Hi ICANT,
My first reaction is that what people have been explaining to you is either becoming garbled and confused in your mind, or you're getting them all wrong on purpose. Whether it's due to your level of comprehension or is purposeful makes no difference, because in either case it would be pointless to continue with more explanations.
My second reaction is that I should at least respond to the simple errors.
ICANT writes:
I have been ridiculed and assured there is nothing outside of our universe.
No, you have not been assured that "there is nothing outside of our universe." Different models have been discussed. Modulous makes one model pretty clear in
Message 495, saying that
*if* you define a model where the universe is synonymous with existence, then nothing can exist outside the universe (you didn't reply). NoNukes lists four different models that have been offered in
Message 503.
But rather than discuss any particular model you have instead constructed within your mind some confused combination.
You can call that supernatural power Brian Greene's branes or Hartly/Hawking's instanton but if they existed they would have been supernatural as they are not a part of this universe.
You're unlikely to have success convincing people to switch to your nomenclature. At the moment branes are theoretical, not supernatural, and if evidence for branes is identified then they will be considered natural, not supernatural.
When you say whatever created the universe must be supernatural you're saying it with all the same absence of evidence as when cavemen peered out into a storm and declared that whatever created lightning must be supernatural.
Please, no replies to this message, except to correct my mistakes. If I've misdescribed or misrepresented someone's views or any scientific idea then please let me know.
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Director |