Os modelos da teoria da Matrix/DNA preenche estes requisitos para ser “cientifica”?

xxxx

Neste artigo o senhor Hans van Leunem postou um comentario que tem muito interesse `a Matrix/DNA Theory. Ele diz o que precisa uma teoria cientifica para ser valida, quando nao pode ser verificada por experimentos. Entao postei uma serie de questoes a ele, registradas abaixo ( verificar se havera resposta):

Is fundamental physics opening the door to pseudoscience?

http://www.science20.com/sverre_holm/is_fundamental_physics_opening_the_door_to_pseudoscience-230237#comment-207076

A theory that uses aspects that cannot be verified by experiments must apply a modeling platform that is based on a solid and trusted foundation. In fact it must be based on the belief that physical reality possesses structure and this structure owns a simple foundation from which higher, more complicated levels emerge. This hierarchy must evolve in the structure of physical reality that we can observe. In this configuration the lower levels can only be deduced from deeper levels. Also the foundation itself must be available. Thus scientists must already have discovered the founding structure.

https://en.wikiversity.org/… explores this possibility. “Structure in Physical Reality”; http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086 highlights some aspects of this project.

Most new theories start without a proper foundation. They usually result in non-verifiable conclusions.

 E minha questao:

Your post is very helpful to those that elaborated their own theory, like me. But, questions arises here. 1) What is a solid and trusted foundation for theoretical models? For example, I have a new model suggesting the formation of seven known astronomic bodies, like planets, stars, quasars, etc. There are no proved fact about any formation, only another theoretical models, so, what is trusted foundation? 2) I have a model of the evolutionary link between cosmological and biological evolutions. There are no proved link and the trusted idea today is that there is no link, since that the trusted foundation is that life arose by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter. it makes no sense, but, what we can do? How to suggest the obligatory existence of a link, and a model of it? 3) I have a model of the fundamental unit of DNA as a complete working system. If my theory is true, there is no genetic code, because the units of DNA are merely different copies of a unique initial system. Genetic code is nonsense since that matter can not creating codes, but it creates systems, working systems. How a theory that makes sense can prevail upon one that does not if the trusted foundation is a nonsense? if you could answer these questions I will appreciate. Thanks.

http://disq.us/p/1qhes4w

A resposta de Hans a minha questao:

A foundation must emerge in a full and self-consistent theory. It must be simple and easily comprehensible. A trustworthy interpretation must exist for the foundation and for everything that emerges from it. The evolution of the foundation into a full blown theory must restrict such that a theory grows that experiments can verify.

This means that you cannot start a theory at a high level where not every subject that is applied follows from the axioms that constitute the foundation of the theory.

Classical logic is well founded but does not evolve into a much wider theory. The orthomodular lattice is a relational structure that is quite similar to classical logic. However, it evolves in a theory that after a series of extensions becomes a structure in which aspects can be recognized that we know from observing physical reality.

Minha resposta/pergunta a Hans:

Thanks for the an answer. But, what to do when the academic official staff considers as the trustworthy foundation is clearly wrong, like they did with the geocentric model during 2.000 years?

The foundations now for any theory about life’s origins must obey to the current magical thinking, called abiogenesis. it is supposed the existence of magical randomness able to transform non-organic matter into life. It arises due missing the knowledge about astronomy that elaborates astronomic theoretical models without the forces and elements necessary for evolving into biological systems. The universal evolution is one, unique lineage, but arbitrary division into cosmological and biological evolution creates a gap, an abysm, between the two blocks, and the evolutionary link is missed and never searched. So, the necessity to fulfil this gap with something magical, like any religion.

Ok. Any theory that develops another astronomic model from which emerges the evolutionary link and explains rationally the origens of life will be discarded because it will go against the theories which are believed to be trustworthy. In the way you are asking the basic foundations, neither Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin would be considered a valid theory. Do you agree?

xxxx

Apenas depois que postei o Segundo comentario notei que Hans e eu estamos sendo redundante, ou seja, estamos repetindo nossos postulados as infinitum sem cruza-los com os postulados do outro para estabelecer um dialogo inteligivel que leve a algum resultado. Entao imediatamente postei o proximo comentario:

Sorry my persistence but after my second post and reading the prior posts I noticed that we are repeating ours statements without answering the another arguments. So, let’s go by parts:

You said: ” A theory that uses aspects that cannot be verified by experiments must apply a modeling platform that is based on a solid and trusted foundation.”

The theory of abiogenesis cannot be verified by experiments because we cannot repeat an event that occurred by chance. If we could do it, means that is a normal occurrence, not chance. Do you agree?You said: “In fact it must be based on the belief that physical reality possesses structure and this structure owns a simple foundation from which higher, more complicated levels emerge.”Ok. The supposed primordial soup, or the thermal deep oceanic vents, considered the simple foundations from where the more complicated levels of life emerged is not a solid foundation, because among the supposed ingredients in that soup there was no one replicating itself, no one transmitting hereditary a genetic code, no one doing metabolism, etc. It is observable that later these properties emerged from complex structures derived from the supposed soup. This is naturally impossible, something cannot comes from nothing, I mean, the academic theory supposes that those properties has no prior causes. Do you agree?You said: “This hierarchy must evolve in the structure of physical reality that we can observe. In this configuration the lower levels can only be deduced from deeper levels. Also the foundation itself must be available. Thus scientists must already have discovered the founding structure.”For abiogenesis theory the scientists believes they have available the foundation – the soup. They believe that they are reproducing it at lab. But how to prove that a soup intelligently designed at lab is the same soup produced in a unique event by chance 3,5 billion years ago? As I said, if it was product of chance there is no way to reproduce it. In fact, they have no discovered the founding structure. The synthetic soup made in labs trying to reproduce the reduced initial conditions has produced some amino acids and even simple polypeptides, but they never get the next step, these simple building blocks evolving into proteins and RNA. So, these lower levels of life – proteins, RNA, and even membranes cannot be deduced from the deeper level – the soup, or thermal vents.So, I think that the supposition of a primordial soup is rational, since that nobody can rationalize another naturally occurring foundation for life’s origins. But the big gap between the supposed ingredients and processes between non-organic and organic matter means, literally, that is missing important ingredients doing important processes in the theorized soup. Do you agree?I am the unique person making the questions in this way because my personal humble investigations with the most simplest method – comparative anatomy between the prior cosmological systems and the resulting biological systems – suggested the existence of more ingredients in that soup, which came from astronomical systems but, for seeing it, we need to do new theoretical models of those systems, where we get the elements and forces that already were expressing those life’s properties. What do you think?

 

Tags: , ,