Sonofabor
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2021
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 320
A running thread for speculations and discourse on the seemingly improbable and often paradoxical implications of the the study of stolen history.
Aristotle (whoever he was) wrote a book called Metaphyics. The point (and inside joke) of the title is that the unearthly or spiritual should only be studied after the study of physics. The orientation of stolen history has always been an investigation of physical facts first. Brick counts, submarine photographs from the 1860s, ethnological descriptions of flatheads, the size of Napoleon's wagon train... provide the starting points.
With improbable and paradoxical conclusions based on primary investigations, however, we come to the point that only meta-physical explanations (in the the sense that the physics we know fails) can help us explain what we intuit, perceive and know.
Aristotle (whoever he was) wrote a book called Metaphyics. The point (and inside joke) of the title is that the unearthly or spiritual should only be studied after the study of physics. The orientation of stolen history has always been an investigation of physical facts first. Brick counts, submarine photographs from the 1860s, ethnological descriptions of flatheads, the size of Napoleon's wagon train... provide the starting points.
With improbable and paradoxical conclusions based on primary investigations, however, we come to the point that only meta-physical explanations (in the the sense that the physics we know fails) can help us explain what we intuit, perceive and know.
- “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”- Arthur C. Clarke