🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep28.222259.18699@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>In article <28SEP199211153430@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>
>>>               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX 
>>>          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking 
>>
>>If by self-consistent, you mean that the theory make one and only one
>>well-defined prediction for any observable, which then turns out to 
>>match the experimental evidence, then modern physics is certainly 
>>self-consistent.
> 
>I think you are being rather optimistic here.  For example, QED, or the
>standard model, is not known to be consistent.  Nor are they known to be
>inconsistent.

Perhaps.  My tendency to be "optimistic" in this sense is well known 
to all.  I would prefer to say that QED is not *proven* to be consistent,
though it is known(*) to be so.  Certainly it is widely believed to be so.

(*) According to the Oracle at Berkeley.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver