Re: Defining physics
From: Daniel Weston (daniel009_at_webtv.net)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Defining physics"
- Next in thread: ueb: "Re: Defining physics"
- Reply: ueb: "Re: Defining physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:03:38 -0700
Statement involving "proof" and "causality:
Beyond a reasonable doubt, the perturbations of Uranus were caused by
the orbit of Neptune. (BTW, acceptance of causation, and the
recognition of time correlation, led to the discovery of an hitherto
unknown planet.)
Patrick's long time antipathy toward causation, is prompting him to ask
of us that we speculate a physics without causation. He still does not
understand that without causality, there is no science.
Without causality, there are no repeatable experiments. Without
causality there would be no scientists. Oh yes, without causality,
there would by no Patrick Reany. What a shame that would be.
(unrestrained sobbing at the thought of science without the guidance of
Patrick Reany and his imminent saving of Western science.)
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Defining physics"
- Next in thread: ueb: "Re: Defining physics"
- Reply: ueb: "Re: Defining physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|