Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on August 20, 2001 15:21:11 UTC


Is it possible that something real may not be knowable? Certainly! Perhaps the prejudice of a theist that there is an *all-knowing* entity prevents him from appreciating this.

Please do not distort what I have said. "Numbers are not infallible" is not the same as "math contradicts itself." Again, a faulty distinction. Mathematics is an elegant language with which we describe our universe, but it is certainly fallible! A quick familiarization with the concept of irrational numbers will provide the uninitiated with testimony to this. Irrational numbers were invented specifically to avoid "math contradict(ing) itself."

What often limits our knowledge in the realm of "random" events is time; given that a T.O.E. would be able to describe every result from a defined starting point, we could hypothetically eliminate all randomness -- *if* we could indeed know such a starting point. However, since we will not likely be able to define any starting point with absolute accuracy, there will continue be randomness, or our inability to know everything. My imaginary probe into "stepping out of time" was an illustration of this.

I think you have a hard time separating humans' collective, but subjective endeavor to be objective from reality itself. This is why you see "the difference between 'it's not known' and 'it can't be known' " as a riddle; I see this statement as evidence no one can be genuinely objective. Our opposing understandings of this concept lead us to agree that "failure to find a pattern in no way implies that one doesn't exist," while disagreeing about what such a statement means.

You know, the fact that I wrote the previous two paragraphs implies that I see more deeply into this issue than you!

Speaking of plagiarism,

This is a discussion from nearly two years ago where I levied the old, passive aggressive "Go for the Nobel Prize" line in a response to someone calling himself "Aurino."

Good luck,
-LH (Minister Exaggerator)

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins