On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Robert Cummings wrote: > 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. > > Cheers, > Rob.
Again, you have shown an uncanny insight into the way things are. :-) Cheers, tedd _____________________ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
