Isn't every (alleged) proof of something's truth just a list of things (steps) implied by the previous statement until one arrives at the final statement...a tautology? Briefly: isn't every proof just a (possibly lengthy) list of tautologies? Therefore, using that notion, calling out alleged proofs of masses coming from (or not coming from) the big bang and what not specifically is, actually, redundant.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net <socra...@bezeqint.net > wrote: > Physics and Tautology. > =. > 1 > Where did the masses for ‘ big bang ‘ come from ? > These masses came from surrounding space. > 2 > Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ? > These masses came from ‘big bang’. > ===. > Why he is poor ? > Because he is stupid. > Why he is stupid? > Because he is poor. > ===. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
