| From: | Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Observing the Observable (fwd) |
| Date: | Mon, 28 Jun 1993 12:22:15 -0400 |
> Interesting explanation for Dead Zones, that because only the directly
> observable is known, only the directly observable exists. Open that up
> to other points in time, rather than leave it to Ancient Greece, and
> you have a variety of DZs possible-16th, 18th century, Golden Age,
> etc. although, I would rather keep from being TOO exotic; otherwise
> we'll all be playing either TORG or Amber.
>
> J Roberson
>
I really hate to get involved because I have a lot of work to do ... BUT:
Same line of logic:
If only the directly observable is known, and only the directly
observable exists, then only the directly observable can exist and then
advances can not occur. People would be eternally stuck in a certain time:
unable to advanve because only what they known can exist and what they don't
know can't pop into existence.
This may be taking the theory to strict. But here is a question:
If electricity did not exist if the Greeks did not known about it
then Elctrical storms could not have occurred, static electricity could
not have charged ions, and on a molecular level, atoms could not bond to
make compounds. Certainly the greeks did not know about electrons having
charge. Therefore atoms could not have existed. Without atoms.....
You see what I am trying to say. The argument about if we don't
know about it, it doesn't exist/occur is old and has several arguments
that seem to hold more water. There are several more involved arguments
FOR this theory, but I do not agree with them and would prefer not to
go into length on them.
HEY! I did learn something from all those Philosophy classes.
Any mistakes in Logic may be the result of brain lapse from
reading about Software Verification and Validation.
-- Quiktek
a.k.a. Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
tmont@***.wvu.edu
un032507@*******.wvnet.edu
