|
|
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 12/21/07 13:08
Steve wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1198162599.86045.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:1198154467.74006.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Erwin Moller"
>>>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote
>>>>> in message news:4769595c$0$85795$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>> ???? ??? ?????? wrote:
>>>>>>> Excuse me!!
>>>>>>> Would you stop for a moment?!
>>>>>>> O...man...Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself ?
>>>>>>> Who has made it?
>>>>>>> Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
>>>>>> Good question, ???? ??? ??????!
>>>>>> Who made your designer?
>>>>>> .....
>>>>>> Well??
>>>>> well, obviously since nothing complex that we've every experienced has
>>>>> begun as something more simple,
>>>> Actually, science assumes the reverse is the case.
>>> i know, you're the second person that missed the sarcasm. i thought
>>> begging the logical delimma after that statement would have made it clear
>>> that i was being intentional. :)
>>>
>> Ah, Too subtle for a dull Thursday morning with caffiene levels at
>> critical...
>>
>>>> That the total complexity of life is in fact based on simple rules.
>>>>
>>>> The way that a simple 5 lines of code can produce the mandelbrot set.
>>>>
>>>> God is probably just an amoeba.
>>> less...he is the pennacle of man's imagination and the apex of his
>>> laziness.
>>>
>> Pennacle?
>
> lol. yep...it's a dull, coffee-less thursday morning. :)
>
>>>>> the most reasonable answer would be...something more complex than the
>>>>> designer. begging the same question ad-nauseum of each increasingly
>>>>> more complex creator.
>>> there's the indicator that i was being sarcastic.
>>>
>>>>> lest we forget, gawd is a 'special' case and being omni* does not
>>>>> require something more complex to create him/her/it/them.
>>>>>
>>>> Well that's just a copout logically speaking.
>>> exactly. sad that people actually think that's a good answer.
>>>
>>>> I MUCH perfer the Buddhist lexcicon.
>>>>
>>>> The 'Tao is that which exists through itself'
>>> which is quite illogical speaking in descartian terms.
>> Descartes was a fool. Plenty of non thinking things evidently exist. Most
>> Xtians for a start.
>
> i don't think you understand what descartes wrote. you have read this,
> right?
>
> it's about being able to verify, to know for sure, what is real and what is
> not. the only thing - and this is completely on an introspective, individual
> basis - that can be known for certain is that *i* exist. 'i think therefore
> i am' is not enough of a reduction, and here's why. to get to this point,
> descarte demonstrates how our perceptions of things are simply faulty and
> unreliable. in order to establish what is real, or be more certain of its
> 'realness', we must have multiple observers with which we can share an
> experience - yet, we cannot still be absolutely certain of the realness of
> any observer but ourselves. thinking is an activity that requires more than
> myself to observe since my senses may be off; whether from neurosis,
> hormonal imbalance, or some environmental factor such as fog obscuring my
> vision. thinking then, cannot be the final reason that i know i exist. it
> must simply be that i am aware i exist because logically, if i was not aware
> i'd not care to fuss about knowing if i did or did not exist.
>
Very good explanation. Shows how translation makes sense into non-sense.
I'd always taken 'cogito ergo sum' to mean the 'act of thinking creates
me', which is very close..but no cigar..My friend who spends his life
studying this stuff stated that all the problems of French philosophy
would be solved if they had written in German..
> as for 'plenty of non thinking things evidently exist[ing]', you missed the
> point. descartes is demonstrating that you can only know that you exist. all
> else may be illusionary. he would begin challenging your posit by simply
> asking, "how do you know anything exists".
>
I would also state that even that is not necessraily the case.
I prefer Wittering Stein 'the truth is whatever is the case' or some such.
Existence exists. The Ego bit is not a given. In fact nothing is a
given. All is relative. In order to *have* an objective world one must
have an observer. However neither are *necessary* for existence to exist.
> it is arrogant and foolhearty
Foolhardy. I should have popped in a smiley.
> to call descartes a fool...unless you either
> demonstrate yourself, in what ways he is a fool. you must first begin, then,
> by knowing what descartes has said. and that, beyond a cursor glossing.
Cursory.
Well I just did.
Existence can be experienced without thought.
>
>>> tao can only know that it exists (though NOT via 'thinking == am'), else
>>> it wouldn't care to ask whether or not it did.
>> Thats implying that the tao is a French philsopher. It isn't.
>
> the saying of which you are so fond, personifies tao. according to
> descartes,
Which is why I refute Descartes. All one can truly say is that one is
aware of existence, so existence and one, exist, as a necessary duality
required for objective consciousness.
BUT we know hat when we fall asleep, we lose objective consciousness:
Ergo, either existence ceases when we fall asleep, or existence
continues apart from our experience of it.
Using Occam's razor, the latter is a more elegant and simple explanation.
> tao can know it exists. you, however, can only know that you
> exist. logically, since both your and tao's senses can fail yourselves and
> given that each is not certain that the other person (or object, whatever,
> tao) is real, you are left to conclude that it is impossible to absolutely
> know not only whether or not a thing exists, but also whether or not the
> thing is existing through itself - which is wholly circular logic anyway and
> should be thrown aside.
>
> to me, it's just more religion mumbo-jumbo.
>
Well I don't take it that way. Any more than I take Descartes to be that.
Its an honest attempt to drive a stake into the fabric of 'whatever is
the case', and say, 'here is a starting point'.
In essence all religions and philosophies do that. The Xtians drive a
stake in and say ;heres' God, and the Bible is the explanation: start
from there and it all makes sense'.
I don't object to that on absolute grounds, I merely note that it is -
whilst at first a simple and clean starting point -, ultimately pretty
useless. And actually on inspection far more complicated than simply
saying 'lets start from a simple point, existence exists,., and
awareness of existence is something I, presumably others like me, (and
presumably other life as well) have'
That doesn't to me mean existence has to have personality: Descartes is
too tied up in personality. Probably a catholic upbringing. Personality
to me is not a priori for existence: Only for objective reflection of it
into a worldview.
>>> 'through' is an activity that requires 3rd party verification. it is
>>> objective. and, since one cannot be certain that anything is real, beyond
>>> the 'first case' - i exist - then one has no reliable means to verify
>>> *how* one exists, i.e. 'through itself'.
>>>
>> Indeed. Its a nonsensical statement that is used to show how the logic of
>> human thought cannot apply to the fundamentals aspects of things.
>
> it's simply nonsensical because it is a self sustaining philosophy with no
> possible means of falsification! the 'fundamentals aspects of things' are
> subatomic particles.
That again is a statement of faith, not fact. An inference drawn from a
a particular worldview, but that worldview is not absolute: A worldview
that places a stake in the ground, calls it 'PHYSICAL reality', and
makes its existence the most basic thing there is. THAT faith is called
material realism. And even that doesn;t actually result in subatomic
particles, as we can see. We are now into 10 dimesnional string theory,
which is hardly particles at all.
>not only can humans conceive of such things, we've
> objectively verified them. i reject both statements outright.
>
I think you should spend less time with Descartes, and more time with
e.g. Karl Popper. And maybe Kant.
The 'physical world' is only a description of the aspects of existence
of which we happen to be particularly aware. And upon which we have
arrived at a degree of consensus. In the final analysis there is much of
our experience which is personal, unique, and cannot be agreed upon,
because it IS personal and unique. Nevertheless that experience exists.
>> Remember thats a translation from another language. The mneaiong miay be
>> aking top a 'train that lays its own tracks'.
>
> and in the real world, tao would be bound to the same laws of physics that
> we are.
I think - and I am not going to make a stronger statement than that -
that the Taoist would argue, that the Tao IS the laws of nature, so to
speak. But they would not restrict that to physics.
Lets examine the Rational Materialist worldview: At its core is Stuff,
space-time, and Laws. These are the things that 'just are' without
explanation as to why they 'just are' At a given level that is no more
silly than saying 'God IS, and he did the rest all by himself'
Its true to say that the big bang theorists go a little deeper, and
posit a state at which 'stuff', space time, and laws all arise
simultaneously as a 'twist' in the fabric of Reality..
Now you and I can appreciate that - almost..try saying that on a rocky
hillsied in Isreal 4000 years ago, and blank incomprehension is the
result. So, 'in the beginning was god, and god said 'let there be
light'..mnakes a decent enough sort of parable.
My objection is the literality with which such a parable is interpreted
TODAY. And its lack of functionality.
You cant DO anything with it.
Instead, it's all spun into a doctrine of unnatural laws that proscribe
human behaviour.
> it would leave evidences that could be observed. and at its best,
> energy would be the most applicably analogous notion one could to affix to
> tao - a self-sustained thing. enter entropy and the demise of whatever tao
> is or may be.
>
I think you miss what I take to be the point. All Taosist philosophy
seems to be saying is that there exists natural laws, and the sensible
person does not attempt to deny or work against them, but with them.
The difference being that the Taoist comes from a different worldview -
one that does not place 'stuff,. space time and laws' as the a priori
assumptions, but more places existence, laws (together being the Tao)
and consciousness of them' as the primary points. The physical world is
held to be derivative of them, rather than the creator of them. In a
sense the actuality of physics as she is today, is somewhat converging
on this viewpoint. Certain aspects of what we have held to be hard
physical reality only actually come into existence IF we make an
'observation' upon them.
We seem to be faced with an important principle here: the system by
which we make judgments about the physical world, is held to be part of
that world: That leads to a recursive situation that is very difficult
to get around. If we have no point truly outside of the physical world
from which to asses it without altering it, the myth of the 'objective
observer' - which is in fact a myth that is UTTERLY 'spiritual' in its
essence - ceases to be upholdable.
Either we have an abstract spiritual component, (consciousness?) which
is above and beyond the physical, in which case we can examine the world
in a godlike detached way, or we don't. All we are is a temporary focus
through which one part of existence is reflected into another. We are
not experiencing the world at all, *directly*, only our own *conception*
of what a part of it actually is.
This is a viewpoint that is expressed by the concept of Maya, I suspect.
NOT as is generally translated, that the world is an illusion, but that
our REFLECTION of it via consciousess into a worldview of physical
reality, is NOT reality itself, merely our useful picture of it.
Twisting Descartes a little, you end up with not Cogito Ergo Sum. But
Cogito Ergo Sum et Est.
That is, that act of thinking about the world, brings the self, and the
world AS WE CONCEIVE THEM BOTH TO BE, into existence. Without thinking.
existence is, but only thinking turns existence into us, in a world,
that we can deal with. A MAP of the world, NOT the world itself.
Essentially from this point of Christianity and the Semitic religions
are actually the foundation of material realism ans Western science.
Both hold - one explicitly and as a source of awe and wonder - the other
implicitly and totally hidden - the view that there exists some sort of
independent-to-physical reality godlike objective viewpoint..a soul or
'objective consciousness' that lies so far outside of physical reality
that it can make accurate judgments about it, without it affecting it in
the least.
The Eastern PHILOSOPHIES (I don't like calling them religions really)
don't take that view so far: they seem to accept as a given that the
physical world is a function of consciousness, as much as of 'whatever
is the case'. Sure there is plenty of unproveable mumbo jumbo there as
well - reincarnation, the 40,000 gods and devils that beset the man on
the path to enlightenment etc.etc.. but the core principle - that the
world *as we know it*, is as much something we create, and can be
altered by changing the way we relate to it - as it is a function of
'whatever is the case' remains. And is rapidly - as I said - converging
with the view of the experimental physicists dealing with quantum
reality. In essence neither can take the observer and the act of
observation out of the equation of *perceived* reality.
>> Its poetic statement also. Buddhism understands that not all thiungs can
>> be described directly and logically.
>
> i've read better poetry.
:-)
> again, tao is associated with the chinese via
> taoism. buddhism is associated with the rest of asia and in particular,
> japan. eitherway, buddhism understands NOTHING. men conceptualized buddhism.
> men are all subject to great moments of clarity and at achieving it
> sometimes through inference - non direct or overtly logical means. it
> doesn't matter from where you hail. we are all capable of this. it need not
> be an activity that you most closely associate with buddhism.
>
These are very definite statements. Sounds almost like statements of
Faith to me.
I wish I could be so sure..;-)
I have found great benefit in examining ALL human knowledge and myth, IN
THE CONTEXT IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN. The great mistake is to
misinterpret it from a position that is many miles removed from the
original listeners and target audience. Language and culture are very
important.
I was once asked by a rather radical young black man, in Johannesburg
pre the end of Apartheid 'why we have to learn English, or Afrikaans,
rather than Zulu'..pointing to a Philips screwdriver ~I asked him 'what
is the word for that in Zulu'? 'We don't have a word for it'
'Ah'.. I said..
A friend who speaks Welsh, once told me that to say that 'I am going too
pump up my tyres' actually translates as 'I will go to put wind in my
wheels'.
The Inuit have 47 different words for snow.
If your language doesn't have clear words for something, you cannot
express it other then 'poetically'. You yourself will be hard put to
even form a concept that doesn't map into a language that you know.
We don't actually HAVE a word for 'enlightenment' as its translated.
'Bliss' 'State of Grace' 'Spiritual Ecstasy' - really do NOT convey the
right sort of time to Western Rationalist.
I would say more 'unthinking awareness' myself..which is bland, and
conveys no essence of what it FEELS like. But then our logical rational
scientific language doesn't really *do feelings* at all. Since they cant
be touched, measured, seen or catalogued mathematically, it simply
doesn't deal with them ;-)
Religion to my mind, is a perfectly reasonable way of trying to map the
'touchy feely' aspects of life: My great objection to it is that in its
modern evangelist of Jihadist guise, it seeks to do far far more than
that. It seeks to present a literal - a VERY literal view of what the
world and people are, what they should, or mostly should *not* do, and
is a complete obstacle in the way of the development of human thought
and understanding. Our OP and his ilk, and our Xtian friend are
Luddites. Having grown up with one useful tool once, they resist any
attempts to come up with better ones, on the grounds that it invalidates
the ways they have come to understand things, which 'were good enough
for their ancestors, so ought to be good enough for us'.
Patently they are not..
And what irks moire, is that they probably understand the basis of their
faiths, and the philosophical implications thereof, less than I suspect
I do.
>> "To (peer) behind (consciuousness) with (consciousness), that cannot be
>> done"
>
> says who?
'Book of te Golden Flower' IIRC - Richard Wilhelms Jungian inspired
translation of a Chinese work of philosophy and meditation..
look at the field(s) of psychology. we not only have a great
> understanding of the sub-conscious to include many different layers and have
> been able to quantify and qualify what the responsibilities are for each.
I think you take an awful lot for granted there. Karl Popper's original
impetus to derive a clear understanding of the nature of what
constitutes science was prompted in part at least by a deep suspicion
that psychology a la Freud, and to an extent Jung, was not a science at
all.
Sorry to dent your faith, but science, psychology, and indeed pretty
much all of Rational Materialism when examined deeply rests on just as
shaky ground as Christianity, Islam and anything else.
The defense of rationalism should not rest on its factual correctness:
If you understand Popper andf the implications of what he says, plus a
smattering of Kurt Godel and others in other ares, you come to realise
that there is no one irrefutable fact that can be relied upon, and
Popper understand that..science and the rational view is not about
finding the Truth,so much as refining models into simple functional and
effective descriptions that can be shown to be false, but haven't been
yet...
MOST of psychology fails to meet his criteria.
Check out instrumentalism, as an extreme example of relativistic
scientific philosophy: The Instrumentalist simply does not care whether
his hypotheses reflect any underlying reality of the Universe at all.
Only that they work, produce results that match observations, and are
internally consistent. I think that right now this is an effective way
to proceed in the context of high energy physics. Get sums that work, so
to speak, and worry about what it means later.
> this was done via theory (non-direct influence), observation, testing,
> validation, etc..
I think not actually.
Not where psychology is concerned. Neuropscience is battering away at
the fringes of things for sure, but no real model of consciousness
exists yet, and many people argue its very validity as a scientific
concept at all. If you want to uspet nearly all te established
scientific and philosophical people around today, tell them that you
have a theory of consciouness. You will last about 5 minutes..
>apparently, science too, understands that not all things
> can be described directly. we can however, fashion falsifiable theories to
> prove things. this science is *western* in origin, btw.
>
Well, actually its deeply Christian btw. In the sense that without the
concept if a detached disembodied spiritual consciousness, the *utterly*
objective world we take for granted could not have actually come into
existence..
> i still don't see how that quote is demonstrative to the claim of buddism
> understanding things being explained via analogy. it is non sequitor to
> me...and, we all use analogy.
>
I take it merely as a poetic statement equivalent to Godel's
incompleteness theorem. A statement about recursion.
I am slowly trying to write a book. Its called, deliberately, 'Thinking
about Thinking'.
What does 'Thinking' mean? Its an old word..it means essentially turning
the world into 'things'. Now we want to turn the process of doing that
into yet another 'thing' ..Doesn't that strike you as a teeny bit - well
- suspect?
Like trying to use a saw to cut out the saw that you are using from a
block of steel...;-)
Theres a lovely Escher cartoon of a pair of hands, each one of which
holds a pen that draws the other..another statement of the absurdity of
trying to be too clever..
>>> btw, afaikr, that's 'taoism' and has very little to do with buddhism. in
>>> most cases, taoism and buddhism have very differing opinions on things.
>>>
>> well Taoiskm is proto buddhsim IIRC. Or is it the other way round?
>
> i'll forgive you there as i can't rightly recall their origins either, at
> present.
>
I must look it up.
There is a theory - which I ascribe too - that the whole dwmn lot
actually are development of a pan global shamanic animistic
culture..that arose at the same time that man became self aware and
started to construct language, and move away from a touchy feely
relationship with the world, into a more concrete and definite one, of
which science is perhaps the ultimate pinnacle. Religions remain as a
literal (and hence very poor) description of the touchy-feeliness that
we have become rather distant from.
Don't get me wrong, I am a great fan of science: But I also recognise
for reasons of my own, that there is great utility in a touchy feely
approach to certain things. Trying to reconcile those two ways of
relating to the cosmos has been the driving force that has led me to
dive into an awful lot of mumbo jumbo, to try and understand the
essential dichotomies, and resolve them. The resultant synthesis is
weird..weirder than you can imagine, BUT it 'saves the data' as the
Instrumentelists say, and does potentially offer some falsifiable
hypotheses. Hence the book. I suspect it will succeed only in uniting
the religious and teh scientific community in blatant condemnation, if
anyone takes it seriously at all, which is doubtful. However I feel
compelled to make the effort.. ;-)
>>>> No personalization, no worship, no god bothering: A nice simple
>>>> philosophic statement of naming the unnameable..
>>> but equally subjective as any other religion.
>>>
>> Everything is ultimately subjective. I wouldn't call Buddhism or Taoism a
>> religion either..its more a philosophy. And a practical guide to doing
>> weird things to your head ;-)
>
> oh, they are religions. they may lack a centralized god-head, however they
> have all the ingredients.
>
Well, if you want to go that way, so is science too.
That is why I do not like to go that way. I make a clear distinction
between systems of thought that attempt analyse a worldview and develop
pragmatic ways of exploring it, and those that seek to impose a tip down
explanation of it, that brooks no other interpretation, and forces its
adherents into a 'one size fits all' system of thought and belief.
The radical difference between the Eastern and Western 'religions' is
that the Eastern are all based on the principle, that you can *see for
yourself*, what is being talked about, if you care to make the effort.
And if you don't, that's entirely up to you.
The Western ones have doctrine of infallible givens, that are not to be
questioned, and almost no methodology to allow and certainly not to
encourage, people to 'see for themselves'. Possibly because if there
were, and they did, they wouldn;'t last more than a few years ;-). At
least not in their present form.
>>>> The confusion arises from the Western mindset,where causality is imbued
>>>> in our language, and the way we interpret reality.
>>> same thing applies to eastern religions...perhaps moreso. asian peoples
>>> are more comfortable mixing statements of reality and the metaphysical,
>>> and speaking of them both at the same time as if all are objective
>>> experiences. the confusion sets in because all religion is *subjective*.
>>> not surprising since no religion can provide objective proof for it's
>>> truthfulness.
>>>
>> No one can provide objective 'proof' for anything, actually. All we can do
>> is construct as elegant and simple structures possible that seem to model
>> the world(s) we seem to find ourselves in.
>
> correct.
>
>> My objection to God based ones, is that they sacrifice effectiveness for
>> simplicity. Ultimately you can do anything with religion at all. "Just do
>> what the Law says, and God will see you right, OK?"
>
> effective at not answering hard questions, perhaps. nothing more. and, i
> value truth over the search for simplicity...although they typically flock
> together.
>
Well you will hasve some success with truth, but Truth will always
remain elusive. Its like trying top measure an infinite desert of
identical sand grains 'where is it| menaingless. How far ist it to
somewhere else? how would you know yuou *were* somewhere esle, since it
all looks the same.,
Until you nail a post in the sand and say 'this is the center of the
world, I will define everythiing relative to here' can you actually
start to turn it into anything other than an infinite expanse of nothing
in particular.
Consciousness is the man doing the nailing, and the landscape that
reusults depend on waht sort of post you nail in, and how you do the
measurements.
Nailing in one called 'God' simply doesn't get you very far at all.
>> Boring and useless.
>
> useless, yes. historically boring, no. causes much uproar.
>
Personally boring.
Heaven and hell are BORING. There are so many OTHER places to go..
>>>> Naturally that leads to a Prime Cause,. and the need to invent one.
>>> i don't think that's where it starts. i think man, being a toolmaker and
>>> being highly inventive, saw from his beginning that each tool had a
>>> purpose. he most logically extended that range of thought to all things
>>> he observed. god is simply the ulitimate, eventual answer/notion for
>>> people who didn't have the knowledge or means to learn how the natural
>>> world works. plus, who wants to toil to survive and not get some kind of
>>> reach-around after dying?
>>>
>> Who wanted to be born? I don't remember asking for it?
>>
>> I think you underestimate the intelligence of the primitive peoples.
>>
>> I think they actually were far more aware of the reality of life,
>> untrammeled by too much thinking about it.
>
> eventually...not all at once. the key being his great success with tools
> leading to more free time. idle hands you know. :)
>
Er..I think that is actually the reverse. Its been estimated that the
average hunter gather sopend about 2 hours hunting and gathering, about
another one eating, and the rest of the time crapping, sleeping and
having sex. That's about it for our dogs and cats anyway. Except they
only play at hunting..
It's been a downhill spiral from then on really ;-)
The worst invention was agriculture: huge efforts to just produce enough
food to stay alive..did you ever read 'Larks Rise to Candleford' - a
documentation of the last gasp of the rural English peasant..a life of
unremitting toil and hardship. THAT is the context in which modern
Xtianity was developed..a promise that after all, life was worth going
along with, and a simple set of rules that defined 'morality' - the
morality of hard work, thrift, general good neighbourliness etc etc.
>> My interpreation of Genesis,is that at some point Man started thinking
>> about it, and forming concepts, and that took him from a state of blissful
>> ignorance to a state of paranoid suspicion,where he was surrounded by
>> things that MIGHT be.
>
> ok.
>
>>>> The answer is to reject Causalitu as a univverals principle, and simpley
>>>> state in plain English.
>>>>
>>>> "Some things just ARE".
>>> good point. i love to hear people argue stats when it comes to
>>> probability of things being the way they are. and, that if one single
>>> tiny thing were different, the universe wouldn't exist as it is. it's
>>> funny because the stem from the same assumption...that what we see has
>>> all been an eventuality. the simple answer is, yes, if the universe were
>>> different, the universe would be different. a moot point. :)
>> The anthropic principal.
>
> quite.
>
>>>> At a stroke, the logical underpinnings such as they are of god bothering
>>>> collapse and are seen for the house of carsds that they really are.
>>>>
>>>> "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to introduce any more supernatural entities than that
>>>> one statement
>>>>
>>>> "Some things just ARE"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> erwin, on the notion of irreducibly complex...has the proponent of that
>>>>> argument *ever* been able to show something that was? and that's
>>>>> forgiving the man-made, relative notions of complexity, order,
>>>>> randomness, etc..
>>>> The information contained in the universe has been shown to require a
>>>> computer..as large as the universe..to hold it..
>>> good analogy. :)
>> Apparently it is a fact, or as near a fact as anything else is.
>>
>> Whilst te laws of nature may be incrediubly simple. teh initial state of
>> the data, so to speak, ciontains mosrt of te complexity.l
>>
>> I guess you could replace 'Big Bang, broken symmetry;' by 'Gods fart,. bad
>> pizza'
>>
>> But somehow it isn't quite the same is it?>
>
> no, but may get more attention in the press. :)
>
Well the whole bloody thing needs debunking, so we can see the bits that
stand up to it.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|