Re: Kanye West

Mike Rieves <mriev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VcWdnRekXooDAMTUnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike Rieves <mriev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Have you ever seen a quark or a lepton or a muon? Of course you
haven't, so why do you believe in them? Is it because some scientist
who is much smarter than you said they existed? Have you ever
actually seen any hard physical evidence for their existance, or did
you just take someone's word for it.? Here's the thing, you aren't
likely to ever see a quark or a lepton or a muon, but one day you'll
know for an absolute fact whether your soul exists or not, however,
you won't be able to come back and tell anyone about it...

I've seen direct evidence of leptons (which are actually a family of
particles) and muons. No one has seen direct evidence of quarks but
there's an overwhelming body of experimental data that is simply
explained by their existence.

I would agree that you've seen direct evidence of something, but how
would you know that it was evidence of leptons or muons?

Because leptons and muons are simply the name that we give the
"something".

Bubble and cloud chamber photographs provide measurable tracks
corresponding to the passage of a single particle. The particle's
energy and momentum can be deduced, and from these the particle's mass
can be calculated. Everytime someone sees one of these tracks and does
the calculation, he/she gets the same mass every time.

It is reasonable therefore to conclude that these particles exist as
identifiable entities with identical properties. They are as real as
the electrons that flow through wires, transistors, and tubes, and we
can't see them directly either (other than through the fluorescence of
the materials that coat cathode-ray tubes).

Of course it is *possible* that God has stacked the deck so that nature
attempts to test our faith by putting evidence in front of us that leads
us to the wrong conclusions.

However, over the centuries, religion has battled with science, and
there has never been an example of science being proven wrong on the
basis of religion.

Conventional scientific wisdom has often been proven wrong, however, on
the basis of *better* science. There's a huge difference.

What happens
if you get to the bottom of quantum physics, and find that there is
nothing there at all? Perhaps that's the Creator's greatest joke, or
perhaps we exist only because we believe that we exist, that it's all
just faith. Perhaps there are other explanations that we are
incapable of understanding so we just accept these. What about string
theory? Is that any more backed by physical evidence that the soul?

String theory is in a separate category; right now, to simplify things,
let's say it's in the testing phase. Personally, I have some doubts
about it. But they're scientifically-based doubts. The current state
of scientific knowledge is *not* dogmatic. A while back, people were
saying that protons had a finite lifetime (some may still champion this
cause); however I had my doubts then too, on a *scientific* basis.
Nevertheless, a number of experiments were proposed and conducted to
demonstrate the predicted proton lifetime. They failed.

The cutting edge of scientific knowledge is always in flux, and there
are occasional reverses to go along with the occasional breakthroughs.
That's the way it works.


.