On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 11:54:24 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/26/2020 8:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > 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. > > > Exactly the sort of thing Aristotle would have taken as a logical axiom. >
*Does that mean it's wrong? Does Aristotle have an exclusive patent on "right thought"? AG * > My reasoning is that IF had non-zero volume, it must have begun *earlier*; > hence, this situation wasn't its start or beginning. > > Look at the Hawking-Hartle no-boundary model. When does it start? > *Hawking still claims the universe has a beginning. It could be right. It's speculative, as is my model. Is Hawking an Aristotelian? AG * >From Wiki: Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backwards in time towards the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might otherwise have been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity> in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. However, Hawking does state "...the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.", but that the Hartle-Hawking model is not the steady state Universe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory> of Hoyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle>; it simply has no initial boundaries in time or space > 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. > > Another reliance of an Aristotlean intuition. Did "start or beginning" > turn into "creation event"? Isn't "creation" just sneaking in the idea of > a process. > *No. I think in science we try to extrapolate from observations of the physical world. It doesn't always work, but often it does. AG * > 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? > > Because Aristotle (and other Greek philosophers) thought their intuition > could impose constraints on how nature can be, and called it "logic". > *Like Democritus and his atomic theory of matter? AG * Brent > > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cb0b0b7f-e107-428a-8dd8-6be57170932c%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cb0b0b7f-e107-428a-8dd8-6be57170932c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/130bfde0-83d4-430e-a1cc-de90ab4235bd%40googlegroups.com.
