Science

Not directly.

I just vaguely recall something, that I know isn't Hisenberg that provides an additional limit to what we can know. I could be based on Godel's work, it might not be. That's alls I'm sayin'.
 
No, I am not.

It's not a matter of showing where a particle is at any given time, but rather whether or not it is possible to show that the theory is consistent.
 
"This is our theory of everything. This is our explenation of what has happened and our predictions of what will happen. It's a work in progress and there will be additions and alterations in the years to come. It's a story which is being written right now. Lets see how it ends shall we?".
I especially like the bolded parts.

Apart from this particular narration some of the Discovery type of shows example about nature have still annoying ending narrations like (similar) "this all ended into birth of the most magnificent thing of all known: the human brain".

Those are "additional narrations" that have no any other meaning but add some kind of "yeah, we're so great"-elements to it and strenghten the grotesque and perverted vision of the world with some kind of anthropocentric view.

That is the part of science shows I hate. It's like scienceporn.
 
Back
Top Bottom