No Bill S I am not winding you up, I was explaining why I can't go where you are. If it upsets you the lets just drop it.
I sort of get to this issue with Rev K when he sort of wants science to look at religion. The problem is the first thing we then have to do then is put the thing on test which will instantly be offensive. Science is not about being nice and polite, I have my ideas and beliefs put under test everyday. On a couple of occasions I have found out my beliefs were totally wrong, and it isn't a great feeling I can tell you.
You have to start with the belief that nothing becomes something, with nothing to instigate change, and no time in which the change can happen????
It isn't a want .... I am forced to, it is the only scientifically safe option that exists. I can't test something that doesn't change state, you are telling me the big rock can't be moved based on your gut feel.
Do you agree you have excluded an option out of hand?
Note I haven't excluded your idea but if I can't test it then I can only arrive at it by removing all the alternatives. You may get lucky and be right but it's 50/50 as best I can see.
It didn't come into being, it's eternal. That is also why it is not evolving, if it is eternal, it would already have evolved infinitely, there would be no more evolving to do, and that, of course, is rubbish.
You are still left with the sticky problem of how does something eternal come it being, it is no better or more logical than the nothing option surely you see that?
It doesn't need God,just the ability to think rationally. Is that what scientists do?
As a scientist I have never seen something perpetual pop into existence ... NOT EVER.
I also have never seen something suddenly created from nothing ... NOT EVER.
So both are equally bad or good choices to me take your pick.
So referring to your sentence above explain to me as a scientist why I should prefer one over the other logically?
When you post things like this, I find myself wondering if you are serious, or just trying to wind me up.
As I explained it wasn't about winding you up it is explaining the ethics of why I can't go there. I can easily create situations which can not be tested that are equally likely to look like your idea. I was simply trying to give you a sort of topical example to show you the problem.
As I said I would need to remove all these sorts of ideas to be able to come to your conclusion.
Your multiverse idea does/explains nothing;
There is definitely no multiverse in anything we discussed. You can in fact falsify the Everett type multiverse idea just some haven't caught up with the background experiments.
apart from the fact that the basic idea provides a way of looking at a specific aspect of QM.
Correct and that is all I can do look at the results. What we can say with certainty is time is every bit as real and the same as space, because QM can encode into it equally well.
In GR/SR some people struggle with timelike events and casuality but I was just showing you that it is actually on very solid science ground. This idea that space is more real than time is just another of those wrong turns classic physics takes you down. Technically the entire universe could encode into one point in space, whats more strange from a QM perspective is why does space exist at all. See the similarity here classic physics asks does time exist as something real and QM asks does space exist as something real?
It one of those funny jokes you get in QM, when you drag everything back to the big bang, is why do we need this space stuff why aren't we still a point. Be careful who you have that joke with
