On 5 June 2014 07:49, <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
