> The difference between these horizons and what you talk about, is that the
> light horizon *IS* a real observational barrier. We know of no means to get
> around the speed of light, and we have no reason to believe that there is a
> way.
What about wormholes?
> Despite many wishful critics (BTW I think Darrell is one if I recall
> from our past exchanges, and there may be several other otherwise staunch
> atheists that yearn for this not to be so) relativity has one of the most
> solid legacies. If any current general theory of science is likely to be
> still standing centuries from now, relativity is one of the most promising
> candidates (probably only surpassed by evolution IMO).
> Our common sense understanding that there is something over the horizon works
> so well, that it does not make sense to doubt it. But it works where it
> evolved, here on Earth in our day to day lives. To apply it to something
> entirely outside of that realm, like the light horizon of our universe, is
> careless and in this case a slip into supernatural thought. It may be fun to
> imagine another side to that horizon, like Lewis Carrol imagining a looking
> glass world, but like "Through the Looking Glass", I assign it no more
> credibility than good fiction.
>
> MY TREATMENT OF SUPERNATURALISMS MEME:
>
> My position is what I call a filtering meme. I do not assign credibility to
> supernaturalisms. It is a useful thought-stopper. The purpose of it is to
> prevent mental waste, promote excellence in our exploration of reality by
> focussing limited resources on problems that are actually solvable, and
> further more to thwart the efforts of individuals and religions that would
> seek to use supernaturalisms as a method of control.
>
> In this respect some may think me as not a "free-thinker", especially when you
> hear me use the words "thought-stopper". But bear with me, I plead. I am not
> opposing supernatural thinking. What I am opposing is assigning credibility
> to it. Go ahead and play, I say. Just play safely and wisely I recommend.
> In good fiction, "real" things happen. Romeo and Juliet really do die.
> However the actors do not, and we recognize it as a play after the curtain
> falls.
>
> Unfortunately many of us do not treat supernaturalisms the same way. This can
> and often does lead to real tragedy on the human stage. The greatest tragedy
> being not knowing what could have been achieved. Many of us atheists lend
> credibility to supernatural thinking, with no ill consequence to ourselves
> individually. We may enjoy the good fight by arguing with religionists in
> their own language. I, on the other hand, find myself with very little to
> argue with religionists about. I view these arguments as something akin to
> arguing, over a few stiff drinks, with a drug addict about his or her
> addiction to drugs.
>
Yeah - or arguing about which gender is better off or superiority or macs and PCs
- you have no chance of convincing them, so why bother!
> Is it a slippery slope? Not necessarily, but I think it is probably best to
> treat it as if it were, if for no other reason than in the name of excellence.
>
Stay on the safe side - always a good idea.
> Yes, this may be a blind move by a blind watchmaker in the game of cultural
> evolution, but aren't they all?
>
> -Jake
> Nothing is "mere".
-- "I am confident that the Republicans will pick a nominee that will beat Bill Clinton" -Dan Quayle on the 2000 presidential electionNathan Russell frussell@frontiernet.net