Shwa

"Predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to a very high degree of accuracy." Wiki Quantum Mechanics There are theories that have yet to be tested of course, even if they can be tested, but my understanding corresponds with that of the Wiki article in that quantum mechanics is the real deal. Quantum reality merely extrapolates from the operations of quantum mechanics to provide a model of subatomic reality. The model suggests that we are all a part of the same 'electron soup', all made of the same stuff the Universe is. Therefore "we" have some form of 'interconnectedness.' However, the question is, how can one describe 'self' within this system? Or can 'self' even exist? It would seem that we exist on one level of reality and yet cannot on another. But paradoxes are nothing new to quantum mechanics are they? Don't get me wrong. One paradox does not admit all paradoxes, but the concept of self within a co-existing subatomic reality does present some interesting questions don't you think?

Can you name a few or perhaps provides further information to support your view?

So are you saying that objective truth requires mediation from science?

Precisely. So why would I wasted my time? No fallacy here, just simple disinterest in comparing apples to oranges. If you wish to, by all means, please do.

Leaving aside the former for a minute, are you saying that on the quantum reality 'level,' the 'stuff' you are made of is any different than the 'stuff' everything else in the Universe is made up of?

Interesting thought, although "science" is working towards several models of interconnectedness including the semiosphere noosphere and collective consciousness.

Because conviction is required as impetus for caring enough to spend the time investigating something. If you are not convinced of the substance of your own claim, then why should I be? What you are trying to do is allow nonsense into a debate about a real phenomenon. That sounds like a fool's errand to me.

At one time it was a 'universal truth' that the earth was a flat disk, that man could not fly nor live and breathe under water; it was a universal truth that the earth was the centre of the universe. People accepted these things, they went about their lives with this knowledge. But these facts have changed over time. How is this possible?

And I am hearing through the grapevine that 'green technology' training is one of the more popular choices for participants in the Second Career program in Ontario. Hmmmm. Coincidence?

You may be right. However, when I compare my views with yours, I am much, much smarter than you, which makes you 'dumber.' You can see this plainly in the way you spew your trolling blockhead views. Not only are a poor-me WASP bigot, but your argumentative style belies an impotency of intellect. Which is to say that even your attempts to self-gratify yourself in public are a failure since the only facts you grasp are terminally limp.

The conviction of the claimant about their claim is the difference.

That is entirely beside the point. We two agree that the earth is round, but should we not try and ascertain whether universals are indeed just that? We could agree on many things, but our agreement does not make them truths. By saying that the earth is round is an objective universal and absolute truth then it must be true for everyone, even all blind people. Are you certain of this in the sense that you 'know' that statement to be true? How do we 'give' them the correct information and how can they 'receive' it? Is there some form of mediation required? I mean, we can't show them the geometry or math on a blackboard, we can't show them pictures of earth from space. Even your example misses the mark because they could as easily conclude that the world was essentially flat, but full of rounded mountains that block radio waves. So if you hold on to universal, I think that we need to recognize that while knowledge can be objective, universality is subjective. That is, what may be true for some, may not be true for others. Do you agree or disagree? Nope.

You can suggest all you want. I suggest you are a tête carré. It does to people with an affinity for the French language and a desire to see it perpetuated who also pay taxes. Not the way our system works. If you wish to change that, sign up for the next Federal election and whine about it to your community. It is when you break it down per person. Which comes to about 6$ for each Francophone. Very cheap. They do and it is no burden to the ROC. Spend sometime in the Pontiac QC. You'll get the idea. But you would never do that would you? Because you might have to buy something to eat and they might not understand 'le hamburger et les fries avec gravy.'

According to the definition of knowledge above, this is not testable, thus not knowledge. If you wish to modify or extend the definition of knowledge we have so far, please do.

This is an important point: Is the earth "round" to all blind people? That is, do all blind people have "knowledge" that the earth is round? If so, how did they get this knowledge? If not, then can we describe objectivity or knowledge in terms of "universal" or "everyone regardless of who and what they are?" It would seem that some things, which we call objective or absolute truths, have a sensory or mental capacity requirement, wouldn't you agree?

Nice try at minimizing. The story is about a high level US athlete comparing Canada's health care to the Third World after his own health care system misdiagnosed him for over a year. Even after he was correcly diagnosed in Canada he took his cheap shot because he is a "conservative Republican" and "We don't need socialistic health care in America." All of this because, he "...wasn't at the right medical facility." He played the political card and looks like an idiot.

So in other words, you are saying that: knowledge is objective truth and only objective truth can be knowledge. Would you agree with this statement?

Not the equivalent at all. You are comparing things of which people are/were convinced about whereas not even you are convinced of your own assertion.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion, that is not at issue. What is at issue is that his opinion makes him look like an idiot. And a total idiot at that by trying to put a spin on his own misfortune to try and score political points. Here is a highly paid, high level athlete - who can afford some of the best medical care in the world and for over a year he is mis-diagnosed by his own US doctors in his slice of the US health care machine. Now, according to the story from Brandon: Another "conservative Republican" who opened his mouth and removed all doubt.

Interesting story from today's Toronto Star The rest of the story here... So this guy is misdiagnosed in the US by his - no doubt - higher priced doctors, where he suffers with a hole in his colon for a year and yet when he doesn't get the satisfaction from emergency care from an undisclosed Canadian hospital, he suddently gets the "right" treatment in Biskmark? LOL. Obviously too many shots to the head.

Sorry, I should have said 'raised faith into the realm of knowledge.' Subtle difference. I read Mr. Schmidt's assertion is that the "knowledge" of the existence of "God" requires a form of "faith" and the "proof" is in the faithful. Such faith is expressed in the experiences of the subjects of Biblical stories which, I believe, was written pre-science. Secondly, there is another assertion that you will have proof of God by "his" works, and one poster, c.r I believe states that 'faith without works is dead' which I would interpret to mean that faith alone - in thought form - is not really the form of faith that is required for the knowledge of God, but the required form of faith that has some sort of active component which is described in biblical stories as acts and deeds. So how do you deal with faith in this way? Is it dismissed outright or is there some sort of scientific test that can be applied? For instance: You sound convinced. Do you actually "know" this or are you basing your assertion of "absolutely not" on some sort of faith - i.e. in historical processes, in a faith of people to keep the records properly, etc.?

No, the issue is much different. Did Ron L Hubbard actually believe in what he claimed? That is the test. In his case he wrote books and created a religion. At least with Hubbard he had the audacity to put his claims 'out there.' So did the Urantians. Now you claim that the Bible is no proof that God exists and you seem convinced of it. And it appears that Mr. Schmidt is claiming that faith is a form of knowledge and he seems convinced of his claim. But all we have seen thus far is a lot of posturing. When does the real debate take place? Or can it? BTW - have to be careful about dismissing myths. I recall reading one essay in a physics history book that showed that some early Greek hero myths were actually constructed as marine navigational tools. Currently I am in the middle of Levi-Straus' 'The Raw and the Cooked' and he is making a very good case for myth-as-medium for carrying underlying cultural messages - cultural truths if you will and this capacity exists within the fundamental structures of the human mind. Very cool stuff! And will 'Mein Kampf' go through enough revisions so that one day Hitler cannot be proven to exist?

You are making an abstract statement and expecting others to validate/invalidate it for you even though you don't believe it yourself. Hmmmm... That has more to do with absurdity than truth. Lacking the conviction of your own idea is hardly a good way to try and convince others. In a way, it's kind of phoney.

What an assinine statement; you know full well that if Canada didn't have a Pacific coast we wouldn't be in the Pacific Rim organizations; or if we were a tropical country we wouldn't be involved in circumpolar organizations nor a founding member of the International Ice Hockey Federation. You must also know that 22.7% of (6.8 million) Canadians cite French as their mother tongue - one of the two official langauges of Canada - which constitutes a 'good enough' percentage to qualify for membership in the OIF. Sweet deal. 6$ membership fee for each Francophone. Costs more to go to a Jr B hockey game. Nope. It is a good use of taxpayers money (expecially at such a cheap membership fee!) See all the good stuff in the previous posts. That's French based Haitian Creole, which isn't much of stretch with French proper. Here's an example: to es un tête carré mon.

Because it is your assertion, not mine.