Re: Can we ever know truth?

From: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:09:22 -0400

Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks and add my quip to them
one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the list<G>.
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "1Z" <>
To: "Everything List" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
> (ref.:)
> wrote:
> > To Stathis, Brent, and List:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brent Meeker" <> (not really!)
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
> >
> Any alternative theory also has to make a projecto from current
> circumstances.
1.Exactly what I was missing: why pick "ONE" and dogmatize it?
2.Who said we are ready to formulate a "theory" for the 'origins'?
> You will find that unknown events are neglected in all
> theories. What else can you do with an unknown event ?
Consider it (or at least that there may be such) and realize the
insufficiency of data for writing a bible. The wisdom you quote (accepted)
does not make a 'theory' right. That's why I call 'my idea' a narrative, not
even a hypothesis.
I was not there.
> That would apply to any to any other coscmological theory.
So we should consider and use some humility. I pointed out ONE
(TWO?)definite mistakes among many (see: Eric Lerner's book: The BB never
happened - of course it was argued against by cosmophysicists - on 'their'
bases and against Lerner's own hype which he voluteered to construct. A
mistake. ).
> The Bb theorists were the lepers at one stage. They became
> establishment by being able ot prove their case.
The "establishment" bowed to the number of papers all slanted to 'prove'
some details. They WERE indeed the establishment. See my remark on 'proof'
at 'evidence' below.
> Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ?
Not more than just considering the redshift an optical Doppler effect, which
is a good idea. "Those"(?) mechanisms are also (based on? are?) valid
theses in conventional physics - my opinion is anecdotal.
LATER ON many 'measurements' were cited as supportive (in)/directly. Popper
comes to mind and Goedel with 'evidencing' from the inside of a mindset.

> Which was considered and rejected.
You refer to good old Fred Hoyle' harmonica. Do you refer to all 'others' as
well in the "etc."?
> > John Mikes
The mindset - as I see it - in the BB-cosmology is 2500 year old. Not Plato,
but the Greek mythology, when P. Athenai sprang out from Zeuss' head in full
There is a 'seed' accountable for zillion degrees K, zillion gauss gravity,
zillion erg compressed work and pertinent energy and (almost) zero space.
Yet this - call it - "system" 'obeys' the complex rules in our conventional
physical system equations of VERY narrow limitations in charaacteristics at
its very birth.
 In full armor and fervor.
They even calculated out in our time-units what happened at the 10^42 or^32
after the (timeless???) zero point of banging. Which was the act of a
Quantum Tooth Fairy. Problems? never mind, we have a good term: inflation
and it will take care of the irregular behavior of that 'seed'.
And never mind how it happened, just use a linear history with linear
time-scale to arrive at 'now'.
Interesting. Religions are as well interesting.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Aug 15 2006 - 12:09:38 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST