On 26 Aug, 00:44, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> According to calculations by Neil Turok, the universe won't remember
> it had had previous existence when it goes big crunch before inflating
> again. We really are a waste of space!
>
If so, then the whole thing really IS doomed to repeat. However, I
reckon Mr. Turok didn't realise that the memory area of the universe
utilises a pointless topology in the Calabi-Yau space and won't be
affected by a Big Crunch, which, also, isn't likely in my opinion.
The universe will play Wrap-Around-The-Ether long before any Crunch or
its opposite.
> On 25 Aug, 22:02, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Which statement was that?
>
> > On Aug 25, 5:01 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm asking whomever posted that virtually absurd statement about space
> > > and time.
>
> > > On Aug 25, 1:58 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Are you asking Pat?
>
> > > > On Aug 25, 4:56 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm curious to know how you come to be in possession of such absolute
> > > > > knowledge about space and time? Was it revealed to you somehow?
>
> > > > > On Aug 25, 9:05 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > There is no space
> > > > > > or time that can ever exist that is not, already, a part of the
> > > > > > whole. And it is this point that I feel is vital to us
> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > the true nature of the universe and our part in it.
>
> > > > > > This is very relevant and rings true. But why does this preclude
> > > > > > changeability? Why does this mean we cannot change past or future
> > > > > > into parts as yet undiscovered?
>
> > > > > > On Aug 25, 11:43 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 25 Aug, 15:58, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Pat,
>
> > > > > > > > What is your source for the contention that the space-time
> > > > > > > > continuum
> > > > > > > > referred to by physicists means a continuum with defined
> > > > > > > > endpoints? I
> > > > > > > > agree that the word "continuum" often means something with
> > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > endpoints, but as far as I am aware, its usage in the phrase
> > > > > > > > "space-
> > > > > > > > time continuum does not."
>
> > > > > > > But it does. Have a look at this
> > > > > > > link:http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
>
> > > > > > > But don't confuse 'missing points' with 'undiscovered points'.
> > > > > > > From our perspective, the entire future is filled with
> > > > > > > undiscovered
> > > > > > > points (thus appearing open), and there are many undiscovered
> > > > > > > points
> > > > > > > in the past. But, within the whole of the continuum, none of its
> > > > > > > points are missing.
>
> > > > > > > > I think that the theory of relativity holds that we can see
> > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > that happened far in the past (e.g., when we see an object that
> > > > > > > > is 4
> > > > > > > > light years away, we are seeing how it looked 4 years ago), but
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > the future. As far as I kow, according to modern physics, the
> > > > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > hasn't happened yet. Do you have more information?
>
> > > > > > > Yes. You're mistaken about modern physics' view about the
> > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > At least since Einstein. The fact of a space-time continuum
> > > > > > > implies
> > > > > > > that the continuum contains all of space and time. There is no
> > > > > > > space
> > > > > > > or time that can ever exist that is not, already, a part of the
> > > > > > > whole. And it is this point that I feel is vital to us
> > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > the true nature of the universe and our part in it.
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 6:38 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 24 Aug, 16:36, showmethehoney <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Pat, how can continuum have ends points defined?
>
> > > > > > > > > How can it not? A continuum is defined by its ends. For
> > > > > > > > > example, a
> > > > > > > > > line (a 1-dimensional entity) can be viewed as a continuum of
> > > > > > > > > points
> > > > > > > > > (zero-dimensional entities) from the beginning of the line to
> > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > end. Along the line, there are no missing points, i.e., the
> > > > > > > > > line is
> > > > > > > > > continuous. So, too, our space-time continuum is continuous
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > beginning to end with no missing points. The philosophical
> > > > > > > > > implications of us living in a space-time continuum are
> > > > > > > > > enormous, as
> > > > > > > > > it means that our conventional view of a future open to
> > > > > > > > > possibilities
> > > > > > > > > is simply not realistic/accurate. Einstein knew this, but
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > mentioned it rarely. To believe that the future is mutable
> > > > > > > > > is the
> > > > > > > > > modern-day equivalent of still believing the Earth is flat.
> > > > > > > > > We have
> > > > > > > > > to come to a new understanding of the universe and humanity's
> > > > > > > > > role in
> > > > > > > > > it and that will not happen until we've removed the comforting
> > > > > > > > > blindfolds we 'prefer'.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 8:22 am, Pat <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Aug, 12:51, "[email protected]"
> > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let me get this straight. You have a philosophy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that, in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > philosophy, absolute truths are impossible. How do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you get past the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dichotomy of having such a contradictory absoloute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > truth in your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > philosophy? Alternatively, if you back off from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > statement and say
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that your statement above is only a relative truth,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it, then,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > logically allows for absolute truths to exist and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > {that they could} be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > duly ignored by you. Tricky stuff, Ian. Personally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you've stated your whole case, here.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Heh I think Pat that if you do not belive in a creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > God then Ian's
> > > > > > > > > > > > strance is going to be the best you will get.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Many of Ian's ilke may well (and justified too I
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe) accuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > people like you and I of being philosophicly lazy, that
> > > > > > > > > > > > we practice a
> > > > > > > > > > > > kind of philosphy of the gaps, that we do not like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > work out the
> > > > > > > > > > > > hard question of the absolute and so we call it God and
> > > > > > > > > > > > have done with
> > > > > > > > > > > > it. I don't think it is an acusation that we can
> > > > > > > > > > > > easily defend
> > > > > > > > > > > > against, do you?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I think I've been fairly diligent in my attempts to
> > > > > > > > > > > discover the
> > > > > > > > > > > truth about the One (not that I'm finished, yet!!). In
> > > > > > > > > > > order to
> > > > > > > > > > > defend against the rallying cry of those who offer no
> > > > > > > > > > > comprehensive
> > > > > > > > > > > alternative, one must proceed from the point of ontology.
> > > > > > > > > > > Once we've
> > > > > > > > > > > determined what it is that exists, THEN we can look at
> > > > > > > > > > > what it can do
> > > > > > > > > > > and how it does it. The answer to all the 'why'
> > > > > > > > > > > questions to which
> > > > > > > > > > > atheists would have you believe there are no reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > answers,
> > > > > > > > > > > leaves them only a pool of 'unreasonable answers' from
> > > > > > > > > > > which to choose
> > > > > > > > > > > and futher blocks progress.
> > > > > > > > > > > One of the main arguments against God is that atheists
> > > > > > > > > > > see no
> > > > > > > > > > > evidence that the universe is teleological, i.e., that it
> > > > > > > > > > > is heading
> > > > > > > > > > > in a particular direction with goals at the end. They
> > > > > > > > > > > overlook the
> > > > > > > > > > > FACT that we exist in a space-time continuum. The
> > > > > > > > > > > continuum contains
> > > > > > > > > > > ALL the past, present and future; that is, the ends are
> > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > defined (as is all the middle). If the ends are already
> > > > > > > > > > > defined, then
> > > > > > > > > > > the universe is, most definitely teleological, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > stumbling block
> > > > > > > > > > > (of no teleology) crumbles into dust before the weight of
> > > > > > > > > > > one stone
> > > > > > > > > > > (Einstein).
> > > > > > > > > > > My main point was that it should be obvious that some
> > > > > > > > > > > absolute
> > > > > > > > > > > truths exist. Some of these may not be particularly
> > > > > > > > > > > useful until one
> > > > > > > > > > > extends them. Einstein looked for truth and found
> > > > > > > > > > > special (and
> > > > > > > > > > > general) relativity. Absolute truths are, usually,
> > > > > > > > > > > things like
> > > > > > > > > > > physical constants. But it is how those truths work
> > > > > > > > > > > together and
> > > > > > > > > > > allow for the relativity in between that muddies the
> > > > > > > > > > > water and makes
> > > > > > > > > > > the absolutes seem less important or obscure.- Hide
> > > > > > > > > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
