Quote:
I get the impression that you mix up science, a sort of nichilist philosphy, literature and little bit of Freud, too
Can't help it. I'm a relativist... I do see the value of scientific theories in general though, don't get me wrong. I've only got problems when it comes to chance.
Quote:
There are branches of phisics, math, and enegineering dealing with these issues such as "the theory of errors" or "The theory of modelling"
It's about wether or not a theory is relevant, not about wether or not it's valid. And even if a theory is valid, it still doesn't have to be accurate, approximations, assumptions and what more are very common and not a bad thing.
However, the question was, wether or not chance really exists, not wether or not it was possible to write down an (incomplete) theory about it with a big 'uuuhm let's take those values and call it even' solution.
Everyone can write a theory with controlled factors in a controlled environment and say 'look there's your proof, chance doesn't exist'. It doesn't work that way though, you'd really need to know all factors, even the one's you can't know... How would a theory handle those? Knowledge is the problem, not theory.
Cheers
| 
