Clivedurdle
Member
Quote from deconversion thread, paraphrasing Sagan.
Have got Zero - History of a dangerous idea, at home.
Do not all the uncaused causes arguments just disappear if one posits the universe always existing? I am not saying as it is now - _ I think it has clearly evolved and become more complex, probably has been through a series of big bangs, probably new universes are created in black holes - so this universe we are in is actually a universe generating type, and this level of complexity means life is a bi-product, including me typing away!
But why do we not turn the argument around and ask if "true nothing" - not quantum fluctuations - is a theoretical fiction, useful like the square root of minus one - but still a fiction?
And then seriously start asking how does an eternal universe actually work?
Why do we allow all this arguing about a fiction? Maybe the answer to the question which came first, the chicken or the egg, is both?
Have got Zero - History of a dangerous idea, at home.
Do not all the uncaused causes arguments just disappear if one posits the universe always existing? I am not saying as it is now - _ I think it has clearly evolved and become more complex, probably has been through a series of big bangs, probably new universes are created in black holes - so this universe we are in is actually a universe generating type, and this level of complexity means life is a bi-product, including me typing away!
But why do we not turn the argument around and ask if "true nothing" - not quantum fluctuations - is a theoretical fiction, useful like the square root of minus one - but still a fiction?
And then seriously start asking how does an eternal universe actually work?
Why do we allow all this arguing about a fiction? Maybe the answer to the question which came first, the chicken or the egg, is both?