Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spunkets

It’s there, you need to read a little further down.


54 posted on 04/02/2009 11:05:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: GodGunsGuts
OK, I found it. The statement is still wrong. There are no theorems in science that are based on evidence, or axioms, as the person that penned that indicated. Noether's theorms are examples of two theorems that are held in science(physics), but the important part to note is that they are theorems, because the respective statement of each theorem is proved with mathematics. No evidence, or axioms are required, or ever used in any instance of a theorem relevant to physics to prove it. THe evidence is used to indicate applicability.

It's the applicability of any theorem to model reality that requires evidence. That evidence is never a part of determining whether, or not some statement is a theorem.

Note that the "no hair theorem" is still a theorem, but it was shown not to be an accurate model of reality and thus is only an element of mathematics, not science(physics). The no hair theorem said in summmary that, black holes mask their contents.

56 posted on 04/02/2009 11:36:46 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
Looks like the evos “successfully” shifted the discussion to the definition of theorem, rather than the essential point of whether information can originate itself in matter.

Oh, and it only took 32 posts for someone to attack the author's “worthiness”.

GGG, count it as a victory.

59 posted on 04/03/2009 5:34:02 AM PDT by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson