Both Big Bang and Genesis are WRONG...

[THoR]

How was the Universe created? When did it begin?

 

Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so historically it has been presumed by default that the physical presence of the cosmos began with an instance of 'creation'.

 

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material manifestation of the cosmos. Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either version of creation would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

 

Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy by declaring that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course when the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded, so can others - without limit.

 

The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect - the product of creation.

 

Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is simply and conclusively contrary to logic.

 

Common Sense

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The term "metaphysical thesis" as used on your linked page immediately sets an alarm flag.

 

Shall this go to Psuedoscience and Metaphysics, then?

[THoR]

The term "metaphysical thesis" as used on your linked page immediately sets an alarm flag.

 

Shall this go to Psuedoscience and Metaphysics' date=' then?[/quote']

Actually the premise as stated here stands up as a suitable logical observation. The metaphysical solution posed in the website reference is fodder for the pseudoscience section, but I'm looking for a response from a bona fide egghead that refutes the conclusion which arises from that observation.

[Martin]

Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. ...

 

 

you need to catch up on what contemporary cosmologists are actually saying

 

stay away from popularized accounts with a lot of verbal imagery and look at some actual models

 

like this recent paper of Ashtekar

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602086

Quantum Nature of the Big Bang

 

Abhay Ashtekar' date=' Tomasz Pawlowski, Parampreet Singh

4 Pages, 2 Figures

"Some long standing issues concerning the quantum nature of the big bang are resolved in the context of homogeneous isotropic models with a scalar field. Specifically, the known results on the resolution of the big bang singularity in loop quantum gravity are significantly extended as follows: i) the scalar field is shown to serve as an internal clock, thereby providing a detailed realization of the `emergent time' idea; ii) the physical Hilbert space, Dirac observables and semi-classical states are constructed rigorously; iii) the Hamiltonian constraint is solved numerically to show that the big bang is replaced by a big bounce. Thanks to the non-perturbative, background independent methods, unlike in other approaches the quantum evolution is deterministic across the deep Planck regime."

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604013

[b']Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: An Analytical and Numerical Investigation I[/b]

Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski, Parampreet Singh

59 pages, 19 figures

 

"Analytical and numerical methods are developed to analyze the quantum nature of the big bang in the setting of loop quantum cosmology. They enable one to explore the effects of quantum geometry both on the gravitational and matter sectors and significantly extend the known results on the resolution of the big bang singularity. Specifically, the following results are established for the homogeneous isotropic model with a massless scalar field: i) the scalar field is shown to serve as an internal clock, thereby providing a detailed realization of the `emergent time' idea; ii) the physical Hilbert space, Dirac observables and semi-classical states are constructed rigorously; iii) the Hamiltonian constraint is solved numerically to show that the big bang is replaced by a big bounce. Thanks to the non-perturbative, background independent methods, unlike in other approaches the quantum evolution is deterministic across the deep Planck regime. Our constructions also provide a conceptual framework and technical tools which can be used in more general models. In this sense, they provide foundations for analyzing physical issues associated with the Planck regime of loop quantum cosmology as a whole."

 

you give the impression of not knowing what you are talking about

 

Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context' date=' to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is simply and conclusively contrary to logic.

[/quote']

 

In quantum contemporary (post 2001) quantum cosmology what used to be called the Big Bang-----the start of expansion----is nothing resembling "creation" since it is just the continuation of the quantum mechanical model, which makes a transition between a contracting phase and an expanding phase.

 

this will have to be tested observationally just as the models used by cosmologists have been being tested all along by observations.

one of Ashtekar's co-authors is a specialist in the testing aspect, what to look for to prove or disprove the model.

 

the models are not BELIEVED because that's not what scientists do, they TEST. This quantum cosmology model that Ashtekar is talking about is being taken increasingly seriously by cosmologists.

 

So check it out and get an idea of where the field is actually going.

[Martin]

The term "metaphysical thesis" as used on your linked page immediately sets an alarm flag.

 

Shall this go to Psuedoscience and Metaphysics' date=' then?[/quote']

 

It should go somewhere, or simply be erased. The author does not accurately present what scientists are discussing, on the science side.

I don't know if he accurately presents what theologians say, on the religion side.

 

If he PRETENDS to be addressing what science and religion actually have to say, but in fact does NOT accurately present the issues, then of course it is just baloney.

 

that is for you as moderator to decide, Cap'n

[Martin]

actually you know Cap'n, the name of the thread is a true statement

Genesis is clearly absurd mythology (altho I like the poetry)

so it is clearly wrong if the people who wrote it ever intended it to be taken seriously (which I'm not sure)

 

but also the conventional "Big Bang" idea is wrong

a "singularity" was never intended to be imagined as a physical thing, it the meaning of the word is where a model breaks and fails to compute---or gives meaningless answers

 

the classical Bang singularity is SIMPLY A LIMIT ON THE APPLICABILITY of the old 1915 General Relativity.

 

it does not mean anything physical to say that the world began with something we cant compute with our model----it means something about the (old 1915) model: that it failed and blew up if pushed to that point.

 

saying singularity DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NATURE OR REALITY

it just tells you about the limitations of the model we happened to be using for most of the 20th.

 

NOW THERE IS A NEW MODEL (since 2001) and it DOES NOT HAVE A SINGULARITY which is par for the course, that is why one constructs an improved model because one wants to get rid of flaws and breakdowns and glitches, i.e. get rid of singularities.

 

the new model works better and it REPRODUCES THE SAME RESULTS AS THE OLD MODEL once you get well clear of the place where the old one broke.

 

==================

OK, so we can say that Thor, when he says "Big Bang" means the singularity and the babble and baloney that people used to talk about the fact that Gen Rel broke down there. and he says that is WRONG

 

OK if that is what he means that is very clear and scientific

 

BOTH GENESIS AND THE BALONEY PEOPLE USED TO TALK ABOUT THE "BIG BANG SINGULARITY" as if it were a physical thing instead of a limit of the model BOTH genesis and "big bang" are obviously wrong.

 

And they both should be replaced by the best that contemporary theorists can come up with and whatever passes rigorous empirical tests

(Roy Maartens at Portsmouth UK is someone to ask about testing, it is a specialty of his, likewise Parampreet Singh. It ain't easy but it will have to be done.)

 

Anyway, if the message of this thread is simply

"Both Big Bang and Genesis are WRONG..."

then yeah, that is right-----you wouldnt have to move that to Speculation forum because it is not speculation it is plain obvious.

 

On the other hand the guy's writing style sounds loony.

 

So it's a puzzle. If it was up to me I don't know what I'd decide.

[aguy2]

actually you know Cap'n' date=' the name of the thread is a true statement

Genesis is clearly absurd mythology (altho I like the poetry)

[/quote']

 

Would Gen.1:1 make more sense if where interpreted as, "Within a thing called 'the beginning' God created a thing called 'the heaven' and a thing called 'the earth'."?

 

Would 'time' make more sense to us if it were seen as the 2nd and not the 4th dimension?

aguy2

[bascule]

Causation can come about in one of three ways:

 

• First cause - Causality has an origin before which it did not exist... a singularity, God, or what have you
  
• Infinite regression - Now has arrived as the result of infinite causation, i.e. "turtles all the way down"
  
• Cyclical/oscillating causation - Time is a loop!
  

 

Yup...

[Severian]

H

Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context' date=' to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is simply and conclusively contrary to logic.

 

Strangely enough, I think I agree with you, at least on a scientific basis, but not quite in the way you mean.

 

Both a theistic creation and the big bang as creation are essentially untestable scientifically. The theistic creation is obviously untestable. The big bang creation event is also untestable because one cannot probe a singularity. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it is meaningless to ask if there was a big bang singularity. (Of course, one can still ask what happened at t+1 billionth of a second, but this is a different question.)

[the tree]

As the big bang theory can make testable predictions (like red-shift), it can be accepted as a sufficiently accurate mode: whether or not it is actually fact doesn't drastically change that.

[THoR]

you need to catch up on what contemporary cosmologists are actually saying

 

stay away from popularized accounts with a lot of verbal imagery and look at some actual models

 

like this recent paper of Ashtekar

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602086

Quantum Nature of the Big Bang

 

Abhay Ashtekar' date=' Tomasz Pawlowski, Parampreet Singh

4 Pages, 2 Figures

"Some long standing issues concerning the quantum nature of the big bang are resolved in the context of homogeneous isotropic models with a scalar field. Specifically, the known results on the resolution of the big bang singularity in loop quantum gravity are significantly extended as follows: i) the scalar field is shown to serve as an internal clock, thereby providing a detailed realization of the `emergent time' idea; ii) the physical Hilbert space, Dirac observables and semi-classical states are constructed rigorously; iii) the Hamiltonian constraint is solved numerically to show that the big bang is replaced by a big bounce. Thanks to the non-perturbative, background independent methods, unlike in other approaches the quantum evolution is deterministic across the deep Planck regime."

[/quote']IMPRESSIVE VERBIAGE....

Yes, I'm aware SOME of the scholarly community (and they seem to be vastly in the minority so don't ride your high-horse too far from home) seem to think Big Bang is a cyclical event. In which case they have abandoned the effort to explain the phenomenon of existence entirely - which is the crux of the matter. I call it GARBIAGE because these myopic bean counters seem to have come up with the absurd notion that the Universe is a finite (yeah I know there's even more verbiage saying it is not finite...but that it really is) platform which can be bent, broken and tied in a knot. Whether it is open, closed or shaped like a bagel, there is no point in the universe at which the distance between two objects cannot be increased - this means INFINITE...regardless what eggheads with alphabet soup after their names claim in their esoteric lingo. And IF there is to be a big crunch, such a point WOULD exist.

you give the impression of not knowing what you are talking about

You give the impression of not having read (or understood) the premise.

 

In quantum contemporary (post 2001) quantum cosmology what used to be called the Big Bang-----the start of expansion----is nothing resembling "creation" since it is just the continuation of the quantum mechanical model, which makes a transition between a contracting phase and an expanding phase.

 

this will have to be tested observationally just as the models used by cosmologists have been being tested all along by observations.

one of Ashtekar's co-authors is a specialist in the testing aspect, what to look for to prove or disprove the model.

 

the models are not BELIEVED because that's not what scientists do, they TEST. This quantum cosmology model that Ashtekar is talking about is being taken increasingly seriously by cosmologists.

 

So check it out and get an idea of where the field is actually going.

Unless you can get to the point of infinity, there IS no way to test the model which would include the possibility of 'infinity'. Infinity is undefined and just to try to define it sways the perspective back to the 'finite'. In any case, the premise is that ANY theory of 'creation' is illogical. Change is a function of existence, not the reverse. You can have changeless existence, but not existenceless change.

[The Peon]

Thanks for the info Martin, I have just been updated and fully enlightened to some viewpoints I was not aware of! Sorry for the kudos spam post but I couldnt resist.

[Klaynos]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...

 

Well tbh I think you're theory is wrong and that the only true theory of origin, is the one belived by alot of Nigerian people that the universe was created from the excrement of ants...

 

Seriousely though surely this should be in metaphysics?

[CanadaAotS]

but also the conventional "Big Bang" idea is wrong

a "singularity" was never intended to be imagined as a physical thing' date=' it the meaning of the word is where a model breaks and fails to compute---or gives meaningless answers.[/quote']

 

Think of it as getting undefined when doing math homework

[THoR]

actually you know Cap'n' date=' the name of the thread is a true statement

Genesis is clearly absurd mythology (altho I like the poetry)

so it is clearly wrong if the people who wrote it ever intended it to be taken seriously (which I'm not sure)

 

but also the conventional "Big Bang" idea is wrong

a "singularity" was never intended to be imagined as a physical thing, it the meaning of the word is where a model breaks and fails to compute---or gives meaningless answers

 

the classical Bang singularity is SIMPLY A LIMIT ON THE APPLICABILITY of the old 1915 General Relativity.

 

it does not mean anything physical to say that the world began with something we cant compute with our model----it means something about the (old 1915) model: that it failed and blew up if pushed to that point.

 

saying singularity DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NATURE OR REALITY

it just tells you about the limitations of the model we happened to be using for most of the 20th.

 

NOW THERE IS A NEW MODEL (since 2001) and it DOES NOT HAVE A SINGULARITY which is par for the course, that is why one constructs an improved model because one wants to get rid of flaws and breakdowns and glitches, i.e. get rid of singularities.

 

the new model works better and it REPRODUCES THE SAME RESULTS AS THE OLD MODEL once you get well clear of the place where the old one broke.

 

==================

OK, so we can say that Thor, when he says "Big Bang" means the singularity and the babble and baloney that people used to talk about the fact that Gen Rel broke down there. and he says that is WRONG

 

OK if that is what he means that is very clear and scientific

 

BOTH GENESIS AND THE BALONEY PEOPLE USED TO TALK ABOUT THE "BIG BANG SINGULARITY" as if it were a physical thing instead of a limit of the model BOTH genesis and "big bang" are obviously wrong.

 

And they both should be replaced by the best that contemporary theorists can come up with and whatever passes rigorous empirical tests

(Roy Maartens at Portsmouth UK is someone to ask about testing, it is a specialty of his, likewise Parampreet Singh. It ain't easy but it will have to be done.)

 

Anyway, if the message of this thread is simply

"[b']Both Big Bang and Genesis are WRONG...[/b]"

then yeah, that is right-----you wouldnt have to move that to Speculation forum because it is not speculation it is plain obvious.

 

On the other hand the guy's writing style sounds loony.

 

So it's a puzzle. If it was up to me I don't know what I'd decide.

 

Actually your post is appreciated and in consideration I have changed the paragraph accordingly.

 

"The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material manifestation of the cosmos. Some contemporary astronomers have espoused a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. Others do not address the phenomenon of existence at all. Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth."

[Martin]

... Some contemporary astronomers have espoused a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. Others do not address the phenomenon of existence at all. [/b']Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth."

 

I see. Thanks for responding.

I think this will make the decision clearer about where the thread belongs.

 

Science is not normally expected to "address the phenomenon of existence"

 

It is supposed to arrive at testable models of how the nature works----including how the universe works.

 

So you see scientists investigating what process may have led up to the big bang (the start of expansion)

 

And if you look in Ashtekar paper you see diagrams of the immediately preceding contraction.

 

Science can also try to figure out what the rules are ----why the numbers are what they are----what the intrinsic limits on the system are, if any, for it to work.

 

But you never see scientists "address the phenom. of existence" (at least while acting as scientists, they may also believe in buddha, odin, Shiva Brahma, Jehovah and address the phenom. of existence on their own time)

 

I know of a good cosmologist who is a Quaker and thinks we should model our lives on the example and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. People are complex and inconsistent, which is all right.

 

IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE PHENOMENON OF EXISTENCE IN THIS THREAD THEN obviously the thread should be moved to some philosophy or religious forum. you are then MAKING NO PRETENSE OF TALKING SCIENCE and there are places at SFN to put non-science discussions.

 

That is why I say it makes the decision easier, Thor.

 

If you do not want to address this non-scientific question----and all you want to do is to say why the Big Bang model is wrong and why Genesis is obvious fiction and why it would be unphysical for things to begin with a singularity or glitch in some human constructed 20th century model. If that is all, then it might be interesting to see how it goes if

the mods leave the thread in Cosmology forum.

 

My intuitive feeling about you is that you DO want to address the phenom of exist. The ultimat question of why it is there at all (not how it works and what the rules are). In that case personally I'd say out you go. But that is for the management to determine. Good luck. Be happy in whatever situation:-)

 

===============

 

To everybody who joined in THANKS FOR THE fun multifaceted pick-up discussion.

 

the tree in my opinion you made a good point

 

thanks Severian, Peon, Bascule, aguy

 

Canada that was brilliant---- singularity is like Gen Rel getting stuck on a math homework problem

 

Klaynos the Nigerian story is wonderful!

My personal favorit is the Hindu theory that shiva was floating fast asleep on an infinite ocean when a lotus grew out of his navel---and then it goes on from there

they manage to provide a universe out of that without using ant excrement

[aguy2]

Change is a function of existence, not the reverse. You can have changeless existence, but not existenceless change.

 

ThoR,

I would contend that your conclusion that 'change' is a function of 'existence' is substantively incorrect.

 

I would contend that if a 1 dimensional condition is going to 'change' into a multi-dimensional condition, 'time' would have to be of necessity the 2nd dimension. Thus the only possible 'changless existence' would be 1 dimensional in nature, and we are not observing any 1 dimensional existences.

 

IOW I am contending that 'processes of change' take precedence over the 'thingy-bobs' that are sometimes evident within the processes.

 

aguy2

[THoR]

I see. Thanks for responding.

I think this will make the decision clearer about where the thread belongs.

 

Science is not normally expected to "address the phenomenon of existence"

 

It is supposed to arrive at testable models of how the nature works----including how the universe works.

 

So you see scientists investigating what process may have led up to the big bang (the start of expansion)

 

And if you look in Ashtekar paper you see diagrams of the immediately preceding contraction.

 

Science can also try to figure out what the rules are ----why the numbers are what they are----what the intrinsic limits on the system are' date=' if any, for it to work.

 

But you never see scientists "address the phenom. of existence" (at least while acting as scientists, they may also believe in buddha, odin, Shiva Brahma, Jehovah and address the phenom. of existence on their own time)

Perhaps I have overreacted to the recent airing of Carl Sagan's series. Indeed every time I hear an 'authoritative' icon talk about the 'beginning of time' or the 'creation of the Universe' it has the same effect on my nerves as fingernails on a chalk board.

I know of a good cosmologist who is a Quaker and thinks we should model our lives on the example and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. People are complex and inconsistent, which is all right.

 

IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE PHENOMENON OF EXISTENCE IN THIS THREAD THEN obviously the thread should be moved to some philosophy or religious forum. you are then MAKING NO PRETENSE OF TALKING SCIENCE and there are places at SFN to put non-science discussions.

 

That is why I say it makes the decision easier, Thor.

 

If you do not want to address this non-scientific question----and all you want to do is to say why the Big Bang model is wrong and why Genesis is obvious fiction and why it would be unphysical for things to begin with a singularity or glitch in some human constructed 20th century model. If that is all, then it might be interesting to see how it goes if

the mods leave the thread in Cosmology forum.

 

My intuitive feeling about you is that you DO want to address the phenom of exist. The ultimat question of why it is there at all (not how it works and what the rules are). In that case personally I'd say out you go. But that is for the management to determine. Good luck. Be happy in whatever situation:-)

 

Actually what I am sneaking up on is an expansion of Newton's third law. It is probable that the phenomenon of existence is explained by a principle - a natural law (Newton-III) rather than a process. If such is the case then for so long as the brainpool is focused on a process, the progress of knowledge will be retarded.

 

Indeed, just to consider that a fundamental particle may NOT be structureless - that it could be defined by a symmetrical set of equal and opposite properties - might reveal a much simpler (and yet varied) structure of elemental particles.

 

No, I don't have the credentials or the crunched numbers to prove such a theory. I don't have the time and my ability to encode math has long rusted away to the point that all I can do with the idea is put it out there and see if it strikes a chord anywhere.

 

To completely separate physics from metaphysics would rob science of its imagination and intuition.

[aguy2]

ThoR,

No response to post#17?

aguy2

[THoR]

ThoR' date='

No response to post#17?

aguy2[/quote']

Sorry. Didn't mean to ignore you. I thought this discussion had been relegated to the trash heap as pseudoscientific metaphysical tripe of malodorous content.

 

When you analyze it correctly, time is nothing more nor less than the measurement of change. It is not a tangible. It is neither a field nor a fabric. It is simply a measurement. As subject 'X' changes from state #1 to state #2, subject 'Y' changes from state #3 to state #4 or as subject '1' changes from position #A to position #B, subject '2' changes from position #C to position #D. It is simply the comparison of two (or more) sequences of change. It is no different than measuring distance with a ruler, but instead of comparing an unknown length to a standard unit, you are measuring the change occurring within some procedure against the progress of some standard event - like a rotation of the planet or the vibration of a cesium atom.

 

Mathematically it is convenient to consider time as a 'dimension' but other than the physical changes it measures, it has no separate existence or reality of its own

 

PS: The link below is an interesting paper on the role of metaphysics and philosophy in the "SCIENCE?" of Cosmology. But how can that be?

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meta/MetaSuch.htm

[aguy2]

Sorry. Didn't mean to ignore you. I thought this discussion had been relegated to the trash heap as pseudoscientific metaphysical tripe of malodorous content.

 

When you analyze it correctly' date=' time is nothing more nor less than the measurement of change. [/quote']

measurement of change or change?

It is not a tangible.

yet you cannot name anything that is not time-dependent.

It is neither a field nor a fabric.

neither field gray nor denim, yet nonetheless "time rules!"

 

hey thor, i got an idea. lets 'talk about the weather', in the light of 'things' vs. 'processes'. that is if you are feeling froggy?

aguy2

[THoR]

measurement of change or change[/b']?

If 'time' were just change, they'd just call it change. Time is the quantification (measurement) of change.

yet you cannot name anything that is not time-dependent.

Existence does not depend on time, time depends on existence.

neither field gray nor denim, yet nonetheless "time rules!"

There are two basic natural phenomena - 1) existence and 2) change.Their importance seems to be in that order also.

hey thor, i got an idea. lets 'talk about the weather', in the light of 'things' vs. 'processes'. that is if you are feeling froggy?

aguy2

Certainly - you start off....

[gcol]

Thor:

Notwithstanding the opinions of some others, I find your literary style refreshingly vivid and readable.

 

I also like your irreverent and iconoclastic approach.

 

Do you find some sympathy with the statement that "time is a man-made construct for the benefit of present mathematical models, and that construct may be a hindrance to deeper understanding"? Or have I missed your drift.

 

If you are chipping away at the bedrock of standard scientific methodology, I'm afraid you will get the normal knee-jerk responses.

 

Good luck.

[THoR]

Thor:

Notwithstanding the opinions of some others' date=' I find your literary style refreshingly vivid and readable.

I also like your irreverent and iconoclastic approach.

Do you find some sympathy with the statement that "time is a man-made construct for the benefit of present mathematical models, and that construct may be a hindrance to deeper understanding"? Or have I missed your drift.

If you are chipping away at the bedrock of standard scientific methodology, I'm afraid you will get the normal knee-jerk responses.

Good luck.[/quote']

Thank you.

Yes, tipping 'sacred cows' is intellectually challenging, whether they be of the secular or holy variety.

[aguy2]

If 'time' were just change' date=' they'd just call it change. Time is the quantification (measurement) of change.

 

Existence does not depend on time, time depends on existence.

 

There are two basic natural phenomena - 1) existence and 2) change.Their importance seems to be in that order also.

 

Certainly - you start off....[/quote']

Hey THoR, I haven't forgotten about you; its just that I've got a real full plate right now.

aguy2