On 21.01.2012 10:00 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 12:43 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.01.2012 08:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/20/2012 12:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 21:28 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
" What about Big Bang?"
What about Big Bang?
" It has also happened for a reason?"
I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it
did not happen for a reason.
John K Clark
Well, then you have an infinite progression, as then you have
to find a reason for that reason and so on. I guess that this
contradicts with the whole idea of the Big Bang. Or you do not
believe in the Big Bang?
The idea of the Big Bang is that the visible universe evolved to
its present state from a state of extreme density and
temperature. It is independent of whether there was a previous
state, as in the models of Andre Vilenkin or those of Sean
Carroll, or not as in the Hartle-Hawking model.
This still shows that there are physicists who do not believe in
On 20.01.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
but we also know that everything, absolutely positively
everything, happens for a reason OR it does not happen for a
In other words such a statement does not follow from physics that
Of course it doesn't follow from physics. It follows from the meaning
of the words (assuming it refers to things that happen). It's a
It is a good point but then the question is what this tautology has to
do with the external world (provided we assume that there is some).
I have recently listened to Kontroversen in der Philosophie by Prof
and the question whether the Universe if eternal or not belongs to
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at