[MD] FW: Quantum weirdness

[Case]

[Ron] 
All the numbers point to an infinate reality
That's not ignoring physics it's seeing beyond physics
It's seeing physics for what it is, as a value of the limit.
Physics will infinately be approaching. Both Positive and negative.

And that's what the root of physics is telling us
You can't argue that.

[Case]
As I mentioned the cutting edge of physics is metaphysics. It is highly
speculative. Hawking has proposed a model for infinite multiple universes.
There are all sorts of mathematical models that might circumvent whatever
limits we imagine today.

[Ron]
The limit is the big bang theory.

[Case]
I think the point here is that whatever "caused" the big bang or whatever
"happened before" it have no causal impact in our world. Space and time for
us start at that point. It is the first cause.

[Ron]
Therefore I think infinate reality is a more accurate theory
If your going to base it on physics, at least it is just as viable
As the big bang theory.

[Case]
There are infinities and then there are infinites. Infinity exists at ever
point in the universe. There are just as many numbers between 0 and 1 as
there are between 0 and infinity. Infinites are funky like that.  

[Ron]
The site you forwarded to Ham starts with a point
A point is an imaginary starting point it stated.
That point in the 10th dimension is what Ham is talking about
Remember that point in the 10th dimension falls to the same paradox as the
rounding Error.

[Case]
A "point" is a postulate or a first principle defined by Euclid as "that
which hath no extent." While it is purely a mathematical concept it helps
form the basis for all of geometry even non-Euclidian geometries use the
idea. It requires no justification from outside of the system of geometry
and as Gödel teaches none can be offered.

[Ron]
My argument with the big bang is it assumes a starting point
Which is imaginary. It suggests an absolute beginning.
the question of cause still remains. It was established
Even in that presentation that absolute starting points are imaginary.
Please clarify your argument in this regard.

[Case]
I do not think physicists regard the big bang as imaginary. They describe it
through the use of mathematical metaphors and test the efficacy of those
metaphors against what can be observed through senses and instruments. They
engage in bounded speculation. If what you are looking for is some cause for
the big bang well so are they.