Hi Platt,
Steve: > It would seem that either at some point something came from nothing or > that something was always around. Which do you think it is? Platt: >...So we find ourselves in the land of paradox. > The only way out of this rational cul-de-sac that I know of is for one to > decide which underlying assumption of the many available has the highest > quality. For me, it's that something was always around. In other words, I buy > the scientist's assumption that for every effect there is a cause That at the > beginning of the universe cause and effect suddenly becomes inoperative to > Hawkins and some other cosmologists seems to me to be a grand cop out. Steve: I don't think that Hawkings is saying that cause and effect get suspended at the beginning of the universe alone. The somethings coming from nothings happen all the time on the quantum level according to my understanding of his theoretical view. As far as "the land of paradox," I don't see any answer to questions about the beginning of time as obviously more rational and others as obviously worth laughing at as "oops" theories. Believers often argue that the universe must have a beginning because othgerwise we would have an infinite regress of causes. I suspect that our every day conceptions of time don't work with thinking about time as having a beginning since things like beginnings, befores, and afters presuppose that time already exists. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
