
directly represent mass, distance, and duration.

That situation may, and should change.

Future physical theories shouldn't directly represent mass, distance,
and duration with mathematics.

Instead, future theories should compute those physical measurements
indirectly, purely as a consequence of the mathematics rather than
postulating them in the initial assumptions.

That's how future theories will explain modern phenomena.

If someone would allow themselves to understand the idea some progress
could be made toward empirical support.

OK, that took 15 seconds to read. You have 45 seconds left to explain
what you left unsaid.
1. You mentioned mass, distance, duration, but you neglected charge
(and in fact there are several different kinds of charge) and some
other properties that can't be reduced to mass, distance, or duration.
What about those others?

Good question.

What others?

If two particles of matter move about in space and time in such a way
that they either attract or repel, we note that they have charge.

The motion of particles also explains chemistry, temperature, the
visible color spectrum, and everything else, unless you can come up
with a good one.

I'm willing to admit charge/color or something similar may be
fundamental property.


2. I see no difference in the usefulness (that is, its ability to make
accurate predictions) of a theory that uses these variables directly
or indirectly in calculations. Do you?

Intuitively, yes.

But that doesn't mean anything.

Whether there actually is or not can only be determined by
investigation.


3. You haven't suggested any replacements for direct variables to use
instead of mass, duration, distance.

Monads.
.

Loading