Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
BTTT
Good thing there's no intelligent design in that algorithm.
Otherwise people would see you don't know what you're talking about.
Science is restricted to reality. If you abandon reality, truth, logic and science no longer apply.
"...time is a dimension, yet we do not thereby say what time is;
Time is identified by observation to be one of the dimensions of this universe. Just as length dimensions quantify spacial extent, time quantifies the extent, or length, of existence in this universe. It is a measure of length for real things. Hawking agrees with this.
" we cannot say any better what a dimension truly is."
It's precisely defined, just as length is.
"We only know that's an apple because we have a very good theory about apples."
There is no theory of apples. That a thing is an apple, comes by description that differentiates it from other things.
"When we accept Hawking's presupposition, we can calmly approach the opponent comparing how well each theory matches the universe."
I know what Hawking does, but have no clue what his presupposiiton is. The is science, so it is restricted to that. Handwaving to support claims and appealing to the present limits of knowledge and understanding to support handwaiving, does not amount to science.
It would be extremely useful if the proponents of ID would simply explain what those claims are and how they could be tested.
Its it simple. You know what you know by examining evidence. All evidence is witnesses. You accept witness statements based on your own criteria.
First youre telling me all knowledge is based on eyewitness accounts.
Yes, either others or the witness of your own senses
Then, no one can trust their senses and therefore no knowledge is possible.I never said that. You did.
Finally, you admit at "some point" we can trust our senses.
Our individual thresholds for accepting witnesses is differs for each person. Some would vote OJ is guilty and some won't.
This should be endlessly repeated to the wannabe Humean skeptics on these threads.
This is all you had to say 100 posts ago. Then there would have been no room for any misunderstanding.
No. He contradicted thousands of years of witnesses before him.
It is what I said. You just tried to see something else.
I'm thinking of Dirac's takes on things otherwise thought constant. See for example http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm
So did Moses.
If fact Jesus contradicted the established witnesses of that day.
They must be the same, but go ahead...
By the way, in high school, I wrote a paper about various theories of the creation of the universe, when there were several competing theories (unlike now, when BB is rather accepted), and opined that the Big Bang theory was the most persuasive to me. Of course I got the highest grade possible for such a clairvoyant essay. Of course.
Cheers.
Evidence for this assertion? I think you just made this up. Einsteins papers and other writings indicate that he wanted a solution that was static. After discussions with Hubble, Einstein accepted an expanding universe.
I think Einstein wanted a stable universe, along with a grand unified theory. He did not like instability. But I am ignorant amateur hour on this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.