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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (23235)	3/21/2006 10:21:36 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Yes, no doubt many of "your facts" will be refuted by.... knowledge" Yes. I had just said that. Scientists are always refuting what were thought to be facts. Those discredited "facts" don't as a consequence become superstitions (unless they are retained and believed by a superstitious moron as factual). They simply become part of the legacy of erroneous thought. "Well, then... refute it." Refute WHAT? You said that <"Science is showing that observing or putting your attention on something changes it"> But science is NOT saying that. In QM, the act of MEASURING both momentum and position simultaneously changes our ability to simultaneously KNOW both of these variables. There is no claim made by any scientist whom I know of that "looking" at something at the sub-atomic level changes the position of that something in a causal manner. "no doubt 'hologram' appears that way to you" No. Your hodgepodge of dissociated ideas thrown into the same pot without any organization or structure simply invites misunderstanding and needless acrimony. It is common courtesy when introducing pseudo-science to a thread (or when introducing anything with a serious intent, for that matter) to clarify the information you are presenting and to perhaps offer a link coupled with your own opinion (if you have any competence in the area--or even if you don't)--and inviting the opinions of others. I'm not about to "discuss" your speculation about "holographic universe" without knowing the credibility of your sources and the details of your speculation--and some general idea of what you might be claiming. When people toss out topics with a cavalier flippancy (especially in the field of pseudo-science) my first inclination is to consider that they know absolutely nothing about the matter being introduced, else they would have commented intelligently on it and probably provided a link to an article written by a person with credible credentials. It is not that I could NOT satisfy your insatiable intellect on that score, DAK! After all, I could have responded: "HEY! Neat speculation, Dude! Maybe we can go back in time!" This would have satisfied your unquenchable thirst for knowledge while causing me probably only the minimal amount of nausea. "No, but have a nice laugh... more grade school stuff.. TOUCHE!" I was just showing you what your response MEANT. Perhaps if you would do a little thinking before splashing these half formed thoughts into your posts.... "You're kidding right?" No. I'm not. And your pretense is insincere. My response was exactly what I intended it to be and was made thoughtfully: "You are being silly, DAK. I don't believe any such thing nor do I preach such a thing. If you are referring to "religionist" by the common meaning of fanatic or zealot, then I will agree that such people represent a grave danger to the world. The past and the present are sufficient to verify this. And our life is not behind us...but ahead of us. Do the mathematics! ;-)"