|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
scientific proof and disproof
On 1/10/18 3:15 PM, Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] wrote:
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: Of course, technically, one can never prove the non-existence of something; On the contrary, one can indeed prove the non-existence of some things. For example, I am currently in a room which is approximately 2.5 meters by 5 meters by 2.5 meters in size. Given the known size of adult elephants, I can prove the non-existence of adult elephants in this room by looking around and not seeing any adult elephants. Abstracting a bit, for propositions X and Y, (a) if X implies Y, and (b) we observe not-Y, then (c) we have proven not-X. In the above example, X = "there is an adult elephant in this room" and Y = "I can see an adult elephant when I look around in this room". In the same way, one can prove the non-existence of (for example) hitherto-unknown Jupiter-mass planets orbiting within 10 astronomical units of the Sun: if such a planet or planets existed, they would cause substantial gravitational perturbations to the orbits of other planets. But we observe that there are no (unexplained) substantial gravitational perturbations to the orbits of the known planets in our solar system. Here we are taking X = "there is a hitherto-unknown Jupiter-mass planet orbiting within 10 astronomical units of the Sun" and Y = "there are substantial unexplained gravitational perturbations to the orbits of other (known) planets in our solar system". All of the above logic must consider Goedel's incompleteness theorem First Incompleteness Theorem from Wiki: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015) or perhaps another statement: all hypotheses cannot be considered true or untrue within any axiomatic structure defining the hypotheses. So, it is impossible to prove or disprove the complete universe structure based on any axiomatic structure Richard D Saam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy | Alan Erskine[_3_] | Space Shuttle | 1 | May 20th 11 07:56 AM |
Whoa, it can't be true, it can't be true, William Shatner knows,he'll protect us | LIBERATOR[_3_] | History | 2 | March 24th 09 05:28 PM |
Heavy H = Lots of Heavy Compounds | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 3 | November 12th 05 06:12 PM |
Since Boeing and LM are partnering 50/50 and Boeing already has Delta IV Heavy does that mean we'll never see the Atlas V Heavy? | D. Scott Ferrin | History | 5 | May 6th 05 05:34 PM |
Delta IV Heavy: Heavy Enough for Mars | Damon Hill | Policy | 1 | December 22nd 04 07:39 PM |