Changes

::::::::In regards to the abovementioned "problem", would it not make sense to assume that anything that is interpreted physically but not actually verifiably physical is another dimension, or spiritual entity? How about feelings? forces? intelligence itself? If we were to conjure new entities willy-nilly, then we would be subject to the problem of appearing to simply explain everything with the philosophical equivalent of "God did it". Is that in the interests of any science? I think not.

::::::::In regards to the abovementioned "problem", would it not make sense to assume that anything that is interpreted physically but not actually verifiably physical is another dimension, or spiritual entity? How about feelings? forces? intelligence itself? If we were to conjure new entities willy-nilly, then we would be subject to the problem of appearing to simply explain everything with the philosophical equivalent of "God did it". Is that in the interests of any science? I think not.

::::::::As to your next point, I counter: what evidence? I have no wish to shoot you down, I wish simply to objectively examine this evidence.

::::::::As to your next point, I counter: what evidence? I have no wish to shoot you down, I wish simply to objectively examine this evidence.

::::::::Probability holds that matches scattered randomly on a table *can* provide a perceived message. Can we decipher the following if we find it in nature? हाँ हम कर सकते है! But could you do it without me to interpret it?

::::::::Probability holds that matches scattered randomly on a table *can* provide a perceived message. Can we decipher the following if we find it in nature? हाँ हम कर सकते है! But could you do it without me to interpret it?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 12:09, 11 November 2008 (EST)