|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2009 : 03:18:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
I'm of the opinion that the fact that we have some pretty amazing technologies that would have seemed like magic centuries ago is not predictive of any particular technology we wish for now being just a matter of time and resources.
|
I'm of the same opinion.
What I'm saying is simply that we don't know where our technology will end up. In the short term, maybe 10-20 years, we can probably make some predictions. But for 100 years out? 200?
I can't say that light speed will never be broken, but I also can't say it will be broken. Thats what I'm saying.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 05:27:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W said:
I'm of the opinion that the fact that we have some pretty amazing technologies that would have seemed like magic centuries ago is not predictive of any particular technology we wish for now being just a matter of time and resources.
|
I'm of the same opinion.
What I'm saying is simply that we don't know where our technology will end up. In the short term, maybe 10-20 years, we can probably make some predictions. But for 100 years out? 200?
I can't say that light speed will never be broken, but I also can't say it will be broken. Thats what I'm saying.
|
More likely we'll find out that light and velocity and the relationship between them arn't what we thought they were.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 18:56:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
I feel uncomfortable saying what unknown changes in QM will bring, and even more uncomfortable saying what unknown changes in unknown theories will bring. Aren't you? |
As I said in another thread a while back, there are some bits of knowledge we've got that are extraordinarily unlikely to ever change again. The Earth goes 'round the Sun. The basic notions of common descent and selection. Our universe has some degree of non-locality. For these things to change in the future, it's going to require a change of the meanings of the words used, and I think that's a cheat. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 19:28:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Agreed Dave. But I think we're losing site of where we came from. You first put forth the some events (people talking and then dying) are unknowable which was countered with the possibility of time travel. You suggested that Relativity says time travel is impossible, which is what I'm currently opposing now.
One day I may feel comfortable with that conclusion, but not today. Not when relativity is at ends with another accepted theory. Once this is resolved and we figure out what space actually is (one of the big open questions in physics) perhaps. |
Actually, I don't think Relativity says it's impossible, just that it'll take most (if not all) of the energy in the universe to do it.
My real proof of the impossibility of (backwards) time travel is that we don't know about it already, and I know that human beings ever reaching that level of competence in keeping a secret is impossible.
But seriously, my Joe-and-Ken example was just an example. Poking holes in the particulars is to miss my point with it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 21:10:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Then I suppose I've missed the point. |
The point was that there are limits to what science can tell us. There exist legitimate scientific questions which science won't be able to answer.
The most-basic of which is, "is what we experience and test scientifically really 'reality'?" If the answer is "no," then science undermines it's own alleged ability to provide answers to our questions about reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
Science cannot fully describe reality
