Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 PeterN Posts: 7 Registered: 7/7/13
Re: [OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
Posted: Aug 17, 2013 11:57 AM

On 8/17/2013 2:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> 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). 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.

--
PeterN

Date Subject Author
8/6/13 Marnie Northington
8/7/13 Marnie Northington
8/8/13 Mike
8/8/13 Marnie Northington
8/17/13 Robert Coe
8/17/13 J. Clarke
8/17/13 PeterN
8/17/13 Eric Stevens
8/18/13 bskolkur@gmail.com