| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Middle East boundaries
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Middle East boundaries

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 07:47
This discussion will go no where since both parties have absolutely nothing in common.
 
By the way about heliocentrism, Tycho Brahe, the greatest astronomer of the 16th century, didn't buy into it. In fact he used solid maths to prove how wrong it is. Of course Kepler and later on the definitive work of Newton proved once and for all heliocentrism albeit theoretically. Only in the 19th century did tools become accurate enough to detect the heliocentristic nature of the solar system.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 14:49
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

There is still a huge difference in systems that put in place as many safeguards as can be imagined by some of the sharper minds around, but still do not achieve perfection, because of the inevitable shortcomings of the human condition, and those systems that feel they do not need safeguards, because one must simply believe- no evidence required. The gulf is immense.

We invented the institution of science in order to safe guard our religion from alteration and drift. Later it was apparent that that institution was useful in other fields too, and science remains to this day a major part in the proselytisation of Islam.

If by "we" you mean Muslims, I disagree. Science arose in many locations, and Muslims had no monopoly, although I admit they were doing well for a period in the past. Science is not part of a religion if it is applied for building bridges and growing wheat, but stuffed into a closet when it comes time to confront issues much more central to human life.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Being skeptible is OK, but not when it comes to angels, demons, heaven, hell, an afterlife, or believing in a warrior, patriarchical god that originated in (surprise!) a warrior, patriarchical society, before the advent of science, or of established methodologies for trying to ensure accurate results from inquiries into the universe? That's not my idea of skepticism.

We do not believe in daemons or a warrior patriarchical god. Nor do most Christians for that matter. I do believe in angels, heaven, hell and the afterlife, and I believe in them for the same reason that I would fund a gravitation wave reseach facility. Although they cannot be proven, they form part of a consistant theory of which the parts of the theory that can be proven have been.
It may not be your idea about skepticism, but trust me, it is.
 
If you were to go to places where Islam is taken most seriously, such as the Middle East, and ask if God is a women, or some kind of neutral creature, what would the answer be? And would you need your flack vest? In fact, the Christian bible is explict about describing a combative, testosterone soaked, warrior god, who favoured killing in imaginative ways. Those that deny this today are usually the ones that say: Oh yes, it's in the bible, but what God really meant was-----, and then they update the wisdom of the ages to make it sound like something that is not ludicrous in light of current scientific knowledge. I suppose in a sense we can say that today religion is rather flexible.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote As for anyone in the scientific community believing the "laws of science are fixed", or that there is confidence that research will turn fruitful, all I can say is that it seems you haven't found that grade 10 science text as of yet. A core belief of science is that no laws are fixed.

What? You expect one day that F=2ma instead of F=ma?
The belief isn't that you may one day need to adjust newtons laws for relativity, the belief is that in 1000 years time F=ma will still be true.
 
It may indeed equal something else. Math is merely a tool for understanding the universe, and as our view of the universe changes, so too must math. Much stranger things have happened.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Clearly, it is not. Who would have deduced, from rational arguement, that space is curved; the very fabric of the universe has substance? Yet there is strong evidence it is. This may be incomplete, or even off base, but there it is in front of us. Shepards sitting around the camp fire are never going to be able to present evidence for this, or any counter theory, no matter how much musing they do.

What are you talking about? Einstein deduced that from rational argument. They were looking for the evidence because of the theory.
... And you realise that the Nobel Prize in Physics this year was awarded to a guy who works in a sheep paddock right? Sure ok, he's not a shepard, but.
 
I really advocate you seeking out those high school texts Omar, because they could shorten this debate. That is what science is - a proposal is made, experiments designed and theories put to the test. If they do well, they are tentatively accepted. If not, they are discarded. So far Einstein has done pretty well. 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote I'm not saying that people were stupid in the past, but that they necessarily saw the world through the lens of their own experience and (in most cases in pre-science times) very limited knowledge base. I can't speak for Australia, but I can tell you that the idea of aboriginal stewardship of the land here in North America contains a large dollop of myth.

Yes you are right. We all see the world though our own lens and we do reject much previous knowledge on that basis.
Quote Yes, it happens. But again, there is a difference between individual failing, and a totally incorrect paradigm.

I'm not saying science is an incorrect paradigm. I'm saying atheism is complete unsupported by science and most of it's base myth is fiction when held up to scrutiny.
 
There is a mountain of evidence that describes a universe without God. It may be that this is incomplete, and in fact God or gods may be found, but deciding to believe in God today is simply choosing a fable that one likes, or that fits with the expectations of peers or one's community.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Oh, that's OK then I guess. Hand me the crossbow, and I'll see who else has some "incorrect" ideas about god.

Hey, I never said the Catholic Church was nice or moral.
 
And Islam is not exactly distinguishing itself in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia today.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Homeopathy huh? To this day, Omar, there are certain juristications were one can be killed for blasphemy. Do you really think that you are going to be dragged out of a biology class in Australia, and beheaded for suggesting that the theory for DNA might be modified in some way?

Do you really think you'd be dragged out of your lab in medieval poland and beheaded for suggesting the theory of orbits might be modified in some way?
Quote
 
You are re-covering old ground. The inquisition tortured and killed thousands. Even today, those that deviate too far from religious dogma can be sanctioned, imprisoned, or even killed in some countries.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


I hope you will return with your proof of Islam and Christianity.

Perhaps in the morning, but honestly, why do you want me to? Is it so hard to believe that billions of people have reasons for their beliefs?
 
I have moved some extra chairs around the computer monitor, stocked the fridge with beer, and put out some pretzels and other snacks. You can't back out now.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 01 Apr 2012 at 14:57
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 14:52
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

There is still a huge difference in systems that put in place as many safeguards as can be imagined by some of the sharper minds around, but still do not achieve perfection, because of the inevitable shortcomings of the human condition, and those systems that feel they do not need safeguards, because one must simply believe- no evidence required. The gulf is immense.

We invented the institution of science in order to safe guard our religion from alteration and drift. Later it was apparent that that institution was useful in other fields too, and science remains to this day a major part in the proselytisation of Islam.

If by "we" you mean Muslims, I disagree. Science arose in many locations, and Muslims had no monopoly, although I admit they were doing well for a period in the past. Science is not part of a religion if it is applied for building bridges and growing wheat, but stuffed into a closet when it comes time to confront issues much more central to human life.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Being skeptible is OK, but not when it comes to angels, demons, heaven, hell, an afterlife, or believing in a warrior, patriarchical god that originated in (surprise!) a warrior, patriarchical society, before the advent of science, or of established methodologies for trying to ensure accurate results from inquiries into the universe? That's not my idea of skepticism.

We do not believe in daemons or a warrior patriarchical god. Nor do most Christians for that matter. I do believe in angels, heaven, hell and the afterlife, and I believe in them for the same reason that I would fund a gravitation wave reseach facility. Although they cannot be proven, they form part of a consistant theory of which the parts of the theory that can be proven have been.
It may not be your idea about skepticism, but trust me, it is.
 
If you were to go to places where Islam is taken most seriously, such as the Middle East, and ask if God is a women, or some kind of neutral creature, what would the answer be? And would you need your flack vest? In fact, the Christian bible is explict about describing a combative, testosterone soaked, warrior god, who favoured killing in imaginative ways. Those that deny this today are usually the ones that say: Oh yes, it's in the bible, but what God really meant was-----, and then they update the wisdom of the ages to make it sound like something that is not ludicrous in light of current scientific knowledge. I suppose in a sense we can say that today religion is rather flexible.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote As for anyone in the scientific community believing the "laws of science are fixed", or that there is confidence that research will turn fruitful, all I can say is that it seems you haven't found that grade 10 science text as of yet. A core belief of science is that no laws are fixed.

What? You expect one day that F=2ma instead of F=ma?
The belief isn't that you may one day need to adjust newtons laws for relativity, the belief is that in 1000 years time F=ma will still be true.
 
It may indeed equal something else. Math is merely a tool for understanding the universe, and as our view of the universe changes, so too must math. Much stranger things have happened.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Clearly, it is not. Who would have deduced, from rational arguement, that space is curved; the very fabric of the universe has substance? Yet there is strong evidence it is. This may be incomplete, or even off base, but there it is in front of us. Shepards sitting around the camp fire are never going to be able to present evidence for this, or any counter theory, no matter how much musing they do.

What are you talking about? Einstein deduced that from rational argument. They were looking for the evidence because of the theory.
... And you realise that the Nobel Prize in Physics this year was awarded to a guy who works in a sheep paddock right? Sure ok, he's not a shepard, but.
 
I really advocate you seeking out those high school texts Omar, because they could shorten this debate. That is what science is - a proposal is made, experiments designed and theories put to the test. If they do well, they are tentatively accepted. If not, they are discarded. So far Einstein has done pretty well. 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote I'm not saying that people were stupid in the past, but that they necessarily saw the world through the lens of their own experience and (in most cases in pre-science times) very limited knowledge base. I can't speak for Australia, but I can tell you that the idea of aboriginal stewardship of the land here in North America contains a large dollop of myth.

Yes you are right. We all see the world though our own lens and we do reject much previous knowledge on that basis.
Quote Yes, it happens. But again, there is a difference between individual failing, and a totally incorrect paradigm.

I'm not saying science is an incorrect paradigm. I'm saying atheism is complete unsupported by science and most of it's base myth is fiction when held up to scrutiny.
 
There is a mountain of evidence that describes a universe without God. It may be that this is incomplete, and in fact God or gods may be found, but deciding to believe in God today is simply choosing a fable that one likes, or that fits with the expectations of peers or one's community.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Oh, that's OK then I guess. Hand me the crossbow, and I'll see who else has some "incorrect" ideas about god.

Hey, I never said the Catholic Church was nice or moral.
 
And Islam is not exactly distinguishing itself in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia today.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Homeopathy huh? To this day, Omar, there are certain juristications were one can be killed for blasphemy. Do you really think that you are going to be dragged out of a biology class in Australia, and beheaded for suggesting that the theory for DNA might be modified in some way?

Do you really think you'd be dragged out of your lab in medieval poland and beheaded for suggesting the theory of orbits might be modified in some way?
Quote   
 
You are re-covering old ground. The inquisition tortured and killed thousands. Even today, those that deviate too far from religious dogma can be sanctioned, imprisoned, or even killed in some countries.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


I hope you will return with your proof of Islam and Christianity.

Perhaps in the morning, but honestly, why do you want me to? Is it so hard to believe that billions of people have reasons for their beliefs?
[/QUOTE]
 
I have moved some extra chairs around the computer monitor, stocked the fridge with beer, and put out some pretzels and other snacks. You can't back out now.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 01 Apr 2012 at 14:54
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 15:42
This reminds me of people. Long time ago, in a outdoor wedding there was full moon. Then I started to ask people "Which is larger? Earth or Moon?". Every single people said Moon is bigger. Their eyes saying the Moon is a small object thus they should think Moon is smaller in that way. Science says the Moon is smaller but it seems they are unaware of it. Quite an impression how people behave when "big scary science" is the case. Any argument like "they said so, because just you asked for" must be dismissed right now. Because people think science is always conflicts with their common sense when it comes to an area which they have little or next to no knowledge at all. Thus they feel to being force to embrace what "almigthy" science says.

In fact science is not a single entity. It encompasses very divergent areas, where sometimes distinction between dogmas and science become flu... You probably already invested some time to epistemology. As you know, we can't prove what a "point" really is... And point is a priori of geometry. Maybe Captain would like to waste his time to argue on point for several pages... (I doubt that) Point is obvibious but I can safely ignore it and still can solve geometry, I don't need to know definition of point to do it, pretty much like a person doesn't need to know how his computer works for using it. God is obvibious for me and arguing on that is the ultimate waste of time for me.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 01 Apr 2012 at 23:46
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 16:43

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

This discussion will go no where since both parties have absolutely nothing in common.

Actually I think we've done rather well.
You can never hope for anyone to surrender a point in an internet argument, but I think CV has understood some part of what I've been saying.

That we have nothing in common is part of what I'm trying to show. But I think it is about time to draw this conversation to a close, so this will be my last post on the topic.

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:


Omar, I am still eagerly awaiting your proof of Christianity and Islam. Is it on the way?

Ever time you say that you seem to imply some greater proof.
Remember what I said, I can construct a logic proof of Christainity yet I don't believe in it. I'm showing how logic can be (mis)used to construct something that is self-consistant, unfalsifiable yet not necessarily true.

In brief, if the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church (be in Ancient Roman, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) then the teachings and traditions of the church, including the bible, are correct, because they have been continously crafted that way.

It is logical, but you should be able to see why it is meaningless. It is circular - you have to believe in that the Holy Spirit - but many people have that as a starting position.

Quote
This illuminates your view of Dawkins, but provides no evidence he is off track.

Yeah, that's the point. How can you provide evidence that something is wrong when you can't provide evidence that something is right?

It's usually called a religious difference.

Quote If you were up on your Einstein you would also know that he later said that the statement did not mean that he had unseemly images of an omnipotent one leaning over a craps table. In fact, he wasn' totally against quantum mechanics, but merely took the view that there must be more to the theory than was being presented. Things were not as random as suggested, he proposed, and eventually we would have more knowledge that would make the random seem an explanable pattern.

Obviously.
Quote What you are suggesting here is that the disagreement is based on rigid thinking and egoism, rather than free wheeling scientific debate.

Same difference.
Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

If you were to go to places where Islam is taken most seriously, such as the Middle East, and ask if God is a women, or some kind of neutral creature, what would the answer be? And would you need your flack vest?

Neutral. Of course not, but you might get preached to.
You can't know very much about Islam if you're asking that question.
Quote
Quote I'm not saying science is an incorrect paradigm. I'm saying atheism is complete unsupported by science and most of it's base myth is fiction when held up to scrutiny.

There is a mountain of evidence that describes a universe without God. It may be that this is incomplete, and in fact God or gods may be found, but deciding to believe in God today is simply choosing a fable that one likes, or that fits with the expectations of peers or one's community.

Good.
You no doubt have reasons why you think your right and I have reasons I think I'm right and neither can hope to convince the other they're wrong.
That's a religious difference. Accept it as a fact of life.
Quote
And Islam is not exactly distinguishing itself in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia today.

Nor has atheism in Russia or China. And before you claim 'but they don't have freedom' or some such, remember, I don't care, we can both dismiss our loonies.

Anyway, this is my last post because I think you have understood my point as well as I am capable of teaching it.
The take away points are as follows:

You have your beliefs and reasons for thinking they are right.
I have my beliefs are reasons for thinking they are right.
Joe Bloe has his beliefs are reasons for thinking they are right.
You believe my beliefs have no evidence to support them.
I believe your beliefs have no evidence to support them.
Don't ridicule other peoples beliefs because they can ridicule yours just as easily.
Atheism is based on just as much myth as any other religion, atheists are just worse at recognising it.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 21:33
Consider as always Schrödiinger's cat. The dilemma is 'Is the cat alive or dead?' You can assume (a) you just don't know or (b) it is somehow in both states at once or (c) some oracle can be appealed to that will tell you.
 
Assuming either (b) or (c) requires faith. (b) is what modern science says. (c) is a religious approach. Empiricism though demands (a), with the proviso that if you actually want the answer you have to open the box - and that until you do it doesn't matter what the answer is anyway. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2012 at 02:59
Omar, I am disappointed. The neighbours have heaved a heavy sigh and left. The pretzels are uneaten. The beer is ok- I'll take care of that.
 
Your awaited essay on the underpinnings of Christianity and Islam consists of three sentences, that essentially say: Well, uh, if you believe in God, well, uh, that make's everything so. Circular arguement I suppose, but, there you have it. If you were my student in university, I would not give you a failing grade, but send you to the nursing station, in order to assess whether you were having a medical crisis, one which was affecting your mental facilities.
 
But, such is life. This is often the way these debates go, because we have here logic combating emotional need, and in these the latter is usually victorious. The brain may be the place where we work, but the heart is where we live. Most would be more content to see the office burn down, than their home.
 
JBS Haldane offered the famous quote that the universe may not just be queerer than we know, but queerer than we can know. I agree with this, if only for the point that we not only do not have all the answers, but do not really even know what questions to ask. I think though, that our limitations are physical in nature. What we don't know is not wrapped up in a supernatural fable, that conveniently is centered on the human experience in the universe, but in our physiology, I would speculate. I think we should try and know as much as we can.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3602
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2012 at 07:11
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Consider as always Schrödiinger's cat. The dilemma is 'Is the cat alive or dead?' You can assume (a) you just don't know or (b) it is somehow in both states at once or (c) some oracle can be appealed to that will tell you.
 
Assuming either (b) or (c) requires faith. (b) is what modern science says. (c) is a religious approach. Empiricism though demands (a), with the proviso that if you actually want the answer you have to open the box - and that until you do it doesn't matter what the answer is anyway. 

I can not agree that (b) is what modern science says as many of the actual interpretations (that can't be tested) of quantum theory are not actually science, but guesswork. The interpretation answering (b) is not that strongly supported anymore (the Copenhagen interpretation), and the very dilemma with the cat was designed to show the craziness that could be derived from it. There is no consensus but if you would make a poll among physicists I'm pretty certain (a) would be the most prevalent answer. In any case it's all rather philosophical and a major problem with the interpretations of quantum physics is to design experiments which can actually test the interpretations - and thereby make them scientific.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 02 Apr 2012 at 07:14
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2012 at 08:36
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Consider as always Schrödiinger's cat. The dilemma is 'Is the cat alive or dead?' You can assume (a) you just don't know or (b) it is somehow in both states at once or (c) some oracle can be appealed to that will tell you.
 
Assuming either (b) or (c) requires faith. (b) is what modern science says. (c) is a religious approach. Empiricism though demands (a), with the proviso that if you actually want the answer you have to open the box - and that until you do it doesn't matter what the answer is anyway. 

I can not agree that (b) is what modern science says as many of the actual interpretations (that can't be tested) of quantum theory are not actually science, but guesswork. The interpretation answering (b) is not that strongly supported anymore (the Copenhagen interpretation), and the very dilemma with the cat was designed to show the craziness that could be derived from it. There is no consensus but if you would make a poll among physicists I'm pretty certain (a) would be the most prevalent answer. In any case it's all rather philosophical and a major problem with the interpretations of quantum physics is to design experiments which can actually test the interpretations - and thereby make them scientific.
 
 
Your religious oracle (c) will likely tell you to keep your paws off the box, because if you open it you may find out more about the universe, which will further minimize religious dogma.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2012 at 08:43
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
Your religious oracle (c) will likely tell you to keep your paws off the box, because if you open it you may find out more about the universe, which will further minimize religious dogma.

When you observed it, wave function collapses into one possibility, there's no way to know what was the sitution before opening box.

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 02 Apr 2012 at 08:49
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Apr 2012 at 02:23
I like the variation on this in an Ursula K. Leguin story in a which the prescribed box was built, the cat inserted, the radiation device set up, the box closed. A while later, it was opened.
 
The cat wasn't there.
 
The characters involved only carried out the experiment because one of them said he couldn't stand the uncertainty.
 
(I came across the story in an anthology called The Sophisticated Cat; where Leguin first published it I don't know.)
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Apr 2012 at 02:46
It is an experiment that takes place in our macro world. So, this hypotethical experiment is pretty lame to explain how particle physics works. Because it's just a metaphor but it gives some idea. In reality the cat can't be dead and alive at same time. But subatomic particles can behave like being two different place at same time. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.