🚀 go-pugleaf

selflab@go.com (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<1305a9da.0304061314.4bf383f8@posting.google.com>...
> shrikanthas@yahoo.com (Shrikantha S. Shastry) wrote in message news:<92a87ac5.0304020124.369ed6bf@posting.google.com>...
> > selflab@go.com (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<1305a9da.0304011315.55fbd920@posting.google.com>...
> > > shrikanthas@yahoo.com (Shrikantha S. Shastry) wrote in message news:<92a87ac5.0303292225.2f8fc42f@posting.google.com>...
>  
> > Well, my response was a general statement about the nature of the
> > universe which is ilusory. This evaluation, if my link above is
> > followed, is done with respect to its reality, the singularity. While
> > the unobservable singularity is real, its observable universe has to
> > be unreal or illusory. There is an unbridgeable gap between the
> > unobservable singularity and the observable universe separating them
> > out as the reality and the illusory.  And when the universe is
> > illusory the consequences mentioned above are inevitable.
> > 
> > In other words, the evaluation of the universe as illusory is indeed
> > because of the identification of the basically important singularity
> > as the reality which has been approximated, avoided or ignored
> > completely in the history of science. How can the inherent singularity
> > or the essential consciousness be ignored in the rational advancement
> > of science?
> 
> It seems like you are mixing the reality with our abstracted image of
> this reality. The singularities are just absent in nature. They appear
> in our models when we neglect the particulars. This is why there
> appear the infinite resonances in vibrant systems, infinite forces of
> interaction among the point charges, infinite propagation velocities
> in the Coulomb law, smooth edges between the surfaces etc. These
> weren't ignored a least in the history of science, or you badly know
> its history. Indeed, it's your pleasure to play words and to wag a
> peacocks' tail, using the double sense and leaning your elbows against
> the limited scope of science. But such game is fruitless, except of,
> maybe, one more attempt to salvage the Relativity. However in
> accordance with GR the universe is closed. Or such 'trifle' is
> indifferent for you? Well, the classic theory has no need in your
> illusiveness, as it deals with the physical revelations of processes
> in the nature. Though this 'trifle' is also indifferent to you. You
> want - you think out the laws of nature! Isn't it so?
> 
> Well, what concern the physics has to it?
> 
> Sergey.


Well, again, my response was a general statement about the nature of
the universe. And so, all scientific conclusions are subject to the
illusory nature of the universe.

Now, how can there be singularities when all sinularities emerge at
zero? In other words, all singularities happen to be the same
singularity.

And how come that singularity is absent in nature? Is it
mathematically sound to neglect it, when outcomes are heavily
dependent on mathematical workout. Why this selective neglect? On the
contrary, singularity is basically important, as shown in my link
above, in relation to the observed universe.

It is this attitude of ignoring the essential singularity which has
hampered progress in science. The limited scope of science is
therefore artificial and its scope can be enlarged if singularity is
identified as it is.

And when the inherent singularity is recognised as the reality, its
observable universe turns out to be illusory. And so, the consequences
are inevitable. Is it the fear of these consequences which prevents
the acceptance of singularity? If one is looking for truth, then the
universe can only be known as it is, not as one wants.