What exactly are you responding to here? Which article are you talking about?
The article from the first post in the thread. That is, the topic of this discussion, by LoganTheHogan.
(and feel free to respond to the content of my post, rather than trying to make one of us look silly)
This has nothing to do with what I wrote
It has everything to do with what you wrote. You made a claim using a faulty premise, and I explained one critical reason your premise is faulty (be careful any time you use "because"). I can assail another of your faulty premises, if you like, but I think I've made my point. Just because nobody's around to witness it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My best guess is that you're misinterpreting the consequences of the quantum uncertainty principle. Trees don't need eyes and ears to fall, and in dealing with potential infinities, no beginning (or end) is inherently implied. It is the task of science, not pseudological (or metaphysical) conjecture, to determine the properties of nature which can explain the answers to these things.
Once again, we can't decide the answers ourselves. The fact of the matter is, we don't know the answers. But those who have the resources - financial and material as well as mental - to actually observe the universe and its behavior actually know the answers better than someone sitting stoned or over-caffeinated in his bedroom and making up the answers that feel true, or seem to "fit together."
Jesus Pleezus.
