On Apr 9, 1:40 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote: > On 07/04/2012 4:25 PM, Mike wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 3:12 pm, Nam Nguyen<namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote: >
> > As a logician, I think you should be able to fully appreciated the > > logic I use on my website. There is no physics in my derivation. > > That's the whole point of the webpage, to show how to go from logic to > > physics. > > I did read your link provided below a couple of times. So, your > intention is "to go from logic to physics", but can you in one > paragraph elaborate on (a) what that phrase really means in technical > term? and (b) what's your road map to achieve the objective?
I think the Abstract at the website is a summary of my intentions. When I say "to go from logic to physics", I mean to go from concepts of a purely logical nature, true, false, AND, OR, IMPLIES, etc. to physical concepts like wavefunction, Born rule, Feynman path integral. The physical concepts I just listed are common to various physical applications. They're common to linear momentum or angular momentum, to potential energy and kinetic energy. But my main intent was to show how one can make contact with physical concepts by using only logical concepts.
