Re: expansion of the universe (was Re: JOIN [sl4]: Hello, I'm Mercy.)

From: Perry E. Metzger (
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 08:48:32 MDT

Leonardo Wild <> writes:
> > PEM: No, I know that part already. What I don't understand is why it
> > isn't
> > a violation of special or general relativity for that to happen -- so
> > far as I knew your relative speed to another object in space could
> > never exceed c. (Or perhaps it is okay because of physics I don't
> > know. I was sort of reaching for more detail on this.)
> >
> The Laws of Nature are all habits. When the universe was "created"
> those habits didn't exist yet, they were being created as well and
> then, after time, they became Laws. This, in any case, is how most

I was hoping that rather than references to Rupert Sheldrake, who's
not known for being particularly in connection with reality, that we
might get some sort of explanation in terms of, say, nice falsifiable


> laws are made (except in these days of upside down logic where laws
> are made by lawyers who are paid to make laws because that's another
> way to make money).
> The Theory of Morphic Resonance or Morphogenetic Fields seems to
> explain this, though since it really goes against most of what is
> being believed today, Sheldrake's theory is still looked upon as a
> "scientific heresy" (read: non-accepted paradigm), especially since
> Rupert Sheldrake has since then gone on to write about angels and
> intuition as scientifically acceptable ... (?)
> Not taking this into account, if you realize that we view the Laws of
> Nature as something that always existed, we are automatically implying
> that the universe was there as the background for those laws. But if
> it was only just being formed, those laws could not have existed yet:
> they were also being created. It is not theory that makes the
> universe, but the other way round, and if our theories don't fit
> reality, then there must be something wrong with reality ... ups, with
> our "perception" of reality.
> Reality is what is being reported to the system, and it is also only
> as good as the sensory organs can perceive it (or the mind to
> understand what is being perceived).
> Best,
> Leonardo Wild

Perry E. Metzger

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT