Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jdvn1" data-source="post: 2391449" data-attributes="member: 26424">The problem is that even if we knew the exact make-up of our own star, we couldn't predict every flaw in the chemical processes that happen.  We can find the condition of our DNA, but we can't explain why sometimes it isn't copied perfectly.  We can't predict flaws.On the subatomic level, that is true.  This bit of the conversation, I understood, was discussing the flaws of science as a whole, not just on the subatomic level.It's not an assumption, it's math.  Any positive, non-zero number times infinity equals infinity.  It's as simple as that.Is it possible there are other building blocks?  Yes, it's possible.  Therefore, but using the math above, there must be other building blocks in an infinite universe.  Not an assumption, but math.An infinite universe specifically.  Doesn't require assumptions.Then how come you wont' accept the possibility of things we haven't seen?Wel, it's considered solid science, and probably as close to a law as we'll get any time soon.  But you do have a point.  I'll concede that it doesn't apply.I can see why you think I may have mixed the two 'chances' but I just worded the sentence poorly.  Try this:"But how can you assume all things that have happened in our visible universe isn't local phenomena? Is there a chance that it is local phenomena? If there's a chance it's local phenomena, then in an infinite universe there must be other phenomena we haven't seen."And the chance is due to the lack of knowledge.  It's like the electron probability cloud.  Given an energy state, the electron can be anywhere in the cloud.  Where it is is objective, but since we don't know for sure, there's a chance for any given point.All of your requirements are supplied by the initial assumption.  The only things that can't exist that those things that break definitions and universal truths, which is always an implied assumption (because without which, the phrasing of the original statement could mean something unrelated to the subject and there's no point in discussing anything at all).You said you were okay with how science worked in your room (At least, that's what I understood your sentence to mean) (Okay: all right: being satisfactory or in satisfactory condition).  I didn't mean to address anything further than was already addressed.  Again, any attack was unintentional.  I apologize.</blockquote>

Verification