AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious
to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.

Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.

Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the
equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have
an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning
that
is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all
intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find
our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by
fires.
The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget,
is
a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics,
dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but
man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found,
there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.

Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

You've explained what you believe to be true.

Yes but fear you still don't really grasp what I have explained to believe
on
the subject.

The jury on THIS issue is
still out.

Yeah, that is much of what I have tried to explain to you.

Obviously it is not open and shut.

Funny, according to you it was open and shut.

For me, yes.

OK in one sentence you say the jury is still out and in the next you say for
you it is open and shut. Which is it? Or are you simply asserting that you know
something that the body of theoretical physicists don't know on the subject?

You claimed that there always had
to be something and any scientist who said otherwise was wrong. Are you
finally
getting it?

It is that which is not to be gotten.

By you, I have to agree. Others get it though.

There are some highly
qualified people it seems who don't share the view you have accepted.

Name one that does not share my view, that view being that your conclusion
is
premature and not supported by any evidence.

Did you read the article? It's available at SA's website.

No I haven't. Nothing you have told me about it leads me to believe that
anything in the article conflicts with any of my actual views on the
subject.

Why am I not surprised?

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out what you think you know that the
scientific community doesn't.