Re: Why: Why?

Dario Giraldo (
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:07:49 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, J.D. Guzman wrote:

> Dario, the laws of science are based on the evidence that has been aquired
> through the years. The law of gravitational attraction is not a certainty,
> it is based on the observation that, for quite a long time now, things don't
> fly off the earth but are held to it by a force that we name gravity.
> However, as Tom is arguing you cannot be certain that tommorow things will
> continue the same. Could you beyond a shadow of a doubt say that the law of
> gravity will continue working tommorrow as it does today. If you answer yes
> to this question I suggest you pick up the either of these two books, The
> Last Three Minutes or About Time, both of them by Paul Davies.
I will not dispute that many of you spend your entire lives (up to this
point) inmersed in academia, books, scientific journals and endless
theories and hypothesis. I won't challenge what you have read and learned
in this process.

However, after your remarks and Tom's, I do wonder if your common sense
was left behind in some of these journals. And to answer your question, I
have no doubt that tomorrow the sun will rise, like it did yesterday, and
it will disappear in the western sky, like it did yesterday. I am most
certain that tommorrow and the next millenia if I step off a cliff into
thin air, I will fall to the ground.

One could speculate with all types of theories, and conjunctions and claim
that this isn't for certain, but let me ask you, will you be willing to
walk off the Space Needle platform tomorrow to show me that gravity won't
affect you ? I bet a buck you won't (and neither will Tom) and that is
for certain. And being April 15th, I know for certain that all of the w-2
employees have paid taxes.

> This is the difference between proof and evidence.
Exactly. So just because somebody founds a bone doesn't necessarily mean
that humans came from that creature. Or because this rock is burried x
feet underground that means the rock was layed y billions of years ago.

> True this can be reproduced in the lab, only if the child is made inmobile.
> In real life the child has the ability to move, you may be able to predict
> the actions of the car at every second, but you can't predict what the child
> will do. So we are back to what was said before, you only have evidence
> that you will hit the child, but you can't be positive that you will.
Let's see...90mph=475,200 ft/hr=130 ft/sec. A child steps in front of
your car 60 feet away. In less than 1/2 sec, this child will stop and
avoid your car. What is the probability of the child moving away from
danger? When was the last time a child moved away from an oncoming car.
It would be nice if they did, but they never do.

Only a miracle will prevent this child from being hurt in this scenario.
And a miracle is a supernatural.

> 99.9% chance of seeing the sun rise tommorow.
With this percentage of chance, I'll be most certain and don't give a
second to doubt.

> The flight of the plane depends on the assumption that the conditions that
> allow the plane to fly today will be the same to tommorow and the next.
> This is only an assumption though, and we can't be positive that the laws
> that allow a plane to fly today will allow it to fly tommorow, we can only
> be somewhat confident.
What makes a law a law is it unchanging nature. As long as the earth have
atmosphere and I place a aerofoil at certain angle and speed, lift will
occur. Physics will take care of that. If the earth have no atmosphere,
then life as we know it has been extinguished, and in such case, who
cares. Certainly not me.

Best Regards,

Dario Giraldo