Re: LOST: Have the Producers Lied To Us?

The Translucent Amoebae wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:56 am, Fred Ellis <fkel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>> In January 2005, Damon Lindelof discussed "Lost" in an interview:
>>
>>> "We're stil...
>> Actually the producers have kept to their statement about no 'time
>> travel'.  Desmond never physically traveled through time, his mind
>> did. Since his mind consists of electrical energy it might be
>> possible.
>>
>> There is a physicist by the name of Dr. Mallet who is studying the
>> possibility of sending electrical messages back in time.  I s...
>
> i deeply question what is meant by the common phrase...
> "It's Possible that x... "
>
> Only possible things are actually possible.
>
> And by Possible, This means; Things that are in fact existent.
>
> You might easily say that it's entirely possible that you might stub
> your toe tomorrow morning, but if the universe isn't planning that to
> happen, then it's not going to happen, and consequently; impossible.
>
> To be charitable, the light side of this is simply a confusion between
> what is statistically probable and what is statistically improbable
>
> But the way the orthodox scientists have been using the term
> "Possible" lately is far more along the lines of: Doesn't this sound
> clever, it might be Possible.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Since about 1958, Physics has made almost no progress towards a
> greater theory of how reality works; and in desperation to hold on to
> their jobs have come up with a continuing array of crazier and crazier
> 'theories' with absolutely NO Bases At All in Experimental or
> Reproducible Data.

What about all those predicted particles that have since been discovered?

> They have long ago slipped into Pure Skiffy and are calling it
> Science.

I do concede your point about protecting their jobs.  After all, "publish
or 
perish."  But this is hardly unique to science and doesn't get in the way
of 
people who do come up with testable hypotheses.