On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:00:41 AM UTC+2, David Petry wrote: > On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-7, Jim Burns wrote: > > On 9/14/2017 3:01 PM, David Petry wrote: > > > > But, that intuition can be axiomatized--it's the principle > > > of falsifiability. > > > > Where are these axioms of that intuition? > > It's been a few years, but I did show you exactly which statements about Turing machines are falsifiable and which are not. And then I argued, admittedly without presenting a proof, that all of the mathematical statements that are relevant to science can be reduced to falsifiable statements about Turing machines. > > At this point, I feel I really need an explanation for why you invest so much time and effort in these discussions. Should I assume it's for the same reasons that Archie and Ross participate? Why should I spend time responding to you? Please explain.
So you can learn something rather than remain ignorant?
As for axioms relevant to science, how about you ask about those that use calculus, which requires axiom of infinity.