tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post7269792686571116582..comments2023-09-29T02:49:02.989-07:00Comments on An Emphatic Umph: Bergson, the Big Bang, and Slo-MoDaniel Coffeenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-87256368430758911312013-08-09T19:45:21.336-07:002013-08-09T19:45:21.336-07:00I believe I'd say the latter, if I had to choo...I believe I'd say the latter, if I had to choose. The death/rebirth thing doesn't feel right to me — too cyclical, too reductive. I see more chaos: lines of intensity, events, collisions, tangents, folds everywhere.<br /><br />My point is that there was no primal event, no singular event of the big bang. Movement is constitutive of the universe, not something that happened to the universe. Daniel Coffeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-59327004066259995642013-08-09T19:18:27.187-07:002013-08-09T19:18:27.187-07:00To explain the concept of this big banging that yo...To explain the concept of this big banging that you talk about in your post, would you agree with Heraclitus's claim regarding the universe as being a constant becoming that consumes itself in fire and then rebirths itself over? Or would you rather argue that the universe has always already been expanding (here I might be talking about the infinite universe theory, which I am not that familiar with.)?αλήθειαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198838378463465730noreply@blogger.com