Newsgroup sci.philosophy.tech 20629

Directory

In short infinity is not the continuation of something for ever, but
the point just past the edge of human comprehension. 

In article <323fe3e7.151253901@news.esinet.net>, shack@esinet.net (Shack Toms) 
writes:
>You may have heard it said that God is the author of creation.
>
>Certainly an author is omnipotent with respect to the world of
>his book.
>
>Now, can an author write about a mountain that the author cannot
>climb over?   It is a meaningless concept, since the author does
>not stand in relation to the world of the book in such a way that
>climbing is meaningful.
>
>Shack
Just how far do you want to press this analogy? After all, an
author who writes a work of fiction knows that the people in the
book don't exist, that the events never happened. There is no
'world' between the covers of the book in which the characters
are acting out the plot, too stupid to realize that they don't
really exist. THAT is the key element in the relationship between
an author and his/her work, and that is why your analogy fails.
- Chloe

shack@esinet.net (Shack Toms) wrote:
>api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
>>a) The existance of an almighty God, even though the concept of an omnipotent
>>   or omniscient being is a contradiction.  (Can God build a mountain that
>>   he cannot climb over?)
>You may have heard it said that God is the author of creation.
>Certainly an author is omnipotent with respect to the world of
>his book.
>Now, can an author write about a mountain that the author cannot
>climb over?   It is a meaningless concept, since the author does
>not stand in relation to the world of the book in such a way that
>climbing is meaningful.
>Shack
Salient point.
			-Morty

Alan McConkie (mcconkie@teleport.com) did us the pleasure of writing
his article  for
us:
: In article <51lj2l$7i7@elna.ethz.ch>, schmid@isi.ee.ethz.ch (Hanspeter
: Schmid) wrote:
: 
: > 
: ....
: > I think you know what science is about.  I think your opinion is a
: > good one.  I just think you don't know that the meaning of a message
: > is never what the writer intends, but always what the reader
: > understands. 
: >  
: > 
: > Cheerio, Hanspeter
: > -- 
: > -===-=-====-=-===== Hanspeter == Schmid =====-=== hobby-musician classical-
: >  Hanspeter Schmid       Switzerland    | I'm generally having a good time.
: >  Signal and Information Processing Lab |        And what about you?
: >     ETH Zurich   schmid@isi.ee.ethz.ch |           Have one too.
: > -===-=-====-=-===== orienteering runner ===== pan-flute trombone =========-
: 
: Soooooo, once again you think I wouldn't see your hidden message there,
: eh? Thought I wasn't watching, eh? Attacking me and my family again, eh?
: May the devil strike you down, may the pox invade your boxer shorts, andy
: may you rot forever in the depths of hell without a magnetic declincation
: to get you out!
: 
: Alan, eh?
What do you want to say with that?  I don't even know you!
Hanspeter
-- 
-===-=-====-=-===== Hanspeter == Schmid =====-=== hobby-musician classical-
 Hanspeter Schmid       Switzerland    | I'm generally having a good time.
 Signal and Information Processing Lab |        And what about you?
    ETH Zurich   schmid@isi.ee.ethz.ch |           Have one too.
-===-=-====-=-===== orienteering runner ===== pan-flute trombone =========-

In article Jan Sand  wrote:
>
>In article Gregory  Dandulakis  wrote:
...
>##The point of the analogy is that the universe is a four dimensional
>##object and there is no location on the object where the object does
>##not exist. "After" is a direction in time, just as "north" is a
>##direction on the surface of the Earth. Away from the surface, there is
>##no direction of that sort.
>#
>#
>#And this 4-D object does not have to be a "sphere", with a "north
>#pole".   By arbitrary analogy, it can be "an infinite string of beads",
>#all in contact in a row.  In that case, what is "north of the north
>#pole" on a bead would be the south pole of the next bead!:-)
>#
>#All these models satisfy the big-bang singularity.  What can circumvent
>#the singularity and pick up one of those models only?  The change of the
>#model and the disappearance of the singularity at its neighborhood, if
>#possible theoretically and necessary from the experimental evidence
>#(in this case GR and QM fusion).
>
>
>Fine. If this is an expanding universe, do the beads get bigger as
>time progresses? What exists after the last bead?
The world-view of GR is a static one.  All past and present is prede-
termined and rigidly mapped on this 4-D "solid".  What is the time
direction in the above scheme is the "north to south" direction.
The beads are "eternal solids".  Their contact points are big-bangs
in contact with big-crunches.  The game can go on for "ever", hopping
from bead to bead.  The only snag is that after each one of the beads
contact point, the new bead comes up like a "baby baptized in the Si-
loam tube".  It is "free of sin".  Or more precisely, all information
from the previous bead is chocked and never passes to the next bead.
Gregory