>>2
I know that. I should have phrased my first sentence as "What evidence is there to suggest that the universe is discrete and what evidence is there to suggest that the universe is continuous?", but knowing the attention span of the average 4channer I decided to use "proof" instead.
You did give some loosely defined evidence anyway, I think you are referring to the planck units and the 5 constants, however the constants alone do not suggest the universe is discrete or continuous which leaves the planck units which is where this argument hinges.
>>3
>>7
>>8
We can never know anything for certain, but we can make realistic assumptions and predictions like if I lift this pencil up and drop it the pencil will fall. I may not be sure exactly how it will fall, perhaps even a freak gust of wind will make it travel upwards, but that still obeys my assumption that it exists within the degree of accuracy that classical physics holds true and it will fall.
>>4
I never said there wasn't. I think it is better to induce answers from the facts than try to look for facts which fit into an answer you are looking for. People who look for a "theory of everything" tend to achieve less than people who are attempting to find trends and patterns from the results of unexplained phenomena.
>>5
If you do that then you get nowhere.
>>6
Which is why it is better to get facts first then induce answers from them rather than the other way round.
>>13
>>14
>>15
>>16
>>17
Actually what the results mean is an important part of scientific method, this problem was solved by Kant 200 years ago and founded the general basis for it. Long story short there are 2 types of thoughts, a posteriori and a priori. A posteriori represents facts like tangible properties and a priori represents assumptions induced from the facts. The validity of an assumption is a probability, every time I drop a pencil it falls and if I were first experiencing this phenomena, after a few hours of doing so it would be lunacy for me to assume that the pencil would not fall. The assumption that pencils fall when I let go in normal room conditions is valid.
Conjecture and theory are both a priori, conjecture is defined as "to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.". By sufficient the definition means that a supposition requires that other factors need to be fulfilled in order to prove that the event is taking place or occurred. For instance someone is murderred and no fingerprints were found at the scene. Saying the boxer is responsible purely on the basis that he wears gloves would be conjecture.
I hope that clears things up and we can continue with the conersation.
>>15
>>16
I plonked you in the above paragraph along with 13,14 and 17 because it seems that the discussion now hinges on the validity of string theory. What do you think makes up validity. I think Kant had the answer to that too.