|
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that are completely wrong." - Richard Feynman
Hello Sam,
In the framework of geological time or our species time, our contemporary knowledge field is still pretty nascent. In fact if you consider that Newton wrote his Principia 350 years ago, Darwin's Origin of Species only 150 years ago, Einstein's GR/SR less than 100 years ago... I think that there is no shame in saying that we don't know (yet). (ie. we don't know the events leading up to the singularity where Symmetry (false vaccuum) collapsed to form a lower energy state...)
We need a TOE or a GUT (Theory of Everything/ Grand Unification Theory) for starters, and the ability to empirically test it. That involves among other things linking the four forces and understanding gravity better. COBE results help us understand cosmic origins to within a fraction of a second AFTER the big bang. GR if taken to the limits produces nonsensical answers at such enormously small distances-- therefore we expect quantum effects to 'overwhelm' gravity...and thus the best current model is a quantum theory of gravity or 10 dimensional superstring theory (symmetry breaks to 4 and 6 dimensional universe).
But I understand from your previous posts that you believe in fundamental creationism... and the relevant idea that bears repeating here is best said by a fellow Canadian (Mario Bunge over at McGill/ in Montreal) who was discussing the difference between a ‘research field’ (ie. where knowledge is derived from the scientific method) and a ‘belief field’ (ie. where knowledge is based on thoughts/ faith)...
He distinguished them by stating that whereas a research field changes all the time as a result of scientific discovery, a belief field changes, if at all, only as a result of "controversy, brute force, or revelation".
-Kyle
|
