On 16 June 2014 13:12, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/15/2014 5:51 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb <[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? >
Because of the weasel word "invent", and all the baggage it carries. We only invent theories in the way that natural selection invents species - it's part of the discovery process of what works. 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 can fail to discover them, too. I don't see a problem with that. The important point is that they exist, and when we discover what they are, they won't be a human invention, they will be how the world works. Even if we don't discover them, they are still the way it works. 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. > No, it's common English usage. But if all you can do is throw around insults let's stop this discussion. -- 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.
