From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 16:52:13 MDT
[Jonathan Davis]
I think Rhino did a good job there:
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28497
<begin quote rhinoceros 1>
In the core of this line of reasoning we find the same old "paradox": Neither a spacially) infinite universe nor a (spacially) finite universe is acceptable by our perception and our logic. If the universe is finite, what if we take one more step. If time has a beginning, what was there one minute before? And still, how can we accept infinity in the light of logical arguments such as the one for the impossibility of infinite causal regress?
<end quote rhinoceros 1>
[rhinoceros]
Since I was quoted here, I should point out that this first snip of my post contained only my questions. My answers were in the missing part following the snip.
In short, i was pointing out that according to our most satisfactory scientific models:
1. Space and time are inseparably associated with the presence of matter (general theory of relativity) and
2. the laws of nature which we know regarding space-time and causality do not apply under extreme conditions, such as in black holes. They didn't apply at the early stages of the big bang either. They were created there, along with all forms of matter, space, and *time*.
So, asking what was there before the big bang or using a logical argument saying that the "universe is (or is not) infinite in time" seems to be meaningless. The universe is not "in time". Time, as well as space, are properties of the universe we currently live in and of all the matter it contains, as projected to us through our evolved perception of the world.
[Jonathan Davis]
<begin quote rhinoceros 2>
What can we do then? We can make any conjectures we want. Our imagination is the limit. If our conjectures have any practical implications they can be tested and possibly made into a falsifiable scientific theory. If not, we can keep them and talk about them if it pleases us or helps us keep our thoughts together, or we can just use Occam's razor to discard them.
<end quote rhinoceros 2>
[rhinoceros]
This second snip which Jonathan quoted followed after my answers to the first one, and was dealing with how we can reconcile our perception with what our more successful scientific models tell us.
[Jonathan Davies]
Are those who chose to use their imaginations to populate the non-before "Big Bang" with a God or "blanket entity" any less rational then those who choose not to do so at all?
[rhinoceros]
I think that yes, they are less rational. I wouldn't hold it agains them, though. The theories and models which science provides are very technical, and I wouldn't be too quick to subtract rationality points for lack of education.
On the other hand they might find me less than rational too, and they could even have a point if my kind of rationality wouldn't help me survive in their environment.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29183> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 16:52:28 MDT