Re: Kardeshev is pre-Spike thinking (was Re: Gravity calculations and dark m...

Date: Mon Jun 05 2000 - 10:00:28 MDT

In a message dated 6/5/00 4:28:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

<< This discussion brings up an interesting problem: what can we say
 about the large scale character of physical law? Is there any way of
 estimating the complexity of the rules making up the universe, or
 whether there are magic physics out there? The first case seems very
 hard to answer, especially since we cannot base an answer much on what
 we have discovered so far, since that nmight be heavily biased by our
 parochial mammal-water-carbon-planetlife outlook. The second at least
 can be answered if we notice big anomalies elsewhere.
That's why I am usually hesitent to proclaim most physical 'laws' and
theories absolute. Notice how the contempoaray Astronomy and Physics
communities fall victim to this? Example: "We've found evidence of Hot Dark
Matter! The Universe shall end in Heat Death!" or "We've found evidence that
the Universe will accelerate eternally, therefore it will expand and
evaporate to nothing!". My contention is that we are only as good as our
equipment, and its uses, allow us to be. My second contention is that when
we get much more and much better devices, this will revolutionize our view of
the universe nearly as much as it did during Kupernik's and Gallileo's epoch.
 We discover more, we analyze more, we learn more, and our view change a bit.
We do this enough, and we get paradigm shifts. As in the period commedy
stated (worth a watch) in "Wellville" as Dr. Kellog (who believes he will be
immortal) dies as he springboards into a pond, the narator quips: "Well Dr.
Kellog didn't know everything!"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:29 MDT