On Sep 14, 9:49 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/14/2011 6:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 7:18 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
> >> On 9/14/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>> To me it seems best to understand the beginning of the universe as the
> >>> same thing as the end of the universe - a singularity out of which
> >>> order emerges. Not nothingness but thingness, and more importantly,
> >>> the experienceness of thingness. That is what needs no explanation
> >>> because it precedes the division of anything from anything else so
> >>> there is nothing that is not already explained. Explanation can only
> >>> be conceived of outside of the singularity where things can perceive
> >>> some phenomena but not others, so that they want to translate the
> >>> unknown into their native experience.
> >> There are no singularities in physics - only in the equations; an 
> >> indication the equation
> >> no longer applies.
> > It would make sense that singularity transcends purely physical
> > description.
> On the contrary, the singularity is in the description.  Which is why no 
> physicist
> believes the description (General Relativity) is valid.

So when you say there are no singularities in physics, you are not
including General Relativity, because no physicist believes it (except
Einstein?) Or are you distinguishing between phenomena of physics and
equations describing them?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to