You don't need to examine every bit of universe to prove that something is true or not. You have to have a system, a tool that is proven to be correct and use it. 1000 x 1000 = 1 000 000 : how do I know this? Because I counted every unit of the first thousand and summed it thousand times with every sum of other thousands? No, I used math. I can say that monster doesn't exist if I have some apparatus to prove it. But in this concrete case the apparatus is non-existent and since the vague definition of monster it is also meaningless.
And by the way, I did have an opportunity to speak with professor who is dealing with a string theory, and it is not just this theory contradicts other theories, it has 5 different interpretations and only two of them are somehow connected, otherwise they still kind of contradict themselves (or at least do not entirely support each other). And he also said that many people who work with string theory are becoming slowly aware, that it is not entirely the right way. That only implies that we do not understand it entirely yet, but it is far too soon to claim that nothing can be proven. If this is the case, why so many people try?
And by the way, I did have an opportunity to speak with professor who is dealing with a string theory, and it is not just this theory contradicts other theories, it has 5 different interpretations and only two of them are somehow connected, otherwise they still kind of contradict themselves (or at least do not entirely support each other). And he also said that many people who work with string theory are becoming slowly aware, that it is not entirely the right way. That only implies that we do not understand it entirely yet, but it is far too soon to claim that nothing can be proven. If this is the case, why so many people try?
I didn't say string theory can't be proven, just that the monster thing couldn't.
Also, you used math that was already proven by taking each unit and counting. Someone else did that for you and proved that it worked. That math you used is merely repeating the proof. An apparatus to find "monsters" would have to be made and proven to be correct, just like the math already was. Only then can we validate that it works.
Also, you used math that was already proven by taking each unit and counting. Someone else did that for you and proved that it worked. That math you used is merely repeating the proof. An apparatus to find "monsters" would have to be made and proven to be correct, just like the math already was. Only then can we validate that it works.
The two paragraphs you wrote contradict each other. In the first you say that monster thing cannot be proven, in the second you say it can. So I must agree with the second one. The necessity which needs to be fulfilled not something that cannot be done. But it is more likely something that nobody needs to prove. Hence my very first comment.
The mathematicians are divided in terms of they philosophies.
The first group are strict theoreticians who only seek to prove the elemental truths and they do not care whether their findings will be applicable to mere mortals. Many of them made great discoveries, but those were found useful decades or hundreds years after their death. Some of them were even rediscovered, hence the original work was wasted (if not all of it).
The second group are more practitioners. They know that some problems exist that humanity needs to solve NOW and they try to find the answer. Because they pursue the straight goal, they are hindered by the professional tunnel vision and they most of the time need help from the theoreticians. But their discoveries are generally more useful, if not so ground breaking.
If discovering whether monsters exist or not was any essential to problems we face now, the second group of mathematicians would try to find a solution. The first group of mathematicians will find the proof unwittingly in few yeas, centuries or thousands of years,... or maybe even they already have, but they (and nobody else) haven't realized that it can be applicable to this case.
The mathematicians are divided in terms of they philosophies.
The first group are strict theoreticians who only seek to prove the elemental truths and they do not care whether their findings will be applicable to mere mortals. Many of them made great discoveries, but those were found useful decades or hundreds years after their death. Some of them were even rediscovered, hence the original work was wasted (if not all of it).
The second group are more practitioners. They know that some problems exist that humanity needs to solve NOW and they try to find the answer. Because they pursue the straight goal, they are hindered by the professional tunnel vision and they most of the time need help from the theoreticians. But their discoveries are generally more useful, if not so ground breaking.
If discovering whether monsters exist or not was any essential to problems we face now, the second group of mathematicians would try to find a solution. The first group of mathematicians will find the proof unwittingly in few yeas, centuries or thousands of years,... or maybe even they already have, but they (and nobody else) haven't realized that it can be applicable to this case.