[
]
Finite evidence (here, suggest[ion] [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.
Code:
𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0
Finite evidence (here, suggest[ion] [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.
The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.
Quote from: Don Koks. What are Half Lives and Mean Lives? Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html
[
]
So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.
(Red colorization mine.)So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.
In (conventional) mathematics, a statement (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., Every object in the Universe attracts ) can only be disproven.
The problem with badecker is that he uses arguments like: Well the gravity theory is just a theory or we dont know how gravity originates therefore god exists. Well its true that scientists dont know exactly how gravity originates or why exists but we do know how it works, we know exactly how it works and we use it for a variety of things.