BrianW
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 1999
- Messages
- 2,563
- Real Name
- Brian
For the record, I'll take "Interesting post" any day. However, despite the "fame" of my tome (or perhaps because of it), I think I need to clear up a couple of things.
When Steeve quoted my chess game analogy, I thught, out of context, it appeared that I was claiming that our understanding of the laws of nature is "mature" or even complete. So I checked my original post, and it looked just the same! Drat. I was speaking hypothecally, using the chess analogy to show how it's merely possible to have even a complete understanding of the laws of nature and still be beginners in the technology game. Since there's so much discussion about who's over-/under-estimating what with regard to which under whoozits circumstances, I'll be the first to stick my neck out and state a definite claim (with a percentage, no less!) of where I think we are in our quest to understand the laws of nature. But you have to wait until this evening when I have more time.
I also don't want people here to think I've made any affirmative statement regarding what I believe about free will or predestination. I haven't. Although many remarkable insights, like Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, have been produced by nothing more than mathematical thought experiments, mathematical thought experiments don't rise to the level of emperical science. Conclusions, no matter how logical, are not the same as data. So while it is interesting to ponder the consequences of a mathematical thought experiment involving billiard balls and time machines, I wouldn't form or dismiss any fundamental beliefs over it.
When Steeve quoted my chess game analogy, I thught, out of context, it appeared that I was claiming that our understanding of the laws of nature is "mature" or even complete. So I checked my original post, and it looked just the same! Drat. I was speaking hypothecally, using the chess analogy to show how it's merely possible to have even a complete understanding of the laws of nature and still be beginners in the technology game. Since there's so much discussion about who's over-/under-estimating what with regard to which under whoozits circumstances, I'll be the first to stick my neck out and state a definite claim (with a percentage, no less!) of where I think we are in our quest to understand the laws of nature. But you have to wait until this evening when I have more time.
I also don't want people here to think I've made any affirmative statement regarding what I believe about free will or predestination. I haven't. Although many remarkable insights, like Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, have been produced by nothing more than mathematical thought experiments, mathematical thought experiments don't rise to the level of emperical science. Conclusions, no matter how logical, are not the same as data. So while it is interesting to ponder the consequences of a mathematical thought experiment involving billiard balls and time machines, I wouldn't form or dismiss any fundamental beliefs over it.