Kzinistzerg wrote:Basically, no seeing into the future. Also, this means that nothing is technically impossible.
You say that, and yet you go on to say that things are impossible, that doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't really understand the difference between impossible and technically impossible. Are there different levels of 'impossible' now? See, I thought that was 'improbable', where there
can be different levels of it.
Kzinistzerg wrote:Then again, the likelihood of this occurrence is so small that it happens maybe once in 5 times the age of the universe.
Is that something that can be proved in any way? Where do you get these statistics from? It sounds like rearpullium to me, unless you can actually back that up somehow. It's your belief that such a thing may only happen 'once in 5 times the age of the Universe', but is there anything to support that on a Scientific basis, without room for doubt?
Kzinistzerg wrote:And generally, this is what is meant when people say a thing is "impossible."
So this pseudo-Science has given new meaning to impossible, now? Impossible is an English word, look up what it means in the Oxford dictionary or some other well-established dictionary.
I'm betting that what this actually is -- again -- is improbable, whhich there can be verying levels of. To say something is impossible means that there isn't any room for doubt, that is why we have the word impossible along with the word improbable. We have improbable because impossible is a silly word, and a layman's word at that.
Kzinistzerg wrote:So, can I say Pshifting is impossible? Yes, yes I can. Because this is so improbable, using the terms I said above, that it is not going to happen.
This.
Now let's consider that this is taken from the terminology of impossible as a dictionary would define it, just think about what that actually means for a moment. Think about the claim you've made in relation to the word 'impossible'.
See, this is what my physics teacher taught me to avoid when it comes to Science, it was his opinion that anyone who claimed that something was
objectively impossible is foolhardy, because by the very nature of human understanding there's every chance that they might be proven wrong eventually.
This is why I shy away from hardcore Science fans who are like this, because it's equally as bad as hardcore Christianity. A hardcore Christian will tell you that evolution
cannot exist, objectively, because it's an affront to God (the creator) and they'll go on to explain Creationism. Any person who pushes something as objective is really just stating a belief, whether they realise it or not. An individual can twist Science (and even atheism) into a religion, even when it's not supposed to be.
It's quite possible to believe so much in this kind of thinking that anything else is inconceivable, and therein lies the rather stunning arrogance of the unflappable believer. They cannot concede that anything they know is simply a guideline to understanding reality around us, they have to push a system of thinking as an objective fact. They can't consider that another race out there, smarter than us, might have pulled something like this off, it's inconceivable to them that somewhere in this vast Universe of ours, something they don't understand yet could exist.
This is why Science needs to be guidelines, not objective facts, because then if we're presented with something we don't understand we can go on to examine it and try to understand it, whereas if we cling to what we think is true as fact, then we dismiss the possibility of something we don't immediately understand, and therefore we ignore what may be real, and Science becomes as much of a fantasy as any other belief, because it's no longer trying to evaluate reality around us, but instead it's trying to create a subjective reality tailored to the individual: This is belief, not Science.
There are things I believe too, but I don't push them as fact, nor do I push them as Science. To say "I think it's impossible because of what I understand, and that's what I believe." is fine, to say "This is impossible and there's no two ways about it." is the same as Creationists debunking evolution. It's no different at all.
I'm sorry, but it's just a pet peeve of mine when someone tries to use Science as a system to ratify their peronal beliefs as fact. It's arrogant and it doesn't seem or sound like Science to me, and I'm betting that some of the more recognised theorists in any Scientific field would agree with me. The irony and hypocrisy of this is that I bet that the kind of hardcore Science fan I've described would even go after Creationists for doing the same thing they're doing themselves.
We really need a name for this pseudo-Science-which-proves-my-beliefs-to-be-factual-and-this-Universe-which-contains-things-far-older-than-humanity-has-no-say-in-the-matter stuff, because it deserves to be given a name. It's amazingly close to Creationism in its modus operandi, and admittedly the only thing that changes is the point of view being pushed, but that point of view isn't creation so we can't call it Creationism, but it could almost be a subset of that.
I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel.
To me it's all very amusing, and not very much like Science at all. In my opinion, a real Scientist would say the same: Science is a system of guidelines for understanding reality, it's not to objectively state the nature of the Universe to the Universe (and everyone willing to listen).
I'll finish this up with a "Wot I Think": It should be considered
highly improbable that there are physical shifters because we've not actually observed anything that would support the idea yet, however, the possibility exists that in the future we may observe something that was previously beyond our understanding that would turn this improbability upon its head, therefore it is wise to consider it as improbable, and not impossible.
I cite continental drift, where the idea was considered impossible to geologists only to find out that "Oh my gosh!" it isn't, and in fact the theory was found to be very much true (through observation of something that hadn't yet been observed). I'd like to think that we've matured a bit since the 60's and that we shouldn't so readily scoff at things and call them impossible, because we'd likely just end up with the continental drift scenario again.
I am sorry to get into this again, but I see 'impossible' as a very dirty word, and I'm determined to try and show everyone why I think that way, I know that not everyone is going to understand -- realistically -- but there might be some out there who'll see this and actually grok the point I'm trying to get across. 'Impossible', in my opinion, is made of silliness and arrogance.
(For those who are Science Fiction fans, I'll add in here something that some of you will find amusing. I've noticed that the Doctor -- of Doctor Who fame -- sometimes waggishly claims that something he sees directly in front of him is 'impossible', this always amused me greatly because every time he did it he was making fun of the concept of 'the impossible'. I liked that. And it's a sad state of affairs when Science Fiction manages to grok something that armchair Scientists don't.)
Edited to add...
I feel I've come on a bit strong there and I'm sorry for that, it's just that I find the concept presented offensive: That of telling people whatever they may believe in is impossible, and then using Science to support that.
That's bad Science, it shows research in a bad light and gives the idea that all Scientists are out to disprove the fantastic, rather than to find it (the latter is what comes of Science, isn't it?). It strikes me less as Science and more as pseudo-intellectual superiority.
It seems to promote the idea that anyone who doesn't agree is probably a savage for not strictly adhering to things that other people (not themselves) have found out. That's the feeling I get when someone comes out and says that something is Scientifically impossible, no doubt about it.
I've known a couple of theorists and Science teachers, and none of them have been inclined to run amok with the impossibility agenda (by which I don't mean simply scoffing at an odd theory, but people who go out of their way to actively prove things to be impossible), this seems to be a movement that's started up on the Internet and centers around 'atheism' (or at least a poorly understood version thereof).
It also seems to imply that anyone who doesn't think of item X as impossible is not Scientific, and therefore not an intelligent, free-thinking person.
That's how it all comes over to me, and yes, I do find that offensive.
I'm sorry, but people should be left to believe what they want to, and to use Science to try and claim that any idea is impossible is poor form indeed. In my opinion at the very least.