A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 17th 13, 07:04 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default [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
  #2  
Old August 17th 13, 12:53 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default [OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory

In article ,
says...

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).


Huh? Physics does not depend on "proofs", it depends on evidence.
Mathematics depends on proofs but mathematics is an intellectual
recreation that is occasionally useful, it is not in itself a science.

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.


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?
  #3  
Old August 17th 13, 01:32 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default [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.
  #4  
Old August 17th 13, 04:57 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default [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
  #5  
Old August 18th 13, 01:14 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default [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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D50 and Sigma EF-500 DG flash - metering randomness Richard Corfield Digital SLR Cameras 4 January 13th 06 11:29 AM
Need: PC cam with certain criteria Jay Pennington Digital Photography 1 March 2nd 05 06:34 PM
Need: PC cam with certain criteria Jay Pennington Digital Photography 0 March 2nd 05 06:23 PM
Digital SLR Criteria Web Site Update (http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria) Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 20 February 18th 05 05:43 PM
Please help me choose a camera based on my 5 criteria... Jeffrey Stetz Digital Photography 14 October 20th 04 07:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.