On 11 Jan 2013, at 21:42, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/11/2013 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: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 bemisleading 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 ofpropositions into others. They are relevant to empiricalpropositions only insofar as there is an interpretation thatmaps the axioms to facts.I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequencesof the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, butwill never 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 thoseevidences as a proof that the theory applies to "reality".I was just tweaking you for using "prove" both for thetransformation from axiom to theorem and for empirically testing atheory - right after you acknowledged they were quite different.The 'proof' than connects the axioms to the theorem (consequence) iscompletely different from 'proving' a theory is false (or true).

`But that was my point. That's why there is no empirical proof at al`

`indeed.`

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.