sansahansan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sure it is. Are you alive or dead?

I would deny this is a quantity.

> Science doesn't often recognize the grey state, or
> at least, doesn't seem to, but there are
> underlying principles like the Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle that it does recognize...
> but in that recognition, it still manages to
> quantify them - you know where the electron is, or
> you know where it is going to be - but not both.

> Actually, you can define it, and lengths of rivers
> are available on the internet. Including how that
> length was arrived at.

You can't say how long a 12" ruler is because of a multitude of confounding factors. Wood swells, metal expands, ansd many rulers are intentionally laid out a little longer than 12".

But even if you take a specific ruler one edge won't be exactly the same lenght as the other. Measuring can knock off a few molecules where your instrument touches it.

> Yep, which is why they are often re-evaluating
> courses of rivers etc. Luckily most of those
> changes (in important things) are slow.

Rivers are beyond any attempt to measure. If you define the course as the sum vector of water movement you can measure this line but it is constantly changing as water levels change and butterflys splash on the surface. If you measure around every grain of sand on the shore line it could be defined such that it is virtually infinitely long. Yes, the man who just needs to know how much gas to buy to motor the course doesn't care about these considerations.

> Err not. Data collection is the first priority of
> science. Observe is the first step of the
> Scientific Method...

I'm not saying don't observe or don't measure, merely that in the real world we can't really measure and observe indirectly and only from a single perspective (most of the time). This is why the real world will probably never be soluble to science.

> Hmm really? I thought it was asking questions and
> testing answers.

There's only one reason to ask questions and seek answers; to expand human knowledge.

> We're closer than you think to those semi-gods.
> Heck, we can even turn lead into gold (using a
> cyclotron) amongst other things. We've harnessed
> the power of the atom to create our own suns on
> earth (however briefly). Yes, we have to answer
> to Mother Nature in restrictions, but we're
> pushing those limits every day.

I doubt it. Most people don't even know what a wheel does or how it works. "We" haven't done much of anything at all. It is individuals who are responsible for progress. Not one of these individuals would have had his success without language and those who came before.

> Knowledge is *not* a real world thing. It has no
> concrete value. It has no EXISTENCE in the
> MATERIAL world. What you KNOW isn't what REALITY
> simply IS.
> Although you can argue that what we know is
> substantiated in the quantum mechanical processes
> of our brain... But that isn't proven yet, so as
> far as we... know what we know isn't a concrete
> material thing, and thus is NOT part of reality.

I'm not sure of your meaning here but an confident I can't agree.

Knowledge allows one to operate in the real world. It's the origin of invention. It's the difference between achieving a goal or not, life and death.

> Nope. *Empirical* understanding is the natural
> way of man to understand his world.
> I do this, that does that.
> Throw rock, tree shows damage.
> Hit enemy hard, enemy isn't enemy anymore.
> Cause & Effect - that's natural. Check out
> Bonobo Apes & tool usage sometime

Someone had to invent empiricle knowledge. It was probably someone using intuition.

> Education does?? No, reason leads to logic which
> is how philosophy got started late in homo sapiens
> existence... reason recognized the cause &
> effect relations and began to ask *why*
>

Formal logic is a relatively late date concept. No doubt many individuals were somewhat adept at it even sooner. Modern education is geared in this direction.

> And yes, I'm a bit passionate about this subject.
> I don't think either approach should be neglected,
> but rather integrated and used at the same time.
> That's the reason I loved star trek first
> generation and despised everything after... First
> Gen had the intiricate combination of Spock (Logic
> & Reason), Kirk (intuition & reason), and
> Bones (pure intuition and emotion)... IDIC.

I suspect the best (most effective) combination varies from one individual to another. For me it's pure intuition founded on formal logic and extensive training in science with a little math. I'm sure I could have gone a different way though and then that would have worked best for me. I chose this path because I don't want to wait a thousand years after I'm dead for any of the answers.



____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.