The notion of "logically flawed" is incoherent in an instrumentalist world-view.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:46 am "Foundational" in this context refers to the fact that such theories are used as the basic assumptions that are used in other theories. I was not even arguing for my own 'foundational' preference. The Big Bang is used as a closed assumption for many other theories built upon it. If the Big Bang is flawed LOGICALLY, as it is regarding lack of a boundary proof, any theory necessarily dependent upon it is also flawed.
What's a "flaw"? Why is it a "flaw"? You are holding some normative view of how things OUGHT to be. Let it go!
Whatever you seem to be referring to as a "logical flaw" is an objective semantic property of your mind. Observe it. Understand it. Reify it. Use it to your advantage!
Those who forget good and evil and seek only to know the facts are more likely to achieve good than those who view the world through the distorting medium of their own desires. --Bertrand Russel
Look at you bickering over nomenclature. I don't give a shit what you call them. Axioms. Inputs. Dependencies - read between the damn lines.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:46 am Axioms are system postulates OF logic. The particular assumption USING the logic are not called, 'axioms' because they are not ESSENTIAL of teh system.
Pay attention to the inherent (essential) semantic properties. You are calling those things "LAWS". You are ASSUMING them to be true, without even for a second questioning whether they could remain true under negation.
That which you ASSUME cannot be negated is an "axiom". Dogma. Foundation. God. Religion. Logic is a religion.
Q.E.DScott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:46 am Big Bang theory is 'assumed' when it is contradictory logically BUT the Steady State theory was not only not LOGICALLY flawed, it was dismissed in favor of the Big Bang, regardless of its own anti-logical foundation. [ignoring the politics and religious justifications].
You are biased towards the "logical" and you are biased against the "anti-logical" while failing to recognise that a diffrent type of logic (to the one you are using) is still logic! It's just different.
You are failing to grok that a different foundation (different logic) still produces valid mental instruments.
Dude. I am trying to explain to you why it IS relevant!Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:46 am ?? YOU are arguing something else here that is not relevant to physics. I already know your contention with me regarding logic theory.
I am trying to explain to you that if you start with intuitionistic/constructivist foundations, instead of the classical foundations you will arrive at different state of mind - a different intuition/understanding. Classical foundations have no rigorous notion of infentisimals - quantities so small that they are experimentally indistinguishable from zero. An abstract object that is potentially zero, but not quite zero.
The logic (religion) you subscribe to is the wrong instrument for the job! Throw it away. Start afresh.
http://math.andrej.com/2008/08/13/intui ... r-physics/