From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Sun Mar 18 2001 - 23:29:54 MST
In a message dated 3/18/01 12:29:03 PM, jonkc@worldnet.att.net writes:
><CurtAdams@aol.com> Wrote:
>
>> The problem is that we can make predictions that apply outside particle
>> accelerators - for example, that radioactive isotopes of potassium will
>>decay at certain rates. And they do.
>
>Yes but only when you look at the radioactive isotopes of potassium ; I
>don't know about you but I haven't done that in, gee, it must have been days.
Some people look at that everyday. And if were different, it would have
consequences for mutation rates, etc. The geiger counter in my lab
would have to influence minicircle mutations of the cells I work with.
Or would that only be when it's on? Did the rules of the universe change
last month when it was out of spec? Are you really serious about this?
> >Everywhere we look these rules are being followed
>
>But what about far more numerous places we haven't looked?
Place we don't or haven't looked often produce consequences
> > To know in advance all possible consequences of a simplification to the
> > rules and know that will produce no contradictions implies a knowledge
> > of the future incompatible with a sim.
>
>Is there any reason to think that our world contains no contradictions?
It's done a remarkable good job of appearing to be.
Fundamentally, these arguments are the same as a last resort of
creationists. They say God "poofed" the world into existence 6K
years ago with all the evidence for 15 gigayears, evolution, etc.
Actually I'd say your arguments are less plausible; at least they
don't have God *currently* running mad tweaks when I turn on
my geiger counter! Scientific thinking
depends on acknowlegement that the world is; if somebody holds
to a faith in contravention of all possible evidence against it,
what's to say?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:30 MST