On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:00:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/20/2020 5:10 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > I explained it several times. There's a singularity implied if it had a > start AND was infinite. If it's infinite, it never had a beginning or > start. AG > > > Why isn't a singularity implied if it had a start and was *finite*? That > was exactly the standard argument for a supernatural beginning...something > (finite) from nothing was a violation of nature and reason. You seem to be > stuck in Aristotelian philosophy. >
It's not something from nothing. Nothing to do with Aristotle. It's something from the Multiverse! No singularity if finite in spatial extent because an infinity not implied by an eruption of something small from something arbitrarily large. Of course, I have no idea why the eruption occurs. AG Physicist tend to use mathematics to cover a domain up to the point it > produces an infinity or infinitesimal and then just look at that as the end > of applicability...not a point to start drawing inferences from what > "infinity" implies. > Maybe they need to go to China and study at a "re-education" camp? AG > > Brent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/468aba84-4115-4af7-967b-289569d088f3%40googlegroups.com.
