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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (482296)	5/20/2009 1:07:04 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577920

The question remains Steve, and the implications don't change. Either there is a beginning or there is an on going eternity. Even this isn't true. In string theory there is both a beginning and on going eternity. Same with the expanding-collapsing universe model. And with time being a property of our universe, it doesn't make any sense to talk about time outside of our universe. Your attempt to simplify the universe to suit your philosophical argument only illustrates your simpleminded intellectual laziness. You said, "However, that there was nothing, then a moment later an expanding universe, is not argued much." That's clearly false for so many reasons. (A singularity is not nothing, Hawking has a theory of the Big Bang that does not require a singularity, string theory posits many universes, we may be the result of a collapsed universe, etc.) When you start with a bold, simple, false statement. There's no point in going any further. Your obviously engaging in sophistry. SD