- #1
Olias
- 257
- 0
Olias said:
Did the universe have a beginning or does it exist forever, i.e. is it eternal at least in relation to the past? This fundamental question was a main topic in ancient philosophy of nature and the Middle Ages. Philosophically it was more or less banished then by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. But it used to have and still has its revival in modern physical cosmology both in the controversy between the big bang and steady state models some decades ago and in the contemporary attempts to explain the big bang within a quantum cosmological framework. This paper has two main goals: First a conceptual clarification and distinction of different notions of "big bang" and "universe" is suggested, as well as a multiverse taxonomy and a classification of initial and eternal cosmologies. Second, and with the help of this analysis, it is shown how a conceptual and perhaps physical solution of the temporal aspect of Immanuel Kant's "first antinomy of pure reason" is possible, i.e. how our universe in some respect could have both a beginning and an eternal existence.
marcus said:Olias something odd happened just now, I glanced down the menu
and thought I saw where you had started a thread on the new
Rudy Vaas paper "time before time"
and then I went away and did something about supper and fetched
the mail in from the mailbox and when i looked again I couldnt
find the thread.
was that a mirage? or did you actually start a thread about
"time before time"
http://arxiv/org/physics/0408111
sol2 said:Marcus a quick search reveals link you had mentioned.
I notice something like this going on yesterday. I quoted Russell Rierson on the question of sonoluminece. Unfortunately I did not get the thread link but I did get the date. Bringing Arivero's thread back was another case in point. I guess our mentors are throwing in threads for further consideration?
Anyway here is quote from link Olias supplied in that circumstance.
From Time beforeTime
Now back to his current link.
Olias said:I had started a thread, no doubt the removal of it must have been admin?..because of a policy to 'proof-read' posters with certain criteria?
The main idea of "Rudy Vaas paper time before time" is to propose a new theory of time that challenges the traditional view of time as a linear progression of events. This theory suggests that time is not a fundamental aspect of the universe, but rather emerges from the interactions of various physical processes.
Rudy Vaas provides evidence from various fields of science, including quantum mechanics, cosmology, and neuroscience. He also uses philosophical arguments and thought experiments to support his theory.
Rudy Vaas' theory of time differs from traditional theories in that it rejects the idea of time as a fundamental aspect of the universe. Instead, it views time as a product of various physical processes and interactions. This challenges the notion of a linear and unchangeable timeline and opens up the possibility of multiple timelines and branching realities.
Rudy Vaas' theory has significant implications on our understanding of the universe. It challenges our traditional views of time and raises questions about the nature of reality and the possibility of parallel universes. It also has implications for our understanding of causality and determinism.
Rudy Vaas' theory is still a subject of debate and has not been widely accepted by the scientific community. While some scientists find it intriguing and thought-provoking, others criticize its lack of empirical evidence and its departure from traditional theories. Further research and experimentation are needed to fully evaluate and validate this theory.