
It is impossible to PROVE that something does not exist
But until you prove that it DOES exist, it doesn't.
And even then, God doesn't...
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:31,
archived)
But until you prove that it DOES exist, it doesn't.
And even then, God doesn't...

I see.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:34,
archived)

It's down to quantum theory and schroedinger and other philosophical examples.
Nothing exists until it is observed. And you change its state merely by observing it.
If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The answer can be 'yes' or 'it is impossible to know' depending on your viewpoint. Or even 'the tree does not exist as it is not being observed'...
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:36,
archived)
Nothing exists until it is observed. And you change its state merely by observing it.
If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The answer can be 'yes' or 'it is impossible to know' depending on your viewpoint. Or even 'the tree does not exist as it is not being observed'...

is only relevant to small real-time particles,and is a theory.
in Newtonian physics,the tree makes a sound,based on kinetics,potential,and sound energy theorems.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:39,
archived)
in Newtonian physics,the tree makes a sound,based on kinetics,potential,and sound energy theorems.

applies to everything.
all large things are made of smaller things. so the rules that apply to the small things will affect the larger things they make up, even if not in the same way.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:41,
archived)
all large things are made of smaller things. so the rules that apply to the small things will affect the larger things they make up, even if not in the same way.

No it doesn't.
A grand unified theory would apply to everything, but medium-sized solid objects are relentlessly classical.
Were that it were different. I'd get a lot more done in a day.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:48,
archived)
A grand unified theory would apply to everything, but medium-sized solid objects are relentlessly classical.
Were that it were different. I'd get a lot more done in a day.

now, thats chaos theory at its finest hour.
unfortunately,i hate chaos theory.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:48,
archived)
unfortunately,i hate chaos theory.

Sounds like someone has a dose of the Berkeleys...
For myself, I'm a bit of a Kant...
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:50,
archived)
For myself, I'm a bit of a Kant...

We had plenty of evidence for all kinds of stuff before Hubble. We now have more evidence. We are edging towards certainty on many things. But we can never say that we've got there.
There's a difference between what exists, and what we can say to exist. It's the latter clause that's important here. "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence" captures it, I think.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:44,
archived)
There's a difference between what exists, and what we can say to exist. It's the latter clause that's important here. "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence" captures it, I think.

is a glorious seam of sense in a gravel mine of inaccurate theory.
( ,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:50,
archived)