> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
>>
>> --
>>                                                            - Warp
>
> Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days when

> is it such a shock when we are reminded for the umpteenth time that the MODELS
> that we build in accordance with our various theories apply to a specific range
> of observed phenomena and that the greater universe as a whole is under no
> obligation to constrain its existence within those parameters?  M-theory should


> .... eleven dimensions?
>

> interesting than an ordinary flaw in the experiment or the equipment.  It could
> be a real opportunity to learn something very interesting about the structure of
> spacetime.   I know this is a REAL stretch, but /IF/ this is a first case of
> being able to generate a trajectory from within 3D+t space that moves outside of
> it*, the implications COULD be profound. The hypothesis... OK, conjecture ;-)...


>


> anything truly essential missing from modern inquiries into high energy physics,

>



> These folks will always find (or invent) SOMETHING they can latch onto for this

> arguments rather than the previous bazillion.
>
> Best regards,
> Mike C.
>
> *Obviously, no set of vectors contained entirely within 3D+t space can
> mathematically add up to a result ending outside of it. However, it might be
> possible to generate a physical phenomenon which could INTERACT with an existing
> extra-dimensional event or, perhaps, to produce an event whose nature defies

>

A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated 
by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of 
what can be known.

A religious zealot will tell you that a single book contains All and 
Everything that is True, as well as Ultimate Knowlege of the Universe.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:

> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
> what can be known.

I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like 
this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if 
there is one).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2011 3:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>> what can be known.
>
> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
> there is one).

If there isn't, there is no fraction.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:05:38 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 27-9-2011 3:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>> accumulated by humanity since the first humans only account for a
>>> small fraction of what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
> 
> If there isn't, there is no fraction.

Mathematically, that's certainly true. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>> what can be known.
>
> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
> there is one).
>
> Jim

OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>>> what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
>>
>> Jim
>
> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

Why would that have been better?

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:47:18 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>> accumulated by humanity since the first humans only account for a
>>> small fraction of what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
>>
>> Jim
> 
> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/27 16:06, andrel a écrit :
> On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
>> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>>
>>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>>>> what can be known.
>>>
>>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>>> there is one).
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"
>
> Why would that have been better?
>

It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance 
of the part relative to the whole.

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2011 22:51, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/27 16:06, andrel a écrit :
>> On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
>>> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>>>> accumulated
>>>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small
>>>>> fraction of
>>>>> what can be known.
>>>>
>>>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>>>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>>>> there is one).
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"
>>
>> Why would that have been better?
>>
>
> It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance
> of the part relative to the whole.

Probably too subtle for me. IMO it does not solve the amount divided by 
infinity if that is what you are after. If not, the improvement escapes 
me. But I am not a native speaker.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:11:53 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance
>> of the part relative to the whole.
> 
> Probably too subtle for me. IMO it does not solve the amount divided by
> infinity if that is what you are after. If not, the improvement escapes
> me. But I am not a native speaker.

That was how I read it - "part" doesn't necessarily imply a definitive 
whole, just "less than 100%".

Jim

Post a reply to this message