Infinity -just maths or any physical existence?

[AlephZero]

Well.
Isn't it a distinction between a) finding results compatible with an existing singularity, and indeed derivable from regarding it as existent and b) To show the singularity's existence?

Yes, and it's a clear distinction in science.

Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.

 

[No-where-man]

Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.

This reminds me on Copenhagen's school. How can I know that results of the data prove that you (or anyone else) exist behind the computer...
We all know we all exist, but according to Copenhagen's school this is not the case because I'm not observing you and you're not observing-so how can you know I exist behind your computer, and how can I know that you exist behind my computer.
Obviously there is something wrong with this hypothesis, or it needs to be extended, because despite all the experiments show, Moon (and everything else) does exist even when none is observing it.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.

No, first please explain how making the distinction quoted in my post contradicts in any way what you write above.

If the first part of your first sentence refers to a) and the second refers to b), the distinction just points out that b) is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for a).

 

[CompuChip]

Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.

Well, b) implies a) but generally a) is all we can do :-)