[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B]In other discussions, I see people using the phrase "prove it to me" using Science as your base (or other words to that effect). I would like to suggest that Science is NOT a means by which something can be
proven. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Well, when I was reading Wolram's Book "A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE" (for which I am not done reading so can not give a full book review as I thought I was doing for Crick's but.in another thread...)it seems unproblemetical to me (if it is not and is problematical then I may "fall" in line with Mark's take off point etc) that COMPUTATION is not any APPLICATION OF SCIENCE such that science could be *used* to "proove" universality no matter ones sophisticated use of the stuff.
[QUOTE][B]
The history of science shows that scientific conclusions are
continually being changed based on new informtion.
[/QUOTE]
[/B]
bEYOND THE CLAIM TO "UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION" WOLFRAM HAS POSITIONED HIMSELF FOR A FUTHER "ISSUE" AS TO EQUIVALENT SOPHISTICATION no matter HOW MUCH INFO OR CHANGE IN INFO THERE IS.
[QUOTE][B]
All it takes is once counter-example. Therefore the conclusions of science are always tentative.
What can we do with science? [/QUOTE]
[/B]
i DONT DOUBT THAT WOLFRAM THINKS HE CAN DO THIS MUCH WITH THE STUFF OF SCIENCE AND IF HE CAN SO CAN I.
[B][QUOTE]
We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.[/B][/QUOTE]
™ Version 4.2