Gregory Chaitin Lecture Lisbon University 2004 Pt 2

[gr0mithtimon]

no evidence for black holes, what an idiot. there is very good observational evidence from astronomy.

[tiervexx]

@gr0mithtimon I think you misunderstand what he meant. You have to realize that mathematicians are accustomed to a much higher level of certainty than people in the empirical sciences. I agree (and I bet Chaitin would agree) that we have very good reasons to believe in black holes. Black holes might be the best way to explain a lot of strange astronomical observations but their existence has not been "proven" up to the very high standards that some people have.

[gr0mithtimon]

@tiervexx

Lets assume he meant that. Now you've made his argument worse. It's impossible to prove anything about the physical world inductively, and to demand the impossible is not having "high standards", but being stupid. As far as deductive certainty goes, black holes score pretty high. But no, not infinite certainty. Thats a big red herring.

[tiervexx]

@gr0mithtimon

I'm very sympathetic to your position and I personally would have said that black holes are basically proven. I just think you're judging him a big harshly because most of the really good observations on black holes are pretty recent.

I do think it is far for someone to say that black holes are not as high as many other theories since the evidence for them is mostly indirect. But as I said, I personally do not seriously question their existence.

[thecaster]

He IS a rockstar of mathematics world

[leporidus]

Having read about superstring theory, The holographic principle was completely new to me. Maybe we live in flatland, after all.

[truthhc]

he's talking about the very nature of reality and you're commenting about him reading off of a paper. are you serious? this totally blew my mind.

[bigdaddydylan]

what a rockstar.

[jasondh22]

He reads off a paper and doesn't move. Reeeeeeeally good lecturer.

[earlyphilosophy]

he seems to be using it as a guide.