Gunny
Gold Member
Okay, since I see where this wonderful discussion is about to go I will make one last post to it myself then duck out before it goes too much further.
Sky, while a star itself may not exist anymore, the matter and energy it was made of does still exist, just in another form and place. So the universe itself is eternal, and even if it wasn't there is also the fact of what eternal means. Due to our minds being unable to comprehend past a certain value of time to us it is eternal. It was here long before us and will remain in many forms long after. So from almost all perspectives it is eternal, however it is very fluid, the matter changes frequently, even within our own grasp of time. Energy moves in many directions and shifts into many forms, again even within our tiny grasp of time. So even if there was a true 'beginning' and will be a true 'ending' we cannot perceive this, eternal is abstract not a finite time period.
It's going somewhere?
Reconcile what you just posted in regard to fluid and matter changing frequently with SD's comment along the lines of moving in and out of existence.
The difference I see in your and my POV and SD's is we are saying the universe is infinite, while SD is stating, by saying it moves in and out of existence that something beyond must exist to support her theory. Sort of the "worlds within worlds" POV without calling it that.