php-general Digest 18 Nov 2011 17:50:28 -0000 Issue 7574
Topics (messages 315741 through 315748):
Re: Sniping on the List
315741 by: Robert Cummings
315742 by: Tommy Pham
315743 by: Tim Streater
315744 by: Steven Staples
315745 by: Robert Cummings
315746 by: Curtis Maurand
315747 by: Fredric L. Rice
315748 by: Fredric L. Rice
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[email protected]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On 11-11-18 12:40 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 11-11-17 06:24 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Consider this -- do you think the second before
the "Big Bang" was negative or null?
I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves
with unanswerable questions.
The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior
to the Big Bang. The advent of time began when the dimention we perceive
as the passage of time froze out of folded reality during the expansion
phases's symmertry breaking period, there is not only no answer to what
happened before, even suggesting there *was* a before is not possible.
It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors.
By you're reasoning since I did not exist before 1974 then time itself
could not possibly have existed before then either since I was not in
existence to perceive it. That's as ludicrous as suggesting time did not
exist before the big bang (presuming this model is correct). Also,
them's some fancy shmancy words you're slinging about up there, but
without a proof it's just farts in the wind :) No more valid than a
theory of creation or the big ass spaghetti thingy majingy dude. Folded
shmeality and phases of whatsyamacallit may well be true, but
provability of the non-existence of time before the big bang theory is
not provable by this model. However, what is valid is to take a point of
reference in time and infer a period before it. Thus before the big bang
is perfectly valid whether we could perceive it or not.
The following pretty much sums up the entire argument:
http://shorl.com/tebrakefesahe
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Robert Cummings <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://shorl.com/tebrakefesahe
>
ROFLMAO!!! Thanks Robert for starting off a good Friday for me :D
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 18 Nov 2011 at 05:40, Robert Cummings <[email protected]> wrote:
> without a proof it's just farts in the wind :) No more valid than a
> theory of creation or the big ass spaghetti thingy majingy dude. Folded
The "theory" of creation is not a theory. It's a hypothesis, as is "scientific
creationism".
> Thus before the big bang
> is perfectly valid whether we could perceive it or not.
Not really. It's as meaningless as asking what's north of the North Pole.
--
Cheers -- Tim
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fredric L. Rice [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: November 17, 2011 6:25 PM
> To: Stuart Dallas
> Cc: Tedd Sperling; PHP List
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
>
> >> Consider this -- do you think the second before
> >> the "Big Bang" was negative or null?
> > I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves
> > with unanswerable questions.
>
> The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior
> to the Big Bang. The advent of time began when the dimention we perceive
> as the passage of time froze out of folded reality during the expansion
> phases's symmertry breaking period, there is not only no answer to what
> happened before, even suggesting there *was* a before is not possible.
>
> It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors.
And here I thought that "The Big Bang Theory" was a funny sitcom? Damn...
where have I been all this time? Maybe since I wasn't around to witness it
happening, it didn't really happen, and this is just my own reality, that
you guys happen to be a part of, in my subconscious?
Besides, are we not just all part of "The Matrix" ? (what's even more
funny, is that I drive a Toyota Matrix... WEIRD!!!!)
Steven Staples
Web Application Programmer
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 11-11-18 05:15 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Nov 2011 at 05:40, Robert Cummings<[email protected]> wrote:
without a proof it's just farts in the wind :) No more valid than a
theory of creation or the big ass spaghetti thingy majingy dude. Folded
The "theory" of creation is not a theory. It's a hypothesis, as is "scientific
creationism".
From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
Hypothesis - Synonyms: theory, proposition, supposition, thesis
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
Thus before the big bang
is perfectly valid whether we could perceive it or not.
Not really. It's as meaningless as asking what's north of the North Pole.
No, this is a false analogy. Again from Merriam-Webster:
north pole: the northernmost point of the earth
As such, by definition there can be no further north than the north
pole. No such equivalent exists for the big bang event. Beginning of the
universe? YES. Beginning of time? NO!
Given the discussion, I think the following is in order: BAZINGA * 2
Thank you, I won't be here all day!
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Robert Cummings wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>
Given the discussion, I think the following is in order: BAZINGA * 2
And what does any of this have to do with PHP? It's time to
end this thread.
--Curtis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors.
> Not even slightly.
Totally since deity constructors only started to exist after the second
generation of stars formed since the advent of hadronic life.
> But none of this has anything even vaguely related to PHP.
Sure it does, the origins of the universe for Linux is January 1st, 1970,
just as it is for PHP epoc time. Time for Unix didn't exist prior to that
since there was no prior. People who *think* they were born before 1970
are mistaken.
To further prove my point, try searching for any reference to PHP prior to
January 1st, 1970. It does not exist.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
rc> However, what is valid is to take a point of
rc> reference in time and infer a period before
rc> it. Thus before the big bang is perfectly valid
rc> whether we could perceive it or not.
It's a question of asking what existed before anything existed, though.
The answer is not even "nothing" since nothing is something.
There's also something bizarre and ironic in having Unix and Windows-based
epoc sidereal time firmly rooted in a non-event that didn't happen over 41
years ago. The irony is that Unix epoc time wraps the supposed Mithratic
Jesus birth date which also didn't happen, our computers are delusional
but also logical -- amusing.
This whole PHP thing about epoc time is amusing since there remains the
question of what frame of reference the first second of Unix time is
predicated upon. January 1st 1970 has no reality, it was never real, it
was an abritrary symbol etched in to Unix to reference how many vibrations
of an atom excited by a cessium rubidium maser in Goldstone, Colorado
there has been since an arbitrary frame of reference.
--- End Message ---
