On 3/28/2010 1:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Science is, by definition, only concerned with that which is provable.
>> This isn't necessarily what is true, just what you can prove.
>
> Prove, based on certain articles of faith, like that your measurements
> aren't consistently corrupted by evil forces. Which you wouldn't, by
> definition, be able to prove.
>
Uh.. Taking the opposite position.. One would have to presume then that 
the universe its consistent, but that the thing confounding the 
equations is being overly persistent in creating the appearance of such? 
Wouldn't this, in and of itself disprove that the universe can't contain 
consistency, since, if it didn't, the thing mucking with the equations 
would have a hard time "creating" the appearance of something that even 
it can't perceive in the universe?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message