Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (18856)	12/6/2004 4:51:09 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

You want to get out of it by claiming all things have cause except the universe, which is non caused. ex nihilo, el poppo bruno. Or using the infinity crutch. The trouble with that is science can show time is slowing down. As Einstein showed there cannot be an infinity of matter, and that stars have a finite lifetime, unless you want to change matter and time too. Better theory? Does it predict anything? Infinite matter cannot exist, because as Einstein showed it would have infinite gravity and infinite light. We would burn up and crush in an instant. It cancels out in other words. Infinite time would dictate infinite amounts of matter, and infinite light, for any matter to exist today at all. This is absolutely inescapably true as far as physical reality is understood today. The universe has a size and aburn out time. It cannot be infinite or it would have to have a rebirth mechanism from primordial ultra compressed dark matter, every 50 billion years or so. This infinite regression poses some important problems. Rebirth is causative. It could be physically show what causes it. If the universe was non caused, then all its processes are running on auto with no cause as well. Introducing non starting non caused processes, allows for a level of spontaneity into the universe that is so far unobserved. EC<:-}

To: Solon who wrote (18856)	12/6/2004 5:08:27 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

You are mixing, as I am somewhat as well, scientific assertions with logic. We should not go willy nilly back and forth -- especially into logical arguments -- without turning on the reason light, and saying so. This following is a physical argument. You state that time is necessary for beginnings and endings. That is not in evidence in our argument. If time is a measure of beginning and endings, it is not necessary, it is just observed or, past it, intuited. This does entail that there could be a pre-time existence of something. In the ultimate black hole fore example, containing all the matter of the universe, time could possibly be stopped, as gravity could be too great for time to pass. Remember, Einstein showed that time is tied to gravity, speed and energy. It is non separable. Time is just a measure of change. Before change, existence can be, but is timeless. The conundrum of time before time is a problem that you made up. I can logically say, before time began, and existence was not as we know it. From the inconceivable we can inject a temporal mode of argument into a "time" before time. Of course we cannot step too far before time in reality, as it does not exist. Perhaps someone tried to do that, and the subsequent illogical time paradox caused the matter thing to explode :] Einstein also showed that time can run backwards for some particles under certain conditions. EC<:-}