On 6/15/2014 5:51 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem
determined
to look at the result only in one way.
Because that's the way that accords with our science-based experience about the
world, yes.
And how does we invented the math to fit the world *not* accord?
I'd say what we discover is which description's work with which phenomena.
Yes, so would I, which is how we discover the laws of physics.
How can we "discover" them and then "discover" they are wrong?
We don't invent them. "Invent" implies we made something new, created something that
might never otherwise have existed. But the laws of physics don't fall into that category.
That's your story and you're sticking to it.
Brent
If you keep using "invent" to mean "discover" you are just blurring a useful distinction
for no good reason.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
