Re: Surviving Einstein.
From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 06/29/03
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Previous message: Gregory G Rose: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- In reply to: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: Simon Johnson: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:18:49 GMT
John E. Hadstate wrote:
> "Bryan Olson":
>>John E. Hadstate wrote:
>> > "Bryan Olson":
>> >>Physics isn't just a bunch of guys saying how they like to think
>> >>the world works.
>> >
>> > I beg to differ with you. That's exactly what it is.
>>
>>And to think Physics teachers have the gall to mark answers
>>wrong.
>
> Most of the questions on most of the Physics tests that I was given had
> demonstrably right answers.
Only the mathematical steps can be "demonstrably right".
That the cases we try come out as the theory predicts doesn't
prove with certainty that the theory is correct.
Quantum-level randomness is now about as well-established as
anything gets in physics.
> Any deviation was not considered to be
> explainable as "randomness", it was just wrong.
That's a non-sequitur. The randomness in modern Physics isn't
there to explain deviation from some theory.
>> >>They make predictions. They describe the
>> >>evidence that would refute the theory, then actively search for
>> >>that evidence. Nondeterminism pans out.
>> >
>> > Of course it does. Nondeterminism is what's left after all the
logical
>> > avenues of explanation have been used up. Saying it "pans out" is
>> > saying nothing different from what I asserted in the first place.
>>
>>Nope. It's what the facts support.
>
> Non sequitur, I think. What, exactly, are you trying to say?
What I wrote of course. In quantum mechanics, many events are
random. The theory's predictions hold. The theory is
falsifiable, and the last half-century has seen a tremendous
amount of research that could have refuted it, were it wrong.
That's how we do science.
>> In the end, you have to fall back on, "Well,
>>it says
>> > so in the Bible, and that's good enough for me". It's called
>>"faith-based
>> > science" and it stinks.
>>
>>I'm not interested in your religion, and you bear false witness
>>about mine.
>
> Touched a nerve, did I? Well, I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.
I often
> forget that contributors to this newsgroup, no matter how intelligent,
> usually take things too literally. My mistake.
Hey, I wrote about falsifiable theories and confirmation of
predictions, and you responded with religion, the Bible, and
false stuff that you obviously just made up.
-- --Bryan
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Release 1.1 (beta) of my AES implementation"
- Previous message: Gregory G Rose: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- In reply to: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: Simon Johnson: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
