Talk:BinaryDifferentials

I'm sorry, but all this so-called "information physics" contains no physics and is nothing more than the philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is not even good, logically constructed philosophy, not mentioning scientific theory. I'm really sorry for Jim spending decades on "developing" and promoting this garbage.

JimScarver 10:30, 10 February 2007 (EST)

My model is based on measument not philosophical ideas. It deals with information is so far as it is measured, not what people think ought to be true. It is different from the standard model. If you definition of physics is the standard model then I see why it is not physics in your view. But all past models what been shown to be incomplete and radical new ideas how replaced them. It is folly to presume the new physics will be in accordance with the othodox notions of physics.

I dropped much of the terminology used in this article years ago, "differentials" can be a misleading term. But even this article still exibits views according to measurement and sound scientific principles. It is however grossly inadequet at justifying its radical approach. That requires the whole body of work, not just some isolated articles.

If you tell me what issues in physics interest you, and you have thought about deeply, I might be able to point you to some articles that you might find interesting.

My view has great explanitory power, for me anyway. It does not contradict what we know from measurement, it illuminates it, and distingueshes it from the human expectations of how things ought to be.

Here is an article I wrote today which I believe demonstrates the explanitory power of my model:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/InfoPhysics/message/5024

Jim