Fascinating indeed, (however unlikely to affect the Certain.)
Can't approach the larger 'Genesis' however: (The Q. we are not allowed to ask.. seriously) "Why" is there anything at all?
I mean.. we ~see the "equivalence mass==energy" (Dark, White or multicolored.) This demonstrated fact (and our "physics") hold that to be Truthiness--whether or not
there were any creature we call sentient--to observe same. But ... Can We correctly skip that QM koan re an Observer ... this cavalierly? as just a little [Referent] imprecision.
Methinks that, those of us who enlisted in the Science game have special responsibilities in All areas (not just where we find the 'experiments' handily do-able.)
Science is not allowed to address' Why?' just 'How'. At the dawn of the category later called Physics such methodical inquiries were called Natural Philosophy.
Modern Philosophers had bloody-well better know something of Science (unless within a protected-Class like say, Repos.)
I remain unsure if many Scientists acknowledge that, at the most incisive levels: they'd bloody-well better have paid attention to Philosophy too
(as both these categories also morphed through time.) We may never grok-to-fullness any 'Why' of that: putative infinite-energy/within infinitesimal 'space' suddenly manifesting er itSelf?
but pretending/pronouncing that "time began" there, so forget any Whys..! begs both the Question and its dismissal.
A modern Scientist can always emulate Boltzmann, absorb the snide remarks of his cohorts and their [Referents]. Think how marvelous a discovery (IF..)
that math just might posit some angles-of-view of pre-Genesis? Time=0 is a philosophical metaphor, not just because it messes with the jelloware's every 'experience'. Here: it weasels.
The world's first Theoretical Philosopher-Physicist Nobelist?
(Singularity is another junk-word just like non-specific vaginitis in medicine, no?) Recall that Phlogiston was current in another era; someone needs to focus
upon the elided Questions--at regular intervals--or we'll just know more & moar about less and less; it's such a safe plan.
And yes, I do focus now more at the Limits than the insanely-great Accomplishments (Einstein said it better, of course.) If I can't, by now, internally summarize all the onion layers
yet adsorbed, notice where weasel-words have substituted for further inquiry? w.t.f. was the use of all that crammed-in material, the uncounted hours and expense?
I coulda been Partying.
I mean.. we ~see the "equivalence mass==energy" (Dark, White or multicolored.) This demonstrated fact (and our "physics") hold that to be Truthiness--whether or not
there were any creature we call sentient--to observe same. But ... Can We correctly skip that QM koan re an Observer ... this cavalierly? as just a little [Referent] imprecision.
Methinks that, those of us who enlisted in the Science game have special responsibilities in All areas (not just where we find the 'experiments' handily do-able.)
Science is not allowed to address' Why?' just 'How'. At the dawn of the category later called Physics such methodical inquiries were called Natural Philosophy.
Modern Philosophers had bloody-well better know something of Science (unless within a protected-Class like say, Repos.)
I remain unsure if many Scientists acknowledge that, at the most incisive levels: they'd bloody-well better have paid attention to Philosophy too
(as both these categories also morphed through time.) We may never grok-to-fullness any 'Why' of that: putative infinite-energy/within infinitesimal 'space' suddenly manifesting er itSelf?
but pretending/pronouncing that "time began" there, so forget any Whys..! begs both the Question and its dismissal.
A modern Scientist can always emulate Boltzmann, absorb the snide remarks of his cohorts and their [Referents]. Think how marvelous a discovery (IF..)
that math just might posit some angles-of-view of pre-Genesis? Time=0 is a philosophical metaphor, not just because it messes with the jelloware's every 'experience'. Here: it weasels.
The world's first Theoretical Philosopher-Physicist Nobelist?
(Singularity is another junk-word just like non-specific vaginitis in medicine, no?) Recall that Phlogiston was current in another era; someone needs to focus
upon the elided Questions--at regular intervals--or we'll just know more & moar about less and less; it's such a safe plan.
And yes, I do focus now more at the Limits than the insanely-great Accomplishments (Einstein said it better, of course.) If I can't, by now, internally summarize all the onion layers
yet adsorbed, notice where weasel-words have substituted for further inquiry? w.t.f. was the use of all that crammed-in material, the uncounted hours and expense?
I coulda been Partying.