[Mikal]

Austie....a good rendition of the collapse of the false self and then the transformative process of rebuilding and reconstructing of the real self or the inner genuine authenticity of the new individualized, whole and completing real "freedom" self....

smiles Mikal

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat Fredrick, is that poor cat a result of science gone amuck with genetic engineering or just a freak of nature?

Photoshop more likely!

Originally Posted by Profpat Felix, I believe Brian Greene is still a string advocate, though he has always admitted that is an unproven theory.

Yes but he is now advocating a different type of string - as I do.

regards
Felix

[dipayankar]

So Prof, if energy and mass did not have a begining, how can time have a begining? Where does it leave the big bang then?

Originally Posted by Profpat You're corrct Dipayankar. Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted. It indeed may be eternal. No beginning, always there.

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

If it's a cyclic universe the big bang could have a beginning. All mass and energy squished into that little tiny point and then bursting out again starting our relative time. Remember, Eternity is an absolute, and therefore is beyond time, as Infinity is beyond space.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Felix:

i guess it was a real cat born with some type of condition that causes that deformity. More information at Fredricks link underneath the picture.

I'm sorry Felix I checked and rechecked the internet to see where Brian Greene revisited the string loop theory. Everytime I do he affirms it. You'll have to give me a link to support your statement.

Best,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

Dip,

Time had no beginning either, unless there was a stillness to the ether, in which case there was not time since no movement yet.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com Dip, Time had no beginning either, unless there was a stillness to the ether, in which case there was not time since no movement yet.

My four cents (sorry, inflation has been crude lately):


Space only occurred after time had already started.

The set up is simple: the potential state had to create the condition on which materialization could begin. Indisputably, that took up time. Once materialization began, time simply continued.

The conditions of time and space belong first of all to the potential state, but time started ticking within the potential, while materialization belongs to our side of the equation.

Had the condition to create materialization failed, then time would have returned to the original condition again, just like space, of being just potential. Time is therefore more like the potential than space is like the potential; space had to go through quite an alteration, while time only needs to adhere to space where appropriate.

I believe the ancients already agreed upon this and therefore called seconds seconds and not firsts. The first 'second' belongs to the potential state. In ancient Greek mythology, Zeus won the battle with his father Chronos, the person we still honor with our word chronology. Of course, when placing them in an order, a father comes before the son.

[austintorn@aol.com]

True, Fredrick, an alternative to the smallest energy being eternal is for it to have become of potential. I usually oscillate between the two theories and put two cents on each one.

The potential is neither material nor nothing, but a new state of 'being', which I often propose as well as Fundamental Possibility, timeless and formless, trying everything at once to see what gives, (timeless and formless at least as we see time and form on this side of the Wizard's curtain).

We can see the curtain, more or less, but it's hard to see behind the curtain, so don't know if anything was there, but what would be there, I would think, it not just smaller and smaller stuff, or some big complicated mind, but some possibility with workings as unknown as how the quantum realm manufactures material.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com True, Fredrick, an alternative to the smallest energy being eternal is for it to have become of potential. I usually oscillate between the two theories and put two cents on each one.

I like that a lot, too, Austin. But as you and others said, energy already belongs to our side of the universe. Though the potential can still 'shine through' to our side and may have some connection to energy, on our side we really have laws in place that are not identical to the potential state. I would say that matter is bound to more laws than time, but that time is also bound to matter.

I like your way of gambling: you put two cents on each option, and if it is double or nothing, you always get double, and always lose nothing.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat I'm sorry Felix I checked and rechecked the internet to see where Brian Greene revisited the string loop theory. Everytime I do he affirms it. You'll have to give me a link to support your statement.

Hi Pat

Watch Chapter 5 in Hour 3 of 'The Elegant Universe'. BG is trying to explain (fruitlessly IMO) why gravity is so weak. He introduces the concept of strings with fixed ends:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant...3014_r_05.html

regards
Felix