infinite, eternal universe

"Immature" is a remark about the person, not the idea. Let's keep it above the belt.

My view of the discussion is that agreement about scientific points is not possible at this stage. However, both sides may have some interest in learning how to communicate with one another. Assuming that is the case, I suggest a few exchanges about what each side expects from the other, and why.

Unfortunately, I'm at a conference this weekend, and can't initiate that process until late Monday or so. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My view of the discussion is that agreement about scientific points is not possible at this stage.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would have to disagree here. This is really only a discussion about the basics (The foundational bedrock = 0 and 1 in the context of infinity). We need only agree on the relationships.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I suggest a few exchanges about what each side expects from the other, and why.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fair enough. I expect the other side to accept that there is only one alternative to the relationships of zero, one, and infinity, and that only alternative has a beginning. That the universe is not a physical entity, but a conceptual one, played out as a geometric embodiment of the concept. That the universe is consistent with the rules of math. Here is what I consider to be a flawless 2D geometric representation of the relationships of zero, one, and infinity. There is no other way that I can think of to begin, and still maintain the relationships.
home.att.net/~jrabno9/min
Thus - A statement such as this is true.
"One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Skarp]

C1) ... there is only one alternative to the relationships of zero, one, and infinity, and that only alternative has a beginning.

C2) ... the universe is not a physical entity, but a conceptual one, played out as a geometric embodiment of the concept.

C3) ... the universe is consistent with the rules of math.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">




So. You expect us to just accept these things. Why?


R1) We've already dealt with the Big Bang and other forms of creationism.

(They are non-starters.)

R2) And with Solipsism, QM and similar notions.

(They are also non-starters.)

R3) The universe is *not* consistent with the rules of math.

(To the physicist math is one reasonably useful tool among many others. We have found a few things in math that can be used to help us describe and even predict certain limited aspects of our universe. But there are many more things that can be done with math that can't be done in reality. That's really too bad - seriously - but it is the way the universe is. Deal with it.)


So, for our part I guess we expect you to provide some sort of evidence that we have made a mistake in rejecting these ideas. Something a little more substantial than just saying C1, C2 and C3 above and then acting surprised when we respond with "Huh?".

Assemble your fecees, dude.

larry

i just find the replies from skarp to robotic,(same answer over and over)it seems it will never change,i still wonder whether he truly understands it himself.

he has no desire to discuss,sounds rather dictatorial to me.

Hi Skarp,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My view of the discussion is that agreement about scientific points is not possible at this stage.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would have to disagree here. This is really only a discussion about the basics (The foundational bedrock = 0 and 1 in the context of infinity). We need only agree on the relationships.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I suggest a few exchanges about what each side expects from the other, and why.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fair enough. I expect the other side to accept that there is only one alternative to the relationships of zero, one, and infinity, and that only alternative has a beginning. That the universe is not a physical entity, but a conceptual one, played out as a geometric embodiment of the concept. That the universe is consistent with the rules of math. Here is what I consider to be a flawless 2D geometric representation of the relationships of zero, one, and infinity. There is no other way that I can think of to begin, and still maintain the relationships.
home.att.net/~jrabno9/min
Thus - A statement such as this is true.
"One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist."

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


How does an arbitary entity create "stuff" when it is in a state of non-existence? I don't expect you to answer this to my satisfaction, but try to explain anyway.

Cheers,
Jan

[North] " ...I just find the replies from Skarp to robotic ... "

Yep. That's why I agreed with you the other day that he was a lot like our spambot visitor. But there are a few things he does that keep me from deciding that he is.

Let me put it this way. If he *is* a program, he is a very sophisticated one. Unless there is a large human-intervention-component.



[North] "I still wonder whether he truly understands it himself."

I seriously doubt that he BELIEVES any of the stuff he says. No one that can read and write like he does is that dumb.

No, his goal is something other than transmitting and/or receiving knowledge in the sense that we usually do. No idea what it might be that he really wants, though.