Big Bang?

[John Doe]

I have no "faith" in science....and am hardly "afraid"
of the opinions of Textuality Heads like Derrida,
living or dead...and where did I say anything about
the Big Bang being certain? My feeling is that it is
less likely than "vacuum genesis"; a variant
hypothesis, but with problems of its own....look, all
good scientists know that physical "laws" are
approximations and provisional...that's a
GIVEN...people seem to forget this all the
time...science is a process, not a monolithic
entity...it's a "way", not a "thing"...and, as it
stands, it is a remarkably good way to explain the
world and more so make predictions based on the
working theories...I feel that many people are
defensive about it precisely because it has worked so
well - like they WANT it to be vulnerable or even
hatefull somehow, yet they sure do appreciate all the
goodies it has helped produce...and, whether they
admit it or not, they "use" science or it's
conclusions everyday to manage their life..hence, they
are a bit hypocritical when they disdain it
wholesale...what has Derrida given us that is so
great? He likes to claim some ppor schmuck in the
audience doesn't get him? I bet HE didn't even get
him...it's just a cute game.And John Nefastis hardly
represents the typical scientist - I bet Pynchon
intended that...Maxwell's Demon is a model-metaphor
used to explain what is going on in the chambers in
non-mechanical terms, that's all...the Big Bang model
cannot be directly tested, so, the other way to hold
it together is to see if, given consistent changes
under certain conditions, the math shows that matter
would indeed behave the way the Theory predicts...(we
have no ostensible reason to believe it wouldn't, but
guess what; should such a reason present rear it's
statling head, it would have to be accounted for both
in the math and the physical model )...so, I have a
hard time accepting the "singularity" concept on a
visceral level as well...but ya know, nature is not
required to fullfill our desires nor to jibe with our
intuitions...

--- jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> 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...
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com