I may have discovered a scientific underpinning for homeopathy. In fact, homeopathy could provide a proof of a (possibly new) major scientific theory. Then again, the idea could be false, but I believe it would be worth testing - and yes, it should be possible to devise experiments to test it (though I haven't a clue what they may be, yet).

I only had this inspiration last night, so I haven't had the time to do a thorough search of the literature of any of the affected areas of science and mathematics to determine whether the idea is completely new. If the concept turns out to be true, or even just useful, it would require a paradigm shift in the whole philosophical underpinning of science - it's a BIG IDEA.

Would any scientist interested in homeopathy like to hear more (even though this may sound like a complete con)? I can explain the basic idea in a paragraph - no tricky maths or mind-boggling philosophy required - it's a really simple idea.

I would be happy for anyone to use, develop, or test this idea, provided I was properly acknowledged as the originator (assuming, of course, that it is a new idea - maybe someone got there before me years ago!). I have already shared this idea with some colleagues (e.g. in philosophy), so my claim to be the (possible) discoverer of this concept has been established.

[This is not a spoof posting: I have a PhD in Computer Science, and have been studying (in a very amateur way) some aspects of the philosophical understanding of the nature of reality for well over a decade. I have withheld my full identity in case of unwanted responses or reactions.]

Dr Scott

Please - do post more!! I'm very interested.

I am new to this Bulletin Board, and am trying to assess it in terms of its seriousness before going into details of the ideas I referred to in my initial posting. My ideas are very radical, and I had hoped that this might be an appropriate media to air them, since scientists involved in homeopathy research must (almost by definition) have an open mind, and I hope most will have critical minds as well. As you may appreciate, I have my own scientific reputation to consider when proposing any radical ideas.

Although I appreciate your interest, "Austin Powers", I can not yet take the response of the forum as indicating that this is the appropriate way to release these ideas - and I'm sorry, but your moniker does not give the impression of the kind of scientific seriousness I had been expecting in this forum.

I await further responses, if any.

Doc Scott,
I can only say, don't judge a book by its cover.

I'm quite serious about wanting to hear your idea.

If you care too, you can send a private message (PM) to me. I have no way to email or send you a private message (pm) as you seem to have them disabled.

Most of the people who post here are very serious and dedicated to homeopathy. And, you might also know that not many visit anything other than the main or General Discussion Forum.

Perhaps you should consider posting there to get a better response.

[ 24. February 2003, 05:29: Message edited by: Austin Powers ]

PS You said: Others of us also have valid reasons for not revealing our true identities.

Perhaps if I'd chosen something like "Hippocrates" you might have taken me more seriously.

Dr Scott,

Have you read the other thread in this forum called 'The BIG questions'? I think that you will find that there are some serious people here.

Nigel

I hoped the answer Austin gave would have been enough for you to post more, but now I will add my voice: PLEASE POST MORE INFO ABOUT YOUR THEORY !

[ 24. February 2003, 16:27: Message edited by: Christiaan ]

__________________
Christiaan van Schalkwyk<br />Registered Homeopath (RSA) (M.Tech.Hom (Natal))

WHAT'S UP DOC?

Sound a bit pompous to me.
Nigel and Austin Powers, I know thru' previous contacts in my brief presence on this BB, are very serious people - both have had some devastating spinal problems & sequelae and survived. (Just noticed that Puls. helped them both.)
I will put MY REPUTATION on the line, for what it is worth, and say that all chaps and chappesses on this forum are smart and worth revealing state secrets to.

But, seriously,

"Would any scientist interested in homeopathy like to hear more (even though this may sound like a complete con)? I can explain the basic idea in a paragraph - no tricky maths or mind-boggling philosophy required - it's a really simple idea".

Answer: Yes Please, I qualify.
Tim Kay BSc(Hon) Physiology & Biochem.
..though my degree does not make a jot of difference, and I would never ask anyone on this forum for their qualifications. Personally, I much more value my Systems Analysis skills after a long career in Mainframe Computing.

If we are not serious enough, try this Prof. (Chemist) - he often answers e-mails.
He wrote the WATER site.
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/chaplin.html

http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html

[ 25. February 2003, 14:54: Message edited by: Timokay ]

Apologies for the delay, but I've been on the road a lot during the past 24 hours, and I've also been checking out some math (on which I'm a bit rusty).

OK, I'm encouraged by your responses - thank you.

Now, this is NOT a theory to explain homeopathy, just a formulation of a basic philosophical approach to science that would permit homeopathy to be entirely consistent with the rest of science, especially with regard to some aspects of the "dilution" issue/paradox (I'm NOT an expert on homeopathy, all I know are a few details like this).

I believe I can now express the basic ideas using a concise mathematical formulation using Category Theory - however my maths is rusty and I'm not a Category Thoerist either, so if this is all wrong I apologize, and in which case I would ask for help in reformulating the idea correctly.

As I said previously, this could all turn out to be false, also I don't (yet) claim originality for these ideas, as I haven't had time to do a thorough search of the scientific and philosophical literature.

I'll first present the mathematical formulation as three propositions, then I'll give a simple "layman's" interpretation for its implications for theories of homeopathy. I'll finish with a brief commentary.

Here goes ...

Proposition 1. It may be possible to represent the entire space-time universe/multiverse as a category, where the elements are the various physical processes.

Proposition 2. Given this representation, there may be some elements which are not isomorphisms.

Proposition 3. Homeopathy may involve elements which are not isomorphisms.

A simple layman's interpretation with respect to Homeopathy: "Some of the physical processes involved in homeopathy may be irreversible, and may therefore leave an imprint."

Commentary:

I believe Proposition 1 is implicitly assumed by all of conventional science - (I think) it just says that we can use mathematics to formulate scientific theories.

I understand that various areas of physics give examples of Proposition 2 (which states that some physical processes may be irreversible), e.g. processes associated with singularities - maybe some physicist could confirm this?

Proposition 3 gives a possible basis for some of the "paradoxical" aspects of homeopathy - maybe some scientists in the field would care to comment? If this approach is worth considering, it would suggest that homeopathy scientists should look for some kind of irreversibility in the chemistry or physics of homeopathic processes.

Does this make sense to anyone/everyone? If not, please respond, and I'll try to clarify where I can.

Can I assume from the lack of any response to my previous posting, that it was too abstract? On that assumption, let me try to explain the thinking behind this ...

Most "conventional" sciences assume that you can "completely" describe the state of a "system" by enumerating the values of a set of "attributes" (where "completely" has to be tempered with respect to quantum mechanics and its uncertainty principle).

For example, you can "completely" describe a substance in chemistry by listing its constituent compounds, giving the amount of each of these compounds, specifying the temperature, pressure, etc.

So, let's do a thought experiment...

We'll start with a measured amount of water in test tube. Let's now put a small amount of sodium chloride in another test tube. We mix the two, thoroughly dissolving the sodium chloride in the water. We then separate the two again by boiling, using a condenser to collect the water, and return the water and the sodium chloride to their original test tubes.

Now, ignoring the imperfections that would probably occur in practice, we appear to have returned to the original state at the start of the experiment.

We could express this algebraicly as follows:

(H2O + NaCl) - NaCl = H2O

But this assumes that adding the sodium chloride is a perfectly reversible process, that after adding it, it can be subtracted away again perfectly to leave the original water.

However, if adding the sodium chloride were not a perfectly reversible process, then appearing to remove it through boiling and condensation would NOT return the water to its original state. Mathematically, this would be expressed by stating that the familiar algebraic laws of associativity, additive inverse, etc. could not be applied, and that the term
"(H2O + NaCl) - NaCl"
could no longer be reduced to just "H2O".

In effect, the water would be carrying some "memory" of the processes it had been involved in. (In the limit, it might be necessary to specify the entire history of every molecule of the water in order to specify the state of the water at a specific moment in time. But that is too pessimistic, I would hope that to "completely" characterize such a system, it would be sufficient to specify some simple (mathematical) abstraction of the history.)

Does that help to explain what I'm saying? In any case, please give me some feedback.