General relativity predicts gravitational waves. A result of that prediction, elaborate measurement techniques have been devised like computational filtering of observatory data (Einstein @ Home) or superconducting devices to detect polarization of the cosmic microwave background (POLARBEAR 2). It's not a single thing to measure , but also other measurements of related phenomena, like the perihelion precession of Mercury.
What sort of things does it make sense for [a]theists to say and do, and does these things occur (instead of the opposite) in a statistically significant way? -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:56 AM To: Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? I don't understand that concept of "validator" at all. For glucose, you talk about multiple measures. It sounds like you're saying a more accurate measure is the validator for a less accurate measure. These are all concrete things: urine, blood, etc. But then you go on to say a conceptual notion is the best validator. Is a conceptual notion a more accurate measure than a concrete measure? I don't get it. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
