I agree, but Tegmark does mention the idea that mathematical existence = physical existence, which is basically the same thing (the universe considered as a purely mathematical entity is ''eternal'').
The point is that the Universe appears to have a beginning from the point of view of observers.... Saibal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 12:40 AM 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. > > Onward! > > Stephen > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > 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, 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 > > reading! > > Norman > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >
