Coded Logic, (/pinku):
It is ofcourse commendable that you use references to back up your statements but I cannot help to notice the references often do not match the claim being made. For instance:
Even NOTHING itself changes [2].
Reference 2 is a article in ArXiv (or rather, a garbled version of an article from ArXiv in plaintext) by Mithani & Vilenkin on a particular recent proposal by Hartle, Hawking and Hertog on quantum cosmology which (in a particular setting) could give rise to inflation. They derive this result from other considerations and show (and this is the important bit) that the model of this sort have unphysical features which in the oppinion of MV make it unphysical. I skimmed the article but what I have written is apparent by just reading the abstract. How does that support your claim?
Moving on to another claim:
Even the laws themselves are not absolute. They are conditional upon the properties of space time and energy [4].
This may be the case, however from reference 4 (which is only a bullet list from wikipedia):
Several general properties of physical laws have been identified ... Physical laws are: (...)
- Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
again, how does that support your claim in any non-trivial sense? or do you simply mean: Physical laws make use of physical concepts, therefore they are not absolute. I hardly see how anyone could deny that and I see no indication that Pinku does.
Then moving on there is the claim:
But physical principles still require the use of time [6].
Again this may very well be true, however reference 6 is a discussion on a particular geometry introduced in 1947 by Snyder. The very first line of the article is: "The possiblity that space-time may be noncommutative in the sence that (equation indicating non-commutation of space-time) has appeared recently in String theory". Again I fail to see how an article that discuss a particular proposal indicated by String theory and which assumes space-time coordinates can be construed to support your claim.
Again, it is commendable to introduce citations of technical work to support claims, however the use of citations to brow-beat people without technical knowledge is clearly fallicious and harmfull, a bit akin to the story of the child and the naked emporer. Do you actually understand your citations 2 and 4 and can you in that case ellaborate on how they support your claims? (mind I am not asking you to argue that the claims as such are true).