My script largely is about the reconstruction of an ancient Chinese theory / philosophy about the universe, the Theory of the Elements. This website only is about the reconstruction of the origin of that physics. That must therefore be based on pure logic and thus, as mentioned above, on deduction. That's why I'm going to dig a little deeper into it, so that the non-scientists among the readers will be able to judge the scientific value of this reconstruction.

Deductive science is science based on deduction (Lat. Deducere, to derive). It is therefore a science based on deductions or assumptions that lead to indisputable statements, assertions and laws from which new sets of statements/assertions/laws, the so-called theorems, can be derived.

A deductive science is therefore based on a set of generally valid laws, from which new statements can be derived. Deductive science therefore has a hypothetical character: if all assumptions are true – or can be proven - then the theorems must also be true. Deduction therefore plays a central role in sciences that support and indeed require strict argumentation, e.g. mathematics, logic and, to a lesser degree, also physics, where inductive elements also play a role. In this way, deductive science is the counterpart of experiential or empirical science.

Deduction is an argumentation technique that derives conclusions about ‘the special’ from ‘the general’. In its most natural way, the evidence is made up of a logical reasoningcontaining three parts (propositions) that may be either true or false: two assumptions (the major and the minor premises) and a conclusion.

Examples of deduction

This technique of acquiring evidence is scientific because the conclusion necessarily follows from the previous premises. The major premise is universal while the minor premise and conclusion are particular. The conclusion is true if all of the premises are true.

The table shows that a deductible conclusion can be challenged by demonstrating that the conclusion is not logically derived from the premise: the conclusion has not been proven (but may be correct, the girl in the example is indeed sweet). However, if the conclusion of a deductive reasoning follows from the premises but is nevertheless incorrect, at least one of the premises must be incorrect. Empirical disproof of a conclusion derived from deduction does not invalidate the reasoning, but it does require a review of the premises.

If a non-valid deductive reasoning – e.g. because of an error in the logic of the conclusion – nevertheless has a certain probability, it can sometimes be considered as or rewritten to a valid inductive reasoning. However, in deductive reasoning, the conclusion must necessarily be true if all of the premises are true. So the reasoning is as strong as its premises.

Scientific criteria for assessing the origin of the theory of the Elements

The main criteria for assessing the origin of the Theory of the Elements are:

    "Which universal laws are the most universal?" or
    "Which universal laws are not deductable from other laws?" or
    "Which universal laws are at the top of the deduction hierarchy.

Laws at the top of the deduction hierarchy play a very important role in the beginning of the Theory of the Elements. They are called axioms or postulates.

Note: An axiom or postulate is a non-proven, but substantiated assertion in mathematics and logic. An axiom serves as the basis for proof of other propositions. An axiom is part of a deductive system. If axioms are contradictory, a theory is inconsistent: an axiom that can be derived from other axioms is not an axiom, but a theorem. A collection of axioms is therefore the smallest possible set of assumptions that make a theory possible.

Examples of Western axioms/postulates that are discussed in this document are:

• the five postulates of Euclides that underlie euclidean geometry

• the seven axioms of Copernicus by which he explains his vision on the universe and which caused him to be regarded as the founder of the heliocentric theory, that states that the Sun is in the center of the solar system and that the planets uniformly rotate around it.

• the five postulates of modern quantum physics. These, on the one hand, imply that Western quantum physics relies on an uncertainty principle, which makes this theory incompatible with the Western principles of physics. On the other hand, these postulates imply that Western quantum physics can only be expressed in terms of mathematics. This means that it is a formal science and explains why this theory is more reliable than (classical) western physics.

On this website, the reader also gets to the postulates about the emergence of Western physics and last but not least, with those of the ancient Theory of the Elements.

What is a good theory

A good theory makes verifiable predictions. These predictions are tested against observations. If the predictions match the observations, the theory wins credibility. The purpose of the theory and predictions it makes is to master the phenomenon that the theory is describing.

In the course of the history of science, many theories appear to have been replaced by other theories. This usually happens when an earlier theory makes predictions that are proven to be incorrect by experiments. Another reason may be that the new theory is more comprehensive. A good new theory must be consistent with its predecessor because it has to predict the same observations that were previously described by the older theory.

A theory of physics can be tested by using observations, possibly as a result of experiments. No observations have been made so far that violate Einstein's theory of relativity and modern quantum theory. This can not be said of Newton Mechanics. However, there is not yet a good alternative, so it has not yet been abandoned completely. Therefore the principle of the afore-mentioned incommensurability applies to it. 

Continue to: 3. Forms and types of motion