🚀 go-pugleaf

JW <jd_...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>tyr...@mail.sgi.net wrote:
>> My example cited a KNOWN exception, division by 0.  What if there is no
>> known exception?  CAN we assume that there won't be an exception?  If
>> there IS an exception, whether or not that exception is known, it's not
>> really a proof, is it?
>
>Oh yah, I forgot about the venerable "what if?" argument.  What if trees
>were made of cheese?  What if our entire existence was only a mere dream
>of a real being?  What if there is some exception to all our rules?  The
>fact is, yes we can ASSUME there won't be an exception.  All of our
>mathematical and scientific reasoning is founded on a small number of
>original axioms (for example: 1+1 = 2).  From these, we have proven a
>great many things.  To show that we can, in fact, surpass the speed of
>light, you must show that some of the basic observations we have made
>about our universe are wrong.  So, hell, if we're to throw out some
>things, why not throw them all out?  Maybe gravity doesn't keep us
>grounded on earth.  Maybe it's just sticky tape that keeps us from
>floating away.  We can only work with what we can observe.  Just
>throwing wild "what ifs" into the field changes nothing.  Seriously, if
>real scientists had your attitude about their work, then we would never
>progress.  They would all just say: "why should we study this?  We'll be
>wrong either way..."

I don't think pointing out that our understanding is incomplete, is
the same as saying there is no reason to continue study of the
subject. After all the same "what if", is the substance of dreams, and
dreams have powered many of mankind's greatest achievements.

I cannot *prove* that FTL speeds are possible. However it does seem a
little foolish of us as human beings, to profess sufficient
understanding of subjects as vast as space and time, as to assert our
understanding as irrefutable fact. This seems particularly laughable
when you consider that we don't even understand how the primary tool
used to do the analysis functions.


There are things that science cannot explain, that does not mean they
are unexplainable, just that we don't understand how everything works
yet (if ever). Many of the things we don't understand thoroughly are
not nearly as ethereal as time or space.


Ok, that's my two cents. I know this thread is cross posted to hell
and back, but I've only seen a few bitches about it, so I'm leaving
all the groups. It seems this is one of those topics that reminds us
of the "magic" of the universe.


_______________________________________________
Bob Young
SE 4 STB Systems
Specialized Technology Group
Multi-Head NT Video Drivers
BYo...@STB.Com
RKY...@Flash.Net

My Paycheck comes from STB, My Opinions Do Not
_______________________________________________