Dark Energy & the Creation Problem

This is OP #3 in a series offering an alternative theory about the beginnings of things, reflecting the ideas in "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul." Prerequisites are threads 1 and 2, where we discussed an alternative creator-concept, and declared that neither Big Bang theory nor an omnipotent God adequately explained the beginnings. The creator-concept thread was mostly ignored, but the objection to conventional theory found some unexpected agreement.

An issue that came up in those threads was, 'where did God come from?' an old theological question traditionally buried in the "always was, always will be" dogma. Facing the same kind of question, cosmologists invented an entire multiverse, a universe full of universes, just to explain the origin of their silly "physical singularity." Does Dr. Caca really believe that no one will wonder about the origin of his absurd multiverse if he makes a point of not allowing intelligent skeptics on his TV pseudo-science shows?

We are required to admit that something must have always existed. This is the fundamental miracle of primeval existence. But how is it that an omnipotent entity with all knowledge might have existed for an infinitely long period of time, then recently (in astronomical terms) decided to construct a universe? And why? Likewise the singularity.

To deal with these problems we hypothesize that whatever entities have taken up the job of universe creation appeared shortly (in astronomical terms) before they undertook that project. They came into existence as the result of some natural process. By "natural," we mean arising from an interaction of at least two non-intelligent things that preceded them.

We will not try to explain an origin for those things because, unlike the inherently complex God/singularity notions they replace, they are irreducibly simple.

Moreover, unlike God or the singularity, each of these things still exists and therefore can be detectable by the methods of science. In fact, about a decade ago science formally announced the surprise detection of one of these things. Not knowing what to do with it, they labeled it "dark energy" and called it "the greatest physics mystery in the 21st century."

Every high school physics student knows that everything in the universe is a form of energy. There are a number of very simple equations (E=mgh, E=1/2mvv, E=mcc, etc) which describe the physical structure of various known forms of energy. These are all time-dependent laws, for the structured energy forms are entirely dynamic, and are interwoven with time as we know it.

Now consider the possibility that energy is a thing in its own right, and might exist in an unstructured form that bears no relationship to time. Imagine that before the structured forms of energy that comprise our universe-- matter, velocity, electric charge, etc.-- energy existed without structure. I originally called this "raw energy" until the astronomers discovered and renamed it.

The behavior of dark energy is described by the three original Laws of Thermodynamics:

1. Everything is a form of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed-- only changed in form.

For example, heat can be converted to motion, which can be converted to electricity, which can be converted to radio waves.

2. Energy can flow in only one direction, from low-entropy states to high-entropy states. (Wikipedia has this concept backward, by the way.) This is a common-knowledge law. It means that rocks do not roll uphill. More importantly, a can of cold beer left out on a warm beach will get warm, and a can of warm beer left in a cold refrigerator will get cold.

3. Every form of energy has a temperature. There is a temperature called "Absolute Zero," about -460 degrees Fahrenheit, below which energy cannot go. The 3rd Law states that we cannot cool a beer, or anything else, down to that temperature.

These three laws describe a time-independent state of energy that applies to dark energy as well. We propose the following:

Following the First Law, dark energy has always existed. It originally existed in a completely amorphous, unstructured form, defining a "space" of its own. There was no differentiation within that space, neither in terms of distance nor time. Its temperature was at absolute zero. It did not change. In other words, the original state of dark energy was irreducibly simple.

(Physicists tried to detect it (as the aether) around the end of the 18th century, but failed. They arrogantly decided that because they could not detect it, it did not exist, and abandoned the search.)

Notice that like the "physical singularity" that allegedly preceded he Big Bang, the original dark-energy space contained all the energy in our universe, and had the potential to become the structured forms that now comprise our universe. However, unlike the singularity, the dark-energy space is mathematically definable and physically verifiable, as science has recently shown.

After dealing with questions and objections, we will use dark energy as one of two building blocks for the creation of the universe as we know it, including the early onset of conscious intelligence.

(Note: the core of this post is copied with permission from the webpage, beon-cpt.com/alt3.htm.)

reply to post by Greylorn

But how is it that an omnipotent entity with all knowledge might have existed for an infinitely long period of time, then recently (in astronomical terms) decided to construct a universe? And why? Likewise the singularity.

How could a Universe have been created if it has always been there?

What did the creator do before he created it?

Why did he wait so long?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Greylorn

 

But how is it that an omnipotent entity with all knowledge might have existed for an infinitely long period of time, then recently (in astronomical terms) decided to construct a universe? And why? Likewise the singularity.

bear in mind that finite time as we know it is only by virtue of our senses.. there's no such thing as an "infinitely long period of time".. if it's infinite it's not a "period", it has no beginning nor end, it simply exists as an "instance"..

How could a Universe have been created if it has always been there?

What did the creator do before he created it?

Why did he wait so long?

he creates.. that's what we does.. to infinity squared.. he doesn't create something, then take a break, then create something else.. he is constantly creating in an endless creation that is only separate from him in our perspective by virtue of our ability to detect his ongoing creation.. he blessed us with the ability to co-create, but if we can't do it responsibly then who knows what might happen?

reply to post by tachyonmind

he creates.. that's what we does.. to infinity squared.. he doesn't create something, then take a break, then create something else.. he is constantly creating in an endless creation that is only separate from him in our perspective by virtue of our ability to detect his ongoing creation.. he

The Universe as we see it today is self perpetuating. If thats what you call endless creation then okay. But it doesn't reflect upon a creator...

except in Genesis, written by people without the benefit of modern telescopes.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

he creates.. that's what we does.. to infinity squared.. he doesn't create something, then take a break, then create something else.. he is constantly creating in an endless creation that is only separate from him in our perspective by virtue of our ability to detect his ongoing creation.. he

The Universe as we see it today is self perpetuating. If thats what you call endless creation then okay. But it doesn't reflect upon a creator...

except in Genesis, written by people without the benefit of modern telescopes.

"creation" is scientifically described as the act or process of bringing something into existence, and this process does not end once that thing is in existence..

the concept of a "creator" is a metaphor for the personification of the intelligence behind the universes interactions, as such, the universe is not so much the reflection of a creator as it is representative of it.. nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

reply to post by tachyonmind

nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

But your definition of endless creation (infinite) negates "in the first place" doesn't it?

For it to always have there it has to be never created "in the first place".

I do believe in creation, but I use life as the boundary. Life is different. That something special apart from inert atoms.

Examples are a seed, an egg, the womb and DNA (or Genetic code ). It is "encoded", right? Whomever did that is / are the creator(s).

Gotta go.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Greylorn

 

But how is it that an omnipotent entity with all knowledge might have existed for an infinitely long period of time, then recently (in astronomical terms) decided to construct a universe? And why? Likewise the singularity.

How could a Universe have been created if it has always been there?

What did the creator do before he created it?

Why did he wait so long?

I advised reading my first two threads in hopes of not getting ignorant questions like this. If that is too much to ask, at least give the OP an honest, careful perusal-- after looking up "peruse." Thank you.

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

he creates.. that's what we does.. to infinity squared.. he doesn't create something, then take a break, then create something else.. he is constantly creating in an endless creation that is only separate from him in our perspective by virtue of our ability to detect his ongoing creation.. he

The Universe as we see it today is self perpetuating. If thats what you call endless creation then okay. But it doesn't reflect upon a creator...

except in Genesis, written by people without the benefit of modern telescopes.

"creation" is scientifically described as the act or process of bringing something into existence, and this process does not end once that thing is in existence..

I was unaware that "creation" has been defined in scientific terms. You'll point out your reference to this new definition, yes?

Engineers create machines. When a suitable machine has been created, e.g. the 1951 Ford, they stop creating it. Some of its creators retire and do not create anything afterward. Thus, creation can and does stop. You appear to be inventing your facts on the fly.

Originally posted by tachyonmind
the concept of a "creator" is a metaphor for the personification of the intelligence behind the universes interactions, as such, the universe is not so much the reflection of a creator as it is representative of it.. nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

I am not using the terms "creator" and "creators" as metaphors in any of my threads and posts. I am referring to specific conscious, intelligent entities or groups thereof. Kindly do not attempt to foist your personal and incompetent linguistic interpretations upon my statements. Thank you.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

he creates.. that's what we does.. to infinity squared.. he doesn't create something, then take a break, then create something else.. he is constantly creating in an endless creation that is only separate from him in our perspective by virtue of our ability to detect his ongoing creation.. he

The Universe as we see it today is self perpetuating. If thats what you call endless creation then okay. But it doesn't reflect upon a creator...

except in Genesis, written by people without the benefit of modern telescopes.

"creation" is scientifically described as the act or process of bringing something into existence, and this process does not end once that thing is in existence..

I was unaware that "creation" has been defined in scientific terms. You'll point out your reference to this new definition, yes?

of course, but it is not new by any means:

cre·a·tion
/krēˈāSHən/

Noun
1. the action or process of bringing something into existence.
"the creation of a coalition government"

2. the bringing into of existence of the universe, esp. when regarded as an act of God.
everything so created; the universe.
"our alienation from the rest of Creation"
synonyms: the world, the universe, the cosmos; More
the living world, the natural world, nature, life, living things
"the whole of creation"

3. the action or process of investing someone with a new rank or title.

Synonyms
making - formation - creature

a dictionary

Engineers create machines. When a suitable machine has been created, e.g. the 1951 Ford, they stop creating it. Some of its creators retire and do not create anything afterward. Thus, creation can and does stop. You appear to be inventing your facts on the fly.

well, these people stop creating cars and machines, but they still create as long as they are alive, and even after that, their body is used in the creation of other things..

Originally posted by tachyonmind
the concept of a "creator" is a metaphor for the personification of the intelligence behind the universes interactions, as such, the universe is not so much the reflection of a creator as it is representative of it.. nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

I am not using the terms "creator" and "creators" as metaphors in any of my threads and posts. I am referring to specific conscious, intelligent entities or groups thereof. Kindly do not attempt to foist your personal and incompetent linguistic interpretations upon my statements. Thank you.

i am doing no such thing my good chum, and i take offense at your implication of an incompetent linguistic understanding.. =)

a specific, conscious, intelligent entity is by definition a metaphor.. a human is a specific, intelligent, conscious entity, but only exists as an abstracted part of a much larger, less definable whole of intelligence.. to take an individual creation or creator as literally separate and whole unto itself, defies the definition..

reply to post by Greylorn

I advised reading my first two threads in hopes of not getting ignorant questions like this. If that is too much to ask, at least give the OP an honest, careful perusal-- after looking up "peruse." Thank you.

Well excuse me professor. I didn't know I was in your "class". Lucky me.

I couldn't read even this one by the, way let alone two others. They are dry so you know. Just addressed one point you made about creation. And you insulted me...

see ya

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

I do believe in creation, but I use life as the boundary. Life is different. That something special apart from inert atoms.

Life as the boundary between--- what, exactly?

A few courses in Atomic Physics will teach you things about the behavior of "inert" atoms that will give you a deeper sense of these mysterious universe-building blocks of wavelike stuff. Personally, I do not think that the conventional interpretations of how atoms get made is adequate. You might find Andrew Hamilton's take on black hole theory interesting, or at least enlightening. After reading it, let me know if you still feel that atoms are "inert."

Originally posted by intrptr
Examples are a seed, an egg, the womb and DNA (or Genetic code ). It is "encoded", right? Whomever did that is / are the creator(s).

Here you have a loose grip on a useful point. Biological life forms are, at much of the microbiological level, machines. The chemicals that comprise these machines behave according to ordinary laws of chemistry. However, there is a powerful bit of evidence for conscious intelligence in the engineering of every living cell. This lies not in the DNA itself, but in the mechanisms that convert DNA segments into proteins.

Getting a little more specific, a Wikipedia study of tRNA (Transfer RNA) discloses the arbitrary nature in which RNA codons are interpreted so as to select specific amino acids. This is where the encoding to which you refer goes to work.

In a subsequent thread I will introduce a detailed essay on this subject written by someone more qualified to do so.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

But your definition of endless creation (infinite) negates "in the first place" doesn't it?

For it to always have there it has to be never created "in the first place".

this might appear to be a paradox, but it isn't.. the definition of creation does not include any specific "time frame", it is only when a part of it is abstracted that we have a frame of reference of creation..

I do believe in creation, but I use life as the boundary. Life is different. That something special apart from inert atoms.

Examples are a seed, an egg, the womb and DNA (or Genetic code ). It is "encoded", right? Whomever did that is / are the creator(s).

Gotta go.

i certainly hope you do believe in creation, (although definitely not creationism), as there is no other way of anything existing..

examples like a seed, egg, womb or dna, are all specific examples of creation creating creations.. i wouldn't use the term "encoded" to describe the nature of it though.. it is not the conversion of creation into coded form that guides it, it is only how we measure it.. you could say we encode pieces the process, in order to model and study it, but it is itself not a stationary set of information conditions, it is continuously evolving..

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

I do believe in creation, but I use life as the boundary. Life is different. That something special apart from inert atoms.

Life as the boundary between--- what, exactly?

A few courses in Atomic Physics will teach you things about the behavior of "inert" atoms that will give you a deeper sense of these mysterious universe-building blocks of wavelike stuff. Personally, I do not think that the conventional interpretations of how atoms get made is adequate. You might find Andrew Hamilton's take on black hole theory interesting, or at least enlightening. After reading it, let me know if you still feel that atoms are "inert."

definitely +1 on this!

Originally posted by intrptr
Examples are a seed, an egg, the womb and DNA (or Genetic code ). It is "encoded", right? Whomever did that is / are the creator(s).

Here you have a loose grip on a useful point. Biological life forms are, at much of the microbiological level, machines. The chemicals that comprise these machines behave according to ordinary laws of chemistry. However, there is a powerful bit of evidence for conscious intelligence in the engineering of every living cell. This lies not in the DNA itself, but in the mechanisms that convert DNA segments into proteins.

Getting a little more specific, a Wikipedia study of tRNA (Transfer RNA) discloses the arbitrary nature in which RNA codons are interpreted so as to select specific amino acids. This is where the encoding to which you refer goes to work.

In a subsequent thread I will introduce a detailed essay on this subject written by someone more qualified to do so.

look forward to reading it bruv..

here's a quick and easy run down of creation and its relationship with individual human will as science describes it, for anyone who might be interested.. (apologies for the director commentary, its a copyright thing, you might have to mute it and read the subtitles if you don't want to hear it)..

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

"creation" is scientifically described as the act or process of bringing something into existence, and this process does not end once that thing is in existence..

I was unaware that "creation" has been defined in scientific terms. You'll point out your reference to this new definition, yes?

of course, but it is not new by any means:

cre·a·tion
/krēˈāSHən/

Noun
1. the action or process of bringing something into existence.
"the creation of a coalition government"

2. the bringing into of existence of the universe, esp. when regarded as an act of God.
everything so created; the universe.
"our alienation from the rest of Creation"
synonyms: the world, the universe, the cosmos; More
the living world, the natural world, nature, life, living things
"the whole of creation"

3. the action or process of investing someone with a new rank or title.

Synonyms
making - formation - creature

a dictionary

Engineers create machines. When a suitable machine has been created, e.g. the 1951 Ford, they stop creating it. Some of its creators retire and do not create anything afterward. Thus, creation can and does stop. You appear to be inventing your facts on the fly.

well, these people stop creating cars and machines, but they still create as long as they are alive, and even after that, their body is used in the creation of other things..

Originally posted by tachyonmind
the concept of a "creator" is a metaphor for the personification of the intelligence behind the universes interactions, as such, the universe is not so much the reflection of a creator as it is representative of it.. nothing can be endlessly self-perpetuating, it has to be formed out of something in the first place..

I am not using the terms "creator" and "creators" as metaphors in any of my threads and posts. I am referring to specific conscious, intelligent entities or groups thereof. Kindly do not attempt to foist your personal and incompetent linguistic interpretations upon my statements. Thank you.

i am doing no such thing my good chum, and i take offense at your implication of an incompetent linguistic understanding.. =)

a specific, conscious, intelligent entity is by definition a metaphor.. a human is a specific, intelligent, conscious entity, but only exists as an abstracted part of a much larger, less definable whole of intelligence.. to take an individual creation or creator as literally separate and whole unto itself, defies the definition..

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

Your creation definition was perfectly adequate, exactly as I would use the term and its derivatives, but there is nothing about it that warrants the pretentious "scientific" adjective.

No need to be offended unless you want to feel that way. Remember that feelings pass through the mind like terds through the colon, and the passage of each is better welcomed than mourned.

Your use of the vernacular tends, IMO, to the fuzzy side. I prefer to say what I mean. For example, I did not imply that your linguistic interpretation was incompetent-- I stated that as clearly as possible. Must I repeat it for clarity? Unless you've received an A++ on every exam you've taken, from having solved every problem and answered every question correctly, and have made nothing but perfect decisions throughout your life, it seems a bit odd (to me, anyway) to be offended by a correction. Or perhaps you have received nothing but A's, and are therefore unaccustomed to making errors. If so, the "F" I gave you could mark a useful turning point in your intellectual life.

Whatever, you strike me as the kind of fellow who will manipulate language via his own definitions so as to always support his opinions. (Want to bet that "metaphor" is not a part of the definition of entity?) Thus, you will never be wrong. In the absence of a linguistic standard, I cannot imagine that further conversations with you would be either productive or interesting. I've no interest in quibbling about common language with someone who prefers to misuse it. So let this be our last conversation. However, if you continue your attempts to subtly hijack this thread by distorting the meanings of my words, I will call you on it, "chum."

Originally posted by Greylorn

Your creation definition was perfectly adequate, exactly as I would use the term and its derivatives, but there is nothing about it that warrants the pretentious "scientific" adjective.

how is qualifying an exact or concrete definition not scientific? how is describing anything as scientific pretentious?

No need to be offended unless you want to feel that way. Remember that feelings pass through the mind like terds through the colon, and the passage of each is better welcomed than mourned.

rest assured i am inoffendable.. love the turd analogy too =D

Your use of the vernacular tends, IMO, to the fuzzy side. I prefer to say what I mean. For example, I did not imply that your linguistic interpretation was incompetent-- I stated that as clearly as possible. Must I repeat it for clarity? Unless you've received an A++ on every exam you've taken, from having solved every problem and answered every question correctly, and have made nothing but perfect decisions throughout your life, it seems a bit odd (to me, anyway) to be offended by a correction. Or perhaps you have received nothing but A's, and are therefore unaccustomed to making errors. If so, the "F" I gave you could mark a useful turning point in your intellectual life.

have you forgotten your saying the following, "Kindly do not attempt to foist your personal and incompetent linguistic interpretations upon my statements."? you are also making assumptions about my character instead of discussing the topic at hand..

to be honest, i find your vernacular to be extremely fuzzy.. i say exactly what i mean.. i am also puzzled by your assertion that i have at any time been offended..

Whatever, you strike me as the kind of fellow who will manipulate language via his own definitions so as to always support his opinions. (Want to bet that "metaphor" is not a part of the definition of entity?) Thus, you will never be wrong. In the absence of a linguistic standard, I cannot imagine that further conversations with you would be either productive or interesting. I've no interest in quibbling about common language with someone who prefers to misuse it. So let this be our last conversation. However, if you continue your attempts to subtly hijack this thread by distorting the meanings of my words, I will call you on it, "chum."

again with the accusations of an incompetent understand of linguistics, and now they have evolved into accusations of intentional distortion of meaning in an attempt to hijack the thread? why not stay on the topic at hand and discuss it.. i am not responsible for you taking a meaning from my words that i did not intend..

met·a·phor
/ˈmetəˌfôr/

Noun
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
2. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.

en·ti·ty
/ˈentitē/

Noun

1. A thing with distinct and independent existence.
2. Existence; being: "entity and nonentity".

does that help you understand what i was intending my words to mean? an entity only has a distinct abstract existence within our ability to observe it, it is not literally independent nor separate from being as a whole..

the first definition of entity above is not literal, thus falling under the definition of a metaphor or abstract principle..

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by Greylorn

Your creation definition was perfectly adequate, exactly as I would use the term and its derivatives, but there is nothing about it that warrants the pretentious "scientific" adjective.

does that help you understand what i was intending my words to mean? an entity only has a distinct abstract existence within our ability to observe it, it is not literally independent nor separate from being as a whole..

the first definition of entity above is not literal, thus falling under the definition of a metaphor or abstract principle..

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

I will not waste more time on your picayune nonsense. Kindly feel offended enough to post your irrelevant tripe elsewhere.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by Greylorn

Your creation definition was perfectly adequate, exactly as I would use the term and its derivatives, but there is nothing about it that warrants the pretentious "scientific" adjective.

does that help you understand what i was intending my words to mean? an entity only has a distinct abstract existence within our ability to observe it, it is not literally independent nor separate from being as a whole..

the first definition of entity above is not literal, thus falling under the definition of a metaphor or abstract principle..

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

I will not waste more time on your picayune nonsense. Kindly feel offended enough to post your irrelevant tripe elsewhere.

time is never literally wasted, only considered wasted if it doesn't produce the desired result.. and again i must protest your assertion that i am offended..

you might find what i write to be "irrelevant tripe", but clearly i don't think it is or i wouldn't have posted it.. aren't you curious as to how it could be relevant?

there is no such literal thing as "picayune" anymore, (maybe in a spanish museum somewhere).. it is now used as a literary device to describe disbelief in the accuracy/authenticity/importance of information.. if that is what you think of the information i provide then why not try to explain to me why you think that, so we can reach a mutual understanding, instead of writing me off?

this is the attitude that got humans into the mess they're in in the first place, please try not to perpetuate it..

after all, your own signature does state; "If a new idea fails to strike conventional readers as completely absurd-- it has no future."

here's a new idea for you to consider..

Originally posted by tachyonmind

time is never literally wasted, only considered wasted if it doesn't produce the desired result.. and again i must protest your assertion that i am offended..

You misunderstood. I was hoping that you would become sufficiently offended to to go away.

Originally posted by tachyonmind
you might find what i write to be "irrelevant tripe", but clearly i don't think it is or i wouldn't have posted it.. aren't you curious as to how it could be relevant?

Nope.

Originally posted by tachyonmind
there is no such literal thing as "picayune" anymore, (maybe in a spanish museum somewhere).. it is now used as a literary device to describe disbelief in the accuracy/authenticity/importance of information.. if that is what you think of the information i provide then why not try to explain to me why you think that, so we can reach a mutual understanding, instead of writing me off?

You asked, so I shall be straightforward, trusting that in this context my comments are not taken as a personal insult, but rather as my assessment of you offered at your personal request. It is a limited assessment, reached through nothing more than the exchange of a few words, so it could be wrong. Nonetheless, I will not give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have yet to offer an interesting comment to any of my ideas, and do not appear to understand any of them. That's okay. I do not expect very many people to understand them, because most people are not smart enough. One strategy that such individuals employ in an attempt to engage the conversation and to appear knowledgeable/intelligent in the absence of much of either, is to screw around with words. That's what you do.

I do not think that you have the ability to do much of anything else. Judging from the "new idea" you tried to foist off on me, I'd guess that you are very young, and may have overdosed on condiments and juvenile music too many times. Clearly you are no stranger to cognitive dissonance. If you manage to clean up your act, get your mind focused enough to read and understand physics and philosophy, and learn how to use standard word definitions to maintain a coherent conversation, come on back-- in about five years.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by tachyonmind

time is never literally wasted, only considered wasted if it doesn't produce the desired result.. and again i must protest your assertion that i am offended..

You misunderstood. I was hoping that you would become sufficiently offended to to go away.

Originally posted by tachyonmind
you might find what i write to be "irrelevant tripe", but clearly i don't think it is or i wouldn't have posted it.. aren't you curious as to how it could be relevant?

Nope.

Originally posted by tachyonmind
there is no such literal thing as "picayune" anymore, (maybe in a spanish museum somewhere).. it is now used as a literary device to describe disbelief in the accuracy/authenticity/importance of information.. if that is what you think of the information i provide then why not try to explain to me why you think that, so we can reach a mutual understanding, instead of writing me off?

You asked, so I shall be straightforward, trusting that in this context my comments are not taken as a personal insult, but rather as my assessment of you offered at your personal request. It is a limited assessment, reached through nothing more than the exchange of a few words, so it could be wrong. Nonetheless, I will not give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have yet to offer an interesting comment to any of my ideas, and do not appear to understand any of them. That's okay. I do not expect very many people to understand them, because most people are not smart enough. One strategy that such individuals employ in an attempt to engage the conversation and to appear knowledgeable/intelligent in the absence of much of either, is to screw around with words. That's what you do.

I do not think that you have the ability to do much of anything else. Judging from the "new idea" you tried to foist off on me, I'd guess that you are very young, and may have overdosed on condiments and juvenile music too many times. Clearly you are no stranger to cognitive dissonance. If you manage to clean up your act, get your mind focused enough to read and understand physics and philosophy, and learn how to use standard word definitions to maintain a coherent conversation, come on back-- in about five years.

hehe! right back at you buddy! i don't blame you at all for trying to stop your castle made of sand from being swept away..

p.s. there is no such thing as "juvenile music", only a juvenile interpretation of it.. =P

reply to post by Greylorn


There is still a 'singularity' in the view point of the op, in that, after existing for potentially ever, in one random 'singular' instant for some reason the universe we are familiar with began beginning.