![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#11 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart
Posts: 10,326
|
![]() Quote:
Your interpretation is not so unique. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 133
|
![]()
When you get your best theory/answer will you "know" this as the truth, suspect it as the truth, or only the best answer currently postulated?
Is there any difference in the quality of proof between knowing an answer vs. believing in an answer? Should an answer be confirmable by third parties or is your own <knowledge/belief> sufficient? What the hecks wrong with "not knowing?" |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart
Posts: 10,326
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arecibo, PR
Posts: 258
|
![]() Quote:
At the moment of the Big Bang, the universe was extremely small in size and evolving on extremely short timescales. Therefore I see no reason to apply the macroscopically averaged rules of causation to a fundamentally different, microscopic quantum phenomenon. |
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|