posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
Sorry it has taken me so long to answer but I was distracted by my efforts to (not literally) nail jell-o to a tree and have since realized it was a
pointless pursuit. Hey what can I say? I'm hard headed and admit it.
Especially when I am almost 100% sure I am right.
I am not sure that the increasing level of abstraction is a good thing. And the compartmentalizing we have to do is as I have said I believe is a bad
thing. The father we hurtle away from what we can physically see with the best optics we have there is a ground for even mathematical error. After all
how do we know for sure the equation we set up isn't flawed at a very fundamental level?
I mean, look at our knowledge of the atom. We know they exist. We have a pretty good idea about them. But we cannot see them. Even our so-called
electron microscopes can't see atoms. Yes they can be detected and yes they seem to have very definable characteristics. And yes we can a little
But how do we know FOR SURE we have it right? It seems like we are way off any truly observable things and off into the real of speculating what the
Himalayas look like exactly without any pictures of them.
And well, I have never liked Occam's little old razor. Not all things are equal.
And I would like to note I am not saying down with anything. Just thoughts I have because I am ever the questioning little bugger. I seem to enjoy
questioning my questions question.
And here is something I am not sure how it fits in but here goes, we supposedly harnessed the atom right? Right.
What do we use it for? To make steam to turn a turbine. Like we do with fossil fuels. That to me doesn't sound like we harnessed anything. Just made
a nifty new fuel.
[edit on 7-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]