>>189
Why does a scientist care why his theory doesn't predict the existence of God?
This has nothing to do with God. A limitative result could show for example "no theory of physics may have these and these properties", this result would be useful as it would lead to narrowing down on what the theories can be. The goal is to improve one's accuracy and negative results do that quite well. As for God, I already said, it's too undefined or too personally defined, it's not even worth talking about it scientifically, unless you give a particular definition.
How did you obtain the "deduction" and "induction" themself?
There are precise definitions of those terms formally and mathematically, but there is also the more common sense meaning of those terms. For example about induction: someone observes that a certain pattern is always followed by another - such as dropping a metal crate will cause a sound when the crate hits the floor. Or that you will observe that the sun rises each day and conclude that in all your past experiences it was all the case, thus you will hold that belief for now. Inductive reasoning actually comes rather naturally for humans and there are theories in cognitive sciences which show many parallels between our neocortex's hierarchical structure and some forms of bayesian/probabilistic networks. A more layman's introduction to some such high-level concepts could be found in the book "On Intelligence". I could also find some links to actual serious papers on the subject, but since you seem to be hostile to reading papers, I'm not going to waste more of my time locating copies of old papers I've read.
To put it differently, it's a both innate skill contained throughout our most basic reasoning facilities and also a learned skill when talking about formal versions.
"important" for whom? I dont see its importance or relevance to the observable reality.
Because you don't frame your theories about reality in math. Too bad most of your theories don't actually give any predictions whatsoever, so they're about as useless as the usual ``God'' hypothesis. Besides results which don't touch reality in any direct way, it can also be used to show the universality of the notion of computable function.
Sorry, but Phd wont confirm your theory. Phd is just a title, you can buy if you have enough money and/or time.
I never claimed so. I decide on what to believe in by my own judgement, and so should you.
There is a reason I'm not educated - I cant enter education due to disagreement with concepts of Set Theory and modern mathematics. A sci-fi novel wont fix that.
Maybe, but in this particular novel, he doesn't touch any set theoretic notions. He even entertains an ultrafinitistic view as a possible theory to explain one important event in the book, so you might like it (he also wrote a shorter story where he tries to consider the implications about what could the inconsistency of arithmetic mean in some such "impossible world").
What did you say?! The novelist is so serious, he even wrote comments on other sci-fi novels to supplement his Electric Boogaloo? Sounds like a typical case of copyright infringement. Einstein's family will sue him for stealing fantasy worlds and characters. It's like when you take Lord of The Rings and make sequel, without having license from the owner.
Haha. Except most scientific results are open and free (leaving aside silly paywalls). Also his book supplement is freely available on his site, not that you'll need it for this particular book.