On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:57:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/17/2013 2:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:14:40 -0400, Dale 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