As my theory goes, we can't possibly know everything. We're limited human beings with limited capabilities. Sure, we can strive to learn more and more and more and more, building upon what we know, but this universe is so vast, so endless. It's insane to think we can figure everything out, ESPECIALLY with science.

Then again, there are many different types of sciences.. well actually I don't see how that applies, because my theory stands. We can't possibly understand everything. There. Done and done.

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 5:57 PM

 
I not sure that science is a justifiable explanation to anything that we can't detect with the 5 senses. Cause science was created to explain the things that we encounter... and we haven't really encountered anything that we haven't detect with the 5 senses, or if we have, we wouldn't know it.

  posted by JW @ 11:15 PM

 
A response to Kay's posting on the subject of God and the Bible

Over the years, the development in the scientific fields have led to the nulification of the faithfulness of many. However, science has not shook the grounds of belief of others. Is science really an explanation? What if the theories are false and all the stuff in the textbooks are crap? I mean, who is to say that there is no superior power? Not only the Christian, Catholic, etc. have these beliefs. People all over the world for more years than we know of have strongly worshiped.
Is science a justifiable explanation?

  posted by E.C.tasy @ 6:29 PM

 
I guess that really depends on how many people your action effects. The example with the fly is quite outstretched and rediculous, unless everyone in the world were to kill one fly all in one day. That change would be drastic to the flies, and would effect us as well. It's true that we're all connected in that sense.

If you were a doctor and aborted children, fate aside, you just may have murdered the next Beethoven or Mother Teresa or Bill Gates. If you made your dog stop barking in the middle of the night, you might prevent it from alarming the neighbourhood when your house is on fire.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but there. That's my input.

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 12:49 PM

 
Seeing as how this thing has slowed down a bit, I think I'll post another interesting thought... I seem to have a lot of them. Now, let's say I pick a time period... oh, a million years into the future. Yes, it's seems like a long time, but it's not long in terms to geologic time. I was just wondering. How much impact do I actually have on what goes on in the future, 1 million years from now. You always see these cartoons or comic strips where someone goes back in the past and does something REALLY REALLY small, and it ends up ######## up the entire future. There was one where a boy goes back and time and steps on a fly and as a result, he warps the entire future. I'm not sure I believe that; like I don't think such a simple act can alter the future THAT much, but I'm not sure how much of what we do alters the future. Like if I'm bother by a fly and I'm about to kill it and at the last second, I decide not to, will that really alter the future opposed to if I had killed it? I don't think so. But, if I do something more drastic, for example, flying a plane into the WTC, that certainly causes a lasting effect that will probably change what future might have been. So my question is, how much does an action change the future, or rather, how large does an action have to be to change the future.

  posted by JW @ 12:33 AM

 
We really don't have to bring up something that's debatable. As long as you find it contraversial, it's up for discussion. Anything swimming in that brain of yours?

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 11:56 AM

 
Well, now that that's settled... new topic anyone? It doesn't have to be about politics, cause I'm horrible at debating politics... just something to get my mind off this dimensional physics stuff.

  posted by JW @ 11:35 PM

 
I have a feeling that planes do use 3D grids now, seeing as they can climb at such an amazing height, especially with all the military technology that they have available. We've just never encountered any of it. Not that there's really any point of argument to any of this, but anyway.

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 11:28 PM

 
We as humans use grids in many different aspects of our lives. Maps are found in graph form, and they're used in military and now the GPS system in modern cars in such. That makes sense no doubt, like if I take a piece of land and draw grids lines on it, I can say, "such and such is located in A4" where A is the row and 4 is the column number or something. That's simple and common enough. But now we can travel by air, meaning we should be able to be able to single out a "piece" of space anywhere in the same where we single out a "piece" of land by giving it 2 dimensions. As of now, I don't think a 3 dimension figure is commonly given when you want to single out an area of space. Looking down from an elevated area, we used to able to draw a grid and say "ok, such and such is located in A4" and mean it's located on the ground, even though what it really theoretically means is that entire column of everything of A4, regardless of the depth. But we could make do with just saying that it's located on the ground cause everything used to be stuck to the grounds before planes came around. Now that we have things flying around the air, I don't recall anyone adding another dimensional measure to make the sky a 3 dimensional grid.

Of course I'm not saying that our sky being a 3 dimensional grid, in the same way that our land is a 2 dimensional grid, is a good thing. Just an interesting thought.

  posted by JW @ 10:45 PM