Digital BW, The Print

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Editor writes:
>
>  
>
>>There was NO time before the BIG BANG...
>>    
>>
>
>Then logically the universe has always existed, since "before" has no
>meaning.
>
>  
>
>>The Universe prior to the Big Bang is believed
>>to have been essentially a single unit of energy/mass
>>...
>>    
>>
>
>How can the universe prior to the Big Bang have been anything?  You just
>said that time didn't exist before the Big Bang; therefore there was no
>"prior."
>
>  
>
Actually, you've run smack dab into a problem Douglass Adams speaks of 
in the Hitchiker's Guide series..

When we start dissecting time and separate it from its normal understood 
referents, a few things happen:

1)    There is no reason time is necessarily undirectional..

2)    Ergo, time travel is possible..

3)    Language has a HUGE problem dealing with it... How do you 
effectively convey the thought of doing something fromsome future point 
which takes you back in the past so you can change today?  Verb 
conjugation becomes particularly ludicrous. - phrases get loopy like --  
"I will be having went?"  "Gone until being came again?"  --- 
Accordingly, if I recallcorrectly Adams had College English Professors 
as one of the larger anti-time travel groups, as part of the "Campaign 
for Real Time"..

However, because language does not today have ready ways to describe 
events, does not mean the events are illogical..  Until the Orange Shift 
bit EPSON and Wilhelm on the butt, no-one would have given two pfennigs 
about using the phrase "gasfastness"...  Actually, German, with its 
compund word structure  is much better at dealing with abstract concepts 
than English..   Things like Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft,and the idea of 
a Noumenal realm don't translate neatly into English, and end-up 
sounding like 1960's and 1970's EST babble from the California.

Bokeh and pixelization, both are phrases for which you have to create 
technology and perceive the phenomenae before naming them..  As is 
acutance or metamerism..  They are all abstractions of  phenomenae we 
see, but didn't have simple words to describe neatly..   Each of them 
can probably be better expressed mathematically than by language, but 
how many will be able to comprehend the math?  or more importantly, why 
use equations when one word will suffice as shorthand?


Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]