RE: A Si Fi watchmaker.
March 19, 2015 at 8:25 am
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2015 at 8:30 am by Brian37.)
(March 19, 2015 at 8:17 am)One Above All Wrote:(March 19, 2015 at 8:05 am)Brian37 Wrote: In science there is a way to "imagine" and then there is fantasy.
In sci-fi, the two are joined together. Amazing, isn't it?
(March 19, 2015 at 8:05 am)Brian37 Wrote: Saying "I don't know" and even "imagining" the possibilities still even at that level are subject to rules and issues of likelihood.
Not when you're talking about fiction.
In sci-fi, you combine the possible (sci - humans being born with genetic mutations that give them abilities others do not have, like seeing and hearing outside the normal spectrum) with the impossible (fi - those abilities include flight, weather manipulation, and eyes that serve as portals to another universe) to create something that people will like (X-Men). You take what could be (sci - "actual" space travel) with what can't be (fi - using black holes) and create a masterpiece (Event Horizon). It's called "suspension of disbelief". Learn it, so you can learn how to enjoy sci-fi. Or don't, and keep your mouth shut about what you don't understand instead of making shit up - id est, fantasizing. We sci-fi fans have a hard enough time explaining that our discussions are hypothetical in nature without you polluting them with your lack of imagination.
No, si fi is just that, that is why it is called FICTION. Science in reality allows for imagining the possibilities but it does not gap fill with mere fiction.
If you are stupidly going to think that everything works by default just because you uttered it, then find a god or a church and go back. Science works off METHOD not making shit up.
There is a HUGE difference between when science "imagines" and how laypersons "imagine" and the difference is testing and falsification and peer review. Si fi does not count as science that is why it is called FICTION.
What is next? You going to use the old logic "we once thought we couldn't fly with machines". I have the same attitude with any claim. Fine, make the claim, but don't expect me to do your homework for you. QM does not postulate the absurd, it is freaky enough on its own without a god of the gaps or si fi crap. Even at that level it is subject to rules and likelihoods.
Now go back and watch that video of a SCIENTIST and read the link of a SCIENTIST. You DONT have to take my word for it.
