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....


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
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
> 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
> but this event itself must have some form of antecedent that Exists.
> Remember, existence, per say, does not depend on anything, except for
> 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
> if only because they misdirect thoughts more than they inform thoughts.
> Onward!
> Stephen
> ----- 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
> > reading!
> > Norman
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply via email to