Re: Nothing trivial

From: Norman Samish <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 11:57:05 -0700

Ron McFarland,
    Too much of what I read on this list is over my head, but every once in awhile somebody like you has something illuminating to say. Thanks for an understandable presentation of your views. I find that they coincide with mine - even that digital mathematics cannot fully describe an analog universe.
Norman

----- Original Message -----
  From: Ron McFarland
  To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
  Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 8:35 AM
  Subject: RE: Nothing trivial

  . . . There are some *very* educated people on this list, some come at the genre of this list from a philosophical view, some primarily from a mathematical view, some from a pure logic point of view, some from a conjecture point of view, and many from some sort of combination of those views.


  Back on 2-Nov-03 I joined this list and argued from a logic point of view, and with distant reference to data from such things as that Chandra article alludes to. I poked fun at the mathematicians by stating that mathematics is a subset of logic which can not fully describe the universe because mathematics is digital but the universe is analog ... those decimal places keep confusing things!<grin> This did not exactly enamor me to those members of the list, but I believe they realize the intended humor being that we just don't really have a good enough tool to measure what we see. Mathematics certainly models a very good representation of our universe.


  There, on 2-Nov-03, I argued that the universe and by way of quantum mechanics did indeed arise from nothingness. I went further to state that the expansion of the universe is its apparent effort to return to that original state (kind of like a bubble in a vacuum), and that we perceive this effort as being what we call dark energy (an ever acceleration of the expansion of the universe that will eventually lead to what has been called the Big Rip), that a black hole is yet another route to that same seeking of state, and more. I was surprised to see the main arguments against my post being primarily about if the Big Rip will really occur or not, a subject that is still being hotly debated in the general scientific community.


  But make no mistake, I am not a scientist. I am only a thinker, one who seeks proof of being misguided. Logic is my only tool. Others here are much more educated in these matters than I am, and all here are tolerated and respected.


  Welcome to the list about the Theory of Everything, George. :)


  Ron McFarland
Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 15:01:59 PDT