 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>
>Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years.
>Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into
>one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the
>first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.
Congratulations, you've solved the mystery of the sudden inflation.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:56:02 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>I think the watchmaker argument and the clockmaker argument are different.
>
>Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God exists
>to design it.
>
>Clockmaker: God started the universe, wound it up like a clock, and now it
>just ticks along with no further need for attention from the clockmaker.
>
>As I understand it...
Right! fair enough. I've only read about that in fiction. I thought that Jim had
made a simple mistake.
Makes It even more unworthy of worship.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11 Jul 2009 12:01:07 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Well, assuming it were true, I would agree that worship would be
>inappropriate, but marvel/honour of someone who created something that
>complex?
Marvel, yes.
>Some people honour those who create things that demonstrate a
>high degree of knowledge or experience, so why not?
I suppose it depends on the meaning of honour. You can honour elders for their
age and wisdom which is a good thing, mostly but I would not honour someone like
Hussein or Hitler if they had reached an old age. Except maybe out of fear. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation,
Or, to clarify with an example:
Cheating: I get $100, costing you $200.
Government: I fine you more than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it.
Religion: I reward you with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't
worth it.
The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own little
island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years.
>> Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into
>> one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the
>> first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.
>
> Congratulations, you've solved the mystery of the sudden inflation.
Actually, I suspect I have it backwards, tho. Time goes slower inside the
monoblock for observers outside the monoblock. I'm not sure it goes the
other way around, tho. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:38:23 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years.
>>> Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into
>>> one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the
>>> first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.
>>
>> Congratulations, you've solved the mystery of the sudden inflation.
>
>Actually, I suspect I have it backwards, tho. Time goes slower inside the
>monoblock for observers outside the monoblock. I'm not sure it goes the
>other way around, tho. :-)
While we are inside the universe now what would the situation be if we were here
then? I hope that is not as stupid as it sounds talking about viewing the
universe from outside but I cannot visualise it any other way. Actually I know
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:37:23 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Darren New wrote:
>> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation,
>
>Or, to clarify with an example:
>
>Cheating: I get $100, costing you $200.
>Government: I fine you more than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it.
>Religion: I reward you with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't
>worth it.
>
>The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own little
>island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)
You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!" :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!" :-)
Yes, but I think that came later. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:52:29 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!" :-)
>
>Yes, but I think that came later. :-)
Yes, you SINNER, it will come later! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> God created x, y, and z.
>
> Um, OK. I think an awful lot of religious nuts think God is actively
> intervening, tho.
Oh, yes, I would agree with this....
> I had another thought, tho... People say "the universe was created,
> and thus needs a creator." But what makes people think the universe
> hasn't been around forever?
Personally, I think it's because some people can't wrap their minds
around that - so rather than try to (or accept that they can't), they
created/believe in a "mythology" as a way of explaining the inexplicable.
> Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our*
> years. Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire
> universe into one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity
> field, so maybe the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.
That makes sense to me....but at the same time, I can also see the point
of view that says "God created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days" - if a
day isn't a solar Earth day but measured on a larger timescale. I don't
personally think the universe was "created", but I can see that as a
possible reading of Genesis.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
