[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your engaging post!

So if I get your drift.. and I think that I do... 2 + 2 = 4 and if you come up with either 5 or 3 you are equally WRONG.. and any convoluted iterations of the error will be not any more WRONG than you started out.. or did I miss something.?

My understanding of Bohr's cut is that "2+2=4" is all that science and math can say about the subject of 2+2 in base 10. A contrary assertion that "2+2=5" would be false.

But Bohr would not say why "2+2=4 in base 10" should exist at all or what it means in the lofty structure of all that there is. That, he would suggest, is the domain of philosophy/theology.

betty boop: is this your understanding of how Bohr's cut would apply to hosepipe's example?

[Louis Foxwell]

I am haunted by an issue we have covered that seems to bear reinforcement. As a theologian Newton believed that it was impossible to separate God from the study of nature. As a mathematician he recognized that intelligent design had to be assumed in order to do math.
Are not the very scientists who claim that ID is fallacious in fact assuming ID in order to do their science?
How is it possible for a scientist to apply intellectual rigor unless the system being studied is coherent with intellect? If nature has intelligent character then is not all science engaged in studying intelligent design?

[betty boop]

betty boop: is this your understanding of how Bohr's cut would apply to hosepipe's example?

Yes indeed, Alamo-Girl. Bohr apparently didn't think that "why?" questions are in the domain of science. I think he thought about such things "in his spare time," as it were. But you will not find them in his science. And indeed, I believe you are right to say that Bohr thought such questions properly belong to philosophy/theology.