
Originally Posted by
Halliday
I understand now! I do agree with your statement that "humans are the universe contemplating itself".
However, as far as intuition matters, I feel that "an eternal universe seems intrinsically" less likely.
I have a problem accepting infinity can exist anywhere, in the real physical universe, whether we are talking about space or time.
I must say, however, I have noticed that this does not appear to be a problem for some posters who have a good grasp of maths and physics.
This exchange presents an opportunity to contrast the differences between the approaches to knowledge taken by Forrest and John Galt. John, despite his personal feelings on the matter, goes where the best evidence takes him. That, in a nutshell, is the intellectually honest path that the scientific method illuminates. Only a small percentage of people have the ability to allow reason to trump emotion. John is a scientist (whether or not he draws a salary as such).
Forrest, on the other hand, grasps at any phrase that he feels might be interpreted as consonant with his own personal views, and then presents it as evidence. That selection bias and initial jumping to conclusions might be forgiven if it weren't for the fact that he ignores that he has been shown to be wrong. In this particular instance, John Galt went to the trouble to read -- in detail -- the original paper that was allegedly the source of the webzine article, and showed that the actual statements made by the researchers differed greatly from the headline-grabbing online article that Forrest quoted from. In response, Forrest simply and feebly repeats his quotations of the article, despite John Galt's painstaking work that shows the article to misrepresent the actual science. In short, Forrest's path is that of a dishonest crank.
Forrest -- John Galt has given you good advice. I've given you good advice. Your credibility is all but gone. I've had to advise readers before that what you say is not to be trusted and thus best ignored, and you took offense at my strong language. And here you are, again doing
precisely the sorts of blatantly dishonest things that I've called you on before. Do you enjoy being called a liar? I am assuming not. Complaining that you are called a liar for lying is not going to solve the problem, for this is a science forum, where assertions will be challenged. The solution is for you to change, and to do it quickly.
What shall it be, Forrest?