On 1/8/2011 7:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically
>> consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no
>> evidence this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that
>> *no* one, neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this
>> argument as an "in" for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what
>> is going on.
>
> I'd love to address your points, if I could understand what you're saying.
>
?? I am saying, if the universe isn't logically consistent than science 
would have to be wrong on a huge scale, but the morons that use that as 
an excuse to claim anything else is better wouldn't have a leg to stand 
on either. You would need to.. have an inconsistent universe, which 
never the less, managed to be consistent on the large scale only. Like.. 
statistically stable, but completely unstable on the basic level.

Mind, this wouldn't preclude it being consistent, it would only mean 
that events where not predictable on the smallest scale, but that the 
law of averages/big numbers both made it consistent once you had enough 
events to look at.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message