On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:

## Advertising

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 misleadingwhen we do applied logic. I prefer to call that "empiricalevidences".So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.Almost nothing indeed.Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositionsinto others. They are relevant to empirical propositions onlyinsofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts.I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences ofthe axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but willnever prove it to be true.You should write, "...but will never empirically evidence it." :-)

Why? Not sure I get the joke :?

`We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those`

`evidences as a proof that the theory applies to "reality".`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.