-
I responded to Gaede's theory of unemployment and future predictions here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/149993398400709/#!/groups/149993398400709/doc/258800160853365/ Anyone feel free to comment on or criticize my response!
-
"Certainly, if I see the hat on the table then I think it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that this physical object exists." To correct my own statement...You assume that the hat exists and then use your assumptions to explain the observation, ie, light bounces off the hat and hits your retinas. I think it's reasonable to conclude
-
"But surely the objects of reality still exist? We may not perceive them aright, but is their existence deniable? I think not." What about hallucinations? My buddy's grandma talks to little elf people that she sees. Do the elf people exist outside of her imagination? If you want to remain consistent throughout a dissertation then I think
-
Rothbard's Disciple - "but the food still objectively and with certainty exists." Is there a physical intermediary between the food and your eyes that you call light? How do you know the food exists when you believe that something has to travel between it and your retinas? What you are saying is that you strongly infer that the food exists
-
Nice prezi AJ. I see what you are talking about now with the potential of these prezis.
-
Hello everyone, I'm the creator of the video above. Reading the comments I pretty much agree with the bulk of what AJ and gokuju are saying. Gokuju you mention Bill Gaede's writings, that is where a lot of the ideas came from. There is a succinct version of Gaede's scientific method which can be found here . For people interested in this
-
QM is utter nonsense. It is an afront to all logic and rationality in science. The problem actually goes all the way back to the likes of Kepler, Galileo, et. al., and eventually Newton. Once Newton laid down his mathematical "law" of gravitation, physics never recovered, and has since descended into a rabbit hole of irrationality that would
-
@misguided I don't know very much about evolutionary biology at all, how is Dawkins the Krugman of it? now THAT i would be very interested in seeing! got any links?
-
@Z Well then let me spell it out as clearly as i can, and you can judge for yourself whether you think there is a point being made or not. Would you agree that any attempt to understand or explain aspects of reality requires the creation of a model? When I say the ultimate nature of reality is incomprehensible, i am just saying that any attempt to "understand"
-
Okay, that's fine, my only point in bringing it up is to point out that there are possible rational explanations for Young's experiment.