Orac, you are still putting words in my mouth. I never said that time had a start, but you do. I never said that time was infinite, but you claim I did. In every case I said I don't know. Now you claim that I am saying that QM is wrong. I'm not.
Ok .. I didn't quite get that from what you said ... you seemed to be insisting something which I obviously misunderstood?
I'm saying that QM doesn't answer all the questions.
As I keep telling you QM doesn't answer any questions it is not framed in that way ... it describes inevitable outcomes based on assumed conditions. Why those conditions are relevant it hasn't a clue.
I keep trying to understand if again I miss what you mean in the above and you do get it but I lose it in translation because I keep having to say that statement.
Just to be clear in QM is framed very much like GOD it is based on assumed priors (and I am not equating the two in any way beyond that). Try asking a religious person why GOD exists it is the same as asking QM to explain anything about the universe.
And I'm not going to accept anybody's word on the final answer until there is documented testing of the facts to support that answer.
The answer you seek can't be answered and never can be not even invoking GOD will solve the problem.
In the meantime I am still interested in speculation about that final answer.
From a science point all we can do is take everything back to the start of our observable universe which is really no different to religion and they call their observable universe GOD.
So assuming we are staying within that time region yes speculation is interesting.
I also recognize that some of the speculation seems to make more sense than others.
Yes I realize that but at times you repeat things I feel that we have explained like "QM doesn't answer all the questions" .... we have clearly established QM doesn't answer any questions it doesn't seek to answer any it simply predicts things. The problem is we haven't ever found a prediction QM gets wrong and it's not for lack of trying.
