 |
| |
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
I didn't say that thoery altered evidence. However evidence is created by theories. |
Evidence is only created by experimentation. Theory is used to predict the results, but theory itself does not create evidence.
quote:
Before the world was created there were laws- man is merely discovering them. |
Even assuming that your first statement is true, that still doesn't necessarily imply that man can ever find out what those laws are. Man's means of analyzing and interpreting the world are flawed.
quote:
I also want to apologize If I am being too vindicitave in this, but I want to find a basic system of laws so that we can build something on it- I am glad to receive ideas- but I would like it if someone would provide a basic undeniable law other than "nothing can be known" |
No need to apologize; I'd say that you're being stubborn, but not vindictive. However, if you're looking for a basic undeniable law other than "nothing can be known," then you shouldn't be talking to a postmodernist. 
quote:
Math is easy to disprove as well- because it could be said as not existing because it is not a tangible object. |
That doesn't disprove math, that dismisses it as irrelevant.
quote:
Newton's laws were true 'for the time' |
They were never "true," they were merely "good enough."
quote:
And the Theory of Gravity does mean that people don't float off the earth- if there was no such thing- people would float off the arth. |
Gravity means that people don't float off the earth. Gravity works with or without a man-made theory to try to explain it.
quote:
Yes, I realize that there is no Unified Theory of Everything- but what if you consider that Newton's laws only apply to earth and General RElativity and Quantum Mechanics apply only to the molecular level and space. |
General Relativity applies to both earth as well as space, it's just that Newton's laws are usually pretty accurate when applied to mundane problems. Quantum Mechanics applies to both earth as well as the molecular and sub-molecular level, but uncertainty becomes irrelevant on the macro scale and so there is little benefit to be had in using Quantum Mechanics on mundane problems.
General Relativity doesn't begin to fail until applied to the molecular or sub-molecular level, and Quantum Mechanics doesn't begin to fail until applied to an astronomical scale. However, they are still improvements over Newton's theories, seeing as how Newton's theories break down at both the molecular/sub-molecular level as well as on the astronomical scale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
1. all evolution threads will fail to convert anyone
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
You need to make the assumption that people are not merely deluding themselves, and this is generally a fair assumption to make. Just don't believe for an instant that you've proven that your assumption is correct. |
Look. I will now make the statement that Everyone cannot be deluded all the time. Now I understand that is not undisputable. But I will place it as a basis so that you know what demons I am working under. Now that you know the demon- please know that I cannot and will not listen to arguments about everyone being deluded. This cannot be proven. And it cannot be disproven. Thus it is useless to argue.
Perhaps I shall revise my statment to the list of "Nearly Undisputalbe" laws and state why they are nearly.
However, based upon that system, I think that they are truly undisputable. The system, itself is disputable, I shall no longer argue that- thank you.
quote:
quote:
Technically the thing would be true even if the things are discovered. The theory is merely enlarged if other things are discovered. |
That is not generally true. General relativity has little to no theoretical relation to Newtonian mechanics, and neither does Quantum Mechanics. Evolution is not merely an "enlarged" theory of Creationism. Modern thermodynamics has no theoretical relation to old theories about phlogistan. Etc. |
I would argue that Evolution is merely an enlarged theory of creationism if you take it a certain way. All you would have to say is that the "Days" were eons and that the creation of light and the sun were misalingned... (Personally I think it is an allegory, but I'm arguing for a reason) Thus, Evolution is merely corrected Creationism.
Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity- I think, are two different systems.
You probably have a point about thermodynamics.
quote:
quote:
It is impossible to even prove the existence of other things because people haven't seen them. It is impossible to prove it either way, so it does not matter at all until those things are discovered. |
It is the duty of the mathematician to prove that his theorem is correct. If the theorem isn't proven, then it isn't proven; the mathematician cannot simply say "Fermat's last theorem is correct, because you haven't proven it false!" The claimant is the one who must offer proof. |
No. In that case, perhaps. But existence cannot be proven either way because... You need tangible facts to prove that something does not exist. You need a concrete way to prove that it does not exist. PRoving the nonexistence of something must also be done.
You cannot prove nor disprove somethings existence.
quote:
I don't need to. You need to prove that it is complete knowledge, otherwise you've proven nothing. The claimant is the one who must offer the proof. |
And the refuter needs something to base his refutes on or his argument falls apart into a logicall fallacy and is but bunk.
quote:
So you admit that you cannot prove whether or not there is an invisible massless monkey on your shoulder?
|
Yes, becuase you cannot prove that there is. Its existence does not matter if it cannot be proved. If it cannot be proved then it, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Or at the very least, its existence has no meaning or purpose. It does not matter.
quote:
The only logical states I've ever heard of are true, false, indeterminate, and undefined. By definition, something is only one of these states, not multiple states. Unless you're thinking about fuzzy logic, which is really just probability.
|
What I meant, I believe is indeterminate. It is equally impossible to either prove or disprove god.
quote:
Since it cannot be proven which (if any) assumption is correct, the assumptions cannot be used to logically prove anything. F ==> T = T, just as F ==> F = T. |
Yes, but if we know what assumptions we are working under, then we can see the merits of each system.
Tis better to Know thy demons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
You forgot Dr Strangelove's Unified Theory of Sociology and Psychology. "For any possible human behavior, regarding the causology of that behavior, the following is apparent: Some do, and some don't."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
that itself is flawed- there is no way you can disprove or prove that statement. |
In order to prove the statement true, all I need is a single empirical demonstration (which is trivial). This proves that there exists some flaw somewhere in man's perception, thereby disproving the counterassertion that man's perception is perfect. If the experiment is called into question ("Hey, you just said that empiricism is flawed, so you can't prove this emprically!") then my detractor is performatively contradicting himself; he cannot question my experiment without conceding the proof. QED.
quote:
That is why the theory of gravity is TRUE!
See- this is why some theories are correct
because in practice they work! |
I theorize that the invisible massless monkey on your shoulder is not currently eating your brain because all invisible massless monkeys are vegetarians. My theory is correct in practice, because no invisible massless monkeys are eating your brain. That by no means proves that my Invisible Massless Monkey theory is true.
quote:
However, this still would prove that newtons laws are correct- but only to a point. |
No, they're still incorrect. It's just that the error they introduce in most practical situations can safely be ignored; there is still an error, though.
quote:
One could argue that there are several states of 'being' and 'truth' at each the molecular, sub-molecular, earth, and astronomical levels. |
True = True, no matter what planet I'm standing on. Maybe = Maybe, no matter what state of matter I'm talking about. True NEVER equals Maybe, Probably, or even Almost Certainly.
quote:
Then one could argue that the truth for each world is different.
And one would be correct. |
How do you figure?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
|
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
In order to prove the statement true, all I need is a single empirical demonstration (which is trivial). This proves that there exists some flaw somewhere in man's perception, thereby disproving the counterassertion that man's perception is perfect. QED. |
Well, you cannot do that because you have not. If you keep trying and do not then you have no evidence and therefore cannot call into question the logical truths.
If you have no evidence disproving a fact- then you have not disproved it well enough to make anyone believe it.
quote:
If the experiment is called into question ("Hey, you just said that empiricism is flawed, so you can't prove this emprically!") then my detractor is performatively contradicting himself; he cannot question my experiment without conceding the proof.
|
But neither can you say that YOU denying that the experiment is tRUE is FAlse. in which case I would be right... at least as right as you. However, see my argument above this quote.
The fact that YOU cannot prove that empiricism and logic is wrong, makes them correct because nothing can make them wrong. When you do prove them wrong- then they will be wrong. But unitl they are proven as such, they do not exist as such for all practical purposes.
They are true for everything to which they relate!
quote:
quote:
One could argue that there are several states of 'being' and 'truth' at each the molecular, sub-molecular, earth, and astronomical levels. |
True = True, no matter what planet I'm standing on. Maybe = Maybe, no matter what state of matter I'm talking about. True NEVER equals Maybe, Probably, or even Almost Certainly. |
True, if one defines what it is true for IS true for everything which it is defined as true for.
The truth for a cow is different from the truth for a man because each fills a different role in society. And each can only see what they have evolved to do.
Your statement is incorrect because you avoided my statement.
quote:
quote:
Then one could argue that the truth for each world is different.
And one would be correct. |
How do you figure? |
One would be correct, because on each level, the truth would be true. However, outside that level, the truth for that level... level a would be false and a new truth would be in effect at the lower level... level b.
I would assume that it would work the same as dimensions.
Each dimension works under different laws.
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
Well, you cannot do that because you have not. |
Sure I have. I've pointed out the inherent flaws with our sense of sight, smell, and touch; they are far from perfect, therefore our perception of the world is far from perfect. You have presented no counterargument other than to question my assertion, but in order for your proof to hold you would need to be able to demonstrate that all assertions that run counter to your theory are false; you have thus far failed to do so, therefore you do not have a proof.
quote:
But neither can you say that YOU denying that the experiment is tRUE is FAlse. |
I'm not sure what you've just said here.
quote:
The fact that YOU cannot prove that empiricism and logic is wrong, makes them correct because nothing can make them wrong. |
I don't need to prove them wrong for all cases, I only need to show that they are doubtful for a single case in order to prove that they are not always valid.
If you want a single case, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle will suffice. There is inherent error in the system when attempting to measure the position and velocity of a particle. The statement "Empiricism is always valid" has been thus been debunked.
quote:
When you do prove them wrong- then they will be wrong. But unitl they are proven as such, they do not exist as such for all practical purposes. |
I've never said that they're not practical. I've said that practicality does not constitute a proof.
quote:
True, if one defines what it is true for IS true for everything which it is defined as true for. |
I'm not sure what you've just said here.
quote:
The truth for a cow is different from the truth for a man because each fills a different role in society. And each can only see what they have evolved to do. |
If you mean that a cow and a man might come to different conclusions as to what was true or false regarding empirical claims ("The sky is blue" or "The ground is wet"), then you would be correct; I've argued all along that empiricism is not sufficient for deriving the truth, and so I agree that the difference in perception between a cow and a human will dramatically affect what each being thinks of as true or false.
If you mean that pure truth is subjective, then you would be incorrect. Something that is definitively true (A = A) cannot become an untruth without changing the system, without changing the definitions. Since human language does not substantively change on the subatomic or astronomical level, truth is spatially indepenedent.
quote:
Your statement is incorrect because you avoided my statement. |
I addressed your statement. Truth is spatially independent. It is a function of language, therefore truth is not changed without a substantive change in language. However, a language that denies basic rules for consistency (a language that argues that A = ~A) fails to fulfill the purpose of language, and would therefore not come into existence.
quote:
One would be correct, because on each level, the truth would be true. However, outside that level, the truth for that level... level a would be false and a new truth would be in effect at the lower level... level b. |
Truth is spatially independent. It is not the case that Newton's laws are correct on one level but incorrect on another level, it is instead the case that Newton's laws are incorrect on all levels. Their error typically only substantive on the astronomical or subatomic levels, which is why Newton's laws are still practical most of the time. They are not, however, true; they are erroneous on all levels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
|
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Sure I have. I've pointed out the inherent flaws with our sense of sight, smell, and touch; they are far from perfect, therefore our perception of the world is far from perfect. You have presented no counterargument other than to question my assertion, but in order for your proof to hold you would need to be able to demonstrate that all assertions that run counter to your theory are false; you have thus far failed to do so, therefore you do not have a proof. |
Ah, but you only pointed out flaws with some people. You neglect ot see how some people have 20x40 vision perfect smell and touch senses. You only listed those peole who had troubles.
Perhaps I do not have a fully concrete proof, but neither do you have a proof that nothing is true because the sense of sight smell and touch could all be correct.
quote:
I'm not sure what you've just said here.
|
I think I meant that you cannot say, by denying that the experiment is TRUE that your preception of reality is false.
quote:
I don't need to prove them wrong for all cases, I only need to show that they are doubtful for a single case in order to prove that they are not always valid.
|
True.quote:
If you want a single case, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle will suffice. There is inherent error in the system when attempting to measure the position and velocity of a particle. The statement "Empiricism is always valid" has been thus been debunked. |
True. But if the Principle can be mended, then that statement is untrue because through empiricism you found there was an error to an empirical system.
And that in itself is flawed.
One can possibly find an error to a system by using that system itself, but for the error to be incontroverable, one would have to go 'outside' the system.
Who are you to say that the empiricism disproving the Uncertainty Principle is correct? What if the disproval is incorrect, itself.
quote:
I'm not sure what you've just said here.
|
I meant taht what you said would be true. But only true if you could prove that the truth for a cow is the same as the truth of a man.
quote:
If you mean that a cow and a man might come to different conclusions as to what was true or false regarding empirical claims ("The sky is blue" or "The ground is wet"), then you would be correct; I've argued all along that empiricism is not sufficient for deriving the truth, and so I agree that the difference in perception between a cow and a human will dramatically affect what each being thinks of as true or false. |
Okay, good ,then that argument supports both of our arguments quote:
If you mean that pure truth is subjective, then you would be incorrect. Something that is definitively true (A = A) cannot become an untruth without changing the system, without changing the definitions. Since human language does not substantively change on the subatomic or astronomical level, truth is spatially indepenedent. |
Possibly, but not incontrovertiably.
Truth is subjective but only in the way that A=A would not mean anything to a cow, whereas A=A means something to a man.
The basic principles, yes, are there. In that I agree with you.
quote:
I addressed your statement. Truth is spatially independent. It is a function of language, therefore truth is not changed without a substantive change in language. However, a language that denies basic rules for consistency (a language that argues that A = ~A) fails to fulfill the purpose of language, and would therefore not come into existence.
|
No. the reason I say that truth is not spatially independent is that with each movement and each level, there are things which affect other things differently and change the reality.
The laws change on each level because each level is subject to different forces which can be defined as different "truths"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Ah, but you only pointed out flaws with some people. |
That's all the proof called for. He was showing how empiricism is not always valid (this assertion is not equivalent to the assertion that empiricism is always not valid), and in doing so, he only needed to show how a single observation can flawed.
quote:
You neglect ot see how some people have 20x40 vision perfect smell and touch senses. You only listed those peole who had troubles. |
Some person's senses may be better than another, but you won't find a single person who has "perfect" senses.
quote:
Perhaps I do not have a fully concrete proof, but neither do you have a proof that nothing is true because the sense of sight smell and touch could all be correct. |
He wasn't trying to prove that "nothing is true," but that "some oberservations are flawed."
quote:
I think I meant that you cannot say, by denying that the experiment is TRUE that your preception of reality is false. |
Nope, techno used a technique called "proof by contradiction," a perfectly valid logical tool.
He asserted the negation of his premise ("empiricism is perfect"), and found it inherently contradictory (HUP), indicating that the negation of the premise is false, and therefore his premise is true ("empiricism is imperfect"). QED.
quote:
One can possibly find an error to a system by using that system itself, but for the error to be incontroverable, one would have to go 'outside' the system. |
Nope, it's much stronger logically to work within the system. Finding an internal contradiction makes the system logically false (that's essentially the foundation of logic), while finding an external contradiction only brings up questions of the validity of the external data.
quote:
But only true if you could prove that the truth for a cow is the same as the truth of a man. |
quote:
Possibly, but not incontrovertiably.
Truth is subjective but only in the way that A=A would not mean anything to a cow, whereas A=A means something to a man.
The basic principles, yes, are there. In that I agree with you. |
A = A if and only if you use standard logical symbol and definition for "=". If you say that "=" actually means ">", you change the meaning of the assertion, and change its validity. If the cow says that symobls that look like "=" are what I like to **** on, you again change the meaning of the assertion.
"Assuming the basis of logic, the basis of logic is true" is always correct.
quote:
No. the reason I say that truth is not spatially independent is that with each movement and each level, there are things which affect other things differently and change the reality.
The laws change on each level because each level is subject to different forces which can be defined as different "truths" |
But what techno was saying, is that classical physics are never correct. They give good approximations in certain instances, but are never true (after making the apropriate assumptions).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
|
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
That's all the proof called for. He was showing how empiricism is not always valid (this assertion is not equivalent to the assertion that empiricism is always not valid), and in doing so, he only needed to show how a single observation can flawed. |
A single observation can be flawed, but if a persons senses are verified as being perfect then how can that person's perception be flawed. Especially if thousands of people of equal perception percieve the event in the same way.
quote:
Some person's senses may be better than another, but you won't find a single person who has "perfect" senses.
|
I think you can. However, for the sake of argument. For a vision problem, one would find all the 20x20 vision people and have them look. For a feeling sensation, find all the people with perfect skin, etc.
quote:
Nope, techno used a technique called "proof by contradiction," a perfectly valid logical tool.
He asserted the negation of his premise ("empiricism is perfect"), and found it inherently contradictory (HUP), indicating that the negation of the premise is false, and therefore his premise is true ("empiricism is imperfect"). QED.
|
True, but when someone cannot prove a logical system to replace the system already in place, one must act under the logical system that exists.
quote:
quote:
One can possibly find an error to a system by using that system itself, but for the error to be incontroverable, one would have to go 'outside' the system. |
Nope, it's much stronger logically to work within the system. Finding an internal contradiction makes the system logically false (that's essentially the foundation of logic), while finding an external contradiction only brings up questions of the validity of the external data. |
I'm not sure I understand you completely. But I agree now that I was wrong about problems in the system not disproving the system. However, if there is an external contradicition to the system, it is even more incontrovertiably wrong for the system has been proven not to work with other systems. What is needed is a "sub-system" taht bridges the gap between the systems.
quote:
But what techno was saying, is that classical physics are never correct. They give good approximations in certain instances, but are never true (after making the apropriate assumptions). |
But they are correct sometimes.
-
reds4ever- mathematics is only proved 'inside' its own system. By the logic of math, I could create a system that would not apply anywhere else but inside itself and would have no applications outside of itself.
(note: I do understand that matematics acts on other objects in its own way; but logically taken to the extreme end of the argument- an argument can be made to create a system of that such as I outlined above)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
|
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Ramo's post already covers most of my response.
What do you mean "if the Principle can be mended"? |
I meant that if the Uncertainty Principle can be revised so as to be correct...
quote:
Either the empirical system is flawed (thereby proving that empiricism does not constitute a proof), or else the empirical evidence that contradicts the empirical system is flawed (thereby proving that empiricism does not constitute a proof), or possibly both the system and the contradiction are flawed. Either way you've got flawed empiricism. |
Ah, but the empirical evidence is not correct empirically. The evidence you proposed is only true if empiricism is incorrect. Your evidence supplied a "lack of empiricism" that is to say that IF empiricism was incorrect then it woudl be wrong.
Through reason you deduced that empiricism was incorrect, for, you cannot prove the statement that yo ucan fool "all of the people all the time" and that is the only way to prove that empiricism is incorrect or even flawed.
quote:
A cow knows that "grass" is "grass", and would not think that "grass" is "not-grass." A statement of the form "A = ~A" is logically contradictory no matter what A is defined as. |
I cow may think that a cattle prod is evil whereas to a man, a cattle prod is good and useful.
quote:
Each level is subject to the same forces. It's simply that some forces are more apparent on different levels; they don't cease to exist just because they're difficult to detect. |
True! All levels are subject to the same forces, abut only becuase those forces act on different levels, affect those levels which in turn affect the lower levels.
When and If a Unified Theory of Everything is discovered, my statmenet above will be proved wrong. But until then, empiricial evidence suggests that I am correct.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
A single observation can be flawed, but if a persons senses are verified as being perfect then how can that person's perception be flawed. |
How would you go about verifying this?
quote:
I think you can. However, for the sake of argument. For a vision problem, one would find all the 20x20 vision people and have them look. |
Even people with 20x20 vision have far from perfect vision. There have been numerous tests in which the glaring inadequacies of the human vision system have been exposed, the most notable of which were performed by McConkie and Churchland. They showed that our eyes do not see an entire picture at once, but instead they focus on a single piece of an image; the brain puts together a picture from the pieces being fed it by the eyes. McConkie and Churchland found that they were able to trick the hell out of observers with "perfect" vision by having the test observers look at an image; the experimenters would drastically change pieces of the image (they would add a car, or remove a hat, or change a tree to a shub, etc.). The test observers failed to detect these changes almost all of the time (and no test observer was always able to detect the changse, for that matter no test observer was even able to detect the changes for a majority of the tests), despite the severity of the changes being made; the human vision system is incredibly easy to fool if you know what you're doing.
All human senses suffer from similar deficiencies; accuracy is often sacrificed for efficiency. Furthermore, senses come about as a result of incredibly complex bio-chemical processes that are notoriously prone to error. Nobody has perfect senses.
quote:
True, but when someone cannot prove a logical system to replace the system already in place, one must act under the logical system that exists. |
I've proved my logical system: "Empiricism is imperfect." Therefore, it would be irrational for you to continue to adhere to the logical system that "Empiricism is perfect."
quote:
But they are correct sometimes. |
NO NO NO NO NO! They are NEVER correct! They can be close, they can be extremely accurate, but they are NEVER perfect. The errors are still present regardless of whether or not they are of practical importance.
quote:
reds4ever- mathematics is only proved 'inside' its own system. By the logic of math, I could create a system that would not apply anywhere else but inside itself and would have no applications outside of itself. |
A system that contradicts mathematics would also be self-contradictory, and self-contradictory systems cannot exist--they destroy themselves.
quote:
(note: I do understand that matematics acts on other objects in its own way; but logically taken to the extreme end of the argument- an argument can be made to create a system of that such as I outlined above) |
A system such as the one you have outlined above would refute itself.
Last edited by loinburger on 23-04-2002 at 08:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
I meant that if the Uncertainty Principle can be revised so as to be correct... |
But the Uncertainty Principle is already correct. At least, nobody has found any evidence that refutes it.
quote:
Ah, but the empirical evidence is not correct empirically. |
You are engaging in a performative contradiction. You cannot argue that empiricism is flawless while at the same time arguing that the empirical evidence is flawed. It is logically impossible to have it both ways.
quote:
The evidence you proposed is only true if empiricism is incorrect. |
And if the evidence I proposed is incorrect, then empiricism is incorrect because my evidence was arrived at empirically. You continue to performatively contradict yourself; in order to argue that empiricism is flawless, you may not argue that empirical evidence is flawed.
quote:
Through reason you deduced that empiricism was incorrect, for, you cannot prove the statement that yo ucan fool "all of the people all the time" and that is the only way to prove that empiricism is incorrect or even flawed. |
In order to prove that empiricism is flawed I only need to prove that you can fool some of the people some of the time (for if empiricism were flawless then I would not be able to fool anybody ever). I have already proven this. QED.
quote:
I cow may think that a cattle prod is evil whereas to a man, a cattle prod is good and useful. |
So what? I might think that broccoli tastes terribly while somebody else thinks that broccoli is delicious. This in no ways proves that broccoli is not broccoli. Similarly, the cattle prod is still a cattle prod, regardless of what value judgments people make with regards to the cattle prod.
quote:
True! All levels are subject to the same forces, |
Yup
quote:
abut only becuase those forces act on different levels, affect those levels which in turn affect the lower levels. |
How are you defining "levels"? What empirical evidence can you provide to support your claim?
quote:
When and If a Unified Theory of Everything is discovered, my statmenet above will be proved wrong. |
Your statement is already proven wrong, since quantum mechanics affect all levels of existence. You said it yourself, "all levels are subject to the same forces."
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2002 22:57
|