Californian busybody telling Canada about cars

Dang, you know my mechanic...

On 23 Nov 2004 12:46:51 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:

>What if automobile mechanics picked up on your line of reasoning ?
>
>"Sorry Mr. Jones, your transmission isn't operating properly due to quantum
>fluctuations. That's not covered under the warranty, so you'll have to pay
>for it. We don't do that kind of work here, so we'll have to send you over
>to Steve Hawking's garage, they do quantum mechanical jobs."
>
> "Will they have to use a particle accelerator?"
>
>"Oh yeah, they'll have to come up with a unified field theory too, you're
>looking at some serious cost and time."
>
>
>Can I pick-up a quantum-metrics wrench set at Sears?
>
>
>"Jim S." > wrote in message
...
>> Matter reacts in the same way 99.99(to infinity)% of the time You're in
>> the smallest possible realm!
>>
>> If you want to say, "well, matter sometimes changes it properties," well,
>> maybe it does. But, 99.9999(to infinity)% of the time, if I walk into a
>> brick wall, I won't pass through it. Sure, there is that infinitesimal
>> chance that matter will react differently and I can walk right through,
>> but for the purpose of not getting a broken nose, I'm not going to bet on
>> it.
>>
>> If as a result of the tiny chance that matter will not react in its usual
>> way, you want to throw up your hands and say, "Well, I can't fix the
>> refrigerator because the matter it consists of may act in an new way," how
>> can you ever do anything?
>>
>> You can't just ignore Newtonian physics. If you do, climate change would
>> be the least of your worries. You should be more concerned with waking up
>> as a fish!
>>
>> I'll say it again, if the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a
>> man to death, surely, they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Spike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ah... now you limit the scope from science in general to Newtonian...
>>> Guess there was too much leeway in the broadest scope of science.
>>> When one retreats into the smallest possible realm, there is far less
>>> possibility of being wrong. You should read Ann Coulter's book... LOL
>>>
>>> And the fishing, under bright sun was COLD!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> On 22 Nov 2004 23:45:42 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all
>>>>information,
>>>> (within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical quantum
>>>>theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
>>>> reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable
>>>>information,"
>>>>that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the principles
>>>>of
>>>>the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not acquirable,"
>>>>that's mysticism.
>>>>
>>>>What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't know
>>>>everything.
>>>>
>>>>Let me put this in somewhat Socratic language -- We don't know what we
>>>>don't know, and we don't even know that we don't know it. So, we can't
>>>>know
>>>>anything fully, because we don't know everything, or even know of
>>>>everything
>>>>there is to know.
>>>>
>>>>I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
>>>> justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
>>>> evidence presented?
>>>>
>>>>If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death,
>>>>surely,
>>>>they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>>>>
>>>> How was the fishing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>
>>
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Again, you admit to the possibility of error.

On 23 Nov 2004 10:57:10 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:

>Matter reacts in the same way 99.99(to infinity)% of the time You're in the
>smallest possible realm!
>
>If you want to say, "well, matter sometimes changes it properties," well,
>maybe it does. But, 99.9999(to infinity)% of the time, if I walk into a
>brick wall, I won't pass through it. Sure, there is that infinitesimal
>chance that matter will react differently and I can walk right through, but
>for the purpose of not getting a broken nose, I'm not going to bet on it.
>
>If as a result of the tiny chance that matter will not react in its usual
>way, you want to throw up your hands and say, "Well, I can't fix the
>refrigerator because the matter it consists of may act in an new way," how
>can you ever do anything?
>
>You can't just ignore Newtonian physics. If you do, climate change would be
>the least of your worries. You should be more concerned with waking up as a
>fish!
>
>I'll say it again, if the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a
>man to death, surely, they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>
>
>
>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Ah... now you limit the scope from science in general to Newtonian...
>> Guess there was too much leeway in the broadest scope of science.
>> When one retreats into the smallest possible realm, there is far less
>> possibility of being wrong. You should read Ann Coulter's book... LOL
>>
>> And the fishing, under bright sun was COLD!!!!!!!
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2004 23:45:42 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all
>>>information,
>>> (within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical quantum
>>>theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
>>> reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable
>>>information,"
>>>that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the principles
>>>of
>>>the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not acquirable,"
>>>that's mysticism.
>>>
>>>What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't know
>>>everything.
>>>
>>>Let me put this in somewhat Socratic language -- We don't know what we
>>>don't know, and we don't even know that we don't know it. So, we can't
>>>know
>>>anything fully, because we don't know everything, or even know of
>>>everything
>>>there is to know.
>>>
>>>I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
>>> justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
>>> evidence presented?
>>>
>>>If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death,
>>>surely,
>>>they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>>>
>>> How was the fishing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

To paraphrase Slick Willie Clinton... depends on yer definition of
many... It also depends upon the subject group in the study. And a
large number of people who believe in religion, do not attend church
on a regular basis. And I have been among believers and non-believers
and found many who would not express themselves either way for various
reasons; being generally uncomfortable with the subject, not wishing
to offend, not wishing to engage in an unwinable argument, etc.
Considering the period during which you were a scientist... few
scientists who did believe would have admitted it to their peers, and
would even have denied it. Human behavior is what human behavior is.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:40:59 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:27:44 GMT, rw >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>>And why do you suppose that so many scientists are stepping forward
>>>>and acknowledging that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in
>>>>Creation? This was once the demarcation between science and religion.
>>>>Science claimed proof, and religion claimed faith. Now science
>>>>acknowledges faith, and religion has begun to acknowledge science.
>>>
>>>WTF are you reading, or listening to? Whatever it is, stop it, because
>>>you're in cloud cuckoo land.
>
><moved top-posted reply here, where it belongs>
>
> > actually an interview with several astronomers, mathematician and a
> > geneticist or two in a discussion which originated on the subject of
> > cloning and extended from there.
>
>A survey in 1916 reported that 40% of scientists surveyed believed in a
>supreme being.
>
>A relatively recent survey in "Nature" (1998), which surveyed 517
>members of the National Academy of Sciences, reported that only 7%
>expressed belief in a "personal god", while 72.2% expressed "personal
>disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Mathematicians
>were much more likely to believe in god than scientists in other fields.
>Those in the life sciences were among the least likely to believe in god.
>
>I was a scientist before I retired, in a highly interdisciplinary field.
>I can't recall a single colleague who expressed religious beliefs or who
>attended church regularly. In fact, the general attitude in coffee-hour
>discussions that touched on religion was thorough-going atheism and even
>contempt for religion.
>
>To assert that "many scientists are stepping forward and acknowledging
>that they have come to believe in the Hand of God in Creation," based on
>an interview that probably appeared in a religious publication, is
>preposterous.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

I want a quantum speed-shop.

"Have your car cross the finish line before you even decide to go to the
track!"


"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Dang, you know my mechanic...
>
> On 23 Nov 2004 12:46:51 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>
>>What if automobile mechanics picked up on your line of reasoning ?
>>
>>"Sorry Mr. Jones, your transmission isn't operating properly due to
>>quantum
>>fluctuations. That's not covered under the warranty, so you'll have to pay
>>for it. We don't do that kind of work here, so we'll have to send you over
>>to Steve Hawking's garage, they do quantum mechanical jobs."
>>
>> "Will they have to use a particle accelerator?"
>>
>>"Oh yeah, they'll have to come up with a unified field theory too, you're
>>looking at some serious cost and time."
>>
>>
>>Can I pick-up a quantum-metrics wrench set at Sears?
>>
>>
>>"Jim S." > wrote in message
...
>>> Matter reacts in the same way 99.99(to infinity)% of the time You're in
>>> the smallest possible realm!
>>>
>>> If you want to say, "well, matter sometimes changes it properties,"
>>> well,
>>> maybe it does. But, 99.9999(to infinity)% of the time, if I walk into a
>>> brick wall, I won't pass through it. Sure, there is that infinitesimal
>>> chance that matter will react differently and I can walk right through,
>>> but for the purpose of not getting a broken nose, I'm not going to bet
>>> on
>>> it.
>>>
>>> If as a result of the tiny chance that matter will not react in its
>>> usual
>>> way, you want to throw up your hands and say, "Well, I can't fix the
>>> refrigerator because the matter it consists of may act in an new way,"
>>> how
>>> can you ever do anything?
>>>
>>> You can't just ignore Newtonian physics. If you do, climate change would
>>> be the least of your worries. You should be more concerned with waking
>>> up
>>> as a fish!
>>>
>>> I'll say it again, if the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put
>>> a
>>> man to death, surely, they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Spike" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ah... now you limit the scope from science in general to Newtonian...
>>>> Guess there was too much leeway in the broadest scope of science.
>>>> When one retreats into the smallest possible realm, there is far less
>>>> possibility of being wrong. You should read Ann Coulter's book... LOL
>>>>
>>>> And the fishing, under bright sun was COLD!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Nov 2004 23:45:42 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I accept science as infallible, not scientists. If one has all
>>>>>information,
>>>>> (within Newtonian physics, you keep bouncing over to theoretical
>>>>> quantum
>>>>>theory) and rigorously apply logic, nothing but a correct answer can be
>>>>> reached. If you were to say, "we don't have all the acquirable
>>>>>information,"
>>>>>that's a legitimate argument to make, and in keeping with the
>>>>>principles
>>>>>of
>>>>>the scientific method. If you say, "some information is not
>>>>>acquirable,"
>>>>>that's mysticism.
>>>>>
>>>>>What you are saying that we can never know anything because we don't
>>>>>know
>>>>>everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me put this in somewhat Socratic language -- We don't know what we
>>>>>don't know, and we don't even know that we don't know it. So, we can't
>>>>>know
>>>>>anything fully, because we don't know everything, or even know of
>>>>>everything
>>>>>there is to know.
>>>>>
>>>>>I flatly reject that. According to your logic, how can someone
>>>>> justifiably be convicted of a crime based, not on confession, but on
>>>>> evidence presented?
>>>>>
>>>>>If the morals of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can put a man to death,
>>>>>surely,
>>>>>they can be used to legislate carbon emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> How was the fishing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16