On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 10:15 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky) > > then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating > > the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow > > can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and "murder > > their ancestors". > > The existence we lead seems to be more stable than your construction > allows. To me this is a part of the fundamental puzzle that we should > try to address. > > [...]
I'm sure you're right. I really just threw the idea up in the air, with little conviction, to see what people might make of it.
> I have some heavier posts that are not in sci.math or > sci.space.history groups of this thread you might like > to read; they are in alt.philosophy and sci.physics and > sci.logic.
I'll try and check them out, but as I'm sure you're aware the search function of Google Groups is completely broken. So results are patchy to say the least.
(I must have made thousands of maths & physics usenet posts over the last 20 years; but only a handful show up on Google Groups, although for some of the missing ones that's no bad thing ;-)
Actually, I prepared a longer reply, but this has now reached epic lengths and I think would be better placed on a blog I have just started. So I am currently working on that and, FWIW, will post a link when ready.