On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:57:27 -0400, PeterN <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On 8/17/2013 2:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:14:40 -0400, Dale <email@example.com> 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.
Then there is my sig from years past:
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class