This General Image Theory of science theories, first published
here from 2008, dates from 1964/1965 and study of the history of
physics and of science philosophy. Conclusions are basically presented on this
site.

In the spirit of William Gilbert this is not addressed to that
crass multitude of career-scientists content to kick around the
narrow range of ideas that science journals today consider
fashionable, but to the honest studious reader or free spirit happy to labour hard and dig
deep to find real science truth. Lies can be easy to produce and to swallow, the truth can be hard - and a science truth whatever its opponents is a science truth.

Any science theory is basically an attempted description of a
universe, or more often of some part or aspect of a universe, and
a valid science theory has generally been considered one that
includes no logical inconsistencies and is consistent with
observation and experiment. And as a description, a science theory
will use language and may include some mathematical description and
involve some logical reasoning.

In more concrete terms, a theory is some set of intentional signals
intended to convey the information that constitutes that theory to
some observer(s). These intentional signals may be in a printed
book, in spoken sound waves or other intentional signal form - and
will have such information issues as the extents of completeness,
accuracy and noise.

On science theory logical reasoning, the most rigorous logical
reasoning (as with Euclid) has often been in the field of
mathematics - and the basis of mathematics is the equation. While
the most basic equation is an identity equation, such as 2=2,
mathematical equations are more commonly 'image' equations such as
2=1+1 where the two sides of an equation declare two things to be
images of eachother. For some the truth described in maths by
2=1+1 may seem better described by 1+1=2, but certainly the reverse
of any valid mathematical equation is also a valid mathematical
equation. Hence, in mathematics there can always be at least two
different valid descriptions of one thing having precisely the same
real meaning. But different people can think differently and so
some may not see a reversed equation as meaning exactly the same.
And much in the universe is actually relative to the observer,
really allowing different observers to reach different valid
conclusions and the differences may seem small or large.

In physics theory Einstein's celebrated equation E=mc² if
valid is as valid reversed, or as eg m=E/c². And while
mathematics clearly is basically 'image manipulation', so also is
language. While language is really much more complex than
mathematics, it always includes "one and one is two" and "John is a
big boy" basically being "John=big boy John" image equating. Even
"You go !" can be interpreted as "you=future you not here" image
handling. Words do not have intrinsic meanings, but only meanings
that some using community assigns them or meanings that somebody
wants them to have. Hence in today's common English the two phrases
"That is cool" and "That is hot" are commonly taken as having
basically the same meaning, but in a science setting are generally
taken as having basically opposite meanings. But certainly in
language, as in mathematics, there can always be more than one
valid description of one thing.

The key imaging for natural language is that of a word being an
image of an actual or conceivable thing, eg "bed" = bed word or
"Adam" = Adam word. It is only from this base that natural language
can give its universe descriptions as eg "the bed is big" being
'bed = big bed'. That the two sides of common language or
mathematical equations necessarily involve an assumed identity,
involves an assumed logical consistency though maybe not always an assumed
actual truth.

Indeed that this image manipulation aspect of both mathematics and
language must reflect the basic nature of human thought is
indicated by some language disorders. People with some language
disorders will commonly say "big" when they mean to say "small" -
and normal people will even make that kind of slip sometimes
indicating that the mind deals with balanced images as "small
thing=not big thing". One of the most basic psychological tests is
the Word Association test, where people most commonly associate
opposite word pairs - eg "Light" with "Dark" and "Big" with "Small"
or often effectively "Light" with "not Light" and "Big" with "not
Big".

So it is more than coincidence that Gilbert's early 'active matter'
physics was soon followed by Descartes' 'not-active matter' physics
and that Newton concluded that either might fit with his
mathematical laws and with the facts known at the time.

The history of science theory clearly shows that different people
can think differently about the same thing. Hence observer
conceptual relativity can allow description relativity and that
should allow valid theory relativity. In this respect a General
Image Theory that allows of multiple alternative compatible
theories looks a valid development of Newton's blackbox science
theory and can avoid the modern scary-science of self-contradicting
unreasoned 'Duality Physics' or 'Multi-theory Physics'.

Even one person can form different views of the same thing. Among
physicists this was shown most clearly by Johannes Kepler producing
three different physics. He started from a view of the universe having been created by
a God choosing to create eg. a musical universe or a mathematical universe.
Hence early Kepler creationist physics included a Geometry Mathematics Physics
and a Music Mathematics Physics. But of course he later rejected these and
produced his Descartes-style push causation physics.

But that one thing can clearly have more than one description,
conflicts directly with what __seems__ an equally clearly valid
claim of science about science theory descriptions - that for any
area of science there can be only **one** valid theory
and it will disprove all other theories. One thing can be described
in multiple different ways, yet till recently science has generally followed logic
philosophy in allowing only ONE valid theory description. And some now claim
that multiple theories should be ALL accepted regardless of logical inconsistency
between them. These most basic logical conflicts are the key issues addressed by
and resolved by this General Image Theory of science theories.

While arguing for one-theory-only science, E.T.Jaynes concluded that probability theory has 'been fooled by a subtle mathematical correspondence between stochastic and dynamical phenomena'. But that rather supports multiple-theory science like Newton blackbox-theory science or perhaps preferably our General Image Theory science. See http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/prob.in.qm.pdf

PS. The 2010 Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow book 'The Grand Design'
notes that theories "dual" to others, where a mathematical transformation makes
one theory look like another, suggests that they may just be two descriptions
of the same thing. This is what developed String Theory and Supergravity (Mem)Brane Theory
into the equally poorly
defined 'multiple-universes' M-theory that they support, and is essentially the basic
premise of General Image Theory where alone it is properly developed. (also see our
**String Theory**
section)

NOTE : You can do this with confidence as we do not share and do not store this information at all.

OR maybe make a small donation ; (it will help with site development, and just possibly with some experiments long planned but never afforded.)

[PS. in 5 years we have not yet got a cent this way, but will acknowledge the first donation here.]

You can do a good search of this website below ;

For enquiries, or if you have any view or suggestion on the
content of this site, please contact :- New Science
Theory

(e-mail:-vincent@new-science-theory.com), or write Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincs UK DN327AT

(This General Image Theory of Science Theories is by Vincent
Wilmot, for a brief autobiography see Vincent
Wilmot.)

You are welcome to **link** to any page
on this site, eg
http://www.new-science-theory.com/general-image-theory-1.php

**© new-science-theory.com, 2017** - taking
care with your privacy, see **New Science Theory HOME**.