Releasers - Anne Kilmer couldn't possibly be more wrong!

Stanley A. Gorodenski stan_gorodenski at
Tue May 27 20:31:56 EDT 2003

I'm back from my trip. This topic does not seem to deserve much attention, and so I will make
it brief and quick.

Xi Wang wrote:

> Well, I did not mean to imply that if some observables fail to fit into a neat
> mathematical equation, then it is bad science, and those people conducting it are bad
> scientisits.

It read like this was implied.

> The fact that things appear to be interrelated is necessary but not sufficient evidence
> that the relationship must be absolute.  You are making a false assumption.

You are misreading my message. Please reread my comments in the context in which they were
written. We agree on this point.

> However, I
> would add that if things were not related in the universe, there would be no
> predictability, and I would question if such a universe and science could exist in the
> first place.  I would submit that our very presence necessitates a pattern and physicals
> laws in the universe.

Yes, I in general agree. There are many things that are predictable at our level of
observation. However, this of itself is not sufficient evidence that everything is predictable
at all levels of observation and dimension. Assuming some of the ecpyrotic theories are
correct, who could possibly predict when the next big bang will occur and what a brane
collision could do to our universe? Besides this, there is always a degree of error in
measurements, usually expressed in terms of standard error. If space-time is not continuous,
as had previously been assumed by Einstein, et al, but which is now being questioned by
theorists, can it be assume that the discontinuous parts are predictable (whatever that would
mean) at levels larger than the Plank size?

> This again is a specious analogy.  If a calculator cannot output 2 + 2 = 3, it is because
> it is wrong.  If a human cannot think in a different way, it is simply that he/she has
> missed a solution to a problem, even if the solution is still correct and self
> consistent.  For example, if the solution to a math problem is 3x where x can be any
> integer, a person who says the solution is 3, but misses 6, 9, 12....would not be wrong,
> but it would simply indicate that he has seen a subset of all possible solutions.  So, if
> the human mind can only think in a certain way, it doesn't not mean it is wrong, but
> probably just that there are other correct ways of thinking, of which this is only a small
> portion.  It's analogous to Newtonian physics being a special case of general relativity.

This is a non sequitur as a response to what I am saying.

Best Wishes and a sign-off (I assume) on this subject.



   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list