On 5 June 2014 07:49, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the > beginning. > >> >> Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it. >> > > You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. > Russell Standish read it...he understood. > > So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months. > > I don't believe Bruno is a liar.
Can't you restart the discussion, politely, from first principles, and see where you differ? I haven't read the entire exchange - it's been huge - but it seems you claim comp makes no testable predictions, while Bruno says it does. As I understand it, comp makes more testable predictions than string theory! Not sure that puts it into the refutable club, though. I've claimed that comp isn't a theory but a logical argument, but apparently I was wrong about that. As a theory it needs to be testable, which means it can be falsified... So a definition of falsification would seem like a good place to start, certainly. And I remember you gave a rather comprehensive one. So I guess I should ask Bruno, did you read it? If so, did you agree with it? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
