Relativity and Cosmology


DRAFT: On the Logical Foundation of Physics (Part 2)

Authors: Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay

***DRAFT: Please note that this paper is a draft. It’s purpose is to help me collect my thought and to facilitate informal discussion about the ideas presented herein. This draft remains accessible to facilitate this conversation. For production quality publications, please instead refer to my latest research on a) geometric thermodynamic and b) axiomatic science. *** The aim of this work is, first, to set the basis for a formal model of science, then, it is to show that the laws of physics are its theorems. Necessarily, all theories that are the logical product of science are theorems of our model. As this includes physics, our model is, therefore, its logical foundation. Our model is an axiomatic realization of the participatory universe envisioned by John Archibald Wheeler, in which the observer's practice of science is associated with proving reality. As our model is constructive of the mathematical structure isomorphic to nature, it deprecates Karl Popper's definition of science based on falsifiability. The formal practice of science consists of constructing a message (in the sense of Shannon's theory of information) of experiments (the elements of the message) constrained by the requirement that the elements are verifiable by the statistical priors of the message. In this context, we define the priors as Nature and we qualify the message as scientific. Nature is thus understood as a general proof checker for experiments. We show that the construction of a scientific message bounds nature (the priors) to a cosmology entirely emergent from the entropy of the scientific message. Finally, we conclude that the participatory-universe is emergent from the ideal practice of science.

Comments: 76 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2018-12-12 21:36:30
[v2] 2019-06-17 08:41:13

Unique-IP document downloads: 29 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus