A Si Fi watchmaker.

[Brian37]

Ok, men magically pop out of dirt, now prove that isn't true.

[One Above All]

Ok, men magically pop out of dirt, now prove that isn't true.

Lick your skin. Then lick dirt. They don't taste the same. At least I hope not.
NOTE: Don't actually lick dirt. It may seem obvious to everyone else, but I'm thinking you might actually do it. Simply touching it will do.

[Ravenshire]

But he is not getting any of that out of fiction.

So, light sabers, transporters and Death Stars aren't fiction? Good to know since these are just some of the things Dr. Kaku has speculated about "how to build in the real world." Did you even check that second link? It's a link to the wiki page for the show "Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible," hosted by Dr. Kaku.

Let's also not forget Lawrence M. Krauss, author of "The Physics of Star Trek" Yet another real world scientist who doesn't buy your bullshit.

[Brian37]

But he is not getting any of that out of fiction.

So, light sabers, transporters and Death Stars aren't fiction? Good to know since these are just some of the things Dr. Kaku has speculated about "how to build in the real world." Did you even check that second link? It's a link to the wiki page for the show "Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible," hosted by Dr. Kaku.

Let's also not forget Lawrence M. Krauss, author of "The Physics of Star Trek" Yet another real world scientist who doesn't buy your bullshit.

You accept that QM is real science, but you would reject the claim that Aquinus invented it. If you think no one has ever made such a stupid claim, you'd be wrong.

I don't care what you are getting your inspiration from, it remains a claim until you act on it. You don't simply depict something and have it magically happen.

Otherwise we all get to make up our own realities because we can make sound waves. People get inspiration from religion too, but that does not make them patent holders on anything.

[Ravenshire]

You accept that QM is real science, but you would reject the claim that Aquinus invented it. If you think no one has ever made such a stupid claim, you'd be wrong.

People make stupid claims all the fucking time. What would you like us to do?!?

I don't care what you are getting your inspiration from, it remains a claim until you act on it. You don't simply depict something and have it magically happen.

No shit. Is this the whole reason you want sci-fi banished?

Otherwise we all get to make up our own realities because we can make sound waves. People get inspiration from religion too, but that does not make them patent holders on anything.

People get inspiration from many things in life. You're the one that seems to have a problem with a source that is, unlike religion, actually making no claims. Science fiction is just that, fiction. It says so right in the name. Why you seem to have a problem with shit being made up to tell a story is completely beyond me. It's fiction. That means made up and I think every reasonable person alive understands that.

[Brian37]

You accept that QM is real science, but you would reject the claim that Aquinus invented it. If you think no one has ever made such a stupid claim, you'd be wrong.

People make stupid claims all the fucking time. What would you like us to do?!?

I don't care what you are getting your inspiration from, it remains a claim until you act on it. You don't simply depict something and have it magically happen.

No shit. Is this the whole reason you want sci-fi banished?

Otherwise we all get to make up our own realities because we can make sound waves. People get inspiration from religion too, but that does not make them patent holders on anything.

People get inspiration from many things in life. You're the one that seems to have a problem with a source that is, unlike religion, actually making no claims. Science fiction is just that, fiction. It says so right in the name. Why you seem to have a problem with shit being made up to tell a story is completely beyond me. It's fiction. That means made up and I think every reasonable person alive understands that.

How do you get from "don't simply swallow a claim" to "you want to outlaw making the claim"?

I defy you to show me anywhere in this thread I ever claimed that. You simply do not like the fact that I am not treating any form of communication special.

Before something is useful it remains a claim. You don't simply assume a depiction of anything will become reality. Otherwise we all get to make up anything we want and it is true until proven otherwise. Shifting the burden of proof is the same no matter where the claim is coming from.

Lots of things in QM especially are proven mathematically sure. But even with that proof, there is a reality that some of it may only be proven on paper. "Anything is possible" does not mean anything goes. You still deal with probability issues.

The NASA article last year about the "warp drive" everyone jumped all over because they said it was "plausible". And they are right, but they also said it may still be stuck on paper only because of the physical reality we are stuck in and the amount of energy it would take to make it work. None of that says "never", it merely is still an admission that if we ever get there it is still a hard road.

Religion inspires people too, but we rightfully say "prove it" and we do not allow them to shift the burden. To treat si fi differently is to make the same mistake they make.

---

The physics of Star Trek that is your evidence? I don't think you understand he is not saying even with that don't test anythingI. Again, science is doing that not the show. Otherwise when people get inspiration out of holy books the claims in them are true because they were merely depicted.

I would bet my life nowhere in that book you will find the words "claim whatever you want and you don't have to bother testing or falsifying it".

[Ravenshire]

How do you get from "don't simply swallow a claim" to "you want to outlaw making the claim"?

And here is the crux of the problem. You are the only one who thinks works of fiction are making real claims. It's fiction. You know, made up stories. Falsehoods packaged as entertainment. Yet you assert the authors of such works are making actual scientific claims.

Guess what, as an author (aspiring to publication at this point), I find your accusation that I am making unsupported claims about how the real world works offensive. I'm not. But, if I want to tell a story about a galaxy spanning commercial civilization then faster than light travel becomes a necessity of the story. At this point, it doesn't matter if the basis for my FTL is plausible (some form of warping space) or completely implausible (Doug Adams' "probability drive" springs to mind) as long as it's internally consistent with the story. You know. All the other made up bits.

Why you have such a problem with authors speculating about what the future might hold is beyond me. If it's just because some deluded fool might grab some part of it and create a religion, well, that can happen based on any work of fiction. So, for the third time, what would you have us do about it?!?

[Brian37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretat..._mechanics

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.

There exist a number of contending schools of thought,

Notice the word "contending". You can get all of them to agree that QM is useful, but even at that level they compete in that problem solving. But none of them even at that level, no matter how confident would say "just utter something and don't test it".

You don't simply will a depiction into existence. If it worked like that, the fact that religious people get inspiration from their holy books, the fantastic claims in them would be true merely because they were depicted.

For a claim to become useful something has to act on it. The only useful tool that does that is scientific method.

[Aoi Magi]

[Ravenshire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretat..._mechanics

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.

There exist a number of contending schools of thought,

Notice the word "contending". You can get all of them to agree that QM is useful, but even at that level they compete in that problem solving. But none of them even at that level, no matter how confident would say "just utter something and don't test it".

You don't simply will a depiction into existence. If it worked like that, the fact that religious people get inspiration from their holy books, the fantastic claims in them would be true merely because they were depicted.

For a claim to become useful something has to act on it. The only useful tool that does that is scientific method.

(emphasis is mine)

Brian, you are the only one here claiming that science FICTION is making any claims about how the real world works. The author's aren't, the directors aren't, the actors aren't, etc... It's fucking fiction. Get over it. Nobody with a working intellect thinks we're going to have any of these things just because they're presented in a book or a movie.

For fucks sake, there's no reason to get your panties in a wad because someone speculates what might be possible in the future.