On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought > irrelevant > What on earth are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and Leibniz were not the sum total of human thought even 300 years ago when they wrote their stuff, much less today. > in the face of the achievements of recent physics > Yes, the idea that these people could teach a modern physicist anything about the nature of matter is idiotic. > Is it possible that the architects of the pyramids might have known > something that the architects of large hotels don't? > No. And the reasons to build a modern hotel were much much better than the reasons to build a big stone pyramid 4500 years ago were. And the hotels were successful in doing what they were built to do, giving thousands of people shelter when they were in a foreign city; the pyramids were built to protect the body of the Pharaoh for eternity but in every case they were looted by grave robbers within a decade of their completion. > Could Shakespeare know something about writing in English that J.K. > Rowling doesn't? > The difference between art and science is that there is only one correct scientific theory, we may not ever find it but over the years we get closer and closer to it, and there is a objective standard to tell the difference between a good theory and a bad one; but in art there is not just one good book and the difference between a good one and a bad one is subjective. Personally I enjoy the writing of J.K. Rowling more than that of Shakespeare because I don't know Elizabethan English and Shakespeare didn't know modern English, but J.K. Rowling does. But I'm talking about art so that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary. > The philosophers who you dismiss have a lot more to do with why you know > the words cause and effect than does the work of any contemporary > physicist. > Bullshit, Hume and Leibniz knew nothing about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, and even if they did I'm quite certain they would not have liked it, but the universe doesn't care what the preferences of 2 members of the species Homo sapiens are, the world just keeps behaving that way anyway and if those people don't like it they can lump it. > They formulated the way that we think about it to this day, far more > successfully I might add, then the muddle of conflicting interpretations > and shoulder shrugging mysticism that has come out of quantum mechanics. > They were successful in formulating ideas that seemed intuitively true to most people, but unfortunately nature found the ideas much less intuitive than people do. Philosophers churned out ideas that seemed reasonable but it turned out the Universe didn't give a damn about being reasonable or if human beings thought the way it operated was crazy or not. Those philosophers said things that made people comfortable but that's just not the way things are and being fat dumb and happy is no way to live your life. > I don't care much for elevating the past either, but the more I see of > the originality and vision of philosophers > Originality and vision philosophers may have had but they were also dead wrong. Regardless of how appealing those philosophers ideas were if they don't fit the facts they have to go because just one stubborn fact can destroy even the most beautiful theory. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.