A question about discreteness (just don't hit the table too hard for being off-topic) - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Nilog, well, there are models in theorophysics that describe interactions using virtual particles. That's science too.
Science does not explain the world "from the very first causes". It simply calls the first causes its postulates. Man has not yet invented another way of reproducible knowledge of the world.
Discontinuity is just a property of the world that allows us to know it.
Bozia allowed the accountant to earn his own bread.
What's next?
Nilog, well, there are models in theorophysics that describe interactions using virtual particles. This is science too.
Science does not explain the world "from the very first causes". It simply calls the first causes its postulates. Man has not yet invented another way of reproducible knowledge of the world.
Yes I understand that, respected Mathemat. Let's go all the way then. Look: science sort of mathematically proves the existence of black holes. Right?
But: What happens inside black holes is unobservable and not computable. Right?
And what is unobservable and incalculable does not exist, according to the principles of modern science. Like there are no ghosts, for example. Right? We have a contradiction. A black hole exists, but it doesn't exist.
What to do with this morass?
Nilog:
And what cannot be observed and calculated does not exist, based on the principles of modern science. Like there are no ghosts, for example. Right? We have a contradiction. There is a black hole, but there isn't one.
What to do with it?
Hypothesis (supposition, mental experiment) will save you.
The mankind has walked a long way thanks to its ability to operate with hypotheses and conjectures about subjects of reflection which did not exist at that moment.
And of course one of the foundations of all sciences is philosophy.
A hypothesis (an assumption, a mental experiment) will save you.
Mankind has come a long way because of its ability to operate with hypotheses and conjectures about non-existent objects of thought.
And of course one of the pillars of all sciences is philosophy.
A good accountant doesn't count money in other people's pockets.
A hypothesis (an assumption, a mental experiment) will save you.
The mankind has gone through so much thanks to that it is able to operate with hypotheses and suppositions about not existing at that time subjects of reflection.
Well operate: Black holes - there are, in principle. And also, in principle, they have no properties - because properties are observable, and what properties you will observe in a black hole?
A good accountant does not count money in other people's pockets.
Well operate: Black holes - there are, in principle. And also, in principle, they have no properties - because properties are observable, and what properties would you observe in a black hole?
What's your point?
I am not refuting what you said.
But the reactionaries were no fools either.
And they were educated.
Oh, what the hell...
I do not know, I am not a physicist, but I can assume the property of BH even from a school course on the theory of relativity.
Well, guess. While the very existence of BH is unprovable.
How are you going to prove the properties of an unprovable phenomenon?