On 14 Sep, 11:49, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Now not that I wish this to get bogged down in semantics, but I can't
> help but think that the word potential implies time.
>
> So without time pre-existant before the start of the univeres there
> can't really be any potential, can there?
>
> Unless you are considering brane theory perhaps?
>
Energy exists. Energy can exist in a state of potential. This has
nothing, in particular, to do with time or time passing. Time, as a
dimension, can exist without any movement through it just as,
geometrically, 2-D shapes can occur in a 3-D world without utilising
the third dimension.
> On 14 Sep, 11:18, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 Sep, 11:13, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hey Pat,
>
> > > I'm having a bit of a problem with postulate 1.
>
> > > 'Postulate 1) The universe, as we know it today and including
> > > all that has come before, must have been, at some point, potentially
> > > possible.'
>
> > > At which point are we talking about, if time did not start before the
> > > universe did?
>
> > Even if that point was 5 seconds ago, the universe, as it is today
> > was, at least, at THAT point, potentially possible. That potentiality
> > can, then, be extended as far back as possible. Remember that, prior
> > to time commencing, all things were potential, including time and its
> > passing.- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
