Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > George: The error in your thought processes here is not realising that time is an aspect of the universe. You are assuming the existence of infinite Newtonian (or Aristotelian?) time outside the universe. As one traces back the history of the universe from within it seems that one reaches a situation where time no longer exists, or becomes non-directional or indeterminate. That&apos;s the only solution that makes sense to me. -I understand that time began at the Big Bang, and we live in a spacetime universe. And I also understand the Guth-Borde-Valenkin&apos;s paper at Hawking&apos;s 60th birthday says they could not find a &apos;before&apos; before the Big Bang, or as they put it, &apos;a past incomplete&apos;.. Further, Valenkin in the very recent past, last year, has produced a paper that states whether this is a solitary universe or a multiverse there is no &apos;before&apos;. I still have a problem with something from nothing. A singularity is not a nothing. I am assuming a past without time, that  has always existed. >  > George: Since the dimensions of space also apparently contract to near zero, where length also becomes meaningless, it seems appropriate to call this initial state of the universe some form of nothingness. To attribute consciousness to it is just fanciful. It is also questionable whether it can be described in terms of energy, since energy is defined in terms of dimensions of mass, time and length.-I would think a singularity is some form of energy and not nothingness, but an infinitely small form of energy. As for consciousness, I don&apos;t think such a commplex entity can invent itself through Darwinian evolution. I conclude it has always existed and each of us has a small part of it. I appreciate your discussion.