(The original went only to Bruno's addressw) To: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, everything-list@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bruno, your postulate of testability is falling into obsolescence. Proof within the model can be applied to testable events within the model. If the model proves too narrow, you have to 'assume' beyond and 'theorize' beyond the in-model testability. Then, later on, you may find indications whether your assumed novelty is 'solid' or discardable. Most of the discussions on this list since the early 90s are non-testable. I cannot measure the blood pressure of the white rabbit or the length of all the universes. Hal Ruhl (and myself, not far from his) presented some worldview without testable origins. We should not 'wall in' ourselves into the existing framework of a testable ambiance if we want to think further. Justifiability is another question, but it can be raised later on. The same may apply to the 'screening' by human logic (formal or not) and we have plenty of examples on this list when human logic was not applied as a liiting model. I would not restrict nature (te wholeness) to anything we can muster in our capabilities. Just a thought John Mikes