---

My question is, do you mcace accept any "theories" as facts, like the earth is round, forks are made for eating, etc.  Is your perspective that of one who thinks that a bucket is made for wearing on one's head?

---

I do accept these theories made laws for the most part.  But there are some that I don't, for I believe that the scientests at that time were too narrow-minded.  No, I am not the one that thinks of the bucket as a helmet.  Or am I...  

---

Quote: from exparrot at 5:07 pm on Aug. 25, 2006

---

My question is, do you mcace accept any "theories" as facts, like the earth is round, forks are made for eating, etc.  Is your perspective that of one who thinks that a bucket is made for wearing on one's head?

---

I do accept these theories made laws for the most part.  But there are some that I don't, for I believe that the scientests at that time were too narrow-minded.  No, I am not the one that thinks of the bucket as a helmet.  Or am I...  

---

Hahaha, I accept you whether or not you use buckets as helmets, mcace.  You're fine just the way you are.

I can understand what you mean when you say scientists are narrow-minded.  But the idea seems to contradict science.  Isn't science all about looking into the infinite possibilities of a subject?

Just a thought.

-------
I don't care if I'm a guilty pleasure for you!

---

For if you see a bucket, you say something to hold water/ect.  If I see a bucket, I may see a stool/stepup ladder.  If another sees it, they may see a helmet.  It is all a matter of perspective.  And not all things have just that use.  

---

This has nothing to do with proof.

---

The only proven idea is Cogito Ergo Sum [I think, therfore I am] everything else is relative. I cannot prove what world I am in, that I am living [in a conventional sense], or that I even have free will.

---

You may exist in your own thought, but your "level" of existance is entirely unknown. You could possibly be a simulation in a highly advanced computers. We could be to some higher power as our imagination is to us. While each person can technically prove that your thought exists, you cannot prove free will. If the big bang is true, we could simply be formed by some freak coincedence of atoms and energy flying around the place, with definite paths for all atoms and energy. If that were true, if one could theoretically know the position and state of all atoms and energy, he could know the future and past.

-------
M-M-M-MONSTER KILL
*I am in no way affiliated with anyone else with the name Carrot.

Theories do not depend entirely on perspective... for instance how would you define: Points, Lines, Planes & Space? you wouldn't there is no generaly accepted definition for these words we simply "know" what they are... yah that was sort of the gist of what i typed before i lost two pages of pretty good writing...

-------
If you need any help with any language
especially French, English, or German, let me know...

---

I have come across my own idea about "Proven" theories.  Theories that are proven cannot be accepted.  If you come in looking for something, you will generally find it.  And just because all things point to a theory being correct, it doesn't mean it is.  For if you see a bucket, you say something to hold water/ect.  If I see a bucket, I may see a stool/stepup ladder.  If another sees it, they may see a helmet.  It is all a matter of perspective.  And not all things have just that use.  

---

Whatever you see, you would see a bucket. The use of the bucket is contested, but not the fact that it is a bucket. There are things that are constant, despite perspective.

-------
You only live once...but if you work it right, once is enough.