Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 03:12:51 AM

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 02:55:05 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 02:49:44 AM

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 02:20:54 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 02:03:31 AM

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 01:59:46 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 06, 2014, 01:34:22 AM

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 01:17:12 AM

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true. For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time." If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level. And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution. If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data. I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced. If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing. Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical. A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct. All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs. [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.] All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this: Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time. So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument. I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts. Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense. Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?

Quote from: username18333 on November 05, 2014, 06:40:37 PM

. . .

Quote from: name withheld

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

Quote from: name withheld

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

Quote from: name withheld

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?