To: LibWhacker
Gravity, a force without source, other than, “I exist.”............
2 posted on
12/18/2007 1:05:30 PM PST by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: LibWhacker
3 posted on
12/18/2007 1:08:19 PM PST by
Rick.Donaldson
(http://www.transasianaxis.com - Visit for lastest on DPRK/Russia/China/Etc --Fred Thompson for Prez.)
To: LibWhacker
Random chance of course. Random chance and time is all powerful.
4 posted on
12/18/2007 1:14:42 PM PST by
keithtoo
(How come America's enemies and the Dimocrats always find common cause?)
To: LibWhacker
Hey! Gravity is just a theory. There should be competing theories allowed to be taught.
5 posted on
12/18/2007 1:20:09 PM PST by
jim_trent
To: LibWhacker
Randomness is a purely Platonic concept and may not even exist in the natural world.
I lean toward the Universe as one big glop of information. What else could come from the mind of God?
7 posted on
12/18/2007 1:25:06 PM PST by
JmyBryan
To: LibWhacker
Dr. Tegmark maintains that we are part of a mathematical structureA Matrix, perhaps?
To: LibWhacker
Such a deep subject, and yet the phrase "higgledy-piggledy" appeared twice in the article.
To: LibWhacker
Imagine a mathematical construct so sophisticated it’s actually sentient.
10 posted on
12/18/2007 2:10:15 PM PST by
Excellence
(Bacon Bits Make Great Confetti)
To: LibWhacker
It doesn’t matter. Most will argue all day long but nobody can prove their own point by attempting to disprove the opposition. Everybody points at the other and says ‘you’re wrong!’. Which entertains the few who see the illusions.
11 posted on
12/18/2007 2:14:45 PM PST by
RightWhale
(Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
To: LibWhacker
Einstein also said reality is just a perception but a persistent one. One thing we do know is that 2000 years is no measuring stick against a multi billion year existence.
12 posted on
12/18/2007 2:24:14 PM PST by
Phlap
(REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
To: LibWhacker
16 posted on
12/18/2007 2:52:32 PM PST by
djf
(I'm too busy to be jolly. Tis the time to cook a collie!)
To: LibWhacker
The comment attributed to Feynman, that philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds, reminded me of this passage from Plato’s Timaeus:
“But the race of birds was created out of innocent light-minded men, who, although their minds were directed toward heaven, imagined, in their simplicity, that the clearest demonstration of the things above was to be obtained by sight;”
17 posted on
12/18/2007 3:00:54 PM PST by
dr_lew
To: LibWhacker
"Law" is just a description of the reality. The law doesn't make it happen, it just describes what DOES happen.
Time to revisit the concept of causality, gents.
20 posted on
12/18/2007 4:05:07 PM PST by
IronJack
(=)
To: LibWhacker
If everything is based on mathematics, as one scientist quoted in the article states, then there will eventually be some problems.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any formal mathematical system is incapable of providing answers to all stateable problems.
To: LibWhacker
>> does it matter that we dont know and that most scientists dont seem to know or care where they come from? <<
Of course if we do discover a source, then scientists will just have the question of where that source came from.
23 posted on
12/18/2007 4:11:13 PM PST by
dan1123
(You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
To: LibWhacker
I’m really enjoying this thread even though I don’t understand a thing.
Didn’t someone say that when the last scientist climbed the last mountain a philosopher would be waiting and explain what he had just done? And why?
26 posted on
12/18/2007 4:34:12 PM PST by
Oklahoma
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson