From: avatar (avatar@renegadeclothing.com.au)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 16:09:16 MST
Everything indicates a FASI or other SI will discover most of the physics
of the this-universe underlying-TOE in 2 decades, possibly with final
refinements in the decades following, depending on the Fermi Paradox.
This does not necessarily mean an end to design/analysis in physics.
There are those who hold that theory is a case of "best approximation"
which approaches reality.
There are those who hold that theory is a case of "every instance is
wrong" prior to the final truth.
There are those who note that understood structures have become finer
and finer. This is the level where the Singularity becomes most evident
when these are graded by time and scale.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stirling Westrup" <sti@cam.org>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Cosmology Question
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 11:28:24AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Are there reputable cosmological theories that allow
> > within our own universe infinitely many galaxies?
>
> When one wonders about "reputable" theories versus "fringe" theories, it
> helps to consider the current STRENGTH of the consensus that modern
science
> has on a given topic. At the moment, the Big Bang theory is THE theory of
> the evolution of the universe. It is also generally regarded as being
fatally
> flawed in a number of different ways.
>
> That is, we know that, as currently stated, its wrong. Since documentaries
> and teachers alike prefer to teach a mature theory (even a wrong one) than
> admit to ignorance, the Big Bang still gets taught.
>
> Now, that doesn't mean that any fringe theory is as good as any other, or
> that there isn't evidence to support a Big-Bang-like-event starting our
> universe, but it does mean that you are perfectly correct to propose
> alternate theories.
>
> One thing that I try to remind myself whenever I write science fiction, is
> that todays best theories are tomorrow's laughing stock. Its perfectly
> acceptible to have a 23rd century dialogue that goes:
>
> Pete: "Can you believe they used to think that the universe was FINITE and
> EXPLODED into existance???!!!"
>
> John: Be fair, they hadn't even invented the gravistator yet. How were
they
> supposed to measure the deep structure of the quantum foam? Without that,
the
> assumption of an initial explosion was as reasonable as any other...
>
> I remember a TV documentary a few years back that talked about the current
> problems in cosmology, and they asked one scientist if the controversies
> didn't dismay him. He reply, to paraphrase, was something like:
>
> "Are you kidding? This is a GREAT time to be a cosmologist. Someone needs
to
> invent a new, coherent theory of the creation of the universe, and the
first
> one to succeed is bound to win the Nobel prize. It might even be me!"
>
> --
> Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
> sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
> | endorsement of Western Technological
> | Civilization or its appurtenances.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 15:58:15 MST