Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
Eric Stevens

Posts: 26
Registered: 2/4/05
Re: [OT] randomness doesn't meet criteria of theory
Posted: Aug 17, 2013 8:14 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:57:27 -0400, PeterN
<peter.newnospam@verizon.net> wrote:

>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.


Then there is my sig from years past:

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens.


There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class





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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.