Ah yes, but the theologist, prevented by the inertia of faith, will not try to penetrate the singularity.

The faithless, curious methodical scientist tooled with the logic of conjecture and refutation, and a few variously sized lenses (both tele- and micro-), will at least keep trying. And that's what the fun is.

Some grizzled old bears, gave up trying and thought we were so clever we had all the answers we ever needed. All the questions had been asked. The loop of all enquiry was closed.

Right now, at this curious juncture on the space-time continuum (remember the good old days before we even invented time! let alone before we though space (all three dimensions of them) needed it to continue), on our little blob of crusty iron, we carboniferous primates, using our clever little words and numbers seem to have hit an impasse describing aspects of our environment. But sooner or later we'll pop on through.

As for ex-nihiloisms, perhaps, when we pop through we'll find out where all those wave-particles came from. (Clever little primates even thing stuff is probabilistically made simultaneously out of waves and particles!)

We shouldn't cling too tenaciously to our porch view.

Somehow I suspect the language of physics was never intended to describe the porch view of the metaphysic. It's like trying to choreograph architecure.

Like I once said to a stranger on a bus, if only we'd been a calcium-based, ammonia-breathing, non-sexually reproducing, sonar-speaking configuration of this coagulatd wave-particle energy stuff, we wouldn't have to bicker about "God" and "science". But then again we wouldn't have busses.

Well it's hoo roo from thissy here yarnster.

• Re: ExNihilo - nåte/">nåte - October 6, 1998 - 19:56 UTC
  • Re: ExNihilo - Science=Religion/">Science=Religion - December 4, 1998 - 08:30 UTC