blipey
Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006
|
Hi TP,
I think you misunderstood me. My joke reference was not in reference to QM. As for being shocked by the theory of QM, shocked may not be quite the right word. As I am not a physicist, I don't claim any special insight into QM, but I find it interesting. My 15 hours of university classes in QM made me think it is cool, if difficult to wrap my brain around.
I'm pretty sure my religious leanings have zero bearing on whether or not I think QM is cool. When I was younger, I would certainly identify as a practicing Christian (though certainly not of the biblical literalism variety). I no longer identify myself as such. It is interesting to note, however, that my views on such scientific matters and their "coolness" factor is the same now as it was then.
My joke reference was more in reference to equating randomness with magic. Your comment seems to indicate that you equate magic with stuff we don't know yet. Fine, I guess I can go along with that in the same sense that Clarke meant it.
However, the magic of ID is not this same thing; your analogy is bad. The magic of ID requires (at least at some level of recursivity) actual magic--something that is supernatural.
--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin
|
