A Miracle!!

[Violet]

This thread supports exactly what I said. Forum members were discussing what is and isn't within the reach of science, and Leo proposed that anything in our Universe is, based on his definition. Other forum members came forward with differing definitions and it seems we're in the process of clarifying what is meant by 'Universe' in regards to the discussion. Nobody is wandering in here with a definition of Universe that means 'elbow pad'. That kind of fringe lunacy is what I would call an incorrect definition. Differing ideas of what a "Universe" is aren't.

I honestly think we're both on the same side of this argument, I just don't like the way you originally phrased it. Hypothetical, impractical, transcendental-idealistic garbage.

If that was your point, then we are indeed on the same side here But by the last statement, are you specifically targeting

How can you know that the word l use to identify 'chocolate' is not the same word you use for 'orangutang'... so when I say "Do you want some chocolate", you interpret it as "Do you want some orangutang?"

?

We actually can't know that 'Universe' in Talhiqki Nsaqunca Bwikuphort does not read as 'elbow pad'. Really, we can't know that... or do you actually speak Talhiqki Nsaqunca Bwikuphort? We also can't know that someone's English vocabulary is 'mistaken' in that their knowledge of the word 'universe' is equivalent to the usual english definition of 'elbow pad'.

Right away in this discussion, we made sure we were all discussing the same thing. This is because we needed to have a point on which to discuss We don't want to spend 3 pages discussing the nature of something, only to find out in the middle of the fourth that one of us was talking about the nature of chocolate, and the other but the nature of the orangutang

You may call this 'impractical'... but I call it 'realistic'... because it is only logical that one can easily be misinterpreted... and it is also quite true that one's knowledge is but the assumption that they are right.