Cancel
Comment on A Logical Fate?

nagash Thu, May 6, 2010
you guys are taken the event of the big-bang as some kind of vector zero in a cartesian equation, where every entanglement is mathematically guessable and so, the entire creation is an experiment that could be duplicated - even, as SciLogue stated, if it couldn't be observable...

this makes sense, because of our current knowledge of fractals equations, right? well, I think it's wrong... I say that because I don't think the whole universe is as simple as the most complex of our fractal equations, and because I can't believe it ever had a vector zero, a beginning at all – the way I see, time could as well be just an illusion of our perception...

I see the universe in terms of infinity, that's why I'm agnostic in every aspect. I can't believe time has a beginning nor an end, even that it exist outside our point of view. I can't believe there's a smaller particle, or something too massive that it couldn't be insignificant compared to something else. I can't believe there was a "first" big-bang that was not influenced by infinite other bangs, and I definitely can't buy the idea that there's a dharma that is not infinitely organic to the point of being predictable – that would be a lame universe :)

you are trying to understand fate in logical terms. so, think of a computer simulation: if your simulacra of creation give always the exact same output, it's not complex enough, don't you agree?

nature is always the same, but always different somehow...
do you think the universe evolves, or it's static?