[OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory

[Dale]

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.

[Dale]

Post by Dale
ALL variables including time

also depends on whether time is finite, cyclical, or eternal

[wtrplnet]

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
ALL variables including time

also depends on whether time is finite, cyclical, or eternal

You, obviously, aren't drinking enough. Go for it.

[Dale]

Post by wtrplnet

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
ALL variables including time

also depends on whether time is finite, cyclical, or eternal

You, obviously, aren't drinking enough. Go for it.

for a couple reasons I can't drink any more

maybe one day I can have a shot of schnapps

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:14:40 -0400, Dale <***@invalid.invalid> 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

[J. Clarke]

In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@1776.COM
says...

Post by Robert Coe
: 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.

Post by Robert Coe
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?

[PeterN]

Post by Robert Coe
: 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.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:57:27 -0400, PeterN

Post by PeterN

Post by Robert Coe
: 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: