MrSmith Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 This doesn't show a problem with the understanding of infinity, it shows a lack of knowledge (which we are aware of) in our understanding of the universe. There are several hypotheses about the nature of the universe, at the moment we don't have the evidence to test and disprove any of them, so we keep them all available as possible. It's science working perfectly, not a failure at all. I know, which is why I didn't say they didn't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 So basically, you've spent 26 years studying fragments of knowledge and drawing your own wild assumptions? And of COURSE UFOs had to come into the story at some point... Karis have a managed to identify every object you have seen flying, if not you have also seen UFO,s, they are very common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 One thing that many scientists are wrong about, infinity, I know mathematicians and physicists hate the term. You said they were 'wrong' about infinity. You seem to have changed what you're saying now to be that they're 'wrong' about whether the universe is infinite or not. I doubt this assertion is even true, I don't think a good scientist would give you a categorical answer, they'd say, "this appears IMO to be the most likely explanation", which accepts that it isn't proven and that we need to learn more in order to answer the question. What it doesn't do is demonstrate any 'wrongness' about the understanding of infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Karis have a managed to identify every object you have seen flying, if not you have also seen UFO,s, they are very common. Being visited by one isn't though (first of all it's not flying anymore and secondly being that close makes it easy to identify as a chinese lantern). Having them impart 'wisdom' about a load of gibberish must be even less common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Karis have a managed to identify every object you have seen flying, if not you have also seen UFO,s, they are very common. There's a HUGE difference between the odd Chinese Lantern and basing your entire universal paradigm on what-ifs and maybes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 You said they were 'wrong' about infinity. You seem to have changed what you're saying now to be that they're 'wrong' about whether the universe is infinite or not. I doubt this assertion is even true, I don't think a good scientist would give you a categorical answer, they'd say, "this appears IMO to be the most likely explanation", which accepts that it isn't proven and that we need to learn more in order to answer the question. What it doesn't do is demonstrate any 'wrongness' about the understanding of infinity. I said many and I corrected myself later, I should have said some, many or some being wrong isn't the same as they are wrong. If a scientist says and infinite universe isn't possible and one says it is then one of them is wrong. Im my opinion the one that is wrong is the one that says it’s not possible. But that is just my opinion and I can’t prove it before you ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 There's a HUGE difference between the odd Chinese Lantern and basing your entire universal paradigm on what-ifs and maybes! My sarcasm as gone over your head sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Being visited by one isn't though (first of all it's not flying anymore and secondly being that close makes it easy to identify as a chinese lantern). Having them impart 'wisdom' about a load of gibberish must be even less common. Being visited by one is more likely than God, and plenty of people believe in god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I said many and I corrected myself later, I should have said some, many or some being wrong isn't the same as they are wrong. If a scientist says and infinite universe isn't possible and one says it is then one of them is wrong. This isn't science being wrong, science depends on postulating hypothesis and then attempting to disprove them. Every disproven hypothesis advanced our knowledge. You could argue that postulating an incorrect hypothesis is as important as stumbling on one that isn't proven wrong. Im my opinion the one that is wrong is the one that says it’s not possible. But that is just my opinion and I can’t prove it before you ask. If you were a scientist you probably wouldn't have made an absolute statement in the first place, you'd suggest that it might be this way, and then you'd think about how to prove yourself wrong. But even so, scientists are human and they can be wrong. Science is a process, and when followed it can't be 'wrong'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Being visited by one is more likely than God, and plenty of people believe in god. Both are so extremely unlikely that anyone who claims either gets put in the group labelled, 'unstable' in my head. I'm certainly not going to accept a philosophy of life from either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.