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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to