Big Bang?

[jbor at bigpond.com]

On 10/10/2005, at 2:46 AM, John Doe wrote:

> The answer to your question is simple: a hypothesis is
> falsifiable or not, based on EXPERIMENT. You postualte
> a possible "answer" to a "problem" in science, then
> you must design or discover an experiment to test that
> hypothesis...

A bit like John Nefastis in Lot 49, eh? And Ned Pointsman chasing after 
stray dogs with his foot in a toilet bowl. The ardency of your faith in 
"Science" and "Maths" is touching, and I understand your fear and 
antipathy towards Derrida, and sympathise, but, I'm sorry, the Big Bang 
just ain't a cert. I'll give you 66-1. Let me know when you've got the 
experiment set up.

I was pretty good at maths too -- saw the way it tied things up all 
neatly together with its representations and symbols. Never could 
figure out a way to express the duration of an instant of time, 
however, one over infinity being the closest approximation which it was 
able to offer.

best

> experimentation is a key feature of
> science....many people seem to forget this feature all
> the time...esp. Derrida..; }
> Incidentally, this kind of process is a sort of
> built-in Humbling Mechanism; in ART, and other areas
> of endeavor, one's ego can go full crank and
> "determine" the meanings of things...but in science,
> no matter how big you ego is, no matter how
> charismatic your personality, no matter how good
> looking or well-connected you are, if the numbers
> don't match in the end, your hypothesis is wrong -
> period. Good scientists understand this ; scientific
> egos compete, want fame and glory, etc. but in the
> end, if your "view" doesn't exhibit itself via
> experiment you have to say " I was
> wrong"...politicians and poets are not held to this
> level of responsibility and and self-abnegation...and
> even if you DON'T admit you are wrong, the scientific
> evidence will show that you are...so the individual
> ego must subjugate itself to the larger
> "system"....art doesn't work that way...and neither do
> lit-crit "theories" of language...