--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > [...] > > Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it > > to be science. > > > Actually, you can postulate an infinite number of wildly different outcomes > and claim it to be science. > > Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? > > > Lawson >
Interesting example. Yes, as I understand it, Quantum Mechanics does indeed postulate "wildly different outcomes." But all of the outcomes (i.e. where the electron is going to be located) are quantified probabilities based upon many, many repetitions of collapsing the wave function (I don't know if "collapsing" is the right word to use) and then recording each time where it ends up. So out of 100 times of collapsing -- or localizing -- the electron, it may be located in sector A; 25 times in sector B; 4 times in sector C, etc. And all those possibilities taken together is the wave function. There is no wave function for catastrophic global warming because not even one instance of it has happened yet. Two different things. But thanks for bringing it up because it emphasizes my point: global warming is all conjecture into the future and no one knows what the hell will happen and there's very good evidence on the OTHER side that it won't do what the scaremongers say it will do. In related news, Fairbanks Alaska had the coldest start to winter in 16 years...
