Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

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:

> dhw: [i]George defines energy "in terms of dimensions of mass, time and length." Since energy can take many different forms, I wouldn&apos;t know how to define it, and I certainly wouldn&apos;t endow it with any personal qualities, but I see no reason to assume that it has not been doing whatever it does for ever and ever.[/i]-DAVID: [i]George is a mathematician, and his definition is correct as we observe energy in our current universe.[/i]-I am not disputing George&apos;s definition (though I don&apos;t know why mathematicians should have a monopoly on definitions). "In terms of..." covers a pretty wide area, and my point is that no matter how you wish to define it, no-one can possibly state with any authority that energy in one form of another has not been doing its own thing for ever in any number of universes past and/or present. George has attacked this idea on the grounds that one cannot assume the existence of "time" outside what he calls "the universe" and what I would prefer to call "our universe", and in tracing its history he believes "[i]one reaches a situation where time no longer exists, or becomes non-directional or indeterminate[/i]". I have questioned how he is defining time. Specifically, if the Big Bang took place, I cannot for the life of me see how it could not have had a cause, and the sequence of cause and effect demands an onward movement from before to after, or from past to present. That is a temporal concept, and cause and effect are palpably existent, and are neither non-directional nor indeterminate. The alternative to an endless sequence of past causes and effects is a beginning without a cause and preceded by absolute nothingness. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.