Subj : The universe            4
To   : TODD HENSON
From : DAVE OLDRIDGE
Date : Tue Jan 09 2001 02:09 am

TH> > That there is a beginning does not imply a "before the beginning."
TH> > Both a beginng and a before are in time.  The universe's beginning is 
only
TH> > a beginning from inside it.  From outside, it is just another point in
TH> > the geometry...somewhat special like the north pole because of its unique
TH> > position, but not remarkable for any other reason....


TH> I don't altogether disagree. I actually like the way you've described the
TH> "Origin" (that which is the
TH> reason for the universe's existence). I would agree that the Origin is
TH> something (or someone)
TH> that is not bound by linear time as we are.

TH> But that doesn't make it improper to speak of "before" the universe.

The trouble is language.  "Before" is a word that implies time and 
entropy which do not extend beyond the origin any more than the earth's 
geography extends upwards from the north pole.

This has nothing to do with theology, only with physics (although it 
may have consequences for bad theology).


TH> That still doesn't erase the fact that the universe has not always existed,
TH> that it's timeline is not
TH> infinite. To speak of a "before" doesn't necessarily project the linear

But it HAS "always" existed for all the time that has ever been.

TH> limitations of our
TH> space-time onto the Origin. It appears as if you are assuming it does. Not
TH> really.

Of course it does.  The word itself implies a state with lower entropy. 
The entropy at the beginning, at a close order approximation gives the 
entire mass of the universe as free energy.

---
 þ MM 1.1 #0357 þ "I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
 * Origin: FONiX Info Systems * Berkshire UK * +44 1344 641625 (2:252/171)

.