(The original went only to Bruno's addressw)
To: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
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