Hi Stephen,
    Thanks for your comments.  I'm not a physicist.  Still, my logic tells 
me you must be right about Existence having no Beginning - what could the 
alternative be?  Nevertheless, I have to confess that the concept of 
something that is eternal, without beginning or end, is, to me, impossible 
to comprehend in other than an abstract way.
    And, I'm told, in infinite time and space, anything that can exist must 
exist, not only once but an infinite number of times.  This is another key 
concept I'm not equipped to understand.
    I was greatly impressed by Tegmark's article in Scientific American 
about the multiverse.  In fact, my curiosity about this led me to the 
Everything List.  Could you explain why it is you feel that he misdirects 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?

Dear Friends,

    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]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?

Hi Godfrey,
   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
"Dishonorable Mention."
   I read Tegmark's paper too, where he seems to attribute the beginning
of "It" to Inflation.  But he didn't appear to address how, or why, 
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

Reply via email to