I would call it a presumption. Harry
Michel Jullian wrote: >> Unless one believes nature is a calculating machine > > This is more or less the underlying assumption in physics isn't it? A > calculating machine whose algorithms we are trying to guess, and which > hopefully we will never master completely (or life would become very boring). > > Michel (Thanks to Bill Beaty for inviting me back) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Geodetic Proven > > >> This "experiment" is really a comparison of two calculating machines. >> >> The results generated by a $500 million Machine B (consisting of the probe >> AND the Earth) are compared to the results generated by machine A >> (consisting of some PhD's, desktop computers and General Relativity). >> >> Unless one believes nature is a calculating machine it is not really a >> significant experiment. >> >> Harry >> >> Terry Blanton wrote: >> >>> By Gravity Probe B: >>> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6561391.stm >>> >> >
