|
|
[OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:14:40 -0400, Dale wrote:
: to prove randomness you would have to recreate all of creation : throughout time and do a MANOVA on ALL variables including time, I now : add outside of the time-frame somehow, as far as I know you can't escape : time-frame without removing or adding variables, so the experiment is : not possible and randomness is not testable and therefore only an : hypothesis not a theory : : the same applies to claims of random genetic mutations, random : radioactive decay, random zero point energy, etc. It's convenient to have a theory whose propositions are testable, but the real world isn't guaranteed to work that way. Some problems are provably unsolvable. Many of the accepted principles of physics rely on proofs that ultimately depend on the law of the excluded middle (i.e., the idea that every assertion is either true or false). But the law of the excluded middle is itself false. ("This statement is false" is a conspicuous counterexample.) Physicists rationalize that the circumstances in which the law doesn't hold are well understood and physically unimportant, but just try to get them to prove that. Bob |
[OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
|
[OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
On 08/17/2013 07:53 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
[snip] No, physicists when they find that the law doesn't hold, want to know why and under what circumstances and when the figure that out then they modify "the law" accordingly. Can you give us some examples of "the law not holding" that are regarded as "well understood and physically unimportant" that don't involve your own misunderstanding of simplified models used for computational convenience? Here are a few examples of what some scientists think of as a law that a phenomenon is impossible, violates the laws of physics, etc. Yet they happen. They think they are well understood by claiming they do not happen and are done by fraud. And they say they are unimportant physically. Mental Telepathy. Clairvoyance (also known as remote viewing). Some other phenomena called "psychic." Yet when controlled experiments are done, the odds that they are due to chance are much much much lower than what is required to get drugs approved by the FDA. http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Univ...rds=Dean+Radin There are wise physicists who recognize that these phenomena surely exist. Where there is disagreement is related to what is the actual physical mechanism that supports these phenomena. |
[OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
On 8/17/2013 2:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:14:40 -0400, Dale wrote: : to prove randomness you would have to recreate all of creation : throughout time and do a MANOVA on ALL variables including time, I now : add outside of the time-frame somehow, as far as I know you can't escape : time-frame without removing or adding variables, so the experiment is : not possible and randomness is not testable and therefore only an : hypothesis not a theory : : the same applies to claims of random genetic mutations, random : radioactive decay, random zero point energy, etc. It's convenient to have a theory whose propositions are testable, but the real world isn't guaranteed to work that way. Some problems are provably unsolvable. Many of the accepted principles of physics rely on proofs that ultimately depend on the law of the excluded middle (i.e., the idea that every assertion is either true or false). But the law of the excluded middle is itself false. ("This statement is false" is a conspicuous counterexample.) Physicists rationalize that the circumstances in which the law doesn't hold are well understood and physically unimportant, but just try to get them to prove that. I always lie. The preceding sentence is true. -- PeterN |
[OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:57:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote: On 8/17/2013 2:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote: On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:14:40 -0400, Dale wrote: : to prove randomness you would have to recreate all of creation : throughout time and do a MANOVA on ALL variables including time, I now : add outside of the time-frame somehow, as far as I know you can't escape : time-frame without removing or adding variables, so the experiment is : not possible and randomness is not testable and therefore only an : hypothesis not a theory : : the same applies to claims of random genetic mutations, random : radioactive decay, random zero point energy, etc. It's convenient to have a theory whose propositions are testable, but the real world isn't guaranteed to work that way. Some problems are provably unsolvable. Many of the accepted principles of physics rely on proofs that ultimately depend on the law of the excluded middle (i.e., the idea that every assertion is either true or false). But the law of the excluded middle is itself false. ("This statement is false" is a conspicuous counterexample.) Physicists rationalize that the circumstances in which the law doesn't hold are well understood and physically unimportant, but just try to get them to prove that. I always lie. The preceding sentence is true. Then there is my sig from years past: -- Regards, Eric Stevens. There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com