Pat, I can see doubts regarding ends may be valid if the ends are defined in spatial terms < say, line ... with a circle, there are no ends ! >.
The ends need to be defined in terms of Time in case of parallel universes, and in terms of Time and Space in case of sub universes. On Aug 25, 4:23 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 Aug, 11:56, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 2009/8/24 Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > Assuming a continuum, why do you think a future there contained is > > > anything > > > > other than a perfectly indeterminate, fluctuating, and malleable one? > > > > That's easy!! Because I would expect it to be like every other > > > part of the continuum. I.e., as fixed as is the past. Now, if you > > > and I can somehow figure out how to change the past (NOT just writing > > > an historical yet false account), then I'll be more open to a mutable > > > future. I can't see ANY basis for thinking that the continuum works > > > differently in some parts than it does in others; it's a continuum-- > > > the rules for it always apply. > > > How does this work with multiverses? Is there a single continuum that > > encompasses all space and all time, or does each delineation of multiverse > > have a separate continuum? > > Either is, technically, possible; however, in my opinion, a > multiverse isn't required as 'that which exists' has access to all of > time. Parallel universes gains nothing over serial universes as the > end result, the accomplishment of all that energy can do, can be > accomplished by serial Big Bangs within one entity, provided that > entity is geometrically shaped to do that. In short, I don't believe > the concept of a multiverse passes Occam's razor, as there is nothing > gained by it, as 'the One' is not pressed for time, as it were. > > > > On the opposite side of that question: > > > what makes you think that there would be a difference between the way > > > the future works and the way the past works? I can see absolutely no > > > basis for it; but, of course, I can't see everything. ;-) > > > I wouldn't presume to know how either works, Pat. > > > Ian > > Yet you DO make presumptions about how it works. Thus the line of > questions and the beliefs that underpin them. There's nothing > inherently wrong about making presumptions, so long as you've weighed > as much evidence as you have had available. Mankind, in general, has > been ignoring the philosophical implications of space-time for the > better part of a century now. How much longer will we continue to try > to fool ourselves*? > > * True rhetorical question. All answers, though, will be gladly > accepted, although not all may be true. ;-)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
