On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
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
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." :-)
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".
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