I guess it does in the sense that if there is a rule, there's probably an exception. But that doesn't do much good because it doesn't tell you what the exception -is-.
no, there may be an exception but it doesn't PROVE there is an exception although we may assume there is an acception. But as the previous commenter said it doesn't prove THE exception it proves AN exception if it proves anything at all.
The rule doesn't generate any new knowledge about exceptions, but if we take the observation that no rule is perfect, then when you articulate a rule it goes without saying that there will be some exception. One may ask, of course, whether this rule is immune to itself. If so we enter dizzying Gödel territory, but it's likely that it isn't, and some mathematical or physical laws can be seen as completely true, as long as their scope is properly defined.
The rule doesn't generate any new knowledge about exceptions, but if we take the observation that no rule is perfect, then when you articulate a rule it goes without saying that there will be some exception.
This was more the idea I was getting at. I appreciate such a concise and clear explanation. I knew a rule wouldn't prove any specific exception, just that an exception was necessitated by the existence of the rule itself.
One may ask, of course, whether this rule is immune to itself. If so we enter dizzying Gödel territory
I hadn't considered it from that perspective. I suppose the implications of that theory gives concepts such as axioms their meaning and relevance (that is, without axioms, laws couldn't be able to be effectively phrased, communicated, and tested).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-04 12:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-04 01:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-04 03:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-04 04:32 pm (UTC)This was more the idea I was getting at. I appreciate such a concise and clear explanation. I knew a rule wouldn't prove any specific exception, just that an exception was necessitated by the existence of the rule itself.
One may ask, of course, whether this rule is immune to itself. If so we enter dizzying Gödel territory
I hadn't considered it from that perspective. I suppose the implications of that theory gives concepts such as axioms their meaning and relevance (that is, without axioms, laws couldn't be able to be effectively phrased, communicated, and tested).