Cuba

You cant even say that, approximately I mean, without alluding to beleif. There is no way for you to prove a theory about reality is even "approximately" true. Simply for the fact that if you knew you were close you would have some sort of unheard of perception that allows you to gauge your proximity to truth. There is absolutly no evidence supporting this. Even if there was nothing to refute a claim about reality to our knowledge it cannot be a truth nor can it be assumed to be even close! Reality is to scientists like god is to agnostics. I can neither refute nor accept that it is true due to a lack of definitive evidence. I accept the possibility that either may be true or even both.

Most likey aliens. Though perhaps they are full of it.

Yeah, thats what I want... SB give us one compleatly irrufutable truth in our perceived reality. Or better yet explain how you could even go about arguing it? Truth is the domain of religion, as you must have the capacity to beleive in something despite the lack of definitive evidence. At this time, and most likely any time, there is no way to perceive with absolute certainty the nature of the universe. All we can do is give more accurate descriptions of our perceptions.

The OP would make sense if it just said that whis theory depends on space-time being predetermined. Then yes if you went back the atoms making up your body and mind would probably return to where they were supposed to be at that particular moment in space time, beyond that you wouldent even remember going back and you would live your life in a perpetual loop. Though I personally do not think the universe is dictated by some kind of space-time fate.

I like teaching people that do not have a degree in physics, analogies help. I posted to see if there are any major faults in my observation and subsequent simplification.

To clarify. I am not saying there is not a gray area in natural selection. I am reffering to the topic of this thread. They are either dead and we leave them dead as it was our natural right to cause their extiction, or we bring them back and they are alive because we have some sort of responsibility as intelligent creatures to preserve weaker species. As far as I can see there is not much of a kinda bring them back. The base question is what is more ethicly correct, bring them back or not. Yes you could make the argument that they could be kept in captivity or they will not be the same, but that does not answer the question on whether we ethicilly should have the right to do so. Humans killing off other animals has everything to do with natural selection. It has far reaching effects in nature. But do we consider ourselves part of that eco-system or not? Is it the natural order of things that humans did this or not? I apologise if I was or still am being unclear, the analogies were ment to be an example to help understand my point. Usually if I dive right in I end up having to draw a picture of analogies later, I seem to have done the opposite this time. Did not mean to offend though I would be lieing if I said you did not.

See and you had to go and ruin it, I was totally gonna use a picture is worth a thousand words saying. Touche. When I mentioned the orbit bit I was reffering to what could be assumed from the work, like you said you could assume the earth is simply a two demensional circle from a photograph, but its those assumptions brought on by observations that I think conveys science. It gets people thinking, it can get them to think differently. So beyond being a peice of evidence in a logical argument (albeit a faulty one) it can also be considered to effect psycology. Do you imply that logic is not a science? That would suggest to me that you think psycology is not a science either. I agree when you say not everything is art... to a point. As all art is simply considered art, like I explained in my first post. Therefore depending on your disposition, beleifs, and various opinions you could claim that everything is art or nothing is art, and everything in-between. It is defined by your own perception. So the real answer when asking if something is art or not is simply "possibly." Same could be said, however unlikely it might be, that there is a possibilty our perception is tricking us into thinking the earth is round when it is in fact a 2D circle. Therefore it is still a theory, even if it is accepted fact it cannot be considered "true." Tell me, what does the color green look like to you?

Philosophy threw logic. It is a supporting argument to the statement that the world is round, as I mentioned. Unless logic suddenly became something besides science when I was not looking.

People really have a hard time with analogies on this forum... I am specifically referring to the fact that you either do or do not agree with whether we have the right to kill everything or we do not. Since killing is rather final there is not a lot of gray area there (or rather none). 1. I believed I asked whats the difference between the statements "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" and not precisely that Darwin referred to it as survival of the fittest (which I agree is false). 2. Short hand is just an easier way to determine how things work. Prime example Newtonian Physics vs. Einstein. Newton works for most things and is easily explained, but Einstein has a more accepted model...yet is extremely complicated. 3. I agree completely which is why I think it applies to natural selection. It also implies that the most fit have some sort of an advantage over the rest of living nature. Which could and perhaps should result in the extermination of other species (back to my original point) depending on which side of the fence you are on! Edit: I'd just like to add that I do not think we have the right. So to me, that means I disagree partially with natural selection.

The only thing I can define is true are my own actions. To lift a finger I must lift a finger. That is a true statement. However I cannot say whether the finger was actually lifted in a 3 or 4 or however many dimensional reality because I can only say what I am observing. Who knows, the reality we perceive could be a projection of a 2 dimensional reality! Physics is indeed describing how things behave and not what they are; as Swanson stated in post 40! Its just like with my own actions, I can judge the truth of an idea, of a statement or equation, but to judge the truth of reality is something that is simply not within the human realm of perception and perhaps not within anythings realm of perception. That's why when we attribute something to reality it is called a theory. Because we simply cannot prove without a doubt that it is true. Besides the fact that in a practical sense it does not really make a difference. You ask the same question over and over SB, what is science after? It is after a better understanding of how things in nature behave. You are stubbornly sticking to a belief that science should, or is, proving reality (your form of truth). Its like a weird scientific religion. I am not a physicist, just a philosopher that enjoys reading far too much, and I have found this discussion to be interesting. However, this argument seems to be in a circulatory pattern. Claim A - Explanation x - Accusation - Explanation y - Claim A....rinse and repeat.

First its hard to call something extreme when its a yes or a no question. Did you kill the bug. Kind-of is not an answer, you either did or you did not. Second the way natural selection is presented by Darwin; what is it but survival of the fittest?

Your basically saying that drawing a picture of a DNA molecule is wrong because its not exactly right? The point of an analogy is to give a basic understanding of the concept, not the precise physics. And the cup analogy is something easily pictured and shortly described.

Is not the statement that the world is round still a theory? It was last I checked. Yes its an accepted theory but theories still need supporting arguments and what better an argument than a photograph of a round earth in front of a round sun from an elliptical orbit? People (the masses) believe what they see. You say you draw cartoons/technical drawings (which definitively tells me you are more scientist than artist...no offence intended) to what purpose do you create them for? To teach. You are demonstrating a theory, or hypothesis, or whatever threw visual imagery. So that someone who might not understand the numbers can understand what you are trying to describe. The cartoon draws them in and they can imagine something science has discovered. Back to the orbital photograph, such a thing is without a doubt a work of art to society at large, and to many people it might be the only argument for the theory of a round world that they ever consider. Seeing is not just believing, it also can be a path to understanding.

Way I see it is a gas can be compared with the book analogy only with no page numbers. It makes no difference what order they are in. So regardless of how you pick up the pages it will always be uniform, and since any state is a correct state it is always at maximum entropy as there is not another state it can exist in. That is what I got from reading threw this thread at least.

So for arguments sake if time and space are substantial and do interact what would that mean? Another thought that is slightly off topic, if the future and past are predetermined wouldn't that make any form of hypothetical time travel to be pointless? If every atom has a predetermined location in every moment in time and space then wouldn't they just return to where they should have been if you go to the past and where they should be if you go to the future? Which, if you went to the past, would make you forget anything even happened. Heck if you went too far you would simply cease to exist in either direction (as yourself). So if going near a black hole slows the rate time passes due to the speed at which you are traversing space and you somehow manage to break free I would assume that your memories would not suddenly hop to where they are supposed to be on the time line that you should be on in space. So by demonstrating that time can be altered and is different in different locations in space, it sort of throws a wrench in the whole predetermined future thing. How can two (or many more rather) timelines be going at once in a predetermined future without coming to odds with one another? Even if its only very minor it would disprove the whole notion. At least that how my brain decided to look at it. There are undoubtedly better holes in such a theory than that.

This might be about a year late, but reading this I had to respond. As an artist, and a philospher, illistration is a considered art. The defining factor is in how they are displayed. Show an illistration on a slide in a classroom along with a lecture and most viewers will not consider it as art. Put that same illistration in a gallery and it is almost always considered to be art. So I suppose I am supporting your argument in a way, however I am demostrating that with a different perspective illistration can always be considered art. So I guess what I am getting at is that your statement is not a logical argument as it largly has to do with opinion. Soo farther on down the rabbit hole you could make an argument that art has no place in science as its value is placed almost solely on opinion. Yet an image of the sun rising over the horizon from orbit is an image often displayed in galleries world wide, how is that not a documentation of the scientific feats of mankind and the physics of nature?

Why not? You either go full blown stongest will survive and humans should kill everything because we naturally posses the abilty to...or you go hey we understand what we are doing and we shouldent go around killing everything because of that. Then again I'm mostly drawing from the Darwin I was spoon fed in school so I could be compleatly arse backwards.

Distance can be observed and measured in all directions. How is that not substantial? Also is not distance a key factor in how all things interact? Maybe I'm just not good with the terminology. But to say that time is insubstantial and that its effect on everything is not an interaction it makes me wonder what is and does. Distance is space, time seems to be the antithisis of space. So more space less time and visa versa. I beleive thats part of Einsteins theory? They interact with each other in that way. Which seems to suggest they have substance. Or can something interact and yet not have substance and visa versa? Correct me please, purely learning here.

Time can be altered by speed. How can something be altered and yet not have substance or interaction? Forgive me if thats a stupid question (just an interested philosopher a bit out of his depth) but it seems the basis for the argument stated here is proved or disproved by that assumption.

Very interesting, I wonder, are they all previously released documents? I mean have they all been made publicly view-able before or might there be some new insight to be gained by the public not yet discovered by biographers?

I agree but that's pretty off topic buddy. Back on topic: It is a difficult question to answer and I guess it kind of depends on which side of the Darwin fence you are on. You know that whole "survival of the fittest" crap. Not to say that it does not have some logical arguments, first and for most in this particular arguments case being that if we bring these extinct species back what cascade effect will they have on the rest of the environment? One cannot discount that humans are predator, therefore part of the biological environment. We wiped them out as any predator might do so to a weak species. Which could be considered a natural flow. However the counter to that is that humans are intelligent and therefore make decisions that are sometimes at odds with nature. (humans make informed decisions about nature: nature does not make informed decisions: therefore humans may not always agree with nature...ish?) So we should have no misgivings about bringing back extinct species as long as they are not intelligent and not a threat. Then again who knows what kinds of broad reaching consequences releasing a previously extinct species on the world could be? Perhaps it will not seem like such a good idea when a T-rex is eating your living room (bit of an exaggerated consequence). Mammoths could over turn the elephant species, consume food originally eaten by other species, create a food source for predators which could then in turn increase in population, which could lead to other species being threatened. You might be bring back one species at the cost of what evolution has created; several other species. Of course this is all hypothetical, and assuming that the un-extinct species would be released into the wild.