When I offered my theory of a hyper-spherical universe, I was accused of being "Aristotelian". But why? My primary assumption was IF the universe had a start or beginning, that "time" must of been characterized by zero volume. My reasoning is that IF had non-zero volume, it must have begun *earlier*; hence, this situation wasn't its start or beginning. My prejudice, if that's what it is, is that the creation event, if there was one, couldn't have "started" without some time-requiring process. So, if there was something, rather than nothing at the beginning, the time-requiring process must have began *earlier*, thus contradicting the idea of a beginning with some thing already existing, say some volume of space. The logic here is sort-of a proof by contradiction. Whether you agree or not, what has this to do with Aristotle? TIA, AG
-- 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/cb0b0b7f-e107-428a-8dd8-6be57170932c%40googlegroups.com.
