On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Empirical proofs can be ostensive.
But I prefer not using "proof" for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied
logic. I prefer to call that "empirical evidences".
So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.
Almost nothing indeed.
Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They
are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that
maps the axioms to facts.
I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be
used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true.
You should write, "...but will never empirically evidence it." :-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at