Creation of the Big Bang!

I meant to say "please do not let me interrupt the previous train [you/Agorabasta]... it is compelling!"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[from Atko]
Still, like I said, I'm not familiar with the hypothesis - if you've got a link or a reference, I'd be interested to look at the theory.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You could try this link [url] www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/P...space_time/cajal.pdf [/url](i did a Google search); it's full of speculations, but it's still possible to discern facts from it. For any hard info you should dig in publications of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it's mostly in Russian and hardly available on the net in full. The name of the author of the concept is buried too deep in the cultural background of my consciousness to produce it in a snap. Later this week I'll be able to produce a link to a recorded "live" discussion of the matter with author of the concept (some over-80 years old academic scientist) that was on the russian TV last week (ntv-tv.ru), but it's still in Russian (OK, the name's Efim Liberman, an old-time biophysicist; no publications on the net available that I could find; yet Google produces a long list of references for the string "liberman biofizika" - use it without quotation marks).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[from jimiproton]
One may assume that the solution to the entire problem of "What's wrong with the current state of physics/astronomy" will neccesarily be answered in an inter-scholasic way; and this answer will need to recognize the heirarchical relationships between the hard and soft sciences.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
To that I'd subscribe wholeheartedly.

People are trained to think in terms of language and as a consequense analyze nature and reality through linguistic terms, such as "nothing", "infinite", etc. If the opposite of 3 is -3 then what is the opposite of the following statement:

The king of America is bold...

Obviously, the negation of the statement to produce:

The King of America is NOT bold...

is not enough to conform with reality, i.e. the fact that America has no King. Therefore:

We ought to be very carefull when using some words from a vocabulary, like "infinite" and "nothing" to construct hypotheses about the reality. We may be falling victims of a "non-positive" language constraint.

Going farther one may construct the following:

Almost infinite (time, space, etc)
Almost nothing

This can lead to Fuzzy logical propositions and hypotheses.
The conclusion:

Most theories are born out of fallacious logical hypotheses that have no connection to reality. It's what simple people call Fantasies.

I aggree that theory and hypothesis are mostly bogus ways to avoid thinking, but fantasy is a very valid thinking process-what about Alice in Wonderland or Mickey Mouse-fantasy is very much a thinking process.

Do thinking processes have any direct connection with reality? Take a look at the following:

p1:The Unicorn is an animal
p2: All animals breath

c: Unicorns breath


The above is "valid" thinking process with a valid conclusion c based on premises p1 and p2. P1 can be verified experimentally but p2 is a fantasy.

Often, people forget the premises and remember only the conclusions. That's also the case with the Big Bang and other "Fantasies" that exist out there.

Sorry, I meant to say p1 is a fantasy and p2 can be verified experimentaly