Quote:
Originally Posted by twilyth
Could you be thinking of the difference between consistency and completeness?
Completeness says that you can derive all true conclusions permitted by your axioms. I think this is what Goedel disproved.
Consistency IIRC says that all correctly derived conclusions will be true.
|
I like where the conversation is going. I can grasp what you are talking about but I was unaware of this, until just now. This is why I enjoy, engaging in conversations, with intelligent people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreij
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
|
Ha, very interesting, the implications, that simple statement makes.. Gets pretty deep, if you really think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by W1zzard
string theory is mostly based on elegant math that looks nice to theorists. it makes no predictions, so it's not testable, which means it is closer to religion and philosophy than to science. this doesnt mean that putting more research into it may lead to new theories that may provide something useful.
also string theory keeps inventing new features to stay one step ahead of its opponents
|
That's what bugs me about string theory. Anything that can just keep spewing out more math, to compensate for shortcomings, is IMHO the wrong direction and likely a waste of time, that could be going toward, something actually feasible.
It's like shoving the square block, into a circle.. Yea you can do it, but it won't be pretty and it's obviously, not the way, to go about it.