Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,08:05)|
|That's the basis for comment to Eric: it's a tautology in the same way as e=mc^2.|
Which is to say, not a tautology at all. †"Survival of the fittest" would be a tautology only if biologists defined the "fittest" as "those who survive". †E=mc2 would be a tautology only if m were defined as E/c2. †Physicists don't define m in that way, and so E=mc2 is not a tautology.
|It's a production, and equivalence for sure, but it's based on reality-grounded, empirical principles (and both are falsifiable).|
Right. †It just seems odd to me that you would call it a tautology when it's falsifiable. "A falsifiable tautology" is an oxymoron. To use the classic example, we don't need to examine a single actual bachelor in order to determine that "all bachelors are unmarried" is a tautology. †It's true by definition.
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. †-- Joe G
Please stop putting words into my mouth that donít belong there and thoughts into my mind that donít belong there. -- KF