Does it truly make sense to assume that Existence can have a Beginning?
We are not talking here, I AFAIK, about the beginning of our observed
universe as we can wind our way back in history to a Big Bang Event Horizon,
but this event itself must have some form of antecedent that Exists.
Remember, existence, per say, does not depend on anything, except for maybe
self-consistency, and thus it follows that Existence itself can not have a
"beginning". It follows that it is Eternal, without beginning or end.
IMHO, Tegmark's paper, like the rest of his papers, is not worth reading
if only because they misdirect thoughts more than they inform thoughts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?
Thanks for the ID. Now I know that "Godfrey" is one of the
mind-stretchers on this list.
I hope that Saibal will eventually tell us the reason(s) for
I read Tegmark's paper too, where he seems to attribute the beginning
"It" to Inflation. But he didn't appear to address how, or why, Inflation
got started. I guess his definition of "It" ends with our Big Bang.
Thinking of Big Bangs, or anything else, as a logical process that
occurs without causality isn't something I'm able to do. But I'll keep