--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Just questions to play with. I agree with most of > what you said above; I'm just riffing on the idea > that science is that much more evolved than > astrology. They're IMO both still based on the same > assumption, which I don't necessarily believe is > a given. I think that there is a possibility that > basing one's entire world view on the assumption > of linearity -- and thus the theoretical beginning > and end of the universe -- may be as much of an > anthropomorphization as projecting the images of > Gods onto star patterns.
However, if there were no time and no linearity, there would be no science either, so the question is fundamentally meaningless. Science is a creature of the human experience of time and linearity; we don't impose time and linearity on that experience via science. Also, the assumption of linearity doesn't necessarily imply a beginning and ending to the universe. It's entirely possible to conceive of infinite linearity and endless time and is, in fact, the basis of the old steady-state theory of the universe, now supplanted by the Big Bang theory on the basis of observational evidence.
