Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20190617222636/@comment-32182236-20190704195905

You seem absolutely obsessed about religion, Ambassador.

How else can I make real-world parallels to asking why the Designer made something that way? You're asking about the game's Desginer, and to parallel that to this world, it would be asking about this world's designer:Aka God. (I'm giving Einstien the benefit of the doubt about God's existence in this case.)

It's not whether or not a God exists. It's not about which religion is true. It's not even about fundamentalism. It's stating that God, the (hypothetical) designer of this universe WOULD NOT play dice with the universe. The Bible... Does not state this. In fact, if he exists, he already does... Since some of us choose evil... Something that would be chance to an outside observer (yet still knowable, if one exists outside time.)

Saying that quantum mechanics is nonsensical simply because "God doesn't play dice with the universe" is simply nit a scientific statement.

...And he was doing so well before then. *sigh* Well, looks like nobody's perfect. Einstien's not an exception to this rule.

Blind devotion to any ideal, political stance, famous person or sports team can have negative results if taken too far.

And this includes Albert Einstien. Hence why I don't simply believe everything even he says.

One reason I was surprised to find you're not a fan of Albert Einstein, when you say you do everything in the name

I'm not a fan of anybody. As you just said, blind devotion leads to negative consequences, no matter who it is. I think he did well with special and general relativity... But once quantum mechanics came around, he became the very problem he wanted gone.

In a way, this parallels Doctor Andonuts in your narrative:He started as a genius scientist, until corruption overtook him. The only difference is with Einstien... "Corruption" took the form of blind dogma.

Without imagination, without curiosity, people would simply accept what they currently knew as all there was to know, and never try to look beyond that.

Imagination and curiosity are not the same thing. Curiosity is the desire to learn more, and gather knolwedge. Imagination is making things up. Imagination gives you the myths of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece (I'm sure you all agree that the Egyptian Gods and the Greek Gods don't exist, right?) It gives you astrology (as opposed to astronomy). It gives you alchemy. Legends. Fiction.

Curiosity leads to the discovery of non-fictional facts.

Comparing the two is a big mistake. They are not to be confused for each other-They are completely separate things. And while imagination is a powerful tool, you shouldn't misuse it. Logic must still be abided by, otherwise we'll just make even more myths.

Einstein's theories might be old now, and have been refined or debunked in the generations that followed him. But his success in accerating the progress of human knowledge during his lifetime is a feat few in history can rival.

I said myself that relativity was a great theory. He did great when he made it. I'm just saying you shouldn't blindly admire him... Especially since he sided against quantum mechanics... But not just because he sided against it-But rather, his reason for why it can't be true:I'm sure you know what that reason was-I've said it several times already, and it's quite a(n) (in)famous quote.

In essence, in his attack against quantum mechanics, he went against the very tools that brougt him this far to begin with.

The story of Einstien is a story about corruption. That even the greatest minds can falter in epic proportions.

Perhaps Einstien even predicted this would happen to him, in a way...

"There are two things that are infinite:The universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one."

It is true that imagination can get you anywhere... But you won't know where it takes you. If you're lucky, you'll discover the secret of the universe... But you're far more likely to end up with false information, believing that you've discovered the secret of the universe. And you'll have no way of knowing which one is true. I'd rather side with Logic, because it'll take you from A to B... Then B to C... Then C to D.. And eventually, all the way to the truth that lies at Z.

Of course, we'll need Curiosity and Discovery.. Curosity to search for new evidence, and discovery, to know when we found this new evidence. After all, logic won't get us anywhere if we don't even have evidence to use logic ON.

Do you really think the scientific world was ready to rewrite its entire concept of time, because a clerk at a Swiss patent office wrote a fancy sounding document? Hell no.

At least read the papers, guys. The evidence in there will show why the classical interpretation must be false-Problems that lie within it, when compared with the evidence.

...You did put your evidence into your papers on relativity, Einstien, right? (Hey, are the original papers online?)

What Einstein wanted to do was encourage people to be more open-minded, and use their creativity to search for unknown aspects of physics when the observations didn't match current theories. To show people that Science wasn't just about dry number crunching, but to explore the universe in search of things we don't already know.

Yes, we are to search for other aspects of things when the observations don't match the theories. I made a theory that matched the observations. You're just asking why Toby Fox would do something like this... But the observation is still explained. There's a difference. So if you have an actual contradiction, a Death Blow to my theory, that doesn't hinge on things having meaning, like the evidence that Death Blowed Newtonian physics, then go ahead and present it, rather than continously asking if it fits as a "good" story (That's subjective, by the way.)

If it's logically coherent, and fits all the observations, it's possible. If it makes even one false prediction, it's now impossible. If even one observation is supposed to be different according to the theory.. It's eliminated. The speed of light being constant is enough to Death Blow Netownian physics.

So how about you actually do what Einstien did with relativity. Test the theories.

If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, we have to use our creativity to search for what unknown factor might be out there that can explain what might be causing the difference.

Yes. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory. Not if evidence is meaningless according to it. The evidence just can't contradict the theory. If something's unexplained... We're missing something, but that doesn't mean the theory is wrong yet-Just that we're missinga piece. But if we can show that every interpretation of the theory predicts that the evidence shouldn't be there.... We eliminate the theory. After all, it is there.

And it matched closely enough that, while not perfect, it definitely felt I was heading the right direction. So I kept heading that way to learn more.

If by "not perfect" you mean that there was still evidence that went against it, and that some things still shouldn't be there... Then that means your theory was WRONG! Death Blow it, just like you did to the traditional theory.

FNAF might seem like a silly fantasy story about people putting their minds in robots. And on the surface it's tempting to dismiss it as such.

That's not my problem with FNAF. I already explained what my problem with it was... And I don't want us to go back to that here on the Undertale Wiki.