How could you falsify macroevolution?

[KrazyHorse]

C'mon, GePopper.

Where's the beef? How can you tell me that you'll arbitrarily extend our knowledge across all orders of magnitude when all of science tells you that models tend to break down when pushed too far? Where are you going to draw the line? If it's at human scales then physics stopped 150 years ago. When are you going to tell me that you know the troof for sure?

[GePap]

You drunk already KH?

Even you should know that just because previous models have broken down does not mean that future models must. Or better said, that future models might only break down when discussing situations so abstract or so rare as to be essentially irrelevant to almost all existance we are bound to experience.

[Last Conformist]

Ey? By that logic, we should've stuck with Newtonian mechanics.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Ey? By that logic, we should've stuck with Newtonian mechanics.

And would we have electronics today?

You guys seems stuck on the past. This is a question of the future. After all, scientific exploration is at best only 500 years old. You guys expecting miracles in such a short timespan? Mankind has been around for 100,000 years. History is 5500 years long. And yet in only 500 years were are supposed to have learnt everything?

The question is, after say 2000 years of solid research and making our measuring instruments better, are you saying that it would still be metaphysically impossible to reach those blueprints, or at least as good a version of them as might be usefull for anyone living in this universe.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


You drunk already KH?

Even you should know that just because previous models have broken down does not mean that future models must.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm more than a match for you when I'm drunk. Unfortunately, I'm stone sober right now.

Who cares if they must break down? The fact is that they could. You don't know until you check. The set of situations is unbounded, not simply infinite, so by necessity you will only have probed an infinitesimal portion of the total.

Or better said, that future models might only break down when discussing situations so abstract or so rare as to be essentially irrelevant to almost all existance we are bound to experience.

I understand. The origin and evolution of the Universe on large scales isn't part of your truth because the average human being only lives on the planet Earth.

The behaviour of particles in the TeV range is irrelevant because that's above the average human experience.

The behaviour of electrons in a semiconductor is irrelevant because you can't see electrons...

[Jon Miller]

I have serious doubts about *ever* being able to falsify string theory...

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


And would we have electronics today

And how do you know that future "electronics" won't depend on Higgs bosons?

Or on something that shows up at 10^20 eV
Or 10^40

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have serious doubts about *ever* being able to falsify string theory...

JM

So do I

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And how do you know that future "electronics" won't depend on Higgs bosons?

Or on something that shows up at 10^20 eV
Or 10^40

Boy, don't you get it yet bozo? This is a metaphysical discussion on the nature of truth that can be attained empirically. NOt a technical one.

Jesus.

[KrazyHorse]

I can tell you for damn sure that we won't have Higgs-based electronics if we stop the search before then.

And we won't have devices based on science that we just don't bother doing because our understanding is "good enough" at some point.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


Boy, don't you get it yet bozo? This is a metaphysical discussion on the nature of truth that can be attained empirically. NOt a technical one.

Jesus.

No, you don't get it, bozo. You're telling me that solid state physics was important to your concept of truth because we built electronics out of it and human beings have daily contact with electronics. I'm telling you that you don't know now, nor will you ever be able to predict meaningfully, what sort devices human beings will have daily contact with in the future. Thus you can't tell me that we can just stop at some point because nothing beyond will ever matter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I can tell you for damn sure that we won't have Higgs-based electronics if we stop the search before then.

And we won't have devices based on science that we just don't bother doing because our understanding is "good enough" at some point.

and how is saying that? Lats time I looked, I asked about how much closer we might be with 1500 more years of study.

[Last Conformist]

Whether people in 2000 years will decide that they've got as good science as they'll ever need I do not know, cannot know, and don't care about.

The objection to knowing the blueprints with certainly will stand.


Now, tell me just what you are getting at now. You started out defending che's attack on Popper, shifted to debating the paedagogical failings of the term "falsifiable", then apparently tried to argue that science can get all the way to the ultimate laws of the universe, and now you seem to be saying that science should stop when it's discovered everything useful, however one is supposed to know that - how do you know that there isn't some wonderful application hiding a mere TeV beyond your present experimental apparatus? It's hard to avoid the impression you're moving position rather rapidly.

[KrazyHorse]

Retreat, retreat, retreat GePap.

Fall back to meaningless declarations of whatever you decide "truth" should be defined as once your last definition fails.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap




and how is saying that? Lats time I looked, I asked about how much closer we might be with 1500 more years of study.

I'm at one. I go to two. Or ten. Or a million.

How much closer am I to infinity?

How do you know that I won't be building computers out of stuff I figure out when I'm at a billion?