Morné

Thoughts from the couch


Written by Morné Nortier (Morné)

Posted in :Original Content on 25 Oct 2010 at 09:59
Tagged with : , , , ,

In a weekend where there were no real games of significance on, I learned more than any other weekend this year so far.

Well let me first touch on the Currie Cup promotion/relegation matches.

What a bloody waste of time. Most would believe that the 36-all draw in Witbank between the Pumas and EP Kings were ‘thrilling’ or ‘exciting’. Personally, I had to force myself not to switch channels and watch Stephen Hawking’s Universe.

By Saturday, I just could not take it anymore and after 40 minutes of sitting through the Leopards and SWD Eagles game, I switched over to watch the Aviva Premiership.

Firstly, I could never, and will never see the point of these promotion/relegation play-off matches. I understand it is hugely important for the unions and I also support the idea of teams being promoted and relegated, but to do this in a play-off format simply robs the game of rugby of something special.

For the first division teams the significance of these games are a hell of a lot more important than the actual first division title, which was played a week ago between the same two teams. In the final, the EP Kings won a closely contested game but throughout I felt that SWD could not care less.

A week prior to the final the Eagles went hammer and tongs at the Kings in the last round of matches in the first division, knowing that a victory would have them square up against the ‘weaker’ of the premier division teams – they achieved their victory, one more crucial than the one the Kings achieved in George in the final.

So what is the bloody point on playing a final where the more significant games are the promotion/relegation fixtures? Or rather, what is the point of playing promotion/relegation games in the first place? Wouldn’t it be much simpler to have the top one or two teams automatically move up and the other teams in the premier division down?

But thanks to these useless games I was actually forced to watch English rugby (Aviva Premiership) and one or two ITM (New Zealand) Cup matches.

Two interesting things occurred to me.

Firstly, how is it that dead-average South African players suddenly become superstars in English club rugby?

Anyone remember Marco Wentzel? Yeah I had to google his name too in order to remind myself for which South African teams he played for before he moved to England. Not only is this guy the captain of Leeds, but the way the commentators praised his skill and efforts as a line-out genius, I wondered whether we perhaps lost out on Victor Matfield’s successor.

The second thing that I found interesting over the weekend was when I watched Southland taking on Wellington in the ITM Cup. At one stage Southland probably carried the ball through 20 phases before they scored. It was a massively impressive build up but I noticed, not once, did the commentator refer to or had to remind me in which phase they were in at any particular time. There was also no graphic on television (something SuperSport loves) to indicate phase 4 or 8.

It got me thinking about our obsession with phases in the game, and phase play, and how this is seemingly insignificant in New Zealand rugby.

South Africa and to some extent Australia somehow view a team taking the ball through many phases as some sort of victory, or brilliant achievement. This of course is regardless of what is actually done with the ball or actual field meters gained. We also coach our players to play pre-determined, phase orientated or result driven rugby, meaning the pods that we set up in different areas of the field are pre-determined, and whether or not you have one guy tackling a pod of three or four players, or 5, the mission of that ball carrier is to get to point A (predetermined) and once he gets there, go to ground (because this is in the plan) and set up another phase.

This is then praised by all in sundry, including our well educated commentators as some sort of rugby brilliance.

Remember the semi-final in Durban? Sharks at one stage had over 70% of the ball for well over 20 minutes, but never really build up any lead over the Blue Bulls or convert the possession into points. Southland did the same, well same in the sense of holding onto the ball but in the 20-odd phases they accumulated, but they had about 18 line-breaks or successfully crossed the advantage line 95% of the time on each ball-carry. Nothing pre-dertermined, no pods, ball being moved from one end of the field to the next effectively breaking down a brilliant Wellington defense.

I have stated many times, and I witnessed this again over the weekend – the main difference between New Zealand rugby and the rest of the world is that they breed thinkers, we breed robots.

This weekend sees the Currie Cup final between the Sharks and Western Province. Now apart from working yourself into a frenzy if you support either team, do yourself a favour just for shits and giggles because I personally find this amusing – try and count how many times, and to what lengths coaches and players from each team will go to in the lead-up to the game to attach the ‘favourites’ tag to the other team – it is hilarious!

Enjoy the final!



121 Comments

  • It’s nice to be the underdog. You feel less pressure. If you lose it’s just “ag they’re a good team and they were the favourites etc etc”. IF you win, you praise your team for rising to the occasion etc.

  • Comment 1, posted at 25.10.10 10:13:06 by PTAShark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    DragnipurSuper Rugby player
     
  • It`s gonna be dead even. WP have our number in the backline and we`ve got theirs among the forwards.

    Wonder which way blue bull Joubert would lean now that his team isn`t in the final . . .

  • Comment 2, posted at 25.10.10 10:51:32 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original PierreSuper Rugby player
     
  • OK I’ll say it. The Sharks are favourites if they can keep the ball away from the Stormers dangerous backs. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 3, posted at 25.10.10 10:54:48 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Original Pierre (Comment 2) : Uhmm, remember when we also thought that our forwards had their number going down to Newlands a few weeks ago? Hargs and Co will have to pull out pretty much the same quality game as against the Bulls if we are going to lift that cup.

  • Comment 4, posted at 25.10.10 11:27:51 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • I reckon the side that finished top of the log and playing at home must be the favourite. :roll:

  • Comment 5, posted at 25.10.10 11:45:23 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 5) : na na – the team with a backline chock-full of Bok stars must surely be the favourite…

  • Comment 6, posted at 25.10.10 11:46:59 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 6) : :razz:

  • Comment 7, posted at 25.10.10 11:48:56 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 7) : over to you, sirrah :)

  • Comment 8, posted at 25.10.10 12:00:39 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 5) : @robdylan (Comment 8) :

    I reckon the Sharks are definitely favourites!!

    Didn’t they knock out the defending champions in the semis?? :twisted:

  • Comment 9, posted at 25.10.10 12:04:30 by wpw Reply
    Administrator
    wpwAssistant coach
     
  • @wpw (Comment 9) : Oh yeah, forgot about that. Defending champs & current S14 champs to boot. Huge favourites. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 10, posted at 25.10.10 12:07:37 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • WP are favourites from what I’ve seen in the media: no mean feat making the S14 AND CC Finals.

    We need to respect them going in, and then unleash the beast within during the game – like against the Bulls.

    Can I just say that Northern hemisphere rugby is traditional grind, which I often enjoy, but overall, rather boring. Mostly a kicking game.

  • Comment 11, posted at 25.10.10 12:11:43 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @wpw (Comment 9) : good one.

    But the Sharks only scored 1 try in the semis… Province scored like 100

  • Comment 12, posted at 25.10.10 12:13:10 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • i thinks we is making big mistook to play on skulk and jdv the flyhalf who cant run is the danger
    in finals its the points what counts!!!!!!!!

  • Comment 13, posted at 25.10.10 12:27:25 by Fattmann Reply
    Competition Winner
    FattmannCurrie Cup player
     
  • Personally, I had to force myself not to switch channels and watch Stephen Hawking’s Universe

    Damnit! I keep missing that! :evil:

    Morras, is it any good?

  • Comment 14, posted at 25.10.10 13:08:28 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 14) :

    If you are into that sort of thing, it is quite good.

  • Comment 15, posted at 25.10.10 13:09:18 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • I see we are all fighting for the coveted underdog tag. :twisted:

  • Comment 16, posted at 25.10.10 13:09:59 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 15) : Very into that sort of thing. The Universe on History is a personal favourite. :cool:

  • Comment 17, posted at 25.10.10 13:10:34 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @wpw (Comment 9) : @McLovin (Comment 10) : Damnit. Looks like you guys win. :evil:

  • Comment 18, posted at 25.10.10 13:12:18 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 11) : Can I just say that Northern hemisphere rugby is traditional grind, which I often enjoy, but overall, rather boring. Mostly a kicking game.

    You can, and I fully concur.

  • Comment 19, posted at 25.10.10 13:13:10 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 15) : I also quote enjoyed ‘into the wormhole’ afterwards

  • Comment 20, posted at 25.10.10 13:13:22 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 20) : Family website bru.

  • Comment 21, posted at 25.10.10 13:14:32 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • Hey you glossed over the Marco Wentzel, bit to quickly.

    Add to that Puke Watson, captaining Bath, Schalk Brits being the best in europe……… the list goes on. SH players go north because the money is good and the POMS are kak.

    While the foreigners may take playing oppertunities away from other POMS and earning good money, they DO in fact serve a very handy purpose for the RFU. The POMS are now playing against tougher opposition albeit at a slower pace.

  • Comment 22, posted at 25.10.10 13:16:50 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Why is my comment 18 being moderated?? :roll:

    Seriously, this takes “draconian” to all sorts of new heights.

  • Comment 23, posted at 25.10.10 13:20:13 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 6) :

    @McLovin (Comment 5) :

    No No!!!! The Bulls are STILL the favourites, ask anyone in Pretoria. They KNOW their rugby up there.

  • Comment 24, posted at 25.10.10 13:20:47 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 24) : KSA the diplomat. :lol:

  • Comment 25, posted at 25.10.10 13:21:32 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 23) : software glitch. Jeeez… paranoid much?

  • Comment 26, posted at 25.10.10 13:28:54 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 24) :

    Says the oke standing under a ‘dutchman’ sign…

  • Comment 27, posted at 25.10.10 13:32:43 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 21) :
    LMAO!!! :lol:

  • Comment 28, posted at 25.10.10 13:34:40 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 24) : And the Lions are without doubt the under dogs :lol: :lol:

  • Comment 29, posted at 25.10.10 13:35:28 by Greg Reply

    GregSuper Rugby player
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 26) : :twisted:

  • Comment 30, posted at 25.10.10 13:35:58 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 28) : Payback for the laughs you’ve delivered on the other thread ol’ pal. :cool:

  • Comment 31, posted at 25.10.10 13:37:01 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 31) :
    Wanna see Pokkel try to untangle that one. :lol:

  • Comment 32, posted at 25.10.10 13:41:58 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 32) : Family website bru.

  • Comment 33, posted at 25.10.10 13:44:14 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 21) : @Big Fish (Comment 32) : Now I’ll have to start explaining Quantum mechanics to you okes :mrgreen:

  • Comment 34, posted at 25.10.10 13:46:33 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 34) : I’ve got Quantum Mechanics down. Can you help me with string theory? :mrgreen:

  • Comment 35, posted at 25.10.10 13:47:38 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 32) : I think he’s missed it. :smile:

  • Comment 36, posted at 25.10.10 13:48:22 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 35) : Yes I can…just go look at yourself in the mirror ;-)

  • Comment 37, posted at 25.10.10 13:48:43 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 34) :
    Don’t bother: Bill Bryson tried already. When I got to quantum particles have qualities like “sideways”, and the concept something exists in a state of being and not being until observed, I quietly switched the rugby back on. :cool:

  • Comment 38, posted at 25.10.10 13:49:17 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @klempie (Comment 36) : I heard you load and clear thank you but it’s still a family site. ;-)

  • Comment 39, posted at 25.10.10 13:49:32 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 38) : I love reading about that stuff but that doesn’t mean that I understand shit about what they saying though. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 40, posted at 25.10.10 13:51:14 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 38) : Try string theory. THAT’S a doozie bru. Apparently, spacetime does not have only 4 dimensions but up to 11, all represented by tiny strings of energy which make up quarks and electrons…even cooler, is that they think that the way the strings vibrate determines what kind sub-atomic matter it creates.

  • Comment 41, posted at 25.10.10 13:54:27 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 37) : HA! I’ve put on a kilo in the last week. Two protein shakes a day. :cool: Pensie will be on his own in the weigth derision category by the end of the year. :twisted:

  • Comment 42, posted at 25.10.10 13:55:42 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 38) :

    Similar to rugby and WP rugby in specific actually.

    The Currie Cup exists in Cape Town but it has seldom been observed…

  • Comment 43, posted at 25.10.10 13:56:01 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 41) : No wonder you can’t get a girlfriend….freak!!! :twisted:

  • Comment 44, posted at 25.10.10 13:56:39 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Morné (Comment 43) : :lol: :lol: Brilliant. Quote of the day!

  • Comment 45, posted at 25.10.10 13:57:46 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Morné (Comment 43) : :twisted:

  • Comment 46, posted at 25.10.10 13:59:54 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 43) : According to WP Media, aga Cape Media, WP already have one hand on the cup… :twisted:

  • Comment 47, posted at 25.10.10 14:01:42 by Charlie Reply

    CharlieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @klempie (Comment 41) :
    I thought string theory was the name of a Victoria’s Secret catalogue. :sad:

    I still enjoy non-Newtonian physics. It takes away the smugness that Newtonian atheists felt all these years.

    Now we know that the universe is complex and strange enough that the concept of an omnipotent being is not incongruent with science.

  • Comment 48, posted at 25.10.10 14:01:54 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 48) : True. I myself try not to draw any such relationship. I don’t think it’s necessary either way.

  • Comment 49, posted at 25.10.10 14:03:40 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 49) : i.e. One does not disprove the other. Well, not yet anyway.

  • Comment 50, posted at 25.10.10 14:04:23 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 48) : Now we know that the universe is complex and strange enough that the concept of an omnipotent being is not incongruent with science.

    All we need now is proof. :roll:

  • Comment 51, posted at 25.10.10 14:08:17 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 51) :
    Exeunt Big Fish, stage right (this is as close to that particular edge that I care to skate). :lol:

  • Comment 52, posted at 25.10.10 14:11:16 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @klempie (Comment 41) : I gather you’ve read some of Mitchio Kaku’s stuff :cool:

  • Comment 53, posted at 25.10.10 14:14:23 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 52) : Me too. Rules are rules. :twisted: :mrgreen:

  • Comment 54, posted at 25.10.10 14:15:18 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 53) : No. But that dude is AWESOME. Love when he features on History and Discovery.

  • Comment 55, posted at 25.10.10 14:18:38 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 52) : @McLovin (Comment 54) : Pussies! :twisted:

  • Comment 56, posted at 25.10.10 14:18:56 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 56) :
    Oh look – its klempie – the Rebel without a pause.

    Don’t worry we’ll bury you with your boots on, and give your personal effects to your room-mate and “special friend”.

  • Comment 57, posted at 25.10.10 14:22:39 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 57) : :o

  • Comment 58, posted at 25.10.10 14:24:04 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • I leave you okes alone for just a few hours and you get into existentialist physics?

  • Comment 59, posted at 25.10.10 14:24:50 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 51) : According to my limited, pop-science understanding of quantum theory an observer is necessary for the wave functions of particles to collapse, which means there cannot be an all-knowing and all-observing intelligence such as God, because the possiblities of particles being in separate states at the same moment in the same dimension in space/time cannot be true.

    The only way to prove if there is indeed a God is to prove that every single particle that exists in the universe does so in infinite dimensions simultaneously.

    Pretty big job in anyone’s books, which is why it’s probably easier to simply believe.

  • Comment 60, posted at 25.10.10 14:25:25 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 55) : That’s also where I saw him and I thought he was so awesome that I bought some of his books. Pretty interesting theories, especially his string theory.

  • Comment 61, posted at 25.10.10 14:27:27 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 59) : Just trying to raise the tone of the website. :cool:

  • Comment 62, posted at 25.10.10 14:28:14 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • I wonder what the guys on the Bulls’ website talk about….

  • Comment 63, posted at 25.10.10 14:29:35 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 62) : What would really raise the tone of this website is if we bring home the cup on Saturday. :grin:

  • Comment 64, posted at 25.10.10 14:29:41 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 62) : I’m glad to see you are using some of that ‘black matter’ between your ears for some good as well.

  • Comment 65, posted at 25.10.10 14:30:45 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 60) : Or not. :twisted:

  • Comment 66, posted at 25.10.10 14:31:15 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • @klempie (Comment 63) : They think ‘Thoughts from the couch’ are thoughts from PdV. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 67, posted at 25.10.10 14:32:25 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 60) : So you posit that the existence of an omnipresent, all-seeing being is impossible because that would violate the rule relating to the observation of particles based on the fact that aforementioned being would have to both observe and not observe the particle at the same time?

  • Comment 68, posted at 25.10.10 14:33:35 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 68) : Exactly. Schrödinger’s Cat can’t be observed and not observed at the same time. An all-observing entity would collapse all wavefunctions simultaneously, which we know cannot happen.

  • Comment 69, posted at 25.10.10 14:35:44 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • oh man… oh man….

    holding myself back… :)

  • Comment 70, posted at 25.10.10 14:37:05 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 65) : @McLovin (Comment 67) : PdV is the one with a black hole between his ears.

  • Comment 71, posted at 25.10.10 14:37:14 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 66) : :lol:

  • Comment 72, posted at 25.10.10 14:37:33 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 69) : Interesting. Never thought about it from that angle.

    Of course, you are making a number of assumptions on what the qualities of an omnipresent, all-seeing being is. Those arguing for the existence of such a being, could respond by saying that the Universe (and possibly multiverse, assuming it exists), is that being itself. In which case, the observation argument becomes moot.

  • Comment 73, posted at 25.10.10 14:39:05 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 70) : Come on big guy. Join in the fun! :mrgreen:

  • Comment 74, posted at 25.10.10 14:39:56 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • One mention of Stephen Hawking in my column and it all goes for a ball… :twisted:

  • Comment 75, posted at 25.10.10 14:40:59 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 71) : I was refering to black matter not a black hole….but I agree with what you said.

  • Comment 76, posted at 25.10.10 14:42:51 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @klempie (Comment 63) : The relative merits of braaing boerewors rolled up, versus cutting it into sections and braaing it in a row. :lol:

  • Comment 77, posted at 25.10.10 14:42:55 by Greg Reply

    GregSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Morné (Comment 75) : typical rugby ball….it bounces wherever it wants and sometimes in the most unexpected direction

  • Comment 78, posted at 25.10.10 14:44:45 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Morné (Comment 75) : The man is a legend. Amazing to think that he’s come up with all those paradigm shifting ideas…and then consider his disability. Frikkin unbelievable.

  • Comment 79, posted at 25.10.10 14:46:04 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 67) : @Greg (Comment 77) : :mrgreen:

  • Comment 80, posted at 25.10.10 14:46:58 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 73) : that\s what I was going to say. But getting into discussions here about whether God exists is pushing the boundaries just that bit too far.

    Let’s say, rather, I don’t trust myself to be able to have an impartial discussion about it, so I’d rather not get involved. Will be watching closely, though.

  • Comment 81, posted at 25.10.10 14:47:21 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 81) : Oh my Universe! We actually agree on something?? :shock:

  • Comment 82, posted at 25.10.10 14:52:45 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 82) : as unlikely as it sounds…

  • Comment 83, posted at 25.10.10 14:53:22 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 24) : :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

  • Comment 84, posted at 25.10.10 14:53:23 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original PierreSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Greg (Comment 77) :
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • Comment 85, posted at 25.10.10 15:02:17 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @klempie (Comment 82) :
    Oh my Universe! I assume the pun was intended?\
    :lol:

  • Comment 86, posted at 25.10.10 15:06:29 by Greg Reply

    GregSuper Rugby player
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 81) : Proving or disproving such a fact is obviously impossible for the top scholars and thinkers on both sides of the argument, let alone a science palooka like myself.

    But I do like (and I see Klempie does as well) to shoot the breeze about the mysteries of the universe and every now and then chucking an (to me at least) interesting theory into the worx. Probably on the wrong forum though and not intended as a serious discussion.

    Nothing wrong with getting people to look at things from a different viewpoint, which is ironically the reason Sharksworld rocks – lots of different people and lots of different viewpoints to enjoy.

    No offense intended. It’s all that bloody cat’s fault, anyway.

  • Comment 87, posted at 25.10.10 15:07:57 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @klempie (Comment 73) :
    Spot on. There are in fact other possibilities that similarly ensure that the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment is not violated.

    But I guess the most telling point is simply that all these mechanics are completely based on some critical assumptions – much like we previously assumed that Newtonian physics applied everywhere.

  • Comment 88, posted at 25.10.10 15:13:08 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 87) : ja… which is why I’m not putting a stop to it… just choosing not to get involved :)

  • Comment 89, posted at 25.10.10 15:13:26 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @Greg (Comment 86) : Yeh! :mrgreen:

  • Comment 90, posted at 25.10.10 15:40:27 by klempie Reply

    klempieTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 88) : And that’s exactly what makes the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment so cool.

    It forces run-of-the-mill, non-science folk to think about things like quantum physics in a way that makes some semblance of sense.

    I’m a prime example of this, having “achieved” a C on standard grade for science in matric and scraping through with an E for maths.

    Irrespective of the various theories and their viabilities, it’s nice to ponder reasons for our existence beyond the stuff we’ve been fed since early childhood and many people still blindly accept as the gospel truth.

    I would be very interested (seriously) to read up on the other possibilities regarding Schrödinger’s Cat. Do you have a link or book reference?

  • Comment 91, posted at 25.10.10 15:55:06 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 89) : Cool :cool:

  • Comment 92, posted at 25.10.10 15:56:29 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 91) : You could try In Search Of Schrodinger’s Cat by John Gribbin.

  • Comment 93, posted at 25.10.10 16:59:55 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 91) : Might be no reason or point to our existence. :twisted:

  • Comment 94, posted at 25.10.10 17:02:13 by McLovin Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • Is there no one in this forum thats on the other side of the fence? The one where God does exist? Is it just me?

    Im not going to claim to be the sharpest oak here. I dont understand most of what you saying interms of all your theories but what I gathered is that you are implying that God is created. I came to that conclusion in that you are suggest ing that God is made of particles or something. Your theories still dont prove that God doesnt exist. The reason why I say this is because God was the first and was before time began (ie not created). I dont know how i wasnt there LOL. If God was not created and created everything else surely the same rules of science that applies for most things doesnt apply to the creator. If I make a painting then that painting doesnt have the same characteristics as me even though it is of me (ie my imagination). The theories you have presented is not proving God doesnt exist its proving what we already know, God is bigger than everything he created including us. I dont know if thats an angle that might interest you or if its something you heard before but hey I had to say something the topic is just too interesting to avoid. Im not trying to challange anyone in a debateI just thought i would mix it up with a different view:) have a great day! :lol:

  • Comment 95, posted at 26.10.10 05:28:06 by Ozbok789 Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 94) : “Your existance” Sounds like someone placed you here? Second thoughts :lol:

  • Comment 96, posted at 26.10.10 05:30:29 by Ozbok789 Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @Ozbok789 (Comment 95) :
    I thought Thomas Aquinas said it best when he said that man may have knowledge from 2 sources, faith and reason. Faith is the more revealing, while reason is the more tangible. Many here know God by faith.

    I dont think the discussion above was about whether or not God exists, but rather whether or not science as we know it is compatible with the belief that he does.

  • Comment 97, posted at 26.10.10 08:03:43 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 93) : Thanks. Will have a look on Amazon.

  • Comment 98, posted at 26.10.10 09:34:40 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 97) : I assume by compatible you mean that science agrees. Which is exactly my point that Science can never fully describe God. It can only reveal part of Him or attributes of Him (which might be his creativity). a 1000 years from now no one will ever be able to prove that I existed based on the things I created. Just like the painting, I mentioned before, can never fully prove that I existed and no the painting is not signed by me either. It can only give people an idea of the creator. I find these theories interesting but I would never base my faith on it. It will always come back to faith not reason. Even though Thomas did say it best that one time. However scripture does back Thomas Aquinas up. It says something along the lines of building up knowledge in order to defend ones faith. Science is cool but it wont prove anyting in full only in part but it still awesome reading and experiencing the depths of Gods creation. Hey lets talk rugby its getting way to deep i lost you guys ages ago!

  • Comment 99, posted at 26.10.10 09:47:16 by Ozbok Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @Ozbok789 (Comment 95) : I’m on the same side of the fence as you, but I’m choosing not to get involved here :)

  • Comment 100, posted at 26.10.10 09:59:00 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @Ozbok (Comment 99) :
    Like the good Doctor, I know God by faith.

    But your argument is not scientific, and doesnt add or detract from the debate.

    When I was still an undergraduate, I studied the Philosophy of religion – including the Creationist and Design theories (and their antithesis, the Invisble Gardener). They are great concepts, but they don’t add to the scientific debate, because they are not based on testable, observable experiment.

    I enjoy understanding the universe through the lense of science, but I also accep that right now, like someone said above, concepts like quantum mechanics do not impact a belief in God.

  • Comment 101, posted at 26.10.10 10:07:47 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • GOD IS INDESCRIBABLE !!!

  • Comment 102, posted at 26.10.10 10:18:11 by Charlie Reply

    CharlieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Ozbok789 (Comment 95) : There are more sides to this whole story than any of us can imagine, but as you rightly say, it’s an interesting topic regardless of which side you’re on.

    What I was going on about was a theory that I dreamed up after reading a few books on quantum physics. Sometimes my theories about rugby are equally perplexing :grin:

  • Comment 103, posted at 26.10.10 10:20:24 by rhineshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 100) : Join in bro! You can always start a topic on my site if you want i wont mind. Just kidding:)

    @Big Fish (Comment 101) : But didnt Thomas say it best when he said that man may have knowledge from 2 sources, faith and reason? I am merely providing a second source… I agree that im not digging deeper in the debate, but you cant really say im not adding or detracting? Are you sure maybe Im being phylosophical, how do you know im not have you explored all avenues of my argument? Perhaps Im giving you the answer and helping you to get the debate in the right direction? You cant dismiss my argument because you think im not adding to the debate. Maybe I should have put a spoiler alert on my posts as they are truth. You guys carry on with your debate since Im off topic. :oops:

  • Comment 104, posted at 26.10.10 10:22:00 by Ozbok Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @rhineshark (Comment 103) : Im glad im not the only one that think of theories! I dont get into these things too much because for me personally it stuffs with my head so i rather get a basic understanding and move on.

  • Comment 105, posted at 26.10.10 10:24:22 by Ozbok Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @Charlie (Comment 102) : Thats it bro. No wonder this site is so awesome:) I always get drawn to it LOL

  • Comment 106, posted at 26.10.10 10:25:28 by Ozbok Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @Ozbok (Comment 104) :
    Sorry, maybe I wasnt clear.

    What I meant was that your comment wasnt adding or detracting to the SCIENTIFIC debate. They certainly are very interesting from a philosophical perspective, and I am certainly NOT saying they should be dismissed.

    Apologies if that came out wrong.

  • Comment 107, posted at 26.10.10 10:25:35 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 101) :

    Talking about observation…

    Do you know that there is no scientific definition of what ‘observation’ actually is…

    Fascinating stuff.

  • Comment 108, posted at 26.10.10 10:27:17 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 107) : Fair enough bro. Well I appreciate that you took the time to explain that to me. LOL I told you im not that sharp.

    No need to apologise Big. I was just joking about the philosophical mumbo jumbo. Thanks for being a good sport!

  • Comment 109, posted at 26.10.10 10:32:06 by Ozbok Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @Morné (Comment 108) : Morne, you lost me again bud! Ill observe for now:)

  • Comment 110, posted at 26.10.10 10:33:13 by Ozbok Reply

    OzbokUnder 21 player
     
  • @Ozbok (Comment 110) :

    Well in short, science, and in some ways religion is dependent on observation to support either – without observation, no conclusion can be derived to form scientific opinion or fact.

    Religion in many ways also rely on observation to strengthen the belief, miracles, buildings and places of significance, physical representation of deities, etc.

  • Comment 111, posted at 26.10.10 10:38:29 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 108) :
    Didnt know that, but I imagine it would have to do with the recognition that we discover or recognise ways in which we observe the world all the time – a definition that is closed risks becoming too limited.

    For example, is observation a conscious process, or can it be unconscious as well?

  • Comment 112, posted at 26.10.10 10:39:25 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 112) :

    Pretty much, but also remembering that the universe is in constant flux, and observations are made specific to time and space, and the exact time and space it is made in.

    You will know scientific fact or theory is dependent on probabilities, and the probabilities at any one time, might be different at another time.

    Simple example;

    We know from scientific fact that if you drive at 50km per hour, for one hour, you will cover 50 km’s. This can be measured in the time (hour) it took you to drive and the space (distance) you drove. Both measurable (watch or stop watch and odometer on the car), both calcuble.

    Or let’s use a known scientific formula…

    Distance travelled = time travelled multiplied (x) by velocity.

    So if you travel for two hours at 50 km per hour, you would have travelled 100 km.

    However, if you know a trip you need to take is 50 km long, and you have an hour to get there, there is no way in telling it will take you exactly 1 hour to cover the distance if you travel at 50 km per hour.

    Probabilities of traffic jams, or roadworks comes into the equation and that can change at any time…

    Make sense?

  • Comment 113, posted at 26.10.10 10:52:50 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 113) :
    Slightly different to what I was thinking – I was talking from an ontological perspective. What you are talking about is more about to do with empiricisim.

    Quite right, of course.

  • Comment 114, posted at 26.10.10 11:17:12 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 114) :

    Slightly but not so different…

    @Big Fish (Comment 112) :

    but I imagine it would have to do with the recognition that we discover or recognise ways in which we observe the world all the time

    I was referring to that and you were quite correct, time however, or over time, our observations will change due to the universe changing all the time.

    But you referred to that already.

    Which in essence, bring us back to quantum mechanics and its framework, and lack of it, and its understanding, and mostly, lack of it!!! ;)

  • Comment 115, posted at 26.10.10 11:31:23 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 115) : You opened quite a can of worms by mentioning Hawkings….strange how things develop

  • Comment 116, posted at 26.10.10 11:44:44 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 116) :

    Well we certainly saw another side of posters…

  • Comment 117, posted at 26.10.10 11:46:32 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • Nice article and the comments were interesting to read too.

  • Comment 118, posted at 26.10.10 11:52:53 by lostfish Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Competition Winner
    lostfishSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Morné (Comment 117) : I hope this proves that we are not all stereotypical dumb,beer drinking rugby supporters. ;-)

    I wonder why there wasn’t any Bulls supporters on this thread? :twisted:

  • Comment 119, posted at 26.10.10 11:53:49 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
    Assistant coach
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 119) :

    Seems I will have to make this a weekly feature…

  • Comment 120, posted at 26.10.10 12:10:29 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • yes but with words i can understand please….. ;-)

  • Comment 121, posted at 26.10.10 12:23:26 by Just a Fan Reply

    Just a FanCurrie Cup player
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.