Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
> <
festus...@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> > Kurt Kurt wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 5:07:39 PM UTC-5, Ted&Alice wrote:
> >> > Kurt Kurt wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 1:17:07 PM UTC-5, Ted&Alice
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > Don't Touch Me There wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On 1/30/2016 8:27 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >> > > > > > In article <
65npab5r70bpiifdb...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > > > > Gordon <
gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Super String - Membrane (SS-M) Theory is at present
> just a >> > > > > > > theory.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Nope. It's just a hypothesis. It has no evidence to make
> it >> > > > > > a theory.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Both statements are worthless bullshit. Calling something
> >> > > > > "just" a theory is direct evidence of scientific
> illiteracy. >> > > > > Saying that something needs "evidence" in
> order to make the >> > > > > jump from "just" a hypothesis to
> full-fledged theory is >> > > > > nearly as bad. It also gets
> science backward. A theory is >> > > > > used to generate testable
> hypotheses; hypotheses don't >> > > > > generate theories.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Ithas not and maybe never will be objectively proven.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Why do you say that? What do you base that assertion on?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > No valid scientific theory is ever "proven" [sic].
> Testing of >> > > > > hypotheses generated from theories either
> confirm the theory's >> > > > > predictions, or they contradict them.
> If they confirm, then >> > > > > the theory is tentatively accepted.
> If they contradict, then >> > > > > the theory is called into
> question. >> > > >
> >> > > > Is this Rudy or some other illiterate fucktard who evidently
> >> > > > thinks that "proven" isn't a valid word?
> >> >
> >> > > Nothing in science is ever proved. The word has no meaning in
> >> > > science. Theory is as good as it gets.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
> >> >
> >> > I recommend reading Bertrand Russell's essays on the subject,
> mostly >> > because I'm not bright enough to understand the other
> philosophers >> > and found Russell much easier to read and so read
> him the most.
> > >
> >> Well, Russell did a lot of math proofs, but no proofs in science.
> And >> turns out his life work in math, to unify it, is a total waste
> of >> time, Godel PROVED it was impossible.
> >
> > No question that Russell was a brilliant mathematician, but that's
> > not what I meant. I was referring to Russell's essays on the
> > problem of induction, i.e. agreeing with your statement that
> > "nothing in science is ever proved".
>
> Collogually, proved means "proved beyond reasonable doubt".
Of course. Russell's discussion explains it pretty well.
>
> > I'm impressed you know about Godel too. Ever read any of Rudy
> > Rucker's math popularizations? He was friends with Godel.
>
> This moron used to post as Kurt Godel, and he claimed that Godel
> proved God.
>
Ah now I see. :)
> He is fond of the incompleteness theorem which he doesn't understand
> only applies to formal, self-referential systems, and that Godel
> merely formalised what was already understood by anybody with any
> commonsense.
>
Perhaps for intelligent people like you, but the first time I heard of
it was in grad school and I was awed.
> He doesn't seen to grasp that the universe isn't a formal system, and
> that the way out of the self-referential loop is where it intersects
> with reality.
>
> Natural languages aren't formal systems, but if you use the dictionary
> they are self-referential until you actually see some of the things
> described...
>
> cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short
> snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or
> for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.
>
> But in real life, we already know what cats, mammals, cornivores, fur
> etc are.
>
> If we didn't already know and had to rely on the dictionary for those,
> the words used to define them, and so on for every6t definition in it,
> we would be in trouble,
>
> But unike Godel's formal systems we don't have that problem because
> the way out of the loop is where it intersects with the real world.
>
> That's a cat. curled up next to me and gently purring.
>
> Our understanding of the universe works the same way.Because it starts
> from words which are labels for things we already know.
>
> The idea of Godel proving God, is ridiculous. Because it is part of a
> religious belief, defined only in terms of the rest of the religious
> belief, Ie it is part of a self-referential system with no way out of
> the loop,
Did Godel believe in a sort of God, though? I don't remember.