The Definition of Science

Subject: Definition of “Science” (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm)

Though the article I found is dated I still like to comment on it. The definition of science as proposed by the editor (JP Siepmann) quotes:

Science as the "the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part."

It is the opinion of the editor, “Though simple, it is an encompassing and elegant definition”.
I disagree with the author for the following fundamental reason. With this definition in mind a creationist is fortified in his opinion that creationism is, in fact, a science (which I personally strongly believe is not!). This is because the definition as suggested by the author leaves some 
margin to interpret the definition as follows:

Science as the "the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part."  Using the literal interpretation of the bible as the only and holy source to describe it with.

I consider creationism a belief and not science. Everybody is free to believe whatever she/he wants, even when it can scientifically be proofed to be wrong!  In my opinion creationists are all, with no exception, lunatics. Because they all claim, with no exception, that creationism is science.  It is absolute useless to reason with creationists because they are too narrow minded for reason. That is, the mind of a creationist is limited to their (literal) interpretation of their version of their bible in their age and time. And in their mind nothing else exists outside their interpretation of their world. Hence, they will not accept anything else, no matter how reasonable.

On a personal note:
It is also difficult for me find a definition for science that is unambiguous. For me it is often easier to say what is not science.  To me the bible never was, is or will be science in any form or shape. The contents of the bible deals with spirituality, ethics, believes, and human 
behaviour. All good, useful and debatable subjects but never science. The bible in a historical, political or literary perspective can be science but never the contents. This fundamental difference should never be confused.

Regards,
Wim Ahlers (the Netherlands)  ahlers_wim@hotmail.com 

The Debate on Time Continues?

Dear Siepmann,

You are right that [to] date science or physics has not yet put up the question as to what is the nature of time?  The question as to what is [it] that gives mass to the bodies and particles of matter was also not put up till 1964 (the Higgs mechanism).  This is the problem that physics not yet tries to explain what do we mean by time?  Or say what does time mean for the bodies and particles of matter?

I agree time does not have spatial dimensions, but it exists.  And I persist with what I wrote in my last email.

Thank you,
S. A. Rahman   shahin_sar@yahoo.com 

Dr. Siepmann responds:

To date, nobody has been able to show that time physically exists in our universe. Concepts such as chronotrons and the like have been postulated, but for the most part it has been science fiction. Because we have used the "concept" of time for so long and it is so ingrained in our civilization, that we have come o think that it exists as something that really exists. Time is a concept. We use it as a means to quantify processes and events. It may be somewhat of a semantics argument, but unlike the 3 physical dimensions which we can touch and feel (characteristics of things that physically exist), time exists as a concept; a useful one but albeit still a concept.

Sincerely,
Dr. Siepmann

S. A. Rahman responds:

Dear Sir,

(Thank for your email)

I think time in nature exists, and basically this is what I am working on right now.

Time, by means of various physical processes, is constantly reducing concentration/accumulation of every physical system in the universe.

1) Universe is expanding.
2) Earth's orbit is expanding; implies solar system is also expanding.
3) Sun and other stars radiate huge amounts of energy every moment and so they again follow the same rule.
4) Every composite particle decays, which gives the same results as above.

One can successfully show that time exists in nature and it is a VECTOR quantity. The only problem is that it does not have spatial dimensions, and so its direction concerns the physical state of the system and not the location.  Mathematical problem is that to show that time in nature is a vector quantity we need a scalar time (as mechanical clocks').  But that is our problem not natures'.

In nature time sure exists and it is a vector.

Thank you, 
S. A. Rahman    shahin_sar@yahoo.com 

---

Symmetry Forms the Basis of Truth

On a flat Euclidean surface, the three angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. On the curved surface of a sphere, the three angles add up to more than 180 degrees. The two types of surfaces are not equivalent. 

The triangle has a rotational invariance that holds for both types of surface though.

ABC = BCA = CAB = CBA = BAC = ACB

Does this rotational invariance hold for all geometries? 

An interesting idea for a new "theory", which is, that symmetry, not logic, forms the basis of truth.

Truth = Invariance principle.
Symmetry = invariance = identity

Aristotle's law of excluded middle is really an invariance principle, which is a symmetry.

A V ~A
(T|F) = (F|T) = T

Big bang-------->Inflation
Chaos---------->Order
Freedom-------->Constraint
Greater(infinite)symmetry-->lesser(finite)symmetry

Which one of the above logical implications is the most "general" ?

The symmetry definition is the most general and also the most fundamental. The universally distributive laws of nature are explained in terms of symmetry. Also, Cantor's "alephs" could be explained as cardinal identities, akin to "qualia" from which, elements of our finite reality can be derived.

The completed infinities of Georg Cantor are distributive in nature, similar to the way that a set of "red" objects has the distributive property of redness. Predicates like "red" are numbers in the sense that they interact algebraically according to the laws of Boolean algebra. Take one object away from the set of red objects and the distributive number "red" still describes the set. The distributive identity "natural number" or "real number" describes an entire set of individual objects. Identities are distributive.

The Cantorian alephs can be set into a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of of themselves. So we see that these infinite Cantorian alephs are really distributive identities.

Yet, if we have a finite set of 7 objects, the cardinal number 7 does not really distribute over its individual subsets. Take anything away from the set and the number 7 ceases to describe it.

We also see that symmetry is self evident and therefore distributive via the laws of nature, and is distributed over the entire set called reality. Symmetry appears to be a stratification of Cantorian alephs with varying degrees of freedom. More freedom = greater symmetry = higher
infinity-alephs. So the highest aleph, the "absolute-infinity" distributes over the entire set called
reality and gives it "identity".

The highest symmetry would be a distributive mathematical identity. This fact is reflected in part, by the conservation laws. 

Symmetry = invariance = identity

The invariant symmetry of the 2-valued logic of Aristotle can be generalized to n-valued logic.

1valued logic 

T = T
A = A 

2valued logic 

T|F = F|T = T
(A|B) = (B|A) = A 

3valued logic 

(A|B|C) = (B|C|A) = (C|A|B) 
= (C|B|A) = (B|A|C) = (A|B|C) = A 

4valued logic 

  [A|B|C|D]=[B|C|D|A]=[C|D|A|B]=[D|A|B|C] 
=[D|C|B|A]=[C|B|A|D]=[B|A|D|C]=[A|D|C|D] 
=[A|C|B|D]=[C|B|D|A]=[B|D|A|C]=[D|A|C|B] 
=[B|A|C|D]=[A|C|D|B]=[C|D|B|A]=[D|B|A|C] 
=[A|B|D|C]=[B|D|C|A]=[D|C|A|B]=[C|A|B|D] 
=[D|B|C|A]=[B|C|A|D]=[C|A|D|B]=[A|D|B|C] 
= A 

Tautologies of *generalized* logic are "invariant" under
choice of truth value since they are always true. 

Russell E. Rierson   analog57@yahoo.com