Date: Apr 1, 2013 6:02 PM
Author: dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodern Thought
On Apr 2, 12:07 am, david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> On Monday, April 1, 2013 1:55:58 PM UTC-7, Dan wrote:

> > On Apr 1, 11:43 pm, david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com>

> > wrote:

> > > Falsifiability is part of our natural thinking processes even if we don't always recognize it as such. It's already part of applied mathematics, even if applied mathematics has never been fully formalized. If the mathematicians involved in the debate over the foundations of mathematics that occurred in the early part of the twentieth century had taken the notion of falsifiability into consideration, it's very likely the debate would have been resolved in favor of falsifiability and against Cantorian set theory.

> > Have you paid no attention? Falsifiability was never a concern even

> > before Cantorian Set theory , nor can it ever be a concern outside the

> > scientist's modus operandi , into mathematics by itself, without the

> > Physical world on which to perform experiments . Going by your

> > 'operational' usage of falsifiability, I would classify it as "not

> > even wrong" , to use an expression preferred by scientist .

>

> There's nothing I could say that I have not already said right here in this discussion, so I guess the discussion is over.

>

> > "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."

>

> Mind boggling.

One last time .Let me put it in the simplest terms possible , perhaps

you might understand :

Lets compare an experiment is physics to an experiment in

"computational mathematics" :

Experiment in "computational mathematics" :

Go to your nearest computer-thingamabob , and type in 36 * 36 , then

see what it does .

Now, due to my miraculous powers , I can , with 100% accuracy ,predict

the outcome of the experiment : 1296 .

Therefore , to me at least, the experiment is NOT FALSIFIABLE .Never

was, never will be . Never needed an experiment in the first place .

Compare to ...

An experiment in physics :

Go to your nearest particle accelerator , pick your favorite flavor of

string theory , do some collisions . If your results don't fall within

three sigmas of the expected outcome of your model , your model is

falsified . And , in physics , it's no surprise when your model GETS

FALSIFIED .Happens way to often , if you ask me . Your model IS

FALSIFIABLE .

Understand the difference?