Creation explained in 6 lines

a reply to: gernblan

In line four, the first constant, (the 1), is just inserted in there.

Sort of.
But not quite. The 1 is the result of refactoring. It was there from the start.

1-1+1 (from line 3) was refactored to 1+(-1+1).

The problem, as has been pointed out, is in refactoring an infinite sum as if it were a finite sum.

It's a trap!
io9.gizmodo.com...

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Xtrozero

I can certainly see where you're coming from
with that. However your period seemed a bit
pretencious in the face of an infinite universe
of possibility. We dare not be so bold, as to
assume we can remove anything from the
table. So to speak and I would argue that from
a familiar pov.

Thank you for your time X

As to HOW life happens there is not really much left on the table, but I agree we do not know everything deal with life, by a long stretch.


The problem is we have a tendency to confuse the HOW with the WHY. As example we constantly see the argument between evolution and God while really not understanding that evolution would be a HOW life is and God would be a WHY life is. A true debate would be matching the ideas of random events and intelligent design where the two are WHYs. Evolution, chemical reactions etc all work quite nicely in either the random events or intelligent design universes, so on one side we can talk about how life works and on the other side we can talk about why is life here, but it all doesn't work very well when we try to match HOWs against WHYs as everyone in the end just gets frustrated...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

Now that is an exellcent point that could stifle
most of the endless debate/bickering. A
great divisive factor? Are we making progress
here you and I.

Redundant argument+divisive factor=no argument?

The image is plucked hairs. The full scalp is the blank canvas. Everything is the normal state of the dynamic universe, 'something' is subtraction from everything, 'something' is not an addition to nothing.