Dear Mindaugas Indriunas,
I usually do not reply to newcomers, I leave it to the more seasoned list
members and keep my pretty unorthodox ideas from the 'unseasoned' fresh
theoretically idealists. Now I make an exemption, mainly not for you, but
for other listers to expose some of my heretic positions I always just
lightly touch. So please, do not take it personally, but do with them
anything that fits your taste.

1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. We speculate, calculate
(wrongly), imagine and suppose. We derive theories and fit our half-baked
conclusions into them.
I am no exception, but I call it a "narrative" and fit it into 'human'
understandability (what by no means is necessary, except for us, to talk
about it).

2.Is indeed No1: IS THERE an origin? Even among those who accepted Hubble's
view on the expanding universe there is the oscillatory originless view. See
2A and 2B below

2A -Hubble? he detected the redshift and equated it with an optical Doppler
leading to an expansional(?) recess of light sources - hence the universe
expands. No analysis that could explain the redshift by other factors
(fields the light passed through, or even to assume not yet discovered
circumstances to such result). Then many thousand physicists jumped on the
bandwagon to reap Nobel prizes and academic tenures by millions (sic) of
experiments all designed to PROVE the expansion. If it did not, it was the
wrong experiment.  So since 1922 we do expand.

2B If something expands, it expands FROM a zero point (if not by harmonic
play Point 2)
Physicists are constructivist reductionists so the 'zero' was more likable
than the elusive "exists forever" shoving the origin under the rug. It it
expands, let us see in retrograde, where it came from - and physical
cosmology made the trip to their Big Bang: the ZERO.
I am not referring to the fictions how the zero started into non-zero, I
just address the retrogradicity of our present (widely expanded and loosened
up) - physical system int the denser past allo the way to million-billion
times closer - and eo ipso absolutely different physical 'laws'  applying
our present system-laws as valid for those different states.
And this is only one side. The other: retrogradicity was imagined linearly
in a cosmos that indeed evolved under nonlinear processes. So the 'age' and
conditions must be all wrong in their BB-fable. Realizing the paradoxes new
tales were invented to correct the quantitative errors (inflation, etc.) not
making the basic assumptions any better.

This is for breakfast, now you may take a pinch of salt to the rest of the
Welcome to this list and good luck to you

John Mikes

On 2/14/07, Mindaugas Indriūnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>  I am an undergraduate student of mathematics, I come from Europe,
> Lithuania. My lifetime research interests are the universe and it's origin
> (it's structure). I have been studying physics, but changed my field to
> mathematics because physics has no model which can explain the earliest
> moments of the universe's existence. I have hopes to understand it through
> comparison and analysis of the properties of possible computational
> universe(s) with the properties our universe.
> I have read some pages of Paul Budnik's homepage ( 
> on DP, and about 80 pages of his book ("What will be"), also Edward
> Fredkin Digital Philosophy site, about 100 pages of Stephen Wolfram's book
> on NKS, now, searching for the English translation of the Konrad Zuse's
> "Rechnender Raum."; more previously, I have been browsing the pages
> and the , that may be
> a little bit less related with DP, but that are related with the try to
> understand the origin of the universe.
> Yours sincerely,
> Mindaugas Indriūnas
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to