Francois Tremblay

How was I supposed to know you people don't even know the law of non-contradiction ? Haven't you guys had at least an introductory class to philosophy ? Or should I chalk this up to the sad state of American public education ?

eh

I think the problem here is a misuse of the english language. When cosmologists use the word nothing, they could actually be talking about an empty vacuum. I've seen this way with words in several articles related to cosmology.

I got a different impressions from reading the ideas of Guth and Line. The idea of the self-reproducing inflationary universe does not seem to be a scenario where these universes pop out of nothingness. Rather, it seems to say that the fractal of the multiverse floats in a vast vacuum. Perhaps in the 5th dimension? It is just their way with words.

eh

Also, in some models of the self-reproducing inflationary universe, there is a beginning. The universe starts of as a singularity (with inflation taking place) and other univereses, or to be more faithful to the proper meaning of the word - other universe like bubbles break off from ours.

So while our universe could have formed from another, ultimately the original bubble in this fractal starts out in the same way as ours in classic inflation theories. It solves nothing.

Francois Tremblay

Why are some people so stubborn to pursue a simpler explanation ? One must first seek to explain the facts at hand, THEN prefer a simpler explanation if many hypothesis can explain the same facts. Since we cannot know anything beyond Planck time, it is pointless to pursue such muddled-headed explanations, and betrays the "reification of nothingness" (or of the simplest) which has pervaded religious analysis of cosmology for so long.

Hondo

The best that limited minds of the first century mythology can conjure, or the finest scientific evidence of the 21st century, logically a tough call. The unverifiable works of backwords simpletons, vs substatiated, empirical, thoroughly state of the art, science, another tough call. You can choose to hide your head in the sand of your so called logic (it would be nice if you would site your specicfic claims, and curtail your name calling) or move on, read the article, and to quote one of my favorite songs, "Feed your brain".

David H

Francois Tremblay

I would try to explain Philosophy 101 once again, but I guess it would be futile. Just read a basic logic textbook. Or go here and learn :
<a href="http://www.xrefer.co.uk/entry/552586" target="_blank">http://www.xrefer.co.uk/entry/552586</a>

I will note that I am amused, though, that the person who tells me to curtail my name calling is calling me a simpleton.

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

99Percent

If you are going to dismiss logic as "burying your head in the sand" then there is no more rules to base any further argument to begin with. This discussion becomes irrelevant.

tronvillain

While that sort of appears to be a reply to David H, it also appears to be an attack on everyone, which seems unwarranted.

Francois Tremblay

AFAIK, telling people to go see a reference is not an attack. Your logic is not improving.

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Hondo

Fran28 If you were to actually to read my reply, you would indeed see that I was not personally refering to you when I posted the following. "The unverifiable works of backwords simpletons, vs substatiated, empirical, thoroughly state of the art, science, another tough call." I was merely refering to the backwoods creators of the Bible, who in all of their simplistic glory endeavoured to ensnare mankind with their ridiculous story.

David H