Re: The Big Bang as grammatical faux pas

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:57:06 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:56:51 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:11:37 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

I wrote this for alt.philosophy, but it is a chance to see how logic,
formal or ordinary language, might help us out in questions about the
world. No excuses offered.
----------------

Like so many other secrets in the world, the nature of the "Big Bang"
can be determined entirely by a common-sense examination of grammar.
Oh god.
Oh yes.

But first lets remind ourselves of something we should all know by now:
the Big Bang can't be an explosion. There was nowhere for debris to
explode into.
This is not just an examination of grammar.
Ohhh yes it is. What's a definition or description of 'explosion'? Does
the Big Bang fulfill it in any way?

Truly fascinating, the extent of your ignorance. A definition or
description of "explosion" has nothing to do with grammar
(except to the extent that it would imply that the word in
question is a noun - whether or not the Big Bang satisfies this
definition certainly has nothing to do with grammar).

But more importantly the term "Big Bang" looks like an oxymoron,
This is not just an examination of grammar (although this is closer -
a person who was confused about the meaning of almost every
English word, as you clearly are, might well think that semantics
is grammar.)
What?

Precisely.

So what exactly are we all looking for in a "Big Bang"? What are we
expecting to be discovered? I can't think of anything that could bring
us an answer. Perhaps finding out about the Big Bang is about finding a
temporal origin?
This is not just an examination of grammar.
Yes it is. There is no correct coherent meaning associated with the term
'temporal origin', hence as a meaningful term it has no grammatical
employment. It is an a priori, analytical dud.

"A long time ago", the "first" event,
"next", "before", "after", etc.
This is not just an examination of grammar.
It is. Because if I ask you the meaning of the terms in quotes you can
only give me a named event. In which case I am entitled to know how you
mean to use the term adjectivally (grammatically) as a property of events..
Analysis of grammar is a very powerful tool man.


So it is not that I do or don't know "what happened in the Big Bang". I
just don't know what it is the Big Bang is supposed to be a metaphor
for. The metaphors at hand - "origin", "singularity", etc., simply fall
apart. The Big Bang begins to look like an empty invocation, a
feel-good
prop wheeled out by science for Joe Public who, we all know,
occasionally needs to be brought to heel and reminded of the
investigative powers of science.

This is not just an examination of grammar.

I'll allow you that. I refer of course to the seduction of (bad) grammar.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)

If the Big Bang is a creation out of nothing, then grammatically, we
can't also say that it explodes. This is because we have stipulated that
there are no conditions for an explosion to happen.

Again, even if everything you say about the Big Bang were
absolutely right, none of it has anything to do with grammar.
Your apparent ignorance of the meaning of almost every
English word does not imply that they do not have meanings.

Our Big Bang definition of an explosion is quite different from the
standard definition. To say that they refer to the same definition is a
grammatical faux pas. Woof.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Big Bang as grammatical faux pas
    ... Like so many other secrets in the world, the nature of the "Big Bang" can be determined entirely by a common-sense examination of grammar. ... There is no correct coherent meaning associated with the term 'temporal origin', hence as a meaningful term it has no grammatical employment. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Big Bang as grammatical faux pas
    ... Like so many other secrets in the world, the nature of the "Big Bang" can be determined entirely by a common-sense examination of grammar. ... What's a definition or description of 'explosion'? ... There is no correct coherent meaning associated with the term 'temporal origin', hence as a meaningful term it has no grammatical employment. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Big Bang as grammatical faux pas
    ... Like so many other secrets in the world, the nature of the "Big Bang" ... This is not just an examination of grammar. ... There is no correct coherent meaning associated with the term ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: How to read mathematics
    ... schism between a technical meaning and the grammar used to express it. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Big Bang as grammatical faux pas
    ... Like so many other secrets in the world, the nature of the "Big Bang" ... This is not just an examination of grammar. ... nature of that monumental single event would seem to be more a testimony ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading