The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Software » comp.soft-sys.matlab

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: [OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
Replies: 8   Last Post: Aug 18, 2013 6:32 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
J. Clarke

Posts: 78
Registered: 3/19/11
Re: [OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
Posted: Aug 17, 2013 7:52 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, bob@1776.COM
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:14:40 -0400, Dale <invalid@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).

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

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.