Re: Who's Burden of Proof?

glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:

> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Mark Dodson <dodsonm@comcast.net>
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:48:41 -0500
>
> >
> >On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 10:52 AM, Steve Petermann wrote:
> >
> >> I know of no good designers who would
> >> allow chance to be a dominant force affecting or driving their designs.
> >
> >Hey there,
> >
> > what about quantum computing?
> >
> >Just thought I'd throw that in there.
>
> Or a process called simulated annealing, which is used in geophysics to design models of the subsurface. These things use chance based upon random number generators to mutate the model looking for a better fit to the real data. This type of procedure is quite widespread and shows that designers do use chance.

Sounds like a purely theoretical construct to me. (i.e. "a specious fabrication")

Designers do NOT use chance, Glenn --- other than to filter out what is wanted from what is not.

You geologists have to live with what exists in the ground. We modern engineers have a greater choice in our occupations...

So live with it, Glenn!

Walt

.

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================