> > > Carol:
> > > > > > I disagree.  If something has not been proven to exist, that most
> > > > > > certainly DOES mean that it might not exist.
> >
> > > > Lucia:
> > > > > well of course, it means it might not exist.... Still, scientifically,
> > > > > just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> >
> > > > Carol:
> > > > Of course not.  But you said "That doesn't mean it might not exist"
> > > > which is something else entirely.
> >
> > Lucia:
> > > To my mind, these two statements are the same:
> > > 1. just because you can't prove something that "doesn't mean it might not
> > > exist"
> > > 2. just because you can't prove something "doesn't mean it doesn't exist"
> > > we're in the twilight zone. not sure how I got here...

Liza, you're gonna LOVE this. :D  I sent the above to a guy I know
who's a very nitpicky mathematician and logician.  He tried to put it
in terms we'll understand....

Darin:
> Okay, I had written a bunch of crap about metamathematics, but now I think
> that's not the heart of the matter.  The problem seems to be semantics,
> (or lack of clarity with regard to)... You need to specify what you mean
> when you say something "might be true".  Things are either true or false
> -- it has nothing to do with our own knowledge (or lack thereof...)  In
> any case, the statements themselves are most definitely NOT the same...
> in one of them it is unclear what is being said because of a lack of
> clear definitions...
>
> Hope that made some sense...
>
> For what it's worth, from the "common sense" standpoint, I understand what
> Carol means to say, and I agree with her.  There are certainly many things
> we haven't proved one way or the other, which could turn out to be
> disproved.  In this sense, Lucia would be wrong in DENYing the fact that
> many things we don't know the truth value of could in fact turn out to be
> disproved.  Otherwise, she's saying that whatever we don't know for sure,
> we know FOR CERTAIN that we'll NEVER be able to show false...and once you
> understand what that means, it seems clear to me that's not correct...

Carol:
Then, after I sent him this...
> Lucia:
> > ...just because you haven't proved something, doesn't mean it might not
> > exist.  It might exist. It also might not exist. You simply haven't proved
> > it.

he added...
> Yeah, she agrees with YOU, but she doesn't realize that she's not SAYING
> what she MEANS...
>
> She DOESN'T mean to say, "doesn't mean it might not exist".  She means to
> say, "doesn't mean it DOESN'T exist".

Hope all this crap doesn't give people bad dreams! :D

Carol