Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (9741)	3/26/2001 12:14:40 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Ptolemaic astronomy prevailed among the educated classes. According to Ptolemy, the Earth was round. The problem was that there were all sorts of suppositions about what might be found at the antipodes. Some thought there was a maelstrom that would sink any ship. (Dante, in the previous century, thought that one would find Mount Purgatory). Some thought there were monsters. For someone educated, the question was one of navigability. Oh, and it was not just a guess, it was reasoned from the observation of the "moving horizon", which could only mean the Earth was curved, and the periodicity of the planets and stars, which clearly implied a globelike universe. Thus, it made sense that the Earth, in its center, should be round. Have you ever seen an Astrolabe, used for navigation? It shows the Ptolemaic conception of things, including the round Earth........

To: thames_sider who wrote (9741)	3/26/2001 3:35:29 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

Of course Chris is right. You are insisting on using a method (Naturalism) that by definition eliminates the very possibility of God. "I cannot have a 'rational' discussion on it, in fact I think there is little chance of a 'rational' discussion per se because the reasoning sets do not coincide." Never mind "Love is just a chemical imbalance", I'm still waiting for the answer to this question. If there is no "outside" the material universe then how do you account for these universal laws of logic you are so fond of. Can you offer me any "material proof" of their existence? If not why do you accept them? Seems like a double standard to me. Greg

To: thames_sider who wrote (9741)	3/26/2001 5:40:04 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you're referring to quantum effects; there, the concept of observer influence is understood, and can be - as it were - quantified.. My understanding, though I'm not a physicist, is that observer influence is a reandom influence, and can never really be discounted. But there are physicists here who can answer better than I can. Philosophically, science in the past 200 or so years has taken on some of the roles which religion had in earlier societies. It also takes on many of the attributes of religion. The belief in unity, the belief in interconnectedness, the belief that if you do the rituals / experiments in the right way you will get the right results, etc. We like to think that science is -- well, more scientific than religion. I'm not sure that's true. I think we may just have replaced one belief system with another, both having complete validity within their own set of parameters, neither being sufficient unto itself to explain the mysteries of the universe, of life, of self-awareness, of what happens to us after death.