Subject: nice web sites
I am not a physicist or a mathematician. But in general if something like E=mc2 is true, then doesn't that mean something always was?
In a sense, "something always was" because there has been no point in time when there has been "nothing" (time is a function of our universe, just as is matter and space). There was no "point in time" when "nothing" existed because the context of "points in time" has always coexisted with the context of "something existed."
That's not the same, however, as saying that the past extends indefinitely and eternally.
If E approaches zero then so does m. If E is zero then so is M. What is the thinking that would explain how E or M could have ever have been zero? Wouldn't it seem that at some point that something had to have come from nothing? Not to grind your cookies, but without ascribing anything but existence to this something, ( I still don't get how anything could exist anyway ) why would there be a problem with calling it god?
What would be the problem with calling it shoe? How about calling it creamy cheese frosting?
Well, those labels are a problem because they communicate ideas and concepts that have no apparent applicability to the origin of the universe. They don't communicate anything meaningful in this context. They are, in short, nonsense. But does "god" make any more sense? Not that I can tell. What does "god" communicate here that is actually relevant and informative?
If I called the origin of the origin of the universe "creamy cheese frosting," and was right, you'd be learning something about its nature. Seems like an absurd nature, sure, but you'd still be learning something.
What do we learn about the nature of the origin of the universe by calling it "god"? Nothing, as far as I can tell. If it communicates anything, it might communicate the idea that you stand in some special awe or relationship with the origin of the universe. But you could, in theory, use any word for that.
I am wondering how one can explain existence with out assuming a starting point and further how one explains existence at all given the laws of physics?
We need to remember that "the laws of physics" are products of our universe - they cannot be assumed as a context for the origin of the universe. The laws of physics do not constrain or limit the conditions in which the universe started. Outside of the context of our actually-existing universe, we cannot talk about: up, down, left, right, north, south, before, after, cause, effect, and so on and so on. It would make no sense. You need space and time for such things - but, by definition, space and time exist as aspects of our universe.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment