Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
John Wilkins john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> >>"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> >>>My understanding (you do realize, don't you, that we are now continuing
> >>>a discussion that is 15 months old?) is that the only two versions of
> >>>'r' under discussion were the regression (1970) version and the IBD
> (1964)
> >>>version. The regression version is tautologically correct (as proved,
> >>>for example, by NAS) and the IBD version is a pretty good
> approximation.
> >>JE:-
> >>It is an oxymoron to argue that something is "tautologically correct".
> >>
> > Huh? Surely "tautologically incorrect" would be an oxymoron.
> "incorrect" =def "wrong
> A tautology? ;-)
JE:-
Yes, you cannot know what is incorrect as an absolute assumption (I do not
refer to an absolute dictate) only what is correct. In the sciences absolute
assumptions of nature appear as refutable constant terms within _adequate_
mathematical descriptions of the theory, e.g. E = Mc^2 where c is the
critical constant term that provides the critical frame of reference
allowing the mathematics to become rational.
Epimenides paradox "sharpened" to become Eubulides Paradox originally
illustrated that an absolute self contradiction, e.g. "nothing is true" must
provide an apparently unsolvable paradox:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EubulidesParadox.html
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Next by Date: Re: Applying TDF (was understanding y)
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
