(December 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm)FreeTony Wrote: I may have read something slightly different, but to be honest as soon as people talk about maybe's and untestable things then I switch off as I see it as pointless. Pontificating on something you can't physically demonstrate actually exists is a bit silly really.
there are many things you can't physically demonstrate that you accept. that the speed of light is constant, rather than fluctuating with an average speed of what we clock it. that what we observe is in fact what is true of reality. science has many improvable assumptions, many of which are fundamental to it. I think it's contrived of you to suggest physical demonstration is the only kind of evidence there is.
Quote:Throughout the history of science when people have assumed things to be correct, many times they have been shown to be completely wrong. There could well be a C theory* of time that explains observations better than these two.if that's how you think then how can you accept anything is true knowing full well science can prove it wrong in the future?
Quote:*These should all technically be hypotheses, otherwise you end up with "evolution is only a theory" nutters coming after you.disagree with the semantics all you want it makes no difference. and it's not like the theories of relativity further our understanding of time, right?
Quote:You do get points for at least trying to be rational, compared with some of your compatriots. Total respect to you if you can answer the question "How can I test whether something is timeless"you can't, any more than you can observe something beyond your consciences. it's logically impossible.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo