> news:jcb09a$47e$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >> But what if they do prove it's existence? How will that help us
> >> understand our reality?
>
> > It helps us to understand how quantum fields behave, and it helps us to
> > understand how the electromagnetic, strong, and weak interactions are all
> > reflections of the same interaction.
>
> I'm not really questioning the science, it's all interesting.
> I'm questioning the rationality of the search itself.
> Of the idea that the 'ultimate' reduction is a means of
> understanding the basics of our universe.
>
> Why did we chose the path of ..reducing to parts, for
> fundamental laws? Instead of ...expanding to the whole?
> Is the reason for that choice rational or correct? Neither!
> It was a decision based on human. instinct not reason.
> As explained so well below, circa 1870.
>
> "How Human Nature dotes
> On what it can't detect.
> The moment that a Plot is plumbed
> Prospective is extinct
>
> Prospective is the friend
> Reserved for us to know
> When Constancy is clarified
> Of Curiosity
>
> Of subjects that resist
> Redoubtablest is this
> Where go we
> Go we anywhere
> Creation after this?"
>
> We made the wrong choice, the most complex systems
> in the universe best shows it's fundamental laws.
> Not the simplest parts.
>
> Some of the great naturalists of the nineteenth
> century were very close to the big 'solution'
> to creation and reality. But the Industrial Age
> and all things objective science swept them away
> and their ideas. The new non-linear mathematics of
> Complexity Science, formerly known by names like
> chaos theory, artificial intelligence and self-organization
> are returning to those old ...holistic (system-based) ideas.
>
> From a complexity view, the notion of spending billions
> reducing to the ultimate particle, in order to 'figure it all out'
> looks like someone spending eleventy billion dollars
> trying to prove the Earth is flat.
>
> Reducing to parts to find fundamental law is exactly, completely
> and embarrassingly backwards science. As backwards
> as it can possible get.
>
> These super coliders define the absolute peak of
> the scientific Dark Age, the farthest point possible
> from the answers to life, the universe and
> everything.
>
> Jonathan
>
> s--------------------------------
i fully agree witht hat last paragraph
of yours :
----
These super coliders define the absolute peak of
the scientific Dark Age, the farthest point possible
from the answers to life, the universe and
everything.
Jonathan
-------------------
end of quote
now we should understand thoroughly
what is behind it::
it is along history of human behavior !!
not so naive and prImitive as it looks like
it is much more CROOKED AND EGOISTIC !!
I CAN SUM IT IN JUST ONE
OR TWO three WORDS --
AS UGLY AS IT CAN BE ::
**MONEY 'JOBS ' AND ROTTEN EGO !!!
(if it was only 'ego'
it could somehow be forgiven (:-)
because sometimes ego fighting is beneficial )
but not combined with the other two .
it must be ego WITH HONESTY !!
--intellectual integrity !!!.
and the ability to admit mistakes
that is so scares ...in our ''village'' ..!!)
ps
please note that PD is persistent in
erasing all ng s except sci.physics (:-)
he wants to make his crookedness
as less as possible **published *!!
for him
we have here a ''shameful crook (":-)
Higgs Bosons story does not belong
for him to sci.particle and not to sci.relativity !!......(:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
-------------------------