|
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote..
>RC Macaulay wrote:
> Chris Zell wrote..
>
>
The difference between ESP and intuitive leaps of understanding is
>
simply a matter of degree. Those who denigrate psychic phenomena
>
probably have no problem with the sterotype of a light bulb appearing
>
above their heads, as new concepts simply pop into their minds.
>
>
Chris, thats a stretch. I can accept the intuitative rather than the
>
physic. As I read the various posts on this and IT vs. Darwin etc. I
>
think about one subject often ignored.
>
> TIME
>
> If
we presume time to have a beginning, we place ourselves in a box.
> If we
attempt to conceive time as " eternal" with no ending we in turn
> are
faced with the question.. what if time had NO start.. it is
> eternal..
no beginning. Tryng to grasp a concept of time eternal is
> impossible to
gather into one's focus. It would mean that...
>
> No matter how
much time elapses from this moment on into eternity..
> that measure of
time would NEVER equal the amount of time that has
> passed. This is one
on paradoxes facing the true scientist. The
> paradox is that it is the
one scientific fact that is impossible to
> grasp in its
significance.
>
But according to current theory, time started with the
big bang, some
tens of billions of years ago. Before that it's just
speculation;
nothing is defined. The big bang began with a
singularity, and at that
point the space and time coordinates simply
terminate. The time
coordinate does not extend back past that
point.
So, if you want to remain within the bounds of current scientific
theory, there is no "eternity" looking back. There was a
beginning.
> A proper view of time will open understanding to the
depth of the task
> facing CF research.
>
> Richard
Stephen, I was suggesting we may be stuck in our own matrix of " current
scientific theory" by clinging to the " big bang" which is a theory becoming
increasing more difficult to which to attach logic to it's framework.
Granted , a eternal existance may exceed the boundaries of one's
imagination, however we are " stuck" with the word " time" as a measureable
function just as we are of physical dimensional measurement. My discussions with
many university undergraduates "bare" me out that there is revolution on campus
to take the shroud of secrecy off the science classes and debate the merits
thereof.
My point is that CF research is being hampered and sidetracked by " we vs
them". Pure science is NOT politically correct and never has been, regardless of
the number of thinkers burned at the stake in the name of religion.
Richard
| 
