Poemranker [Replying] Sat Nov 23 05:31:16 PST 2024

Replying to a comment on:

deviant conveniences (Free verse) by J.B. Manning

We had unprotected sex Knowing youâre infected Your cum-fungus blistered my flesh On contact Memories of you resonate in my mind Like water on windows Certainty fades like Daylight and looking back is easyâ¦fore-site blinding Love is addictive and Iâm broken I want to Tie your pubic hair in knots and hang you on your contemplation Every time You say goodbye.

-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.

2-May-04/3:44 PM

(This is the -=Dark_Angel=- you despise, not 131. I have no qualifications in philosophy.)

Science does not say "atoms exist". There are merely a number of mathematical models of the Universe which assert that matter is composed of atoms. These models can be used to predict the behaviour of the Universe. We can then use experiments to check whether or not these predictions are accurate. The job of the physicist is to (a) formulate a model of the universe (b) see if the model matches experimental data. An example is classical Newtonian mechanics, which was shown to be a good model (in the sense that its predictions matched experimental results) for everyday objects travelling at ordinary speeds. However, when physicists were able to test objects travelling at speeds close to the speed of light, experiments showed us that at such speeds Newton's model could only be described as "unbelievably appalling".

My point is that my only 'belief' concerning atoms is that there exist mathematical descriptions of the universe which model matter as being composed of atoms, and which have been shown to be good models (in the sense that the predictions they make are reasonably consistent with experiments designed to test those predictions).

The trouble with souls is that I don't even know what a soul is meant to be. People who talk about souls have an utterly vague, guff-soaked notion of what they think a soul is, yet to them it seems obvious what a soul is because they have been so bum-crushingly deluded from birth that the question has never even lodged itself in their brain glandes. Atoms, on the other hand, are very clearly defined, so the consequences of assuming the existence of atoms in some model can be clearly described.

"Plus all scientific theories are held as language. How can you possibly verify the transferability of language to the physical."

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then what you're saying is basically what I've said above. Atoms are mathematical objects in a mathematical model of the universe. I suppose you would say they are 'held as language'. Fine. But I don't 'transfer atoms to the physical' in the sense you seem to be suggesting.

Suppose - and this is just a simple example - that in some model we assume matter is made of atoms, which are defined as spheres of radius x cm and mass y kg. Now suppose we use our model to see what would happen if we wack your face with a mallet. Suppose our model says that your face will splatter over an area of up to 10 meters squared. To test the model, we wack your face with a mallet and measure how far it splats. But alas! We actually find that your face splatters over an area of 110 meters squared! Our model is therefore buncombe, and must be changed. That's all science is.

Track and Plan your submissions ; Read some Comics ; Get Paid for your Poetry

An internet tradition since June 9, 2001