Re: <eyebeam><blast> Astronomical hindsight

["richard e. spear" <rspear@ufl.edu>]

Will:  Theoretical physics IS changing constantly, because (unlike
philosophy) it has to fit new observation, which gets constantly refined
with new tools like the Hubble telescope, etc.  So, much as a
"quintessential" entity comparable to ether may be re-entering the arena
of scientific speculation right now, and even if quantum physics sounds
like "madness" in many ways, at least theoretical physicists try to
match observation, as best possible.  In any case, their speculation is
EXCITING, to me, as an artist.  Much as I respect Baudrillard as an
interesting thinker, I still cannot forgive any speculation based on
wrong facts (such as the speed of light).  And I trust mathematics more
than language, especially sloppy arguing.  I agree that linear time and
Newtonian gravity (classical physics) were good while they lasted. I
will try to look up William Tiller and Deleuze's The Fold.   (I enjoyed
your comments on "chaos" in your message "Dividuals").
Athena Tahca




-
-------------------------------------------------------------
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org
-------------------------------------------------------------