🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <77125@ut-emx.uucp>, johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes...
> 
>Be careful here. You need to define terms. What you mean by "Universe" and
>what Roy did may be two different things. His point may have been that the
>average person may find his perspective more useful than an alternate
>perspective that relied on reduction to earlier times and higher
>energies.
> 
>Canonical Particle physicists say "something happened at the planck time" and 
>then the universe as understood by particle physics evolved into its present
>form. Why is that position philosophically more satisfying then saying that
>"something happened at the quark/hadron freeze out time" and then the universe
>as understood by nuclear physics evolved into its present state?

When *I* talk about the origin of the universe, I'm talking about cosmology.
It happens that HEP plays a fundamental role in cosmology.  Now RR can simply
say "I don't care about cosmology or HEP" but so what?  Can I say "I don't
care about Biology" and expect that to stick as a valid scientific judgement?
He's entitled to his opinion, but not to dismiss out of hand an entire body 
of physics with centuries of history.  Furthermore, if RR can't see any
importance in particle physics, does that mean he supports annihilating
the entire program?  If not, why not?  If so, why should we listen to 
a single man who's only argument is "I don't care about it"?

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver