Re: We have to respect the limits of human knowledge!

On Dec 9, 7:21 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:01 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 9, 12:48 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 8, 7:28 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxxxx> drooled:

On Dec 8, 6:57 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 8, 5:59 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxxxx> splat:

On Dec 7, 7:59 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 6, 6:17 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> moronises:

On Dec 6, 4:26 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6 Dec, 00:55, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 5, 4:57 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 5 Dec, 00:51, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 4, 1:24 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2 Dec, 01:48, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 1, 4:31 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:

Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:0256bf96-4153-4643-a6db-194bfd404a3a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Dec 1, 10:39 am, Ferrous Patella <FerrousPate...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:0524cf16-1869-483c-910a-
dccc767e4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

By definition explane it all theories
are an impossibility, because simply everything canït be known.

If you are so sure you cannot know everything, how is it that you can
know this?

Logically, the only way that explane it all theory is possible, is
that totality of what can be discovered is finite, and, moreover, that
a way can be found to fully predict behaviour of all systems, wether
it be biological systems or nonbiological ones.

Sounds pretty darn impossible to me, but feel free to disagree :)

It seems to me that the things to be learned are almost limitless - and,
oddly enough, the steady chipping away at the unknown has not yet
reached a boundary that more chipping cannot bring down. As long as we
are able to record and communicate, so that each new generation of
curious people can stand on the shoulders of giants that have gone
before, I really don't see any effective limit on what we can eventually
understand (taking the body of human knowledge as 'we' here - certainly
no one human can encompass that vast and ever-growing corpus of
experience and thought). That there are gaps is nothing to be ashamed
of at all, nor do those gaps present insurmoutable barriers to further
understanding. We are still children in the cosmos, despite some truly
astonishing achievements. And understanding how something works need
not lead to successful prediction - indeed, for many systems detailed
prediction is impossible (consider grains of sand in an hourglass: it is
impossible to predict exactly when a specific grain will fall, or when
or where it will tumble down the pile at the bottom, though we
understand the overall mechanics of the system and can,with some
confidence, predict how things will behave on average). Understanding
that some things are unpredictable is part of understanding the system,
and not, in my view, a failure or incompleteness in human knowledge.

I think I can discern stumbling blocks, likely to prove
insurmountable.

How do we find out the true status of those objects at the present
that we are viewing in far away galaxies, to name one?

How do we find out wether the universe does really have a limit, or
not?

To make a perfect record of a human mind, in order to successfully
make a working copy, one of the holy grails of popular science
fiction.

Now, as we can be sure that some things will ever be unknown, that
does not mean that our search for knowledge is without use. Let´s
remember Einstein´s words to the effects "that the more he learned the
better he understood how litle he really knew"?

I am convinched that eventually we will travel out there to the stars.
We may even encounter some others out there, share stories. But so
wast is the space out there, that we may only ever manage to surwey a
small tiny corner of the Milky Way, which does presumably contain
something on the order of 400.000 million stars...and moreover is only
a galaxy among millions observed to exist out there in the far depths
of space.

In this truly titanic ocean of stars, there will truly never be a time
when all things have been seen, observed, touched or discovered.

Einar

Here is some food for thought, that may make you see things
differently:

****Start of quote****

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long
breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe
impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I
was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes
I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

****End of quote****

Sounds like an useful exersize for the mind. It´s a good idea to have
a flexible outlook on life.

Then perhaps you should give it a try.

Einar-

Indeed I do :) Intend to keep doing that.

You have decided that certain things are impossible, and you dismiss
the challenge of overcoming what you see as insurmountable stumbling
blocks.

You still insist that there are truly no impossibilities...well.

False. Play with your Straw Whore on your own time.

The difference between " Nothing will stay impossible " and " MANY
things that we NOW feel are impossible will likely turn out to be
possible. " is clear to NON retards.

Not even an attempt at refutation ?

Excellent, my demolishment of your lunati claim stands.

Thank you for your latest concession.

Some statements are so silly they are best ignored.

That sums up reationism in a *nut*shell.

But, either way, you were UNable to debate/refute my statement, so
that
proved that you had NO reply. Learn to lose.

Yet now you are suggesting that you have a flexible outlook on life?

Let me point out a few things that others of a narrow point of view
dismissed as impossible.

In the 1600's it was believed that it was impossible to travel faster
than a horse.

Sounds about right for the period pryor to the invention of the
steamtrain.

You would say that... Because you have a *record* here of being
wildly IGNORANT.

The earliest steam locomotive was built by Richard Trevithick and
Andrew Vivian in 1804.

Hmm, and 1804 is some time after the 1600's.

<Laughs> Try to, yourself, live the 196 years in between the two.

It was a BIG mistake: Your latest ignorant one.

Your track of a mind is a mysterious one.

<Massive Loon Projection>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive

So, you're about 100% off target.

Proven.

In the 1890's it was believed that it was impossible to travel
underwater.

That was truly a weird claims, as after all that had been done on
numerous occations in several countries by that time.

" Submerge " and " travel non fatally " are NOT synonyms...

You appear ignorant about the numerous submersibles that were built
and tested pryor to 1890 by a number of nations.

<Laughs> I have been a student of matters naval for over 40 years
now.
At the age of 12, I corrected a factual error on a BBC doumentary on
the naval war of WW1, so don't even try to teach your grandmother to
suck eggs, punk.

The point remains, that the experiments of the pre 1900 period all
failed to provide any OPERATIONAL kinds of submarines.

That wasn´t your previous point.

<Laughs> " I am many, I contain multitudes. " Walt Whitman,
Song of Myself.

In any case, the point stands: Common belief in the feasability of
operational underwater vehicles back then was negative. Deal with it.

Many of them
submerged successfully and surfaced successfully. However, they had
number of other shortcomings which made them into only interesting
curiosities pryor to the 1890s, when the first practical submergibles
arrived on the scene.

So, lets see: YOU want to nitpik about a couple of decades, yet YOU
want to AVOID YOUR fuckup of 200 YEARS.

Hypocrite.

Your mind moves in mysterious ways.

Yes, it THINKS. I am very aware that that conept is utterly foreign to
you.

The book "Steam, Steel & Shellfire - Conway´s History of The Ship" has
a very informative chapter about the painfully slow development of the
submarine.

Jane´s Submarines - war beneath the waves from 1776 to the present day
- Robert Hitchinson, offers a more comprehensive telling of the story
about the evolution of the submarine, for anyone interested in that
technological history.

I prefer more detailed works. The ones you cited are for tyros, not
pros.

Well, they offer a nice overview.

And, leave out *so* much...

In 1902 it was believed that powered flight was impossible for at
least another 100 years.

Sounds like something prof. Langley may have said after seeing his
plane ending in the Potomac.

So ?

This was not a widly held opinion.

No proof EVER offered ? Cow*** fact free loon claim always fails.

In 1926 it was believed that space flight was impossible.

Was somewhat hard to do then.

" somewhat hard to do then " and " impossible " are NOT synonyms.

It was impossible in 1926.

BFHD. Look it up.

The first experimental rockets were built
by Goddard during the period

...

read more >>

You use ad hominems rather to frequently for my taste.

<Massive Loon Projection>

PROVING, repeatedly, that you ARE an ignorant blowhard git, isn't
an ad hominem. Ad Hominem is the use of person RATHER THAN
argument. In your case, demolishing your *arguments* is easy.

You haven´t refuted a single thing.

<Laughs> If that were true, you could PROVE it.

You CAN'T, so all that you can do is rage against the FACTS.

Sucks to be you...

You appear though to think so.

<Massive Loon Projection>

Moreover, your foul language makes you unpleasant to talk to.

Thats OK, your deep and proud idiocy makes you unpleasant, period.

All you did was that you have picked some examples about something,
which some people in the past though impossible, which today are not.
That only proves that those who thought at the time those things would
stay impossible for all of time were wrong.

And, that even proves that creationists' claims that evolution is
impossible
can be proven wrong. In many ways now, and in even more, later.

That however, does not in any way whatsoever prove the statements I
made at the beginning wrong.

No proof EVER offered ? Mentally diseased fact free loon claims always
fail.

Seek out professional mental health care NOW.

Andre

I have no need to prove statements that are self evidently true, i.e.
that it´s not possible to know everything and therefore that some
things will remain unattainable for all of time. I provited examples
like about objects that are millions of lightyears away that we will
allways remain in the dark about theyr present condition. That we will
never know the full extend of the universe, after all the observable
bubble is 13 billion lightyears across already, actually believed due
to accelerating expansion to be in fact 50 to 60 billion lightyears
across. That we will never be able to travel to the objects that are
at the far range of our observable universe, after all in order to do
that we would have to exceed the speed of light which by definition is
impossible.

Now, for making very reasonable statements like that you have been
haranging me, calling me a loon. I beg to differ, to say the least.

Einar

.