In message <[log in to unmask]>, Larry Barnes
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I'm not interested in theories as much as I'm interested in 'truth'.  When
>does a theory stop being a theory and either becomes truth or a lie.  Truth
>stops the circular patterns created by theories.

>Is  someone talking in circles here?  What am I missing?

Most of it, alas. Please read and think very carefully about what is
being said.

>A.>A theory is something via testing you can either prove or disprove.
>
>   Nope. You can never prove a theory, only disprove it. Karl Popper is your
>man on this.
>
>   1.)So, basic math is still a theory.  someday they will disprove that
>1+1=2 ?  (go figure)

Several considerations:

  (i)  It is perfectly possible to have a theory that will, in practice,
never be disproved. But what you can't ever do is prove it, or show that
it will never be disproved.

(ii) basic math isn't a theory. It's an axiomatic system. What you do is
take some assertions - no need to prove them, you just conjure them up -
and build on them. If you arrive at a contradiction of one or more of
these axioms, then you have an inconsistent axiomatic system - no good
to you.

But if you never arrive at a contradiction, you have a system of
mathematics. It's quite interesting what you can do - if you say
parallel lines never meet (or meet only at infinity), then you have the
classical Euclidean geometry we all know.

But if you say, as Riemann did, what if parallel lines meet before
infinity? then you might think you'd rapidly get an inconsistent system.
But you don't. You get an odd geometry, but not a self-contradictory
one.

(iii) There is a 'math' in which 1 + 1 <> 2. You use it all the time if
you use computers. It's Boolean logic, in which 1 + 1  = 1.

>B.>But yes, to be a scientific theory, it must be testable. If it's not
>testable, it's not science.
>
>   1.)not so, in the early 20th century you would be labeled crazy for
>talking about sending man to the moon.
>      they had no means of testing this theory then, so I guess it wasn't
>science at that time. (hogwash)!

Sending a man to the moon isn't a theory either. It might be an
experiment or an observation, but it's not a theory.

Now, 'the moon is made of green cheese' - that's a theory. And we always
knew how to test it - send someone to look. But because we couldn't *do*
the test didn't invalidate it.

In my previous post, I made exactly this point about the galaxy-sized
Supercollider. Perhaps you missed it?

>   2.)Talk to Jim West and Ardimus Gordon of the Wild Wild West days.
??? Sorry, I don't understand this. Who are you talking about, and what
is the relevance?

>C.>But passing the test(s) doesn't prove it's true, only that it's not
>untrue.

>   1.)so again, basic math is still a theory (1+1=2, 5x5=25, etc.) just
>because a 'better test' hasn't
>      been created to disprove it?  I hardly think so.

Again, math isn't a theory. Oh, and my friend's 4x4 isn't a 16 :-)

> TRUTH IS TRUTH NO
>MATTER WERE/WHEN YOU DISCOVER IT!

The problem here is one of ontology; how do you know it's the truth?

>   2.)Be careful, your computer system with all it's programs is just a
>theory eventually they will vaporize!
>       (so that's what's happening to the HP3000 systems)  hmmmmm?

Is everything a theory to you? I use the word in its specific scientific
sense. Otherwise, it's
  'Big Mac, please'.
  'Certainly sir. And will you want theories with that?'

>       One day the binary system will be replaced because it will be
>disproved! (oh, really !)

Again, not a theory. As you aver, it's a (counting) system, and it's a
component of a mathematics.

>   3.)By not 'passing the test(s)' doesn't make it true either and shouldn't
>be mis-quotes as such.

Nope, don't understand this sentence either. What are you trying to say
here?

>D.>When you find a theory is untrue, you have to go find a better one [1].

>   1.)If you find a theory to be untrue, why must you replace it?
>      The possibility exists that it may be a 'truth' uncovered. (see C1
>above)

Now you are into metaphysics, as well as ontology.

But such things are indeed seductive. Who could doubt that when you
burnt something, as it lost its form and beauty and turned into a dull
ash, some 'vital component' was lost, leaping out in the form of flames?

Even when they found that the calx weighed *more* than the starting
materials, why this just proved that the 'terra pinguis' that the burned
material had lost was so vital that it had negative weight.

And yet the unsuccessful search for Stahl's 'phlogiston' (as terra
pinguis was renamed in the more developed form of the theory) had to
give way to Lavoisier's prosaic demonstration that burning was the
process of taking up oxygen from the air.

So - seductive, a snare, and a brake on scientific progress for quite a
long time, as the early experimenters explored this blind alley. But
once a better theory was known, on we went again.

>E.>When you fail to disprove a theory, you have to go find better tests, and
>keep trying to disprove it.
>
>   1.)Just because you can't disprove a theory today doesn't mean it should
>be mis-quoted at being truth.

Now you're getting it. That's exactly Popper's point. Any as-yet
undisproved theory is just a working hypothesis, or out best guess to
date.

Mind you, Popper meant theories as the word is generally understood. And
not, say, ham sandwiches.

>      i.e. explain the theory of the internet, space travel, radio, or
>television, to anyone who
>      lived in the 1800's or early 20th century. These were all disproved
>back then because they didn't
>      have a method to test them.  (see statement B above) Space travel must
>not be science.

We've had that one above. The same refutation applies.

>   2.)Personally I have better things to do than try to disproving 1+1=2.

1+1 isn't always 2 in vector theory, while I think of it. Sounds crazy?
Go a mile North. Then go a mile East. How far are you from your starting
point?

Not 2 miles. There's a math (and a real-life example of the application
of that math) in which all you can say is 0 <= 1 + 1 <= 2

>"... here we go round in circle ..."

Oh, look, here you are ahead of me again. Yes, indeed, all the points
(x,y) round an origin 0,0 at constant distance r such that x^2 + y^2 =
r^2

In other words, when r = 2 miles, all the points two miles from your
starting point. Which (1,1) is outside....

--
Roy Brown        'Is a p-brane as thick as two short Plancks?'
Kelmscott Ltd

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *