It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The snake observation example is another one. He gives an excellent illustration of a problem, looking at a snake crawl by a slit and not seeing the whole thing. But instead of coming to the conclusion I do, which is these are separate observations which we must assemble to form a picture of what we are looking at, he comes to the opposite conclusion: that they are NOT separate observations. What he means to say is we are looking at the same snake, I think, but it seems like he confuses it being the same snake with being the same observation, they are not the same observation but different observations of the same thing which is totally different to me. But he's speaking as a philosopher, and not as a scientist, so I have to give him some latitude and try to figure out what he means, and stop focusing on what he actually says, which doesn't always make good sense to me. When I focus on his meaning and intent instead, it's easier to listen to.
I'd rather read some good books by Carl Sagan.
Interesting, but I don't see what they call a problem as a problem:
Originally posted by beebs
Cosmologists Discover How Black Holes Can Leak
I never said the information is destroyed once it enters the black hole ( I don't know if it is or not).
That could help solve an old problem. One of the big puzzles in black hole physics is what happens to information once it enters a black hole. The conventional view is that information cannot be destroyed and so must be recovered somehow.