Since you want to get some comments right now, I’ll give you my current thoughts (which are still in the process of being fully worked through).
I am a supporter of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) which gives me an unusual take on these points. My understanding of TEW is that two adjacent points A and B can affect each other in these ways:
An elementary wave is always passing from A to B, and will have some sort of magic marker.
An elementary wave is always passing from B to A also with a magic marker.
A particle may be at A, and this will potentially affect B. The particle at A may be traveling towards B or in a different direction. (For TEW, waves and particles are totally separate entities.)
A particle may be at B, and this will potentially affect A. The particle at B may be traveling towards A or in a different direction.
I have a very unusual question to ask about RM: How many ways can point A affect adjacent point B?
For TEW the answer is two (by an elementary wave from A to B and by a particle at A). For RM, I am guessing the answer is one - Potential-to-Affect (PtA) at point A can affect point B.
TEW has assumptions, and TEW openly acknowledges them. I see RM has having assumptions too, and the above (the answer to how many ways one point can affect an adjacent point) is what I see as the core assumption of RM in physics. So the list of points above I see as subject to this core RM assumption.
There is no need for us to try to resolve these differences. I see RM as having assumptions just like any other theory, and I am not convinced that RM is proven. RM is interesting and that’s why I’m still here having a look at it.
RM may still be right - I simply prefer the TEW assumptions for now. Perhaps later RM will show some results or logic that wins me over to the RM side.
Surprising you don’t want to answer this question:
Your questions:
Not in Base 3 or Base 4. Obviously true for integers and real numbers.
From the point of view of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) the answer is no - because there are elementary waves going in all directions through all points, and elementary waves affect matter and energy.
Again from the TEW point of view the answer is no.
I have answered it many times. I am now merely trying to answer it a different way.
But you know that TEW is just a theory so might not be true. So if TEW was not true is it possible (both questions)?
==============
Something occurred to me concerning TEW. Now that I have seen how you interpret what I say differently than how I present it into a misleading way, I have to wonder if Dr Little and I are more in agreement than I had thought. As I first stated, RM has unavoidable waves that do much like what the proposed TEW waves do, but for exact reasons. In RM, the waves are not necessarily what you personally call “waves” apparently, but I am wondering if TEW waves were intended to mean what I am calling waves and perhaps also not what you are calling waves (necessarily reciprocating).
Also as far as the double-slit experiment, the affectance harmonic resonance waves would end up behaving much like how you have described Dr Little’s explanation. One difference would be that the harmonic waves are an aberrant wave effect rather than “elemental”. Affectance waves are the very definition of fundamental or “elemental” waves in the physical universe. And also my speculation is that the interference isn’t so much at the source (although possibly there also), but stemming from the space between the source and the pattern screen, possibly on both sides of the double-slit depending on the exact arrangement of the setup.
The explanation that you have given as Dr. Little’s explanation for TEW, as I have shown, wouldn’t actually explain the double-slit interference pattern, nor would that of QM. But if Dr. Little actually meant something much closer to what I have been trying to explain, then maybe his theory is much closer than I was thinking.
My wife and I rushed off for a weekend holiday, and I did not get time to let you know of the delay in my next reply.
I originally hoped that Rational Metaphysics (RM) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) could somehow both be true. I appreciate you spending some time considering the idea. I am less hopeful now that the two theories will share much. The “magic markers” are a big requirement for TEW and I don’t see how RM will accommodate that. For TEW the magic markers explain why waves from the screen act independently at the source and guide a particle from the source to a particular screen point. I don’t see RM has having the same coordination of entities as TEW.
There is another difference that divides TEW and RM. RM in physics states that both matter and energy are built from affectance - the same thing. I am guessing that one reason RM claims this is the famous formula:
It is widely taken to mean that matter is a sort of “frozen energy”. Surprisingly, TEW does not interpret that formula as saying that.
For TEW, mass is related to the frequency of the elementary wave that a particle is following, as per the TEW mass formula:
Note that the “v” should be a greek letter, but I don’t have time to fix that. I also don’t have time to explain how the above formula is derived by TEW. You can see it on page 103 of the TEW book and the explanation is on 101-103 with references to earlier parts of the book.
Notice that for TEW the Higgs boson is completely irrelevant to the concept of mass and is just another particle. That may be one area where TEW and RM agree.
Looking at the TEW mass formula, you can insert the formula for the energy of the particle as related to the frequency:
Again, this is given on page 103 of the TEW book. You can see how TEW derives the famous formula between mass and energy. For TEW, it’s all about how elementary waves determine the mass and energy of a particle, not how mass and energy are interchangeable. Dr. Little writes on page 103:
Dr. Little goes onto explain that underneath all of sub-atomic physics are the elementary waves. Mass and energy are simply different aspects of elementary waves that guide particles. Elementary waves and particles are still different entities.
Why am I mentioning this?
It’s because I have finally worked out what I think are the two essential foundations of RM and how they differ from TEW. I think the foundations are:
RM claims the universe - all matter and energy - are both made of affectance.
TEW claims the universe is made of elementary waves and particles. TEW claims the elementary waves and particles are entirely separate entities. TEW claims that mass and energy of a particle are simply different aspects of the elementary wave that the particle follows.
RM claims point A can only affect adjacent point B by one method: Potential-to-Affect (PtA).
TEW claims there are two methods: there is always an elementary wave going from point A to adjacent point B, and point A may or may not have a particle.
I think I have got to the heart of differences between the RM in physics and TEW.
We will never reconcile RM and TEW, so my viewpoint will always look misleading and distracting compared to RM. Might be better if you don’t ask me what I believe. You might find it better to continue your explanation of RM and I’ll ask the odd question to clarify your ideas.
I am still interested in RM, especially the waves that can result.
No problem. I figured as much. You have to give and take.
That is why I mentioned that you might be representing Dr Little in a skewed fashion making it seem more wrong than it actually is.
The magic marker requirement of TEW is a killer for TEW. Such markers are quite impossible for several reasons. But no matter.
Actually, nothing at all in RM came from Science. I can tell that some of Science started with something close to RM, but went askew somewhere along the trail. Newton, Ohm, and early Einstein seem to have been somewhat on course and several others of course. But it all went to pot with Relativity and QM (Einstein even said that he didn’t like what they were doing to Science).
Science has understood for a long time that matter is made of energy. That has been proven many times over. RM merely explains how and why. But RM would be the same even if Science didn’t agree.
Well, what I suspect most right now is that my Affectance waves are the actual necessary form of Dr Little’s Elementary waves. I don’t know exactly how he meant to represent them, so I don’t know if they are actually similar enough. Affectance waves, in the form that I have tried to convey, require no magic markers yet accomplish the same things.
So Dr Little doesn’t know what particles are made of - Elementary waves and Elementary particles?? “Mass and energy as separate entities”? Oh well.
I don’t see how having a particle constitutes an affect, but whatever.
I don’t really think so. I’m pretty certain that you don’t understand RM, so I don’t know how much of TEW you have properly understood either.
Earlier I had asked you a question so as to try yet again to answer your question. I am not asking what TEW teaches about anything with these questions. Just presume for a moment that TEW was proven unquestionably wrong but then consider the following 2 questions…
By “potential to affect”, I mean a point in space that could not by any means be used to convey affect from one side of it to another nor would that point contain any possibility of actually causing affect upon anything.
The following pictorial shows how you get from mere energy (affect) to particles (mass).
Note that the area below the “Level of Inertia” is called “Subspace” and that photons are not really defined in that area. The propagation speed of any non-complex affect of any kind cannot ever exceed the maximum affect density squared.
In physics, this means that photons cannot ever propagate in excess or the maximum mass density squared. But of course that number depends upon the units being used and exacting definitions (not something Physics does well). The affectance density is directly related to energy density which is directly related to mass or “matter” from which particles form.
Which is all why it is that E = mc^2 (which btw, is actually just an approximation).
You can always check if I am representing the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) correctly - read the book: “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. See also elwave.org.
Yes, TEW does not state what elementary particles are made of - only RM does that. Dr. Little called the waves “elementary” for the very reason that he believes they cannot be broken down into smaller entities. It’s not saying much - TEW is simply saying there is a smallest size beyond which we do not know what is smaller.
I wrote about methods point A can affect an adjacent point B:
You wrote:
All points in space have elementary waves enter and exit. Getting a particle coming back to point B along an elementary wave from point A is a huge effect. If the adjacent point A has a particle but that particle is passing by not towards B then I’m not sure there is an effect on Point B - just allowing for the possibility.
You asked two questions:
B) Can you think of one example of a point in space that would have no potential to affect anything whatsoever?
C) Do you believe it possible that every adjacent point to that one is infinitely identical to it?
Now that I am clear how TEW and RM are different, I can answer them confidently (as a TEW supporter).
For B, there are always elementary waves passing through every point in the universe in all directions. The answer is that it is impossible for a point to have no potential to affect anything whatsoever. Elementary waves always have a potential to affect something.
For C, no point in the universe can be infinitely identical to the next point, because the elementary waves are constantly in flux - the level of flux must be slightly different and changing all the time.
I do not understand much about the diagram “Affectance Rate of Change Propogation” yet. I understand that affectance is the change in Potential-to-Affect (PtA), so affectance is connected to rate of change. There is a superscript which appears to be “z” (not 2), and I am not sure what the superscript is about. I thought we agree that photons have zero mass, and I am not sure that the diagram conveys that. I am not sure what “subspace” is. I am also not sure what the curve in green in showing. Even the idea of propagation is not clear to me - it is propagation of affect or is it movement of a particle?
So I see that you are a TEW fundamentalist, incapable of any reasoning or questions that are outside the faith of TEW.
It is your religion.
You should have said that in the beginning. I wouldn’t have intentionally offended your religion. [-o<
People need blind loyalists. But being on a Science forum is probably not the best place to be posting. The assumption in Science is either that you go along with the collective or that you adhere to logical reasoning (and even that will bring trouble). Merely waving a foreign flag is not going to accomplish anything.
But I still thank you for the musing. It helped me put some things into word and picture form.
There’s no need to be surprised that I support the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) - I started this thread by stating my support for TEW. If you’re looking for someone who has no allegiance to any physics theory and yet is interested in finding one, then you’re after the proverbial needle in a haystack.
I’m not in the least offended. I continue to be surprised by how touchy you are about discussing RM. The quantum mechanics (qm) supporters will be much more critical than I am, and so you’ll need a very thick skin to promote your ideas.
I have been giving you a constructive viewpoint on the strengths and weaknesses of RM. I think the strengths are the description of what particle are, and the unity of gravity with all other forces, which not even TEW has finished. I see the weaknesses are the same as any theory - the assumptions. I know you claim RM has not assumptions, and I still argue there are. Here is my list of assumptions behind RM in physics:
All things in the universe, including matter and energy, are made of the same stuff.
The TEW assumption is that there are two sorts of “stuff” - elementary waves and (collectively) particles.
Point A can only affect adjacent point B by one method: Potential-to-Affect (PtA).
I believe TEW assumes there are two methods - the elementary wave going from A to B and the possibility of a particle at A (whatever direction it is going in).
There is a maximum rate of change at any one point of the universe.
It’s got a chance of being true, but I don’t see how anyone can prove it using logic alone.
I am also surprised that you are giving up because I have not been won over by your reasoning. Do you expect to win over everyone you speak to?
I don’t expect to convince anyone about TEW - I’m just fronting up and telling anyone who will listen what I think the best theory is. My main motivation is that I think Dr. Little may die before his theory is recognised as the breakthrough I believe it is. I don’t want to have that regret that I didn’t get off my ass and actually do something to help him. If someone learns about TEW from me and likes it then great. If not, I know that I stepped up to the plate and gave it a swing. I’m providing all that I can - a voice in favour. If others don’t understand TEW, I keep trying.
I’m still happy for you to use this thread to promote and explain RM. Any theory that gets people having second thoughts about quantum mechanics (qm) is worth being heard. Three theories to choose from is even better than two - much more philosophically engaging.
Up to you whether you keep telling us about RM. You’ve got Typist out there who could help you write up RM. I still think I’m a pussycat compared to the potential reception RM will get from the real zealots - the qm supporters.
Science is about reasoning and verified measurements. It isn’t about favorite theories. Favorite theories are religions.
QM is about 10% statistical measurements and about 90% religious flag waving. Earlier you claimed that TEW is a better theory and gave your reasons. The problem that I see is that for you it is still just a religion to faithfully support regardless of any reasoning. That isn’t what Science is about.
When someone merely wants to believe in something, who am I to argue? But when someone says that it is Science, I have something to argue about. Of course arguing religion online is a bit pointless. No one ever changes their religious beliefs due to what they see online unless they have just been very seriously sheltered.
A true scientist doesn’t maintain belief or support in a theory if he sees that some reasoning concerning it doesn’t add up. Relativity is one of those theories that actually doesn’t add up, but it is beyond the reasoning capability of most scientists for them to be able to see. QM is similar in that regard. Make something complicated enough, but partially usable, and you have yourself a religion that can be unjustly called Science.
RM is about the reasoning only. And that reasoning happens to lead to an ontology (an understanding that can be used to map the physical universe) that can be verified through measurement. I have personally already verified it, so to me it has gone from merely reasoning into actual Science. If my reasoning is wrong somewhere, it is my obligation to correct that reasoning, not merely wave my flag. RM is not a faith or desire based religion/theory.
Earlier, you seemed to be interested in reasoning, so I offered explanation even though I had told very many people prior that RM is a bit too complicated to try to teach online in a forum. But then you got married and reasoning seemed to instantly go out the window. I said that trying to teach RM online is about like teleporting back in time to an ancient Roman pub and trying to teach physics to the bartender. I have enjoyed making the attempt, so no loss really. But my effort isn’t to create belief or convert a congregation. That is a different game altogether.
And seeing how that is your game and that your adversary is the army of QM drones, I don’t see how you could ever hope to make progress. QM doesn’t care if it works. QM is merely after supporters at any cost. You seem to be proposing that TEW do the same. But compared to QM, TEW is an ant with dreams of global conquest. Religions are not my kind of war game.
I agree that religion has no part of Science. I don’t agree that favorite ideas are religions - there is a difference.
Religions are about silencing other ideas. We both agree quantum mechanics (qm) is a religion, and I have experienced it first hand. On other physics debating forums, one of my threads was deleted and another was “frozen” so no more replies can be posted. This is the action of qm supporters ensuring the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is not heard.
Favorite ideas are different - there is a preference for an idea, but that doesn’t stop other ideas being heard or discussed. I have welcomed your ideas onto this forum. I’ve even called for someone to defend qm to make it even more interesting. Of course I still prefer TEW and I’ve said why - it’s called a debate. Objecting to me having a favorite idea is a bit silly - others could accuse you of having RM as a favorite idea.
My approach is to expect that others will have their own favorite ideas. I don’t expect them to accept TEW or understand TEW, at least no straight away. If there are voices here to debate, then I keep on debating. Even if I never convince anyone, I learn why others are sticking to their favorite ideas and so I get ideas on how better to argue.
It’s your choice if you want to present RM on this forum or not. It’s good we had this conversation. TEW always was my favorite idea, and I thought it was obvious. You clearly thought that I was accepting your reasoning because for a while there I said little. What I was doing was trying to work out how to understand RM in the context of my favorite idea, and I’ve done so. I see that as being intellectually honest - rather than pretending to accept your ideas and saying nothing.
You wrote:
I agree. I see assumptions in all three theories: qm, TEW and RM, so whether something adds up depends on the assumptions you prefer. I disagree that any of the three theories can comprehensively, 100% water tight prove they are true.
You wrote:
Only you know that RM is verified - the rest of us are waiting for the evidence. If you can show the verification, it will be very impressive. In the meantime, the above (and most of what you’ve said) are just claims, not proof.
You wrote:
Many people have said that to get married is a totally irrational act !
It’s only a coincidence. I took a while to express my thinking about how TEW and RM compare.
You wrote:
TEW definitely is an ant with dreams of global conquest ! Actually, RM is too, and RM seems to have only one supporter, and TEW has at least a handful. Let’s hear it for the ants ! All new ideas start small.
As I’ve said before, I think another Global Financial Crisis is about to hit, and it will morph into a full scale 1930s type depression, only worse. Why is this forecast relevant? When the economy is devasted like this, people start to doubt established ideas. Hopefully, qm will be one of the established ideas that is doubted. So right now is a great time for both TEW and RM to be heard - you never know how many minds may open up in the near future.
It’s certainly possible that RM is too complicated for a debating forum. I learned about from the 1996 article in Physics Essays, and later from the book that was published in 2009. RM may need to be fully articulated like that, rather than in small snippets. While TEW is still my favorite, I will certainly read RM when it is finally published - hopefully I will find out when it’s there. RM is very audacious, and full of possibilities I have not heard from anyone else before.
That will always be the case because of the above concern. You are basing your assessment on something that you already know to be an assumption potentially incorrect. How can anything ever “add up” and be seen as right if it is being assessed by something that is wrong?
You need to learn Definitional Logic to correct that problem.
Void of Definitional Logic, nothing can be actually proven regardless of anything witnessed.
It was the logic that I was revealing for you to see or not see.
Since you couldn’t see it (because you were trying to fit it into TEW), no logic or anything else will prove anything to you.
If I had found TEW to be pretty bullet proof, I would have explained RM in terms of TEW. But I have already proven (to the logical mind) that TEW cannot be correct.
RM is not seeking supporters, merely locating rational people. You are running a different kind of race entirely. Note that my assessment of your version of TEW was entirely about the logic involved given that TEW was fundamentally correct, not whether it compares properly to contemporary physics or QM. I only care about whether it is inherently logical, not whether it is mine or the collective mindset.
You are in the process of trying to influence people toward a chosen goal. I am in the process of finding who to influence toward a specific goal. In a sense, you are ahead of me. But the problem is that you “jumped” ahead and what you jumped over is the process of ensuring that your goal was logically correct (thus potentially true).
Neither of us can demonstrate to anyone that we are right. We both must find those who can be influenced by our particular concern. Yours seems to be that “TEW is better than QM”. Mine is “RM is logically immutable and explains everything”. You don’t really care who your supports are as long as you have many of them. I somewhat only care that mine truly and fully understand the exact logic of it. Yours require a desire to “be better than QM” for whatever reason. Mine requires an ability to have high confidence in logic/rationality.
Oh, it is even worse that that. And the problem is that such thoughts as TEW will not survive (nor be allowed to survive, nor RM). For something to survive it must at least be bulletproof. And nothing can be bulletproof except to the logical mind. Thus there is a grand effort to “forget logic”, “logic is just a fallible presumption”, “there is only perception”.
I read your new thread for the Equation of Space and have replied. I’m glad you have at least one thread of your own for RM. Good luck - will be fascinating to see the discussion.
You wrote:
You also wrote:
You seem to trying to find someone who already knows that quantum mechanics (qm) is not logical and cannot be true, and are looking for something new and logical, and have no allegiance to any other approach yet.
I think your search is far too selective - you’re going to spend a lot of time to find a precious few candidates. My own approach is to expect people will already have a favorite theory (mostly qm). That’s simply a starting point, not a reason to give up on them.
The qm supporters are proud of the record of forecasts, and yet there are plenty who are secretly a bit uncomfortable with the “magic” of qm. The magic is the the claims of things happening backwards in time, multiple universes, particles being in two places at once, multiple interpretations, etc.
I am trying to convince them that by adopting the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) they can stay proud of the forecasts and throw away the “magic” stuff and have a local and deterministic theory. That’s why I called this thread “Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics”. You could potentially sell RM on the same sort of message.
The point is not whether I’m right about TEW - it’s about my approach to finding supporters. By accepting that people have a current favorite theory and working with them, I think I have a much better chance of generating interest. You seem to be rejecting everyone who has a favorite theory, which is going to be almost everyone.
I still believe that asking people to jump straight into RM is asking too much. I think the first step is to get people questioning whether qm is true - that’s a common first step for TEW and RM. Once they start questioning qm, them the real debating can begin. You never know, along the way people’s logical reasoning might get some practice and they might reach the heights you’re looking for.
You have talked about moral dilemmas of revealing dangerous ideas onto people who are not ready for it. I think you need to compromise there too - just reveal enough to get people interested in a new approach to physics without giving them enough to create new weapons. If people are not a logical as you want, then they are less likely to get to the dangerous stuff. I think RM is in need of less of the “all or nothing” approach to finding supporters.
I agree with your final comments about my expectations of a looming economic depression. You wrote:
and then:
The socionomics people (see http://www.socionomics.org/) who are forecasting this upheaval in society would agree with what you say. When established ideas are challenged, some people will indeed abandon logic altogether. Some will even abandon democracy and capitalism. Hopefully, these people will not be very interested in reforming physics.
There will also be some who will abandon qm, but keep the sensible things like democracy, capitalism, logic and the spirit of Science. They are the ones I am hoping will lead a revolution in physics, and bring philosophy back in physics again. So there will be a lot of turmoil in physics and I believe qm will finally be seen as the nonsense explanations that they are.
Just which theory will take over from qm is in doubt, and I’m hoping to promote TEW. There is a chance it could be RM if you write it up soon, and perhaps allow for some less than ideal supporters to know about it.
Again as I stated earlier, you are promoting. I am seeking.
By analogy, you are selling a new automotive engineering technique whereas I “would be” selling a new nuclear weapon engineering technique. It is okay to have a great many people misunderstanding and lustfully attempting your new engineering technique. But it is NOT okay for anyone to be misunderstanding and lustfully attempting my engineering technique.
Your market is certainly much greater than mine. This forum isn’t actually even in my market. I am here only in an exploratory mode concerning a variety of issues such as “how to communicate this particular concept without it being misunderstood?”. You are already promoting a finished book. I am concerned with even whether the book should be written as well as exactly how it should be written so as to not accidentally cause a very, very serious problem.
As that other thread is talking about, those who achieve a great ability to predict don’t hesitate to use their predictions to “bend the universe into their will”. What they do NOT do, is ensure that their goal is the best choice BEFORE they go tampering with the world.
That is probably what Lot thought. Ever heard of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? That story is exactly about what I am dealing with.
It is much worse than even that. Again, think “Sodom and Gomorrah”. There is not going to be any “we like this theory over that one” going on.
I don’t typically think in terms of positive and negative. But I’d say that when I tell someone that they are being a muse and they immediately reverse to be belligerent, I would have to label that one a negative. When I see someone merely supporting their favorite thought rather than seeking truth, that would be a negative (extremely common on forums).
On the positive side, when someone points out what it is that they do not understand and asks for clarification, I would have to give that a positive. When someone requests for and persists in clarifying a thought, that is a definite positive. And in your case, you have probably been one of the best examples of a good forum participant this site has ever seen. That counts as a positive. Civility is always a plus.
Also by anyone trying to support a theory that is wrong, it helps clarify what is right in a variety of ways, honing the truth. But then never adhering to that truth takes away a lot of that.
The sad part for me is that RM requires a construct of thought from the very beginning (again like trying to teach physics to the Roman bartender who insists that the gods might change their mind about how electrons are to behave) that builds up to the more interesting revelations as to why and how so many other more complex things occur. But one cannot build a very high mountain of understanding from mud and sand. The achievement of far more serious concerns depends on the ability to solidly understand the foundation concerns (void of presumption and confident of why).
We couldn’t really get into neutrinos, neutrons, protons, weak and strong forces, electric induction, chemical bonding and so on, not to mention the more interesting anti-gravity and faster than light concerns. Without confidence in the foundation, my current theory on the double-slit experiment would seem far too dubious.
But all and all, I consider this to have been a great thread considering the site that it is on. People at this site very rarely if ever participate in rational science oriented debate or development (which is preferred). They tend very strongly to be merely flag wavers (usually for the latest QM or Globalism propaganda). Harpies like Helandhighwater are always popping in to try to confound and silence anyone not in line, preferring to trick the mods into banning them. So this thread actually has been great. If no one else, I personally thank you for starting it and being you.
Like I said before, I am not trying to sell something. I am looking for someone to whom it could be sold.
For your TEW, you should seek people who do not require strong understanding of the fundamentals but are happy to find something merely different than the collective. Most religions work that way. Interestingly, RM explains exactly why and how that works in serious detail (another part we would never have been able to get into - the mental world that reflects the physical principles). My product is much harder to sell than yours. Truth is usually a harder sell (even to represent) than a misperception. Again, imagine being at that Roman bar trying to sell the idea of any form of modern physics.
Obviously, I have an easier job than you. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is not my theory - I’m only a supporter trying to make people aware of it. I can always point people to the book for details. You are the developer of RM and you are without a publication yet, so trying to start a conversation about it is much harder.
I think you are being too strict in your approach to introducing the idea. You are giving a logical set of steps 1,2,3… and if anyone does not accept one of the steps you bring the whole discussion to a halt. That is assuming that the only way people will learn and accept Rational Metaphysics (RM) is in the same way you developed it - step by step.
I don’t think such a strict logical approach is good for a conversation. Step by step logic is really necessary for developing a theory - I am sure you and Dr. Little would agree with that, and both of you seem to be rigorously logicians. For the rest of us, I think learning something new is much more chaotic.
My model for a teaching TEW allows for much more haphazard backwards and forwards steps. I expect people may look at a set of steps and not agree with a few of the first ones, but read on dubiously. Later they see some results or implications perhaps at step 200 and suddenly they get interested. They return to the earlier steps and think again. This may happen many times.
I believe many new changes in physics happened this way. For example, accepting that atoms exist was still being debated in the early 1900’s (as compared to the idea that matter is infinitely divisible). I think it was the success of people like Einstein that finally convinced some people to grudgingly accept atoms. Such chaos in very human and all part of the process of Science.
I think you will do better finding people to talk to about RM if you accept that they may not initially accept all your logic. If you keep talking, they may be won over later. Of course, they may not, so there is always a risk. That’s a reality I deal with - I full understand all my efforts on debating forums may come to nothing. I’m doing what I believe in, rather than being certain I will succeed.
I think you need to adopt a more flexible model like that. Allowing conversations that appear to have failed may be necessary before you have a success. Insisting on immediate success and stopping the conversation may limit your audience to potentially zero or close to it.
Well again you are assuming that selling the idea to as many people as possible is my goal (as everyone else does on this forum). That other thread goes into some of the more important reasons why I am not.
Interestingly, RM provides precise equations for selling something, if that is all I wanted to do. But I am not a salesman selling a product. I am an engineer who has designed a product that might or might not be for selling. The product resolves problems. The problem with that is that society isn’t in a “resolve problem” mode, but a create problem mode.
You were referring to Rational Metaphysics (RM) and wrote:
Two obvious questions:
In what way does RM resolve problems? (Better understanding, better energy use?)
What sort of problems is society creating? (Social, economic, quantum confusion?)
