Thanks, Peter
John
--- 1Z <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> jamikes.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > 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" <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: "Everything List"
> <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
> > >
> > > (ref.:)
> > > jamikes.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > > > To Stathis, Brent, and List:
> > >>(ref#2):
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Brent Meeker" <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> (not
> really!)
> > > > To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > > > 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.
> > [JM]:
> > 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'?
>
> Who said we aren't ? We have theories good enough to
> make
> predictions like the 4K background radiation.
>
> > >
> > > You will find that unknown events are neglected
> in all
> > > theories. What else can you do with an unknown
> event ?
> > [JM]:
> > 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 is an argument against science in general,. Yet
> sciene works well in many areas.
>
> > >
> > > That would apply to any to any other
> coscmological theory.
> > [JM]:
> > 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.
> > [JM]:
> > The "establishment" bowed to the number of papers
> all slanted to 'prove'
> > some details.
>
> This is just rhetoric. You desciber paper as
> "slanted" because you
> don't like them. Would you describe Hoyle's
> alternative as "slanted" ?
>
> > They WERE indeed the establishment. See my remark
> on 'proof'
> > at 'evidence' below.
> > ...
> > >
> > > Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ?
> > [JM]:
> > 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.
>
> I don't see what you mean ? Are you saying redshift
> isn't Doppler,
> or that it is ?
>
> > LATER ON many 'measurements' were cited as
> supportive (in)/directly.
>
> Of what ?
>
> > Popper
> > comes to mind and Goedel with 'evidencing' from
> the inside of a mindset.
>
>
> Huh ?
>
> > > Which was considered and rejected.
> > [JM]:
> > You refer to good old Fred Hoyle' harmonica. Do
> you refer to all 'others' as
> > well in the "etc."?
> > ...
>
> I thought it was possible to fathom the mystery of
> comsogenesis -- that
> is what you say above. Are you saying that, or are
> you
> promoting an alternative.
>
> > > > 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
> > armor.
>
> It isn't.
>
> The BB is a testable, quantitative theory.
>
> > 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
> > sec
> > after the (timeless???) zero point of banging.
>
> The point of a theory is to be able to deal
> with hypothetical and counterfactual situations.
>
> > 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.
>
> Rhetoric, again.
>
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Aug 15 2006 - 15:49:55 PDT