[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

I agree with you that the "Big Bang is a copout that doesn't explain 
anything." In fact, the assertion that "chance" explains anything is 
equally absurd. It's part and parcel of the metaphysics of "oops."  

[Ham]
>  It is
> physical existence--being itself--which must be accounted for.  To simply
> default to the premise that the universe was created by a phenomenon known
> as the Big Bang is a copout which doesn't explain anything.  There would
> have had to be matter in some form (energy and/or gas, for example) for such
> a cosmic eruption; so it is wrong to say that the Big Bang marked "the
> beginning" of existence.  Energy, matter, things do not bring themselves
> into existence.  Science doesn't have an answer to what led to the Big Bang,
> but you're not likely to find a physical scientist disputing the fact that
> something did.

Right. "Science doesn't have an answer to what led to the Big Bang." What's 
even more telling, they don't have an answer to "why" there was a Big Bang. 

Mr. Pirsig put this all into perspective in the following quote from Lila:

"Almost as great as this "value" platypus is another one handled by the 
Metaphysics of Quality; the "scientific reality" platypus. This is a very 
large monster that has been disturbing a lot of people for a long time. It 
was identified a century ago by the mathematician and astronomer, Henri 
Poincare who asked, "Why is the reality most acceptable to science one that 
no small child can be expected to understand?" Should reality be something 
that only a handful of the world's most advanced physicists understand? One 
would expect at least a majority of people to understand it. Should reality 
be expressible only in symbols that require university-level mathematics to 
manipulate? Should it be something that changes from year to year as new 
scientific theories are formulated? Should it be something about which 
different schools of physics can quarrel for years with no firm resolution 
on either side? If this is so then how is it fair to imprison a person in a 
mental hospital for life with no trial and no jury and no parole for 
"failing to understand reality"? By this criterion shouldn't all but a 
handfull of the world's most advanced physicists be locked up for life? Who 
is crazy here and who is sane?" (Lila, 8)

Someone suggested we should inform ourselves by reading the explanation of 
the Big Bang in Wikipedia. Pirsig's observation above apples in spades to 
what is written there. 

Of course, I'll get the usual personal attacks about "not haven't the 
faintest clue of what you are talking about" and accusations of "quasi-
theological nonsense" from those afflicted with creationphobia. But with 
you, Mr. Pirsig and many others forming a "consensus" at my side, I fear no 
evil. :-)  

Best regards,
Platt