What is different with Python ?

Andrea Griffini agriff at tin.it
Tue Jun 14 21:39:37 CEST 2005

On 14 Jun 2005 00:37:00 -0700, "Michele Simionato"
<michele.simionato at gmail.com> wrote:

>It looks like you do not have a background in Physics research.
>We *do* build the world! ;)
>               Michele Simionato

Wow... I always get surprises from physics. For example I
thought that no one could drop confutability requirement
for a theory in an experimental science... I mean that I
always agreed with the logic principle that unless you
tell me an experiment whose result could be a confutation
of your theory or otherwise you're not saying anything
really interesting.
In other words if there is no means by which the theory
could be proved wrong by an experiment then that theory
is just babbling without any added content.
A friend of mine however told me that this principle that
I thought was fundamental for talking about science has
indeed been sacrified to get unification. I was told that
in physics there are current theories for which there
is no hypotetical experiment that could prove them wrong...
(superstrings may be ? it was a name like that but I
don't really remember).
To me looks like e.g. saying that objects are moved around
by invisible beings with long beards and tennis shoes
and that those spirits like to move them under apparent
laws we know because they're having a lot of fun fooling
us. However every now and then they move things a bit
differently just to watch at our surprised faces while we
try to see where is the problem in our measuring instrument.

My temptation is to react for this dropping of such a logical
requirement with a good laugh... what could be the result
of a theory that refuses basic logic ? On a second thought
however laughing at strange physics theories is not a good
idea. Especially if you live in Hiroshima.


More information about the Python-list mailing list