Printable View
Do you think you can do anything you want in your imagination?
i dont thinks so:
( Look at my signature )
catch my drift?
there are things that are impossible...
so the people that say that,"Nothing is impossible." are wrong.
Even in your imagination, you cannot do everything.
Oh don't be stupid, just have your imaginary self pop some good ol' fashioned steroids.
No my friend...ur wrong. NOTHING is impossible.....think of the time ppl thought that going to outerspace was impossible....is it still? and ur sig is old and it could be used in a billion^2^2^2 diff ways, so it's not a good enough backup to support ur huge pointQuote:
so the people that say that,"Nothing is impossible." are wrong.
"No my friend...ur wrong"
No, he's not.
"NOTHING is impossible"
Wrong.
"think of the time ppl thought that going to outerspace was impossible....is it still? "
No, your point? Just because there WERE instances where people thought things were impossible that later turned out not to be true does NOT MEAN that ALL instances where people think things are impossible will turn out to be possible.
Human beings are not magic, we are BOUND by the laws of physics, there are PLENTY of things that as a result are impossible, for example it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to flap my arms so fast that i take off. F-A-C-T.
It's impossible to measure the momentum and the position of a particle beyond a given accuracy, it's impossible to create or destroy energy, it's impossible to create a perpetual motion machine, it's impossible to be in England and the US at the same time....... and on.... and on....
prove it
"prove it"
Prove what? The heinsenberg uncertainty principle? I can't prove that to you because you wouldn't understand the proof.
The first law of thermodynamics? see above.
The second law of thermodynamics? see above.
Being in England and the US at the same time........ you can't see the "proof" for yourself?
And flapping my arms so fast that I can take off, the proof is easy, the maximum amount of lift I can get is not larger than my weight.
Can you prove that everything's possible? Didn't think so, because its not.
"because it's not"
prove it
:D
Thought i already did.
Damnit Clyde, you beat me to it. ;) Do you just hang around here 24/7 waiting for someone to say something blatantly wrong? *pout* I never get to have any fun. You're always there first. :p (It's a good thing too. Sometimes people leave me speachless.)
if the phrase "nothing is impossible" is wrong, then nothing is possible. but is nothing possible, or is nothing possible?
if both, then how can there be no possibility and an abstract idea of nothing be possible? contradiction. :D
"Do you just hang around here 24/7 waiting for someone to say something blatantly wrong? "
OMG! I've been rumbled *Runs off and hides*
"if the phrase "nothing is impossible" is wrong, then nothing is possible"
That is a perfect example of a logical flaw. (and incidently one of the reason why so much philosophy is SO VERY wrong, it's easy to make a logical error - especially if all your using is language, but in philosophy you have no way of testing your hypothesis, so you just build on your error, and then introduce more and then build on them, and you know what you end up with? Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintainance, man that book ........ed me off)
"nothing is impossible" (which is equal to "everything is possible")being wrong does NOT therefore mean "nothing is possible", since "nothing is impossible" being wrong does not preclude "somethings being impossible" from being correct.
Bleh I hate the English language sometimes, a programming example makes it easier to understand:
If i have an array type BOOL, and i say that the statement "All elements of the array are true" is false that does not therefore mean that all elements are false, since some could be true and some false.
maybe there are ways to do them all.....but we just haven't figured em out yet....I'm just saying it's a possibility
say what you want, it all boils down to fourty two ;)
In Quantum Physics there is a theory that there are an infinite number of realities, each reality parallel to another. These realities are created when something happens differently than in the other reality. For example, someone decides to not cross the street at a specific location, or even a specific molecule not going the same direction in a different reality. This means that across the expanse of space/time, there is a reality in which everything is true, where pigs can fly, and where Al Gore isn't Satan's son. But if you mean in our reality, you may be correct...but so many things defy logic it's usually not worth bothering over anyway.
I know you were joking there, but I think a better translation would be "not everything is possible".Quote:
Originally posted by ygfperson
if the phrase "nothing is impossible" is wrong, then nothing is possible. but is nothing possible, or is nothing possible?
if both, then how can there be no possibility and an abstract idea of nothing be possible? contradiction. :D
here's an impossibility:
creating matter.
Matter is made of energy. To create matter, one would only need to modify and control pure energy to form atoms.
I don't think creating matter is an impossibility, there have been many cases of things materializing like dead people, random objects etc...
>>Clyde: for example it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to flap my arms so fast that i take off. F-A-C-T. <<
Even with a rocket shoved in up your arse activated by flapping your arms at a critical rate? F-A-R-T? :p
>>Clyde: we are BOUND by the laws of physics<<
Laws change. Or rather, the way we view and describe the uni/multiverse change.
>>Clyde: it's impossible to create or destroy energy<<
The First Law of Thermodynamics is best read as: energy cannot be created or destroyed within the limits of our experience.
>>Clyde: it's impossible to be in England and the US at the same time<<
Not only are you in both these places at the same time you are also smeared over the entire uni/multiverse; it is only probable that you are where you believe yourself to be.
>>Clyde: And flapping my arms so fast that I can take off, the proof is easy, the maximum amount of lift I can get is not larger than my weight.<<
Modify the conditions: low gravity environment, strong updraft, larger surface area and who knows what might be possible?
>>Clyde: Can you prove that everything's possible? Didn't think so, because its not.<<
In an infinite uni/multiverse anything is possible - some things are just ridiculously improbable.
>>Clyde: but in philosophy you have no way of testing your hypothesis<<
Even 'Natural Philosphy' (ie Physics)? Ultimately nothing (contentious use of zero again) is provable; we all make fundamental assertions and then stick our personal bull**** to it. We give this construct interesting labels such as 'belief' or 'reality'. They are all just models, with varying degrees of internal consistency.
>>ygfperson: say what you want, it all boils down to fourty two<<
Heartily agree, except with the spelling of forty, maybe. :)
Anyway, on the original question: >>Do you think you can do anything you want in your imagination?<<
Yes. For instance, I imagine that: Sweden 5 England 0 would be a great score for the football(soccer) match i'm about to watch but am afraid that will only occur in another universe that I can only truly savour through my imagination. ;)
"Laws change. Or rather, the way we view and describe the uni/multiverse change. "
No laws do NOT change, we do occasionally discover that the way we thought the law worked is in-fact slightly different to how it does work. BUT that doesn't happen indefinately eventually we reach the "actual" law.
"The First Law of Thermodynamics is best read as: energy cannot be created or destroyed within the limits of our experience"
....... the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
"Not only are you in both these places at the same time you are also smeared over the entire uni/multiverse; it is only probable that you are where you believe yourself to be."
Utterly wrong, quantum effects break down when dealing with macroscopic objects. (atleast I hope you're talking about Quantum effects, otherwise you even more hideously wrong than i thought)
"Modify the conditions: low gravity environment, strong updraft, larger surface area and who knows what might be possible? "
You are merely changing the situation from an impossible one, to a possible one. The point is that impossible situations exist.
The universe has fixed properties, as such some things are impossible, there is no question, there is no debate, only people who lack a basic grounding in science claim otherwise.
"Even 'Natural Philosphy' (ie Physics)? Ultimately nothing (contentious use of zero again) is provable; we all make fundamental assertions and then stick our personal bull**** to it. We give this construct interesting labels such as 'belief' or 'reality'. They are all just models, with varying degrees of internal consistency. "
I was refering to the untestable philosophy like the stuff Plato. You are correct in saying that nothing is absolutely proveable BUT, in reality we are faced with a choice, do we beleive our senses are based on real phenomenon or do we believe they're being "faked" ala Matrix, due to the immense improbability of the later most choose the former, given that single assertation facts exist and we CAN prove things.
"maybe there are ways to do them all.....but we just haven't figured em out yet....I'm just saying it's a possibility"
No commander, they are written into the laws of the universe, we will NEVER EVER break those laws, because we are bound by them; they are "theoretically" impossible rather than "practically" impossible.
"there have been many cases of things materializing like dead people, random objects etc..."
.......... materialising dead people........ N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E.
>>Clyde: Then my taking off would not be due to my arms flapping hence it's still impossible<<
Your original statement:>> for example it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to flap my arms so fast that i take off. F-A-C-T.<<
The rocket is activated by you flapping your arms at a critical rate and so taking off is due to your arms flapping. Causality. :p
>>Clyde: No laws do NOT change<<
Not only do laws change, some disappear entirely eg Law of Conservation of Mass was dumped (and amalgamated) with Law of Conservation of Energy when mass-energy equivalence was realised. The point here is that science - it's methodology etc is nothing more than an arbitrary theoretical construct that is only self-validating; there are no absolute truths, no 'laws' as such, just descriptors we provide to model, within the limits of our imagination, what we describe as 'reality'. Accordingly, there is no "actual law" or, if there is, we would have no way of confirming that it was.
>>Clyde: ....... the laws of physics are the same everywhere<<
Assertion is not proof.
>>Clyde: Utterly wrong, quantum effects break down when dealing with macroscopic objects.<<
And how macroscopic is macroscopic? A nanometre? A parsec? The width of a bollock hair?
>>Clyde: You are merely changing the situation from an impossible one, to a possible one. The point is that impossible situations exist. <<
That is correct. I have demonstrated that what you have asserted as impossible is, in fact, possible. Which is the point.
>>Clyde: The universe has fixed properties, as such some things are impossible, there is no question, there is no debate, only people who lack a basic grounding in science claim otherwise. <<
Like Volume? Temperature? You had better qualify 'fixed' because it implies 'immutable'. Some things might be impossible but that's just speculation; equally all things might be possible (equally speculative).
BTW, England 1 Sweden 1. oh, well....
"Not only do laws change, some disappear entirely eg Law of Conservation of Mass was dumped (and amalgamated) with Law of Conservation of Energy when mass-energy equivalence was realised"
Laws don't change at all, what we think of them changes, the rules the universe runs on don't suddenly alter themselves when we figure something out.
"The point here is that science - it's methodology etc is nothing more than an arbitrary theoretical construct that is only self-validating"
WRONG, self-validating!? What nonsense! Science is validated by EXPERIMENT, real life validates science, everytime you step in a car or aeroplane, or use a computer, or take any medicine you validate science.
"descriptors we provide to model, within the limits of our imagination,"
Wrong, we are most certainly NOT limited by our imagination we left those limits behind a long time ago, we can't imagine wave-particle duality, in fact we can't imagine most of quantum mechanics or relativity. We can overcome the limits of our imagination with mathematics.
"Accordingly, there is no "actual law" or, if there is, we would have no way of confirming that it was. "
Eh!? Of course there are "actual" laws! If there weren't "actual" laws everything would be in flux there would be no fixed properties, no repeatable experiements, no complex systems could ever exist, etc. etc.
"Assertion is not proof"
It's not assertation, we can track the universe back to 1*10^-32 of a second. We know what happened.
"And how macroscopic is macroscopic? A nanometre? A parsec? The width of a bollock hair? "
Quantum effects break down on anything larger than a simple molecule.
"That is correct. I have demonstrated that what you have asserted as impossible is, in fact, possible. Which is the point"
No the point was to demonstrate that impossible situations exist, changing the situation is meaningless you may as well change it to "if i had bird wings", or "if we lived in a world without gravity".
"Like Volume? Temperature? You had better qualify 'fixed' because it implies 'immutable'."
Properties that are not subjective; length, volume, temperature, wavelength, etc. all objective not subjective.
"Some things might be impossible but that's just speculation; equally all things might be possible (equally speculative). "
WRONG, utterly wrong. It's not speculation at all, claiming that all things might be possible is beyond ridiculous:
The universe is governed by rules, we are part of the universe, we are hence governed by the universe's rules, accordingly if the rules dictate something is impossible, it is impossible. End of story.
Ummm...I actually believe that this was an imaginary principal set up in the Michael Crichton book "Timeline", but nice try...:) (I could be wrong, though?)Quote:
Originally posted by Unregistered
In Quantum Physics there is a theory that there are an infinite number of realities, each reality parallel to another. These realities are created when something happens differently than in the other reality. For example, someone decides to not cross the street at a specific location, or even a specific molecule not going the same direction in a different reality. This means that across the expanse of space/time, there is a reality in which everything is true, where pigs can fly, and where Al Gore isn't Satan's son. But if you mean in our reality, you may be correct...but so many things defy logic it's usually not worth bothering over anyway.
Would it be possible to be shot seven times in the head at point blanc range and survive?
Right...now shutup :)
I completely agree with Clyde.. Why dont you programmers have some common sense..... There is a limitation.. There is noting called multiverse.. Everything and anything is inside the universe.. I think you guys got the strange idea of multiverse from the film "The One".. strange you guys take movies for reality.. Who know next you might claim that you are inside the matrix... Strange people..
Well, there is a theory that says there are multiple different universes, I know little about it though.
I was right. What are you guys thinking...
You cannot make a rock so heavy that you can't lift it.
If you can, that means you cannot lift it.
therefore, if you cannot make the rock, everything is not possible.
if you can make the rock, and you lift it, then you didnot make the rock heavy enough so that you cannot lift it. whichever one you do, you cannot do the other one. Either way you lose...
there fore, there are things that are IMPOSSIBLE. I just provided the PERFECT example.
toodles.
Yes in the astral. No in the physical. All in all, anything is possible. :)Quote:
Originally posted by -KEN-
Would it be possible to be shot seven times in the head at point blanc range and survive?
Clyde and Fitlike are both right in their own respects.
FItlike is right because his is arguing based on inhuman obersvation and the idea that humans don't govern what they see.
Clyde is right because she/he is arguing based on human assertion and what should be, instead of what is and might be, in the future, observed.
It's just a matter of perspective here.
"FItlike is right because his is arguing based on inhuman obersvation and the idea that humans don't govern what they see."
He is arguing on "inhuman observation", what the heck is that? And i'm not saying we govern what we see, only that what we see is based on reality (which is branching away from the main argument anyway).
"Clyde is right because she/he is arguing based on human assertion and what should be, instead of what is and might be, in the future, observed"
There are plenty of impossible situations, theoretical (laws of physics), practical (current technological limitations), and even logically inevitable (impossibility by definition ala Jet_Masers albeit some-what weird example).
"It's just a matter of perspective here"
Perhaps, but one perspective is wrong; thje one that sees everything as being possible.
"Yes in the astral. No in the physical."
The astral? What the juice are you talking about?
" All in all, anything is possible."
Wrong.
inhuman observation = not seeing things through human perception.
That would be impossible for a human.
then maybe i mean the big picture instead of the narrow human perspective... something like that.
"then maybe i mean the big picture instead of the narrow human perspective... something like that."
Translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about".
>>Clyde: Laws don't change at all, what we think of them changes, the rules the universe runs on don't suddenly alter themselves when we figure something out. <<
The point I originally made was the subjectivity of observation, which i'm happy to see you now concur with. There is a notion called the 'anthropic principle' (it has a name, guess it must be a 'law') that suggests that these 'laws' exist and the uni/multiverse exists only because we observe/describe them.
>>Clyde: WRONG, self-validating!? What nonsense! Science is validated by EXPERIMENT, real life validates science, everytime you step in a car or aeroplane, or use a computer, or take any medicine you validate science.<<
Experiment is empirical observation, specifically the deducto-hypothetico technique. As with all other philosophical doctrines/methodologies it relies on core, unprovable assumptions. Your arguments, like science, are circular. All science does is ergo cogito sum.
>>Clyde: Eh!? Of course there are "actual" laws! If there weren't "actual" laws everything would be in flux there would be no fixed properties, no repeatable experiements, no complex systems could ever exist, etc. etc<<
Do these 'laws' exist in the absence of anyone to observe them? ;)
>>Clyde: It's not assertation, we can track the universe back to 1*10^-32 of a second. We know what happened. <<
I wouldn't give a flying hooey if 'we' then asserted that it all emerged from the enlarged sphincter of a wooly mammoth- assertion is still not proof. In any event, that was a response to your "....... the laws of physics are the same everywhere" comment; which still remains (within the limits of our experience) an unprovable assertion. Since you are fond of EXPERIMENT, here's a simple challenge: go and devise an experiment to prove that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
>>Clyde: Wrong, we are most certainly NOT limited by our imagination we left those limits behind a long time ago, we can't imagine wave-particle duality, in fact we can't imagine most of quantum mechanics or relativity. We can overcome the limits of our imagination with mathematics. <<
Where exactly do you believe these ideas come from? Tea-leaves? Fairies? We can't imagine quantum mechanics or relativity? I'm sorry, I was unaware that Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli and Feynman to name but a few were not human, although I might concede that mathematics can be fairly inhumane at times.
>>Clyde: Quantum effects break down on anything larger than a simple molecule.<<
Molecules can get pretty big. Anyway, isn't this just a detection limit problem: no-one's going to be in a great hurry to test for quantum intereference in something as chunky as a person.
>>Clyde: Properties that are not subjective; length, volume, temperature, wavelength, etc. all objective not subjective.<<
All observations are subjective.
>>Clyde: WRONG, utterly wrong. It's not speculation at all, claiming that all things might be possible is beyond ridiculous:<<
Read it again: 'all things might be possible'. Now apply those logic rules you discussed earlier to that statement.
>>Clyde: The universe is governed by rules, we are part of the universe, we are hence governed by the universe's rules, accordingly if the rules dictate something is impossible, it is impossible. End of story.<<
I prefer: 'Science provides a useful dynamic model that partially describes some of my observations and questions. It is always subject to constant re-evaluation and re-definition; it is not absolute. The uni/multiverse is currently considered infinite. In an infinite uni/multiverse all things are possible.'
>>-Ken-: Would it be possible to be shot seven times in the head at point blanc range and survive?<<
Possibly. :p I read about this a while ago; apparently it's a famous 'thought-experiment' but stands as an actual challenge for anyone willing to demonstrate their utter faith in the laws of Quantum mechanics. How about it Clyde? ;)
um..Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
"then maybe i mean the big picture instead of the narrow human perspective... something like that."
Translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about".
if you look at my two statements, they can be seen as very similar; the second one just isn't self-contradicting in the circumstances present.
It's the difference between thoughts and words... sometimes you can't easily and discreetly relay your thoughts into words the first time.
So shut up and keep argueing with fitlike over something that you've been proved wrong in 3 times in this thread, at least.
"The point I originally made was the subjectivity of observation, which i'm happy to see you now concur with"
Not all observation is subjective.
"There is a notion called the 'anthropic principle' (it has a name, guess it must be a 'law')"
I'm well aware of it, and it's not a law.
"that suggests that these 'laws' exist and the uni/multiverse exists only because we observe/describe them"
Thats not what it says at all. The anthropic principle is an explanation for why the universe has some of the properties it does, it does NOT say those laws exist merely because we observe/describe them. I suggest you read up on the topic before you use it in an argument.
"Experiment is empirical observation, specifically the deducto-hypothetico technique. As with all other philosophical doctrines/methodologies it relies on core, unprovable assumptions. ".
There is only ONE assumption that science makes;it is that our senses are based on reality and not faked. That assumption is a pretty safe bet, further more, science WORKS planes fly, computers compute, cars drive, etc. etc. if that assumption was false they wouldn't.
"Your arguments, like science, are circular."
Where are my arguments circular?
"All science does is ergo cogito sum"
No... that would be Decarte.
"Do these 'laws' exist in the absence of anyone to observe them? "
Yes, and it is idiocy to claim otherwise.
"I wouldn't give a flying hooey if 'we' then asserted that it all emerged from the enlarged sphincter of a wooly mammoth- assertion is still not proof."
*sigh* I am so tired of tired of coming up against this kind if ignorance. Scientists know (well have pretty good idea anyway) what happened at the very beginning of time not by magically guessing, but by WORKING IT OUT, based upon the evidence in the universe around us. It's not assertation it's SCIENCE, based upon evidence and derived theory.
"Where exactly do you believe these ideas come from? Tea-leaves? Fairies?"
The "ideas" come from MATHS, mathematical derivation, NOT "imagination".
"We can't imagine quantum mechanics or relativity?"
Bingo, or perhaps you can imagine 9 dimensional space? Or imagine what you would "see" if you could "zoom in" on a molecule and look at electrons?
" I'm sorry, I was unaware that Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli and Feynman to name but a few were not human"
Eh? Again you argue from IGNORANCE, I study quantum mechanics at university and the first thing that the lecturers tell you is that you CANNOT imagine the principles in your head. They are derived mathematically, you can use them to predict, but you absolutely CANNOT picture what's going on.
"Molecules can get pretty big."
Hence "simple" molecules.
"Anyway, isn't this just a detection limit problem: no-one's going to be in a great hurry to test for quantum intereference in something as chunky as a person. "
WRONG, it's NOT a detection problem, it's because quantum effects break down with macroscopic objects.
"All observations are subjective"
Wrong, wavelength is not subjective, velocity is not subjective, mass is not subjective, energy is not subjective, voltage is not subjective, power is not subjective, etc. etc. Percieved colour on the hand, how loud a sound sounds, how cold it feels, etc. they are subjective, see the difference?
"I prefer: 'Science provides a useful dynamic model that partially describes some of my observations and questions"
Your observations and quesitons...... and what exactly would they be?
"It is always subject to constant re-evaluation and re-definition; it is not absolute"
Re-evaluation is basically checking to see if people have made mistakes, but eventually you are left with a theory that does not get "re-defined"(or if you like the "re-definitions" become less and less significant) because its for want of a better word "right". The Earth is round and I can tell you now that will never change, and will never be re-defined.
"but stands as an actual challenge for anyone willing to demonstrate their utter faith in the laws of Quantum mechanics"
There are areas of quantum mechanics that will undoubtedly change when quantum gravity turns up, that doesn't mean that it will be totally scrapped, clearly most of it works.
"So shut up and keep argueing with fitlike over something that you've been proved wrong in 3 times in this thread, at least"
*searches for this "proof"*, sorry you'll have to point it out for me. Oh, and please accept my humblest apologies for ever questioning your vast knowledge on this topic.
>>proved wrong in 3 times in this thread
Funny, I swear I read this entire thread and I didnt notice anything like that. Clydes logic appears unflawed as usual.
Ah Lightatdawn is here, *breathes sigh of relief* atlast someone sane. (Though Sorenson seems reasonably sane too).
No, I'm not. la la la. Where's that goddam rabbit?
LOL that made me laugh.
>>The astral
Say what now? Stick to actual things here, don't go pulling weird witchcraft **** outta your arse.
>>Possibly. I read about this a while ago; apparently it's a famous 'thought-experiment' but stands as an actual challenge for anyone willing to demonstrate their utter faith in the laws of Quantum mechanics. How about it Clyde?<<
Point blanc? you realize that means right up against your head, right? Ok, ok, how about this: A shotgun, point blanc, right at your temple. Then once between the eyes for good measure.
>>"I prefer: 'Science provides a useful dynamic model that partially describes some of my observations and questions"
I'd just like to point something out here.
From my Oxford:
Science:
a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systamized observation of and experiments with phenomena
Can anyone else think of an effective method of gathering knowledge? Guessing perhaps? Premonitions? Faith? These all get progressivly more and more ridiculous. Science is merely the word for the only logical process available to explain the universe we live in. When there is a logical and mathematically precise method available, why oh _why_ do some people refuse to accept what that method indicates? I dont understand.
>>unprovable assumptions.
*doh* I ask you this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
... What is next in this pattern based on the knowledge you have? ... Exactly. Technically, 23 is an unprovable asumption. But it is a far more logical choice then say 42. ;) Why do I see so many people here who would say 42? When faced with a finite amount of evidence one obviously cannot be infinitly certain of the result. But get a grip man. When presented with a finite amount of evidence pointing to one result and non-existant evidence for another, WHY do some people chose to argue the other? You might as well scrap the whole reasoning process.
23 is an unprovable assumption, no matter which way you look at it. The problem, as far as I understand it, is more
1 2 3
What if 2 isn't really 2.
The problem is some people are looking at 2 from a position that they've no right to be in, so 2 is 2 as far as I'm concerned.
I've not been smoking.
>>23 is an unprovable assumption, no matter which way you look at it.
Of course it is (I said so myself). My only point here is; Why chose a result that is in no way indicated by the data at hand? The problem was of course a vastly simplified one but I'm hoping people get the idea.
>>What if 2 isn't really 2.
Which is exactly the same as the question I posed, really. All evidence to date points to the fact that 2 is 2. So based on this, we are technically making an assumption that this is the case. Why would it not be?
Depending on how ridiculous you want to get, you could say that everything is uncertain. But as its already been stated, you are going to have to decide whether or not you trust your senses. Deciding to neglect the evidence will, in a sense, turn your world to chaos. Without a concrete set of rules by which to compare different elements, you will arive at a different conclusion from the same calculation. This is pure bunk. By deciding to ignore the most logical solution in favour of one that has no supporting evidence you are declaring that you believe the universe to be random and chaotic which is so obviously not the case.
>>Clyde: Not all observation is subjective. <<
Really? Perhaps you would like to reconsider: "Laws don't change at all, what we think of them changes" ?
>>Clyde: Thats not what it says at all. The anthropic principle is an explanation for why the universe has some of the properties it does, it does NOT say those laws exist merely because we observe/describe them. I suggest you read up on the topic before you use it in an argument. <<
You quoted me as saying, "that suggests that these 'laws' exist and the uni/multiverse exists only because we observe/describe them".
"the weak anthropic principle states that, because intelligent life is necessary for cosmological enquiry to take place, this already imposes strong selection effects on cosmological observations"
(http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...eacock3_5.html)
>>Clyde: *sigh* I am so tired of tired of coming up against this kind if ignorance. Scientists know (well have pretty good idea anyway) what happened at the very beginning of time not by magically guessing, but by WORKING IT OUT, based upon the evidence in the universe around us. It's not assertation it's SCIENCE, based upon evidence and derived theory. <<
Yes, it must be very difficult for you. Perhaps a re-read of the thread may help you overcome your ignorance. I note that you haven't offered an experiment that could validate your assertion that "the laws of physics are the same everywhere".
>>Clyde: There is only ONE assumption that science makes;it is that our senses are based on reality and not faked. That assumption is a pretty safe bet, further more, science WORKS planes fly, computers compute, cars drive, etc. etc. if that assumption was false they wouldn't. <<
Science makes lots of fundamental assumptions mostly centring on the validity of observation and the alleged a priori nature of maths. BTW, where exactly do you imagine that I have said that science doesn't 'work'?
>>Clyde: The "ideas" come from MATHS, mathematical derivation, NOT "imagination".<<
...and maths is invented and described by? a)Wooly mammoths b)cosmic fluffiness c)imaginative human beings d)devil's advocates
>>Clyde: Bingo, or perhaps you can imagine 9 dimensional space? Or imagine what you would "see" if you could "zoom in" on a molecule and look at electrons? <<
Sure can. What colour would you like it to be?
>>Clyde: Eh? Again you argue from IGNORANCE, I study quantum mechanics at university and the first thing that the lecturers tell you is that you CANNOT imagine the principles in your head. They are derived mathematically, you can use them to predict, but you absolutely CANNOT picture what's going on.<<
"the first thing that the lecturers tell you is that you CANNOT imagine the principles in your head". If everyone believes this then no one will try. If no one tries the statement becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The point you seemed to have completely missed again is that individual human beings generated these constructs using their minds, a property of which is imagination. You seem to be treating them separately although both processes (imagination/maths/whatever) occur quite happily, sometimes even synergystically, in the brain. To say that these individuals were somehow completely devoid of imagination or that imagination played no role in the formation of their ideas is, quite frankly, preposterous.
>>Clyde: Hence "simple" molecules. <<
Polymers are simple molecules. Some are huge. But I was actually trying to draw your attention to the arbitrary designation of scale.
>>Clyde: No... that would be Decarte.<<
Descartes. Who was a mathematician (of sorts). I was attempting to use 'I think therefore I am' as an example and analogy of circular argument.
>>Clyde: WRONG, it's NOT a detection problem, it's because quantum effects break down with macroscopic objects. <<
'macroscopic objects' again, eh? Back to molecules of arbitrary size.
>>Clyde: Wrong, wavelength is not subjective, velocity is not subjective, mass is not subjective, energy is not subjective, voltage is not subjective, power is not subjective, etc. etc. Percieved colour on the hand, how loud a sound sounds, how cold it feels, etc. they are subjective, see the difference?<<
I said all observations are subjective; you are describing properties (wavelength, energy, voltage etc) and not the observations made about or upon them. Do you now see the difference?
>>Clyde: The Earth is round and I can tell you now that will never change, and will never be re-defined.<<
Forever and ever and ever? Round? Always? wow.
wow. this is some heavy stuff, man. i'll stick to 3 points.
- observation can be objective. an observation is subjective when it is interpreted and changed based on previous knowledge. what if you're reading a digital scale? you know the approximate mass of the object in question, through observation of the scale, without interpreting and changing that observation based on previous knowledge.
- math is imaginary, because it exists in our minds as a collection of logic. but it doesn't make math inaccurate.
- the earth will eventually get sucked into the sun and vaporize and fuse into god-knows-what.
oh, one more comment.
you're in an internet forum. :pQuote:
*sigh* I am so tired of tired of coming up against this kind if ignorance.
>>math is imaginary
No. Math is representational. Fairies are imaginary. Math is the representation of fact. We use math to measure factual data. The only thing that could be wrong in a mathematical equation is the data involved. Something could be incorrectly represented but that would be the fault of the person involved not through any fault in the mathematical system.
>>Science makes lots of fundamental assumptions mostly centring on the validity of observation
Uhm, gee. Do we have anything else to go on? The observation that two identical actions yield two identical results is not really all that much fluff.
>>...and maths is invented and described by?
See above.
>>Sure can. What colour would you like it to be?
I dont think anyone is arguing that you cant imagine a representation of the situation. I believe the argument would be that you cant imagine it correctly.
>>Forever and ever and ever? Round? Always? wow.
*looks confused* Now I'm lost. What was the origional point again? Technically the earth is an oblate spheroid so in reality it never _was_ "round".
Oh the point, yes: The statement "Nothing is impossible", is incorrect. I believe what some people are trying to say would be more correctly expressed as: "Some of the actions we currently deem impossible may be possible." That would be a correct statement that I would have no argument with. I do however, take exception to "Nothing is impossible" as many things clearly are.
"Really? Perhaps you would like to reconsider: "Laws don't change at all, what we think of them changes" ?"
.... What we think of laws can change, that doesn't make all observation subjective.
""the weak anthropic principle states that, because intelligent life is necessary for cosmological enquiry to take place, this already imposes strong selection effects on cosmological observations""
Correct but you have totally mis-read it. The anthropic principle does NOT say the laws EXIST because of us, it merely points out that some of the properties of the universe must be what the are because we know we exist.
For example: Why is the universe about 10 billion years old and not 1 billion? Answer Because intelligent life couldn't have formed at the age of 1 billion years.
"I note that you haven't offered an experiment that could validate your assertion that "the laws of physics are the same everywhere"."
As i said before physicists do not randomly guess about this stuff, I do not know the exact principles involved, but i do know that they can track the universes age back to a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth......... of a second. They have a pretty clear view of what happened at the beginning, and IF the universe had different laws of physics in different places they would know about it. Further more, you would SEE crazy effects coming from distant space. If you want a more indepth answer find yourself a physics prof. of you course you will probably choose to ignore what i've said and go on blindly claiming there is no "proof".
"Science makes lots of fundamental assumptions mostly centring on the validity of observation and the alleged a priori nature of maths"
There is one assumption made on the "validity of observation", furthermore we KNOW that assumption is valid because if it wasn't science wouldn't work.
"...and maths is invented and described by? a)Wooly mammoths b)cosmic fluffiness c)imaginative human beings d)devil's advocates "
Imagination == recreating sense input in your head IE. picturing stuff, hearing sounds etc., maths == maths. They are completely different.
Our mind limits our imagination, however the nature of maths is such that it is built up in tiny logical steps which mean that it is not limited by our mind. (well, thats not to say everything is derivable, it may well not be, BUT maths applies equally to all systems in the universe, imagination does not).
"Sure can. What colour would you like it to be?"
You can't, the fact that you don't understand why amazes me. Can blind people imagine red? Can deaf people imagine G sharp?
It is fundamentally impossible to imagine 4 or more dimensional space because you exist in 3 dimensional space and you have no experience of a 4th dimension object, in exactly the same way that a blind person has no experience of colour.
The same is true of wave-particle duality, you cannot possible imagine what an electron "looks like" up close because your imagination is limited by your experience.
I know i can see it coming, your going to say something foolish like "But i've never seen a dragon and I can imagine it" or some other such nonsense. The point being that you HAVE seen 3d objects, and you have seen lizards and you have seen colour, etc. so all you are doing is building a picture out of elements you already have seen.
Incidently what you can imagine as lightatdawn has pointed out is a representation, like imagining a ball on a suspended sheet for 4d space, BUT you are not imagining 4d space at all, you imagining 3d space and saying "if we say this 3d object works like a 4d object would...." Furthermore the further away you get from our experience the more totally useless such a method becomes, hence it is useless for picturing wave-particle duality or 9D space.
A humans imagination is limited by his experience, and human beings inherantly only experience the universe on a particular scale: Between a grain of sand upto ... lets say a country. IF you alter the scale way beyond our limits you hit things that we cannot imagine.
"The point you seemed to have completely missed again is that individual human beings generated these constructs using their minds, a property of which is imagination"
Imagination == picturing stuff in your head, (or recreating other senses).
"To say that these individuals were somehow completely devoid of imagination or that imagination played no role in the formation of their ideas is, quite frankly, preposterous. "
The were not devoid of imagination, but the reason they came to the conclusions they did was because of mathmatical derivation, Einstein took Maxwell's wave equations and then altered spacial geometry in certain situations to make it fit. Physics is not solved by imagining how stuff is, its solved by maths, because imagination has limits and maths does not.
"Polymers are simple molecules. Some are huge. But I was actually trying to draw your attention to the arbitrary designation of scale. "
Polymers are not refered to as simple molecules, and the scale is NOT arbitrary.
"Descartes. Who was a mathematician (of sorts). I was attempting to use 'I think therefore I am' as an example and analogy of circular argument. "
You really think "I think therefore I am" is a circular argument? You think that the only thing we can EVER be 100% sure of is a circular argument? Excellent.
"'macroscopic objects' again, eh? Back to molecules of arbitrary size"
*sigh* its not arbitrary, why are you even questioning this, do you know anything about Quantum mechanics? Answer: No. I can't possibly teach you quantum mechanics, suffice to say that even if you take the simplest quantum mechanical system like "particle in a box" guess what happens? The higher energy levels converge to form a classical system. It's no more "arbitrary" than 9.81 ms^-2 being the acceleration due to gravity, close to the Earth.
"I said all observations are subjective; you are describing properties (wavelength, energy, voltage etc) and not the observations made about or upon them. Do you now see the difference?"
No i'm not describing the properties, i'm describing the observations, you go to your wavelength machine and you measure the wavelength, you get an answer, doesn't matter who makes that measurement they will get the same answer, hence objective. I measure voltage with a voltmetre, doesn't matter who makes the measurement they will get the same answer hence objective, etc. etc. on the other hand if two people compared how cold they think it is and they might very well get different answers because that is subjective. See the difference?
"Forever and ever and ever? Round? Always? wow"
..... as in we will never discover that the world is flat. And thats right even given eternity we will still never discover the world is anything but a spherical object.
yes and yesQuote:
In your imagination, can you make a rock so heavy that you cannot lift it?
If so, can you lift it?
everything is an infinity, and an infinity of things can never happen.
hence, everything is possible is false,so therefore its complement, nothing is impossible is also false.
"everything is an infinity, and an infinity of things can never happen."
That argument doesn't work. "Everything" might well cover an infinite number of scenarios, but that does not preclude each one of those scenarios individually being possible.
However your conclusion is correct, for reasons i have already given.
yes, but still, for each thing that is accomplished, at least two more things are discovered which need to be accomplished, and so on.
Wow, nice thread. I enjoyed reading it immensely. I think I'll stay out of this one (;)), but I would like to say that both Clyde and Fitlike make some very good points.
If I chose a side, it'd be with Fitlike. I can see exactly where he's coming from. I can also see Clyde's point of view, too.
Well of course you'd agree, this is the kid who got stoned one day and thought to himself "There is no spoon" - :pQuote:
Originally posted by Hillbillie
Wow, nice thread. I enjoyed reading it immensely. I think I'll stay out of this one (;)), but I would like to say that both Clyde and Fitlike make some very good points.
If I chose a side, it'd be with Fitlike. I can see exactly where he's coming from. I can also see Clyde's point of view, too.
Sherlock Holmes said (or similar)
"Once we discard the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the solution."
As he was just a character in A.C.Doyles imagination, somethings must be impossible, even in your imagination.
>>In your imagination, can you make a rock so heavy that you >>cannot lift it?
>>If so, can you lift it?
Well, put it this way. change it so the rock is light, the "heavyness" is the speed (of light) and the question is "can you go faster?"
so it goes:
>>In your imagination,
don't need it here
is light so fast that you cannot go faster than it?
If so, can you go faster?
Somone might have beat me in coming up with this relation, but I didn't have enough energy to read all the posts as it is 23:21 right now.
"I would like to say that both Clyde and Fitlike make some very good points."
AAAaaaaaahhh.
"If I chose a side, it'd be with Fitlike"
*throws hands in the air*
"is light so fast that you cannot go faster than it?
If so, can you go faster? "
In your imagination there is no problem with going faster than light. In reality, its a big no-no.
>Well of course you'd agree, this is the kid who got stoned one day and thought to himself "There is no spoon"<
Hehe, hey you were at that party too?! ;) :D
>*throws hands in the air*<
*smirks* :p
I have to hand it to you, though, Clyde. You never defy to persist to try to prove your point. That deserves admiration no matter whether you are right or wrong. :)
>In your imagination there is no problem with going faster than light. In reality, its a big no-no.<
Okay, I've always wondered why light is the universal speed limit. I won't dare try to disprove this because I don't know jack **** on this stuff, but could someone please explain to a layman like myself why this is so?
>>That deserves admiration
That and the fact that he somehow manages to work out an intelligent response and post it after reading about 'telescopic time travel', 'encompassing water radiation sheilds', and 'Nothing is impossible' while I'm still sitting here trying to control my hysterical laughter.
"I've always wondered why light is the universal speed limit"
Hmm... why... I don't know if why is necessarily the right question.
I can tell you the "how" (simplified), if you like, as you get closer to the speed of light your mass increases, which means you have to push harder to go faster, which causes the mass to increase, which means you have push harder, rinse and repeat.
You have to push harder and harder to get closer to c (the speed of light), to actually reach it you would have to push infinitely hard.
Now thats not really "why", i suppose in a sense "why" would be due to the properties of space, maximum velocity being one of them, in much the same way that there are other constants (like the permitivity of free space) which are also properties of space.
The way i think of it (and this is not really what happens, but its an easy way of looking at it) is that when objects move through space there "push" against it, faster you go the more distorted space gets, causing both time dilation and increased mass.
"Most people don't realize that two large pieces of coral, painted brown and attached to his skull with common wood screws can make a small child look like a deer."
-Kurt Cobain
I'm glad you enlightened us....Quote:
Originally posted by Shadow12345
"Most people don't realize that two large pieces of coral, painted brown and attached to his skull with common wood screws can make a small child look like a deer."
-Kurt Cobain
Clyde:
So basically the speed of light is the universal speed limit just like 2+ 2 = 4. It's one of those laws. You could explain how 2 + 2 equal 4 just like you explained how it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. I see. Thanks.
So it might be possible to _reach_ the speed of light (if it's possible to push infinitely hard), but there's no way in hell we can push more than infinitely hard therefore there's no way of _exceeding_ the speed of light.
At the speed of light your mass would become infinite though...
"At the speed of light your mass would become infinite though..."
Yea, but if you could apply an infinite force, you could still accelerate.
"So it might be possible to _reach_ the speed of light (if it's possible to push infinitely hard), "
Ah but it's not possible to push infinitely hard, to reach the speed of light, you would need to do an infinite amount of work, which would require an infinite amount of energy, and since the amount of energy in the universe is finite, it's impossible (assuming here that the object you are trying to accelerate has rest-mass).
Okay, then how does light do it? (Push infinitely hard that is.)
>and since the amount of energy in the universe is finite<
Can you explain this also. I thought the size of the universe is infinite (and therefore the amount of energy in the universe is infinite), or at least it would seem that way...
light doesn't really have mass i don't think
>light doesn't really have mass i don't think<
So the universal speed limit only applies to things with mass? That can't be right. And even so, how come light doesn't travel faster than it does currently? If it's pushing infinitely hard (or maybe it's not and that's where I'm confused) then it should travel infinitely fast, right?
*waits for Clyde to reply* Hurry man, I'm dying to know! :)
"Okay, then how does light do it? (Push infinitely hard that is.)"
Well i was refering to taking an object (with rest-mass) from rest and accelerating it up to lightspeed. Light is somewhat different, photons did not start of stationary and then build up to light speed, they start off at light speed.
The reason why light does not have an infinite mass, is because it has 0 rest mass, what that means is that if light were not moving it would have no mass, the mass it has is the mass associated with it's energy (E=MC^2).
"Can you explain this also. I thought the size of the universe is infinite "
Nope, the universe definitely has a finite size, and a finite amount of energy in it. The universe started off with the big bang and within seconds went from below the size of a proton to billions of miles in diameter, it continues to expand as we speak.
>>ygfperson: observation can be objective. an observation is subjective when it is interpreted and changed based on previous knowledge. what if you're reading a digital scale? you know the approximate mass of the object in question, through observation of the scale, without interpreting and changing that observation based on previous knowledge.<<
and
>>lightatdawn: Uhm, gee. Do we have anything else to go on? The observation that two identical actions yield two identical results is not really all that much fluff.<<
I never said it did. The point i'm trying to make is all about certainty and veracity: we have no absolute guarantee that any observation we make is correct, assuming that there is a 'correct' in the first place. Therefore we make core assumptions regarding the nature of those observations and, specifically, regarding the a priori nature of maths. This does not make them in actuality absolute truths it's just an arbitrary starting point upon which to construct a meaningful model of 'reality'.
>>Clyde: Correct but you have totally mis-read it. The anthroipic principle does NOT say the laws EXIST because of us<<
Nor did I. I used the word 'suggest'. And it is a valid interpretation of the principle but, and let me be explicitly clear on this, not one that I share, nor one I originated. So please, desist from using the words 'correct' or 'wrong'; your over-vaunted opinion of the extent of your own knowledge does not qualify you to make such judgements - 'I agree' or 'I disagree' would be perfectly adequate and considerably less invidious.
>>Clyde: As i said before physicists...<<
That's a 'no' then on the provision of an experiment to prove your assertion.
>>Clyde: There is one assumption made on the "validity of observation", further more we KNOW that assumption is valid because if it wasn't science wouldn't work.<<
I have never said science doesn't work. I have simply stated that assumptions are made about the veracity and certainty of observations. And that these observations are subjective. As to the assumptions being valid otherwise science wouldn't work, you must know that this statement is false logic? It is equivalent to something like, "we pour the blood of the sacrificial victim onto the earth so the rains come. The rains come so pouring the blood must work."
>>Clyde: Imagination == recreating sense input in your head IE. picturing stuff, hearing sounds etc., maths == maths. They are completely different.<<
Maths is a tool, a construct of human thought. When I think 'E=mc^2' it's me that thinks it, visualises it, imagines it, realises it. I do not observe maths as existing as a thing unto itself. In any event, as I have previously described, both processes occur in the same chunk of meat between your ears: your brain; any attempt at definitive segregation is entirely and unarguably subjective.
>>Clyde: You can't, the fact that you don't understand why amazes me. Can blind people imagine red? Can deaf people imagine G sharp?<<
You have no idea what I can or cannot imagine, you only imagine that you do. Yes, blind people can imagine red and deaf people can imagine g sharp. Although these things can be imagined they may not correlate exactly with the property described, regardless of the current capability of the observer's senses.
>>Clyde: It is fundamentally impossible to imagine 4 or more dimensional space because you exist in 3 diemensional space and you have no experience of a 4th dimension object, in exactly the same way that a blind person has no experience of colour.<<
Seems like using "picturing stuff" would work just fine, with the usual qualifiers, of course. And anyway, "four-dimensional space-time continuum" was the elegant descriptor provided for us by Einstein; although the total number of dimensions can be considerably higher in some manifestations of string theory. Where do you get this living in 3d space guff?
>>Clyde: I know i can see it coming, your going to say something foolish like<<
Please desist from attempting to anticipate my thoughts, knowledge and words; your success rate is nil.
>>Clyde: Physics is not solved by imagining how stuff is...<<
Thought experiments.
>>Clyde: ..., its solved by maths, because imagination has limits and maths does not.<<
Assertion without proof or qualification. Again. However, in this case I find myself in partial agreement: your imagination does indeed seem quite limited. As for 'maths has no limits' - maths is axiomatic; it is taken as a priori simply from the very human need to have a viable starting point for modelling reality.
>>Clyde: Polymers are not refered to as simple molecules<<
I disagree. PTFE, PVC or any polymer built up of the same monomer can be described as simple molecules.
>>Clyde: the scale is NOT arbitrary<<
What is a 'metre'?
>>Clyde: You really think "I think therefore I am" is a circular argument? You think that the only thing we can EVER be 100% sure of is a circular argument? Excellent.<<
Yep. Your success rate at attempting to anticipate my thoughts etc remains flat at zero. Count the 'I's in Descartes statement and see the circle for yourself. As for "You think that the only thing we can EVER be 100% sure of is a circular argument?" please stop trying to put words into my mouth - I have not even implied this and it is anile for you to suggest otherwise.
>>Clyde: I can't possibly teach you quantum mechanics<<
I agree, you can't. In any event, for me, undergraduate level qt would be a backward step.
>>Clyde: No i'm not describing the properties, i'm describing the observations, you go to your wavelength machine and you measure the wavelength, you get an answer, doesn't matter who makes that measurement they will get the same answer, hence objective. I measure voltage with a voltmetre, doesn't matter who makes the measurement they will get the same answer hence objective, etc. etc. on the other hand if two people compared how cold they think it is and they might very well get different answers because that is subjective. See the difference?<<
This is what you originally said:"Wrong, wavelength is not subjective, velocity is not subjective, mass is not subjective, energy is not subjective, voltage is not subjective, power is not subjective, etc. etc. Percieved colour on the hand, how loud a sound sounds, how cold it feels, etc. they are subjective, see the difference?"
To which my original reply most certainly remains valid. A certain amount of clarification may, on occassion, be necessary but saying one thing and then later claiming you meant something entirely different is very poor.
In any event, this is classic empiricism and an assumptive error most people make: there is no difference in the subjectivity of the observations you have described. It doesn't matter if you use bare senses or instrumentation (that were ultimately conceived by those same bare senses) to make the observation. Any observation, with or without instrumentation, is described according to some arbitrary scale; there is only a notional difference between the arbitrary precision of scales. Furthermore, the observed and the observer interact, so the thing that is under observation is altered from it's pristine state by the act of observation.
As for "doesn't matter who makes the measurement they will get the same answer" - that's a major advancement i'm unaware of. I guess i'll just have to forget all about statistical analysis, concepts such as error, precision and accuracy or repeatability and reproducibility. Where can I get such a marvellous instrument? Several would be required because I know my colleagues would all be very interested in such a device.
>>Clyde: You are correct in saying that nothing is absolutely proveable<<
Thankyou. My apologies for not noticing and therefore ending this some time ago.
BTW, the "breakdown with macroscopic object" may be regarded as a combination of probabilities issue. For a single atom, eg Hydrogen (1s1) with a single electron in a spherical orbital (a region of ~90% probability of finding an electron ie there is a 10% probability that the electron is 'anywhere'. Once you start to add other atoms and combine these probabilities the 1 in 10 chance rapidly diminishes BUT NEVER REACHES zero. This means that although it is extremely unlikely to observe such phenomena as quantum interference with something as large as, say, Schrodinger's hypothetical and much maligned cat, it still remains a finite possibility.
Finally, in summary:
1. I assert that all things are possible. This assertion is currently not provable nor disapprovable.
2. All observation is subjective for the reasons that I have discussed; for further reading go search on the 'Philosophy of Science' and 'empiricism' or even 'deducto-hypothetico technique'. A review of skepticism wouldn't hurt either.
3. Science, in my considered opinion, is the 'best of the rest'. It has the same flaws that all other philosophical doctrines possess in that it makes core assumptions about the nature of reality and our interaction with it within that framework. I recognise and acknowledge these assumptions; it does not mean that I rebuke, scorn or otherwise disagree with science, its functionality or application. But science is, by its own admission, theoretical.
Anyway that's me, i'm done.
>The universe started off with the big bang and within seconds went from below the size of a proton to billions of miles in diameter, it continues to expand as we speak.<
See, this is what I have trouble with. How can everything we know come from an explosion of nothing. I mean there's NOTHING and then all of a sudden BAM! "nothing" explodes and makes "something."
I just can't understand that. I guess this is where I bring out my beleifs on God, and you bring yours on evolution, right. ;)
>I guess this is where I bring out my beleifs on God, and you bring yours on evolution
I suppose it depends on how you define God, but if you're just using him to fill in gaps in your knowledge then we may as well be living on a flat earth. I doubt even the most extreme evolutionist would claim to have all the answers, unlike some medieval romanticists.
Jeez, Sorensen. I'm sorry I offended you if I did. I was just making a joke. Now, I'm upset. :D
>but if you're just using him to fill in gaps in your knowledge<
*edit* Wait, I took that wrong. Anyway, I already said it was a joke, so...
Ha, ha. Too funny (I think??).
*confused*
Don't you hate it when you can't tell if someone is being sarcastic or not? Damn this primitive form of communcation we call the Internet! ;)