I think all of you need to get laid more often.....and if you live in Fairfield you definitely need to eat a chicken sandwich.
--- On Sun, 5/8/11, John <jr_...@yahoo.com> wrote: > From: John <jr_...@yahoo.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 3:37 PM > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > Me and Curtis, not so much. We > don't hold much of anyone's > > > > > > declarations to be Truth, just > because they said them. > > > > > > > > > > Judy > > > > > Curtis isn't questioning the premise > that the universe > > > > > had a beginning, actually. > > > > > > > > > > I hadn't been but in my most recent > post I may be changing > > > > > my mind. Although the universe in > its present form is > > > > > thought to have a beginning and may > have a starting point, > > > > > the matter contained in it may > not. It may have all been > > > > > contained in the inconceivable density > of the singularity > > > > > that existed before the big bang. > > > > > > > > It's an odd thing this. I think we are > almost unavoidably > > > > thinking of Time as a backdrop "within > which" the Big Bang > > > > happened. e.g. "the inconceivable density of > the singularity that > > > > existed before the big bang". > > > > > > > > But there is no "before the Big bang". Time > itself emerged (is > > > > that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At > least that's how I > > > > understand it. > > > > > > Yup, that's what they say. > > > > Now I've caught up I see you have been making just > this point! > > > > PaliGap, > > > 1.> But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say > "This is the way I understand the present cosmology as > well. There is no present > > method in science to determine what happened 'before > the Big Bang'". > > But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, > or for > > not having the method. As Hawking would have it, > you're trying to > > ask "what's north (on the globe) of the north > pole?"> > > According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has > apparently changed his mind again about his previous > position about the Big Bang. He is now saying it is > possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As > such, he opines that there is no need for a God. > > IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that > he is a quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own > voice. But then again human beings have the free will > to speak his or her own mind. > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find myself, like Barry, intuitively drawn > to eternalism. > > > > Why could there not be a sequence of Bangs? > But then you have > > > > to stop yourself, swallow hard, and try to > intone until it > > > > starts to sink in: "No, there WAS no > *before*, No, there WAS > > > > no *before*..." > > > > > > On the other hand, there's a sense in which we > can say > > > that the universe "always" existed, since there > was no > > > "time" when it didn't exist. > > > > Indeedy. Good point. It makes me think that Big Bang > cosmology > > is perhaps best thought of as neither eternalist nor > creationist. > > > > Of course just when you think it's safe to dip your > toe in > > the cosmological waters (quagmire?), something pops > up > > to rock the boat. I saw a program recently in which > Penrose > > put forward his idea of a cyclical universe (which to > be honest > > I would *prefer* to believe in, though what my > preferences > > should have to do with anything, I don't know!). > > > > The idea (if I get it correctly) is like that > Yin/Yangy thing > > whereby if you push something to its complete extreme, > it > > turns into its opposite. > > > > In this case he seems to think that if you extrapolate > into > > the VERY far distant future, at extreme entropy the > universe > > shares key characteristics of the extreme singularity. > So, > > puff! there you go again... > > > > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388 > > > > (Any congruence between Penrose's actual views and my > > cartoon characterization above would be purely down > to > > chance. But in an infinite universe, anything that is > > *possible* not only CAN happen, but has already > happened > > an infinite number of times to date. So we can't rule > > out my having gotten it right. But don't bet on > it...). > > > > > I think the idea that the universe didn't have a > beginning, > > > all the evidence that it did notwithstanding, is > actually a > > > function of the inability to conceive of there > having been > > > no "before" that beginning. > > > > > > It's very much akin to the terror many people > feel at the > > > notion that they will no longer exist in any > sense after > > > death. What they're subconsciously imagining is > *being > > > there* to experience not existing, being > conscious of not > > > existing (which would indeed be horrible). > > > > > > Me, I harbor the suspicion that at some point it > will > > > become crystal clear that we have completely > misconstrued > > > what time is. > > > > > > > (Also, I suspect the idea of matter > expressed in the statement > > > > "matter was *contained in* the singularity" > is meaningless). > > > > > > Same here. I wonder, in fact, whether the > singularity could > > > be described as "Neti, neti"--not this, not > that. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > >
