Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The lord of the rings films similarly mess up the story by completely removing the ending.
In the books, Frodo and Sam return to The Shire after destroying the ring. Only to find that Saruman has invaded and turned it into an industrial wasteland, where the hobbits are enslaved to work the machinery. They then have to try and stop Saruman and start rebuilding The Shire.
This is an analogy to British soldiers returning from WW2 to find that their home cities had been flattened by German bombing, and that their familes were working in industrial zones to manifacture munitions and equipment for the war effort.
The films completely ignore this message about the consequences that war has for civilians, and the question if industrialisation is a good thing. Instead the hobbits return home and live happily ever after.
1 member liked this post.
in what way?
Because the character motivations make no sense, the character’s personalities randomly change between seasons, and characters teleport across a continent.
They should never have moved away from the books, the script writers don’t understand the story, and are nowhere near as skilled as George Martin.
(Not that George Martin is even that good of a writer)
Game of thrones has been terrible since season 3.
I am open minded to the free will argument hence I posted the article, but why do you keep mentioning ” the normal laws of physics ” when we have such limited understanding of them? You are quoting our 2017 knowledge of physics as the holy grail which generation will look at in years to come in the same way we laugh at people who thought the earth was flat with the sun orbiting it burning witches if they floated in the river for being the devil.
We have a reasonably good understanding of the components that the brain is made of (neurons, neurotransmitters, hormones, ect), and how they interact with each other.
1 member liked this post.
so if a 5 year old using laws to explain how a house is built with 1 % of knowledge states he will use his laws to explain how he intends to build a high rise flat in Glasgow, you would take that as absolute and verified. Science is the 5 year old with its lack of knowledge in so many areas so why use those laws as a template to base your argument on.
Knowing if a given planet has water or not doesn’t change our understanding how planets interact with each other, or the properties of water.
(Unless we discover water in a place that it shouldn’t be able to exist.)
parallel universes
No evidence that they exist. You have to prove that they exist before you can create laws about how they function.
time
Time is well understood. In which situation do we not know how time will operate?
universe origins
The laws mostly likely operated differnetly when the universe started, if it started. Otherwise it it has always existed and the laws are constant.
Is there a creator
The existance, or not of a creator doesn’t change the nature of the laws the did or did not set.
life after death
This is the same as the free will question.
The free will argument is a complex one. Most people may say ” you can do XYZ so you have free will” but technically if you state we are all products of DNA, nurture/ nature and other experiences then we are all essentially pre programmed. This article is an interesting one
Free will requires that the brain has some special property that operates outside the normal laws of physics.
This has never been observed, there is no refutation of this in the magazine article you linked to.
You’re confusing yourself Drac, I’ll simplify it so you can understand. Science has barely evolved to a state where we don’t know if a planet next to us has ever had water or not. You then suggest using these “laws” from such a basic comprehension of physics to define what is and isn’t fact.
I don’t see how that is relevent in any way.
But physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain.
Such as?
This is almost verging on the religious argument to defend scriptures .. it’s for you to prove a flawed set of laws if correct not the other way around. Of course there are various entities which operate within our known knowledge of physics but physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain. To extrapolate a set of laws on celestial bodies which may have no laws simply because the human brain has managed to find a finite set of parameters which certain things operate within is bizarre. The onus is on you to prove , not to disprove a very limited flawed set of “physics laws” which can barely explain 1% of the universe and our understanding of it.
To assert that free will exists, without evidence is the same as asserting that a god exists, without evidence.
