• weecough
    3
    The laws of physics can’t be seen, only the effects. Basic statement, but bearing it in mind, I propose two more laws. A, (0 is impossible) B, (1 is impossible). And the effect of these negative laws is to produce the universe.
    (-) (-) = (+). This instant is eternal as there is nothing to measure. But the (+) gives rise to the positive laws of physics, which state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; therefor (-) (-) = (+) & (-).
    The existence of (+) would manifest as an infinite static charge, and the attempt of (-) to exist within this charge would create conflict throughout. The effect of this conflict throws out the first sub-atomic particles, creating mass, movement, and therefor time.
    (-) (-) = (+) & (-) <=> D/S = Time
    The conflict is eternal, so there is no big bang, only what we suppose is an explosion from the physical side of the equation. The universe is a perpetual motion engine producing time.
  • weecough
    3
    I know the above may sound silly, or insane, but from a logical point of view the universe has to be simple, incredibly simple; otherwise you have to accept some god or other. The singularity is ridiculous.
  • Gregory
    430
    Who says the simple is not truly extremely complex? Thomist say God is most simple, but Dawkins thinks God must be extremely complex. Who is to say who is right?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.