Mood:
caffeinatedTopic: Pseudoscientific Musings
Here's a news flash for 'ya:
The impossible is always possible, unless it's not...
Now, this guys got his laurels and all, but why do I hear a whole lot of quacking in my head as I try to understand his logic?
Alright, yes: there's truth to Clarke's adage that, "if a learned man of science says something is possible and the public says its impossible, the scientist is almost assuredly right", but here's my problem:
this guy thinks that breaking the light barrier is doable, but that it's impossible to see into the future (however you want to describe that phrase)?
Now, as I understand string theory (and believe me: I don't) isn't one of the hypothetical conclusions from certain assumptions in the discipline that the universe is built-up around a slew of dimensions, and that the multiverse itself shapes objective reality by virtue of which way the linguini noodles are pointing?...
(...I haven't had lunch today, sorry...)
...forget it. My only point is that given how little we understand objective reality at the moment it's far more likely that we'll be able to divine the future at some point, well... in the future... than the idea that we'll ever be able to go faster than a photon.
Although, in my book, both of these things are impossible.
...unless they're not.
And the next chapter of TYPERS isn't called "Evolution", anymore. It's now called "On the Razor's Edge". It's more appropriate for the subjectmatter and, on top of that, it just sounds cooler!
And... well... it's not done, yet...
