WELL, IF 'you' had INFORMED 'the readers' of 'your' OWN VERY SELECTIVE, VERY NARROWED, and VERY SPECIFIC DEFINITION of the 'theory' word, THEN 'you' would NOT HAVE CAUSED SO MUCH CONFUSION and COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY DISCUSSION.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:29 pmBy theory, I mean something that can tell you the quantitative features of a system. What you are talking about is qualitative.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:21 pm Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls
Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?
It would be 'you' SAYING and/or CLAIMING here that;
'God exists', OR, 'God does NOT exist', without EVER ACTUALLY EXPLAINING what 'God', TO 'you', IS, EXACTLY.
So, what 'you' ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING and CLAIMING now IS;
One can NOT make A so-called 'perfect theory' of the quantitative, or of the numbered, features of a system, ONLY, when 'that one' does NOT ALREADY HAVE THE EXACT 'number/quantitative', to the last digit, ALREADY, or PRIOR.