On 1/20/2020 3:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:59:30 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 22:56, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> a écrit : 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'sinfinite, it never had a beginning or start. AGWhy 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! What multiverse ? If time starts at the big bang what does it means it's from the multiverse... Is the multiverse a singularity ? Why not ?You can think of it as a fruit from a fruit tree, something growing from a substrate. If the fruit had a beginning, it must be finite in size. Time for our universe starts at the BB, IF our universe had a beginning. A singularity in this context is a physical process taking zero time which results in an infinite spatial extent. This can't happen IF our universe had a beginning since inflation and expansion occur at finite rates for finite times. The Multiverse never began, so whatever infinities it has, if any, didn't occur in finite time. AG
What justifies your rejecting one kind of infinity (expansion) while accepting other infinities (extent)? You just ramble about your intuition as though it were mathematical logic.
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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5E264693.2090700%40verizon.net.
