Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then again the basic assumptions are really just best guess models to
> describe what we observe.
>
<nice history of scientific advancements and theory refinements snipped>
Are you telling me that perpetual motion machines are, in fact,
possible? Because I'm aware of all that stuff you said (and you did
say it well), but I still say perpetual motion machines are
impossible, and I don't think I'm going to miss out on anything for
believing so.
By show of hands, who believes that perpetual motion machines are not
impossible?
Computing is another matter entirely. We're not trying to uncover the
basic laws of computation through experiment. We know the basic laws
because we invented them and built machines to exactingly implement
them. When a computer scientist tells you something is not computable
and provides a proof, you can be quite certain that if the proof
holds, he's 100% correct. And I believe this is the real context
we're discussing, not the realm of physics.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
