>>> cramer at unix01.voicenet.com 09/08/00 10:15AM >>>
BUT, if one is using the big bang model, then there is no time or
existence outside or before it.
((((((((((((
CB: When big bang becomes the prime mover of the universe like this, then it takes on one of the traditional qualities of God.
((((((((((
> Anyway, laws of physics, by definition ARE absolute. That is what makes
> them laws. F=ma is a law, gravitation is a law, etc. If they are shown
> to be not absolute, then they are not laws. Without accepting certain
> concepts as laws, it would be hard to apply the scientific method.
>
> ((((((((((((
>
> CB: Don't natural scientists' borrow the term "law" as a metaphor from
> laws of a human society ? And what of the dialectic of relative and
> absolute truth ?
Before I answer, and so I don't get flamed by snit, could you clarify whether you mean Hegelian dialectic or Marxian dialectic? I can see how they could both be applied when examinging truth.
((((((((((((((
CB: This is Engelsian dialectic , as articulated in _Anti-Duhring_.
You can welcome fire from Snit-girl, like that from Prometheus who stole fire from the Gods and gave it to humans.