On Tuesday 15 January 2008 10:44, Sharma, Ravi wrote:
> Dark matter and Dark energy were not a main concern at Einstein's
> time ... (01)
I didn't suggest they were. In fact, clearly they were not a concern at
all since none of the observations that led to their still quite
vacuous conceptions had yet been made. (02)
It's only because of a fluke of Einstein's philosophical bias (or,
perhaps, a simple, unexamined assumption) that the cosmological
constant is in GR at all. The fact that this constant can be used to
characterize or quantify (but by no means explain) the accelerating
expansion of the universe does not mean that Einstein foresaw the
observations that led us to hypothesize "dark energy." (03)
But now that we have these empirical observations that don't fit current
theories, we have to find explanations for them. (04)
> ...
> As a physicist first, I do not know what it means for ontologists!
> But in metaphysics and logic (sometimes) it is convention to accept
> ambiguities and apply rules to resolve multiple meanings of concepts
> and narrow down the resulting divergent conclusions (ref: Godel). (05)
Those are just capitulations forced upon us by inadequate conceptual or
computational constructs. (Gödel incompleteness notwithstanding, if
that's what you're referring to). We don't like them. We don't want
them. We'll expunge them once we figure out how. (Yes, I'm an
optimist...) (06)
> Thanks.
> Ravi
>
> (Dr. Ravi Sharma) (07)
Randall Schulz (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|