Everything came from Nothing

[Eyesee]

Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.

[zimbo]

[:D] Nice one! (At the risk of sounding stupid: I take that it's a joke?)

[wuliheron]

Tools

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is molded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Confusion surrounds our abstractions;
Because we are ignorant
We may find answers
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything. If we are the product of some cosmic crepitation would anyone have heard the noise?

[Mentat]

I'm going to assume/hope that you are joking.

On the off chance that you're not, run your post through my "exercise of nothing semantics". In so doing, you produce: "'everything' didn't come from anything".

[wuliheron]

Abbott:Now let's see. We have on the bags - we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.

Costello: That's what I wanna find out.

Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third -

Costello: You know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Certainly!

Costello: Well then who's on first?

Abbott: Yes!

Costello: I mean the fellow's name!

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The guy on first!

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The first baseman!

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The guy playing first!

Abbott: Who is on first!

Costello: Now whaddya askin' me for?

Abbott: I'm telling you Who is on first.

Costello: Well, I'm asking YOU who's on first!

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first.

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The first baseman.

Abbott: Who is on first!

Costello: Have you got a contract with the first baseman?

Abbott: Absolutely.

Costello: Who signs the contract?

Abbott: Well, naturally!

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar. Why not? The man's entitled to it.

Costello: Who is?

Abbott: Yes. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: All I'm tryin' to find out is what's the guy's name on first base.

Abbott: Oh, no - wait a minute, don't switch 'em around. What is on second base.

Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second.

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third - now we're not talkin' 'bout him.

Costello: Now, how did I get on third base?

Abbott: You mentioned his name!

Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third?

Abbott: No - Who's playing first.

Costello: Never mind first - I wanna know what's the guy's name on third.

Abbott: No - What's on second.

Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third.

Costello: Aaah! Would you please stay on third base and don't go off it?

Abbott: What was it you wanted?

[Ben-CS]

Well, this thread has slipped horribly off topic! [Runs around in circles. Screams and shouts.]

[wuliheron]

The topic was nothing, just ignore it. It'll go away. :0)

[Eyesee]

My statement was not a joke, but feel free to read it as that.
Take anything in the universe - one can always ask of it "where
does that come from?" And if the answer was found to be something
else, the good philosopher would then ask of that, "where does that
come from?" Ad infinitum.

The only answer that can stop this question from being asked an
infinite number of times is : NOTHING.

Everything came from nothing since nothing is the only "thing" that doesn't come from anything.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
My statement was not a joke, but feel free to read it as that.
Take anything in the universe - one can always ask of it "where
does that come from?" And if the answer was found to be something
else, the good philosopher would then ask of that, "where does that
come from?" Ad infinitum.

The only answer that can stop this question from being asked an
infinite number of times is : NOTHING.

Everything came from nothing since nothing is the only "thing" that doesn't come from anything.

"Nothing" is not a "thing", as you put it. Please, look at the first post of the thread, "An Exercise in Nothing Semantics".

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
"Nothing" is not a "thing", as you put it. Please, look at the first post of the thread, "An Exercise in Nothing Semantics".

Put it in "quotes" if it will make you feel better but I think my meaning was clear- I don't wish for this debate to degrade into one on semantics.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Put it in "quotes" if it will make you feel better but I think my meaning was clear- I don't wish for this debate to degrade into one on semantics.

First of all, a semantic discussion is not degratory, merely basic.

Secondly, I put it in quotes because to leave it without quotes is to imply that it is something, when this is a logical contradiction.

Lastly, your point was clear, and clearly wrong. If you run it through the "exercise" it becomes "'everything' (or "the universe") didn't come from anything" and is thus correct. But if you say that there was a state, called "nothing", that gave birth to "everything" you are wrong, because "nothing" is not a state or a thing.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
First of all, a semantic discussion is not degratory, merely basic.

Secondly, I put it in quotes because to leave it without quotes is to imply that it is something, when this is a logical contradiction.

Lastly, your point was clear, and clearly wrong. If you run it through the "exercise" it becomes "'everything' (or "the universe") didn't come from anything" and is thus correct. But if you say that there was a state, called "nothing", that gave birth to "everything" you are wrong, because "nothing" is not a state or a thing.

I had put the word "thing" in quotes if you had not noticed since I had anticipated different interprations of the meaning "thing".

I don't understand how you can twist the meaning of my statement and then claim that it is wrong? Of course it is wrong if you change the meaning to what YOU want it to mean. In my statement, I was making a very simple claim: the question of origin can only be answered finally by answering that everything comes from nothing. But I had assumed the most widely accepted meaning of the words "nothing" , "thing", "everything", "comes", "because", "it", "from", "only", "the", and "doesn't", instead of your more esoteric definitions.

[wuliheron]

My statement was not a joke, but feel free to read it as that.
Take anything in the universe - one can always ask of it "where
does that come from?" And if the answer was found to be something
else, the good philosopher would then ask of that, "where does that
come from?" Ad infinitum.

Sorry, philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, not meaningless answers. Your logic is self-referential and self-contradictory, in other words, paradoxical. Something and nothing axiomatically refer to each other. Often the wisest thing to do is simply admit our ignorance and apparent lack of ability to rectify this ignorance so that we can move on to more productive things.

This is essentially what Aristotle did with Zeno's reductio ad absurdum or what I shall refer to here as the “backdoor” argument. Rather than directly proving something, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are patently ridiculous. For example, if I wish to prove I exist using this backdoor approach, I could first show how absurd it is for me to assert I do not exist. How could I possibly insist I do not exist, unless I actually do exist?

Zeno used this kind of argumentative technique to demonstrate that any possible explanation for existence leads to a paradox, ad absurdium that is. For hundreds of years foolish philosophers challanged his arguments and philosophy to no avail. He used this to justiify his own paradoxical philosophy was no better or worse than any other and, as a result, collected a rather impressive following of argumentative young men who wished to make others look foolish.

Aristotle put a stop to this nonsense by turning this argument around and applying Zeno's own backdoor approach to logic itself. What he showed was that unless we assume everything is either true or false any argument we put forward will lead to a paradox. Thus, if you are going to argue logically that existence comes from nothing you are not inviting an end to the debate, but a continuation of it. Better to just admit we don't know imo.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, not meaningless answers. Your logic is self-referential and self-contradictory, in other words, paradoxical. Something and nothing axiomatically refer to each other. Often the wisest thing to do is simply admit our ignorance and apparent lack of ability to rectify this ignorance so that we can move on to more productive things.

This is essentially what Aristotle did with Zeno's reductio ad absurdum or what I shall refer to here as the “backdoor” argument. Rather than directly proving something, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are patently ridiculous. For example, if I wish to prove I exist using this backdoor approach, I could first show how absurd it is for me to assert I do not exist. How could I possibly insist I do not exist, unless I actually do exist?

Zeno used this kind of argumentative technique to demonstrate that any possible explanation for existence leads to a paradox, ad absurdium that is. For hundreds of years foolish philosophers challanged his arguments and philosophy to no avail. He used this to justiify his own paradoxical philosophy was no better or worse than any other and, as a result, collected a rather impressive following of argumentative young men who wished to make others look foolish.

Aristotle put a stop to this nonsense by turning this argument around and applying Zeno's own backdoor approach to logic itself. What he showed was that unless we assume everything is either true or false any argument we put forward will lead to a paradox. Thus, if you are going to argue logically that existence comes from nothing you are not inviting an end to the debate, but a continuation of it. Better to just admit we don't know imo.

You write very poetic prose but are you denying that nothing is the absence of anything, and therefore is the only "thing" that need not have a cause?

It is always possible to ask about the origin of something, ad infinitum. Anything that has substance that you claim to be the origin, I can always think of something coming before. The only "thing" in which the question "where does this come from" leads to an absolute and irrefutable answer is "NOTHING".

And if Nothing is the only thing imaginable that need not a cause, it can be said to be the first cause. Everything came from nothing.

[wuliheron]

You write very poetic prose but are you denying that nothing is the absence of anything, and therefore is the only "thing" that need not have a cause?

It is always possible to ask about the origin of something. Anything that has substance that you claim to be the origin, I can always think of something coming before. The only "thing" in which the question "where does this come from" leads to an absolute and irrefutable answer is "NOTHING".

And if Nothing is the only thing imaginable that need not a cause, it can be said to be the first cause. Everything came from nothing.

As I have already pointed out, we could argue this ad infinitum. I will say this once, just as clearly as I can:

If nothing is nothing, then it cannot be the cause of something!

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As I have already pointed out, we could argue this ad infinitum. I will say this once, just as clearly as I can:

If nothing is nothing, then it cannot be the cause of something!


That's called proof by assertion, I think. How do you know something can't come from nothing? We have never observed nothing. But only nothing did not come from anything so it is the only answer that gives finality to the question of origin.

[wuliheron]

Its not proof by assertion, again this is a paradox. Nothing cannot be a cause because then it would be something. Go ahead, argue all you want, I refuse to argue anymore with such irrational nonsense.

'Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.'

[Another God]

I've come to the conclusion that there was always something.

[wuliheron]

That presents yet another paradox. To say something is infinite is to say it has no limit, but this is a self-contradictory and self-referential statement. It places the limit on itself that there is no limit.

[Another God]

I never said it was a 'good' conclusion. It just happened to be the point I had got to when I stopped thinking.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That presents yet another paradox. To say something is infinite is to say it has no limit, but this is a self-contradictory and self-referential statement. It places the limit on itself that there is no limit.
I've not read anything else. But this is nonsense reasoning.
How can "no limits" be a limit? A limit to what? Name me one thing that a no-limits being is limited to be.

Make philosophy your slave. Don't be a slave to a particular philosophy.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Its not proof by assertion, again this is a paradox. Nothing cannot be a cause because then it would be something. Go ahead, argue all you want, I refuse to argue anymore with such irrational nonsense.

'Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.'


No, that is only if you assumed something always has to be caused by something. Something that is caused by nothing does not make the nothing a something. Nothing is the natural origin for all things since there is nothing before nothing.

[Another God]

ah huh... so you are saying that....
0 => 0
Therefore
0 => a

You are aware of the laws of logic aren't you?

[wuliheron]

I suspect like LG, s/he's just talking rhetorical nonsense AG. Every philosophy doesn't have to be logical. :0)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I suspect like LG, s/he's just talking rhetorical nonsense AG. Every philosophy doesn't have to be logical. :0)
Correction. No religion has to be logical.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Another God
ah huh... so you are saying that....
0 => 0
Therefore
0 => a

You are aware of the laws of logic aren't you?

I think the relation above does not represent what I am saying.
When you say 0=>0 and 0 => a , you are giving 0 two different
definitions. Of course that would be contradictory. That's like saying an apple is an apple is also an orange. "nothing" is not
"something", I never said it was.

I was speaking in terms of cause and effect. Every "something" can be said to have a cause. "Nothing" otoh is not something, therefore, it doesn't need a cause. But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself.


The only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer : Everything came from nothing. That's the final answer.

[Another God]

ok, how about...

Y => Z
X => Y
W => X
V => W
U => V
T => U

damn, if this keeps up...i'll run out of letter. What can I do? I know, I need to find something which doesn't need a cause, and put that at the begining.

Therefore:

0 => A

-----------------------------------
IOW: Your logical basis for this claim comes from the fact that you don't want to deal with infinite regress. You ahve no actual basis for claiming that 0 => A, other than the fact that it would be really nice if it did. [:D]

Sure, i haven't proven that it isn't possible... But i'm sure it could be done. What I think is most important here though, is simply the fact that there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be true.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Another God
ok, how about...

Y => Z
X => Y
W => X
V => W
U => V
T => U

damn, if this keeps up...i'll run out of letter. What can I do? I know, I need to find something which doesn't need a cause, and put that at the begining.

Therefore:

0 => A

-----------------------------------
IOW: Your logical basis for this claim comes from the fact that you don't want to deal with infinite regress. You ahve no actual basis for claiming that 0 => A, other than the fact that it would be really nice if it did. [:D]

Sure, i haven't proven that it isn't possible... But i'm sure it could be done. What I think is most important here though, is simply the fact that there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be true.

Yea, I think this is a nice assessment. All but the part about you being able to prove that nothing cannot be the cause of something.

[Another God]

OK then. For your hypothesis that nothing can give rise to something, you are necessrily saying that it is a property of nothing, to cause something.
0 => a
This is a property of nothing, which you are claiming. (Saying that there is a 'chance' that nothing can cause something is meaningless since nothing has no time, has no dimensions, and has no method through which a realisation of chance can occur. It either is, or it isn't.)

In making this claim, you are essentially saying that nothing is an immediate cause of something, and in so doing, you could be said to be redefining nothing, as something.

Nothing = A prime Mover.

LOL, i have just shown that your whole claim is not really what you think it is. You thought it was about something coming from nothing, but if yiou follow the logic through, then u actually end up with a prime mover. LOL.

Can anyone see any faults with my logic? It seems a little wierd for me to reach that end....

[wuliheron]

Nope, that's just the circuitous route to exactly what I said. That is, that to say nothing is the cause of something is to say nothing is something. In other words, rhetorical nonsense.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Another God
OK then. For your hypothesis that nothing can give rise to something, you are necessrily saying that it is a property of nothing, to cause something.
0 => a
This is a property of nothing, which you are claiming. (Saying that there is a 'chance' that nothing can cause something is meaningless since nothing has no time, has no dimensions, and has no method through which a realisation of chance can occur. It either is, or it isn't.)

In making this claim, you are essentially saying that nothing is an immediate cause of something, and in so doing, you could be said to be redefining nothing, as something.

Nothing = A prime Mover.

LOL, i have just shown that your whole claim is not really what you think it is. You thought it was about something coming from nothing, but if yiou follow the logic through, then u actually end up with a prime mover. LOL.

Can anyone see any faults with my logic? It seems a little wierd for me to reach that end....

No, I did not redefine nothing as something, you did. What is a "prime mover"? Can it be seen, felt, smelt, heard, tasted?

Maybe "cause" isn't the right word to describe the process of existence ex-nihilo since we usually associate cause and effect
as a relationship between two "somethings". Rather, existence ex-nihilo- something coming into existence from non-existence- is a process that happens "without cause". It is a break in cause and effect.

It's like if a purple dinosaur (a real one) suddenly appeared in your living room. This is an effect that has no cause. Extend this thought to a time when there was no living room, no energy, no matter- nothing. Here, "Nothing" did not cause the purple dinosaur to exist but rather describes the void that became occupied by the purple dinosaur when before it was not occupied by anything.

Before there was a purple dinosaur, there was a void. Before there was a void, there was a void. Before there was a void, there was a void. A void is the only "thing" where there is no before.

[wuliheron]

The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.

Yes, magic. Everything came from magic.

[wuliheron]

That's a common asian belief as well, and totally compatable with Quantum Mechanics I might add. Do you believe anything other than the origin of existence itself is magical?

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's a common asian belief as well, and totally compatable with Quantum Mechanics I might add. Do you believe anything other than the origin of existence itself is magical?

Well, I think our universe now follows some very strict rules for operation. I find the fact that it does quite magical itself. As far as things popping into and out of existence kind of magic, I think even if this is still happening, it is happening in a different world than ours. Else, I don't see how our universe could remain so stable

[Another God]

Everything which you are claiming here, is essentially meaningless. The concept of magic is meaningless even.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Another God
Everything which you are claiming here, is essentially meaningless. The concept of magic is meaningless even.

Is it any more meaningless than infinite regression of cause and effect? If something always comes from something then the question of origin can never be resolved unless you can count to infinity.

So what better to serve as the time of origin than a true void?

[zimbo]

Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

Just like to point out that Abbott and Costello are both names of senior Australian government ministers, which makes your post that much funnier from my perspective. [:D]

[Another God]

Originally posted by zimbo
Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

[:D]
Lol, that skit is one of the most well known classic comedy skits of all time. I think my uncle has a copy of it on tape. It has abbott and costello on stage engaged in a dialogue. Stand up comedy i guess. I would imagine you could download the text from various net based site... Or now, you can just cut and paste from Wuliherons post.

(the footage is black and white BTW... so I get the impression its a really really old skit)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eyesee
I think the relation above does not represent what I am saying.
When you say 0=>0 and 0 => a , you are giving 0 two different
definitions. Of course that would be contradictory. That's like saying an apple is an apple is also an orange. "nothing" is not
"something", I never said it was.

I was speaking in terms of cause and effect. Every "something" can be said to have a cause. "Nothing" otoh is not something, therefore, it doesn't need a cause.

I agree with this. It's well-reasoned.

But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself.

Which hat did you pull this from? How can 'nothing' be the cause and future-residence of 'something'? There's no reason in your statement. It makes no sense.

The only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer : Everything came from nothing. That's the final answer.
Thus, it follows that this conclusion is also wrong.
It should be noted that things are finite structures (bounded structures) of existence. I.e., things within existence.
Thus, the only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer: Every-thing emanates from an unbounded existence, which is eternal unto itself. A primal-cause.

[Eyesee]

Which hat did you pull this from? How can 'nothing' be the cause and future-residence of 'something'? There's no reason in your statement. It makes no sense.


Yes, thanks for helping me make the distinction. With the help of wuli, I found the right word for the original cause of something: magic. Earlier, I had used the word "nothing" to mean both as a void and also as being the cause of "something". What I meant to say was that the beginning of time was a void, then something came to occupy the void without cause- aka by magic. I am merely proposing that we place the void as the beginning of time since nothing comes before a void. What follows of course is that existence came to occupy the void by "magic".


Thus, it follows that this conclusion is also wrong.
It should be noted that things are finite structures (bounded structures) of existence. I.e., things within existence.
Thus, the only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer: Every-thing emanates from an unbounded existence, which is eternal unto itself. A primal-cause. [/B]

Nay, as long as there is something, it is possible for one to ask, "where did that come from?" One can never count to infinity,
so this position can never be resolved. However, if we placed the beginning at the void, the question of existence is resolved.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eyesee
With the help of wuli, I found the right word for the original cause of something: magic. Earlier, I had used the word "nothing" to mean both as a void and also as being the cause of "something". What I meant to say was that the beginning of time was a void, then something came to occupy the void without cause- aka by magic. I am merely proposing that we place the void as the beginning of time since nothing comes before a void. What follows of course is that existence came to occupy the void by "magic".

"A void" is an existant 'entity' if it is not nothing. Hence, it is a part (or whole) of existence itself. What follows is that things came to occupy "the void", after being caused to do so by the void itself.
Like I said, 'things' are bounded-structures within existence.
Hence, 'things' emanate from existence. Not magic.

Nay, as long as there is something, it is possible for one to ask, "where did that come from?" The final answer has to be the void. [/B]
And "the void" itself is eternal. But like I said, the void is not 'nothing'. It may imply the non-existence of a 4-dimensional entity. But it doesn't imply the non-existence of any entity.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"A void" is an existant 'entity' if it is not nothing. Hence, it is a part (or whole) of existence itself. What follows is that things came to occupy "the void", after being caused to do so by the void itself.
Like I said, 'things' are bounded-structures within existence.
Hence, 'things' emanate from existence. Not magic.

And "the void" itself is eternal. But like I said, the void is not 'nothing'. It may imply the non-existence of a 4-dimensional entity. But it doesn't imply the non-existence of any entity.

Well, that sounds pretty deep. My thinking is probably a little bit more simplistic. I think of the void as truly nothing. Then, by magic, "things" came into existence and evolved ever after. So, I guess I am agreeing that existence is eternal- but only after they came to occupy the void by magic (if that makes any sense). I probably like your explanation better and there probably isn't much difference between our thinking.

My whole thinking was more to find some practical way to define the beginning of time.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eyesee
I think of the void as truly nothing.

But there is no reason to state that it is. The absence of space-time does not = 'nothing'. It just = the absence of space-time... a void of space-time. It is right here where you make you first reasoned mistake; and why your proceeding logic becomes confusing and flawed.

Then, by magic, "things" came into existence and evolved ever after.

Because you have introduced the concept of 'nothing' into your argument (unreasonably), you now feel justified in using the word 'magic'. It just aint so.

So, I guess I am agreeing that existence is eternal

Are you? You implied that existence came from 'nothing'. Therefore you imply that existence has an origin. Therefore you imply that existence has a finite age. And all of this confusion and contradiction has its source in your treatment of 'nothing'.

Reason would insist that something cannot emanate from nothing. Therefore, if something exists now, then reason would state that existence is eternal, and that there never was a state of nothing.
"The void" is definitely some form of existence, and all 'things' emanate from it.

- but only after they came to occupy the void by magic (if that makes any sense).

No it does not. What is 'magic'? I'm not sure what it means in this context. But it has no credibility in a reasoned argument.

I probably like your explanation better and there probably isn't much difference between our thinking.

There's more than you think.

[wuliheron]

Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

Just like to point out that Abbott and Costello are both names of senior Australian government ministers, which makes your post that much funnier from my perspective.

It's an old comedy routine from the movies. I just did a google search for "who's on first". The entire routine can be had for free online in mp3 files if you like, but I decided not to waste space posting the whole thing. :0)

Well, I think our universe now follows some very strict rules for operation. I find the fact that it does quite magical itself. As far as things popping into and out of existence kind of magic, I think even if this is still happening, it is happening in a different world than ours. Else, I don't see how our universe could remain so stable

Well, Quantum Mechanics insists things called "virtual" particles are appearing and disappearing all the time, but they are so small they cannot be directly detected. Its the extreme nature of the situation that determines whether such magical events are detectable. For example, Stephen Hawking once wrote that a black hole could theoretically emit a color tv or the complete works of Proust in leather bound volumes.

Because their is no cause, there can be no explanation or proof such things are magical. You can't prove what isn't there. All you can do is collect statistical evidence as is the case with Quantum Mechanics. Thus QM asserts that given enough time anything and everything can and will occur.

Is it any more meaningless than infinite regression of cause and effect? If something always comes from something then the question of origin can never be resolved unless you can count to infinity.

So what better to serve as the time of origin than a true void?

Paradox or the ineffable are better. As I said before, there is no way to actually prove something has no cause because you cannot prove a negative. Nor does it make sense to adopt a rigid position in reguard to life, the universe, and everything. It may all be a matter of relative perspective. Often the wisest thing is to simply acknowledge and accept the depths of our ignorance or, at least, our ability to communicate. :0)

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Every "something" can be said to have a cause. "Nothing" otoh is not something, therefore, it doesn't need a cause. But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself. The only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer : Everything came from nothing. That's the final answer.

I see two problems with your proposal, but before describing them let me be sure I understand you what you mean by nothing. To say “nothing” I assume you mean absolutely no sort of existence. Nothing could mean no “thing” and a thing might be defined as that which has form. If you defined “thing” that way, then some existent essence which is formless might still fit your definition of no-thing. So, my rebuttals to your points assumes you mean by “nothing” the absence of both form and formless existence – that is, "nothing" is absolutely devoid of existence.

My first objection to your hypothesis all existence stems from nothing is a contradiction that is built into your statement. That logical inconsistency is: nothing is not truly an existential void if it contains potential.

Logically, all that exists is preceded by the potential to exist. That is irrefutable. If you want to call potential nothing, then you have to ignore the incredible emissions of potential that we observe in our universe. Out of potential has burst the entire universe, light, forces, matter, life, and consciousness. All that was present in potential before it ever came to exist or it could not possibly exist. I can't see how anyone can refer to such potential as “nothing.” Contemplating what this potential might be like is a segue to my second rebuttal point.

By saying “Every ‘something’ can be said to have a cause,” you’ve assumed a fact about existence which isn’t necessarily true. Why couldn’t there be some most elementary “existential stuff” which was never caused or created, which has always existed, which will always exist and, in fact, which cannot not exist? Possibly this existential stuff is a luminescent vibrancy that some set of circumstances lift from its base condition into the light and vibratory manifestations so ubiquitous in our universe. (The relatively recent points made about zero point energy, for instance, rather than representing “nothing,” could instead represent a state of counterbalanced polar forces, which are themselves expressed potentials of vibrancy.)

It seems to me that the argument of nothing becoming something can only be made through sophistry. How else does one circumvent the illogic and contradictions of the hypothesis, disregard potential and the possibility of some absolute existential stuff, and the especially ignore the observed and substantive presence of existence?

[wuliheron]

Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what. Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational. Even your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see two problems with your proposal, but before describing them let me be sure I understand you what you mean by nothing. To say “nothing” I assume you mean absolutely no sort of existence. Nothing could mean no “thing” and a thing might be defined as that which has form. If you defined “thing” that way, then some existent essence which is formless might still fit your definition of no-thing. So, my rebuttals to your points assumes you mean by “nothing” the absence of both form and formless existence – that is, "nothing" is absolutely devoid of existence.

My first objection to your hypothesis all existence stems from nothing is a contradiction that is built into your statement. That logical inconsistency is: nothing is not truly an existential void if it contains potential.

Logically, all that exists is preceded by the potential to exist. That is irrefutable. If you want to call potential nothing, then you have to ignore the incredible emissions of potential that we observe in our universe. Out of potential has burst the entire universe, light, forces, matter, life, and consciousness. All that was present in potential before it ever came to exist or it could not possibly exist. I can't see how anyone can refer to such potential as “nothing.” Contemplating what this potential might be like is a segue to my second rebuttal point.

By saying “Every ‘something’ can be said to have a cause,” you’ve assumed a fact about existence which isn’t necessarily true. Why couldn’t there be some most elementary “existential stuff” which was never caused or created, which has always existed, which will always exist and, in fact, which cannot not exist? Possibly this existential stuff is a luminescent vibrancy that some set of circumstances lift from its base condition into the light and vibratory manifestations so ubiquitous in our universe. (The relatively recent points made about zero point energy, for instance, rather than representing “nothing,” could instead represent a state of counterbalanced polar forces, which are themselves expressed potentials of vibrancy.)

It seems to me that the argument of nothing becoming something can only be made through sophistry. How else does one circumvent the illogic and contradictions of the hypothesis, disregard potential and the possibility of some absolute existential stuff, and the especially ignore the observed and substantive presence of existence?


Ok, these are good points. But as wuli pointed out, you are assuming a logical model of the universe. Magic is a break in this logic. My statement can be rephrased as thus I think: Any logical model of the universe leads to infinite regression; the only way out of this infinte regression and thus resolving the question of existence is through a break in cause and effect.

[Mentat]

If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

Also, Eyesee, your use of the word "nothing" was the real problem, but as you seem to have abandoned the use of this word (and have instead taken the word "magic"), I don't see any need for me to explain the flaw to you. If you want to (and are open-minded enough), check out the aforementioned thread (Exercise in Nothing Semantics).

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

Also, Eyesee, your use of the word "nothing" was the real problem, but as you seem to have abandoned the use of this word (and have instead taken the word "magic"), I don't see any need for me to explain the flaw to you. If you want to (and are open-minded enough), check out the aforementioned thread (Exercise in Nothing Semantics).

Well, I think that is just a play on the term "0 energy". "0 energy" in this context is not truly a lack of energy but a composite of negative and positive energy.

This is still a logical model for existence, which ultimately leads to infinite regression. If you don't believe me, just keep asking "where does that come from" out of every "fundamental" something you discover.

I'm not saying that an infinitely regressive logical universe isn't possible, just that in such, the question of existence is futile and unprovable since one can never count to infinity.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what.

?

Originally posted by wuliheron
Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational.

So you say, but I couldn't disagree more. One can always find ways to say there isn't anything which is true, real, rational . . . but then nothing has any meaning whatsoever. We've assigned meanings to terms and experiences in order to communicate about them the best we can. If one understands that terms and descriptions only represent reality, and are not themselves actual reality, then it is perfectly fine to discuss things and and expect rationality. For the most part, I believe it is a waste of time to incessantly cast doubt on the relationship between mental images and reality, unless someone in a communication interaction seems utterly blind to that.

Originally posted by wuliheron
YEven your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

I have this friend who is well educated in history, but knows virtually nothing about human psychology. To him, every problem a man has stems from either having a short man syndrome, or being a republican (or both). Similarly, it seems that every problem you find with others' points is that they don't properly understand paradox, and their logic is "circular, self-referential and/or self-contradictory."

If your statement above is a serious statement, I would love to hear you defend that. Exactly how is it "circular" to make the simple observation that all which exists (and I should add "in time and space") must have been preceded by the potential to exist? I mean, where in my statement have I merely repeated my argument, or assumed the conclusion that is to be proven?

How is it self referential? For that I would have to say something like, "all generalizations are false." Where do you see that?

And really Wuli, how is it self-contradictory? Demostrate precisely where/how my logical linking of prior potential to the existence of thing is contradictory. In fact, demostrate how one can possibly get around that principle.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what. Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational. Even your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

Wu Li, when are you going to realize that just because all efforts to describe somthing have failed, it doesn't mean that the thing they are trying to describe is indescribable. That is the most closed-minded stance that it is possible to take. And open-minded person would realize that all it proves - to not have succeeded at describing something - is that you have not succeeded at describing something. And optimist would even go so far as to say that it means we must be closer to the answer, because trial-and-error dictates that the more times you fail, the more likely you are to find the answer.

I'm not asking you to be optimistic, merely open-minded.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Well, I think that is just a play on the term "0 energy". "0 energy" in this context is not truly a lack of energy but a composite of negative and positive energy.

This is still a logical model for existence, which ultimately leads to infinite regression. If you don't believe me, just keep asking "where does that come from" out of every "fundamental" something you discover.

I'm not saying that an infinitely regressive logical universe isn't possible, just that in such, the question of existence is futile and unprovable since one can never count to infinity.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

A "true void" exists, I can still ask where it came from. I don't think that Magic is any better an explanation then infinite regression. In fact, I don't think that either suffices, and I'll stick with BB theory.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

I wouldn't think you would buy that science mumbo jumbo so trustingly. It is just the desparate interpretation of those who know there is still no viable explanation for the origin of the universe's energy. It is merely one way to interpret that zero, and in no way already accepted as true. Besides, it only applies locally; how does it explain that the universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is believed to be increasing? Plus, what about dark energy? That zero could very well represent entirely as yet unrecognized dynamics.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
[BAny logical model of the universe leads to infinite regression; the only way out of this infinte regression and thus resolving the question of existence is through a break in cause and effect- by magic. [/B]

Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff' come from?" So if you stipulate that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or by imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the infinitely regressing cause-effect chain by assuming something irrational- something that had no cause.

I just think "magic" is an even more "basic" explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff'" come from? So if you impose that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the
cause-effect chain. I just think "magic" is a more elemental explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

Yes, with the uncreated "stuff" you break the cause-effect chain. I thought that was what you were looking for.

Magic has been proven to be a mere illusion. What in reality has ever demonstrated it can get around the rules of reality, and therefore give you hope that actual magic (i.e., not just an illlusion) can really occur?

Finally, again I must fault your concept of nothing because that "nothing" must contain the potential for the universe, life and consciousness since we now exist. It is not "nothing" if it contains so much potential.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, with the uncreated "stuff" you break the cause-effect chain. I thought that was what you were looking for.

Magic has been proven to be a mere illusion. What in reality has ever demonstrated it can get around the rules of reality, and therefore give you hope that actual magic (i.e., not just an illlusion) can really occur?

Finally, again I must fault your concept of nothing because that "nothing" must contain the potential for the universe, life and consciousness since we now exist. It is not "nothing" if it contains so much potential.


Well, if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for "nothing"? Under this definition of nothing, there is "potential" for something to exist, but this "potential" is not matter, energy, or space- so it is something irrational.

I'm not really disagreeing with your idea, merely pointing out that to break the infinite regression, one must break the logic. That is, we must start off with an irrational assumption. Magic or potential- they are both irrational since they do not obey the causal principle.

[wuliheron]

Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

What you are essentially asking here is what if.... there were some magical substance..... Stuff which has no origin or cause.....

In other words, back to the same issue again. I know the idea of "stuff" of some sort seems more reasonable maybe than some sort of magical "energy" or whatever, but bottom line it is not. At least, not by any logic I'm aware of.

Wu Li, when are you going to realize that just because all efforts to describe somthing have failed, it doesn't mean that the thing they are trying to describe is indescribable. That is the most closed-minded stance that it is possible to take. And open-minded person would realize that all it proves - to not have succeeded at describing something - is that you have not succeeded at describing something. And optimist would even go so far as to say that it means we must be closer to the answer, because trial-and-error dictates that the more times you fail, the more likely you are to find the answer.


When are you going to realize that a demonstrably irrational and possibly magical universe does not mean it can be described.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

Sorry, but insisting magic is a resolution to the situation is like insisting dill pickles explain the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it apparently does not make rational sense. It may be then that if it does make rational sense, either it is beyond the human capicity to comprehend or it is ineffable.

That being the case, it may also be that logic is just inappropriate to use in certain contexts such as existence itself. This does not, however, rule out our emotional connection to life, the universe, and everything.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Well, if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for "nothing"? Under this definition of nothing, there is "potential" for something to exist, but this "potential" is not matter, energy, or space- so it is something irrational.

I'm not really disagreeing with your idea, merely pointing out that to break the infinite regression, one must break the logic. That is, we must start off with an irrational assumption. Magic or potential- they are both irrational since they do not obey the causal principle.

I think I am starting to see what you mean. Sometimes how we each interpret words can be quite different even if we agree on the overall meaning.

But to answer your question, "if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for 'nothing'?", First, remember that I asked you up front if you meant by "nothing" if it was just the absense of "form" or a complete and total void.

If there is something other than energy, matter and space -- something that is not detected by our sensing machinery -- then no, your concept would not fit that of "nothing." In fact, if this absolute "stuff" is the essence of all that exists, then there is actually no way for "nothing" to exist.

As to your point that a break in the logic of infinite cause and effect is irrational, I would say that it is only irrational to those who insist that every effect must have a cause. That does not mean that the theory of an uncreated potential doesn't make sense . . . you understand the concept don't you?

Magic, however, is another subject. So far, everything that initially seemed "magical" has been found to make sense when more facts were discovered. Based on that experience, we might surmise that although existence is difficult to understand with the information we have, the ultimate basis/origin of of existence will make sense when/if we ever get enough information about how existence works.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I wouldn't think you would buy that science mumbo jumbo so trustingly. It is just the desparate interpretation of those who know there is still no viable explanation for the origin of the universe's energy. It is merely one way to interpret that zero, and in no way already accepted as true. Besides, it only applies locally; how does it explain that the universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is believed to be increasing? Plus, what about dark energy? That zero could very well represent entirely as yet unrecognized dynamics.

LW Sleeth, It isn't mumbo jumbo, it's Quantum Uncertainty. You see, nothing is ever perfectly definable, so from a state of absolutely no existence could pop up an entire universe. All that this "0" argument proves is that the very "energy" didn't have to come from energy, but could have just come about.

Anyway, it's not my idea, it just seemed pertinent to the discussion.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Well, if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for "nothing"?


You say "if there was". That implies time, there can also be no time (as time is something), in your supposed "nothing". This is a key point, because to imply that there was a thing called "nothing" that existed before "everything" is to imply that "nothing" exists on the T dimension, and this is contradictory.


I'm not really disagreeing with your idea, merely pointing out that to break the infinite regression, one must break the logic.


Not necessarily. One must break the cause-and-effect chain, yes. But not logic. An existence that had no creator/cause can be logical.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
LW Sleeth, It isn't mumbo jumbo, it's Quantum Uncertainty. You see, nothing is ever perfectly definable, so from a state of absolutely no existence could pop up an entire universe. All that this "0" argument proves is that the very "energy" didn't have to come from energy, but could have just come about.

I called it "mumbo jumbo" because some people are already citing this interpretation as the "truth." I believe they do that because they are desparate for a source of the universe's energy, and they don't have it. I have read everything I can find on the zero point concept and find the interpretation of "something from nothing" to be an incredible leap.

If you have evidence/studies that suggest I should hve more faith in this interpretation, I would love to see it.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
You write very poetic prose but are you denying that nothing is the absence of anything, and therefore is the only "thing" that need not have a cause?

It is always possible to ask about the origin of something, ad infinitum. Anything that has substance that you claim to be the origin, I can always think of something coming before. The only "thing" in which the question "where does this come from" leads to an absolute and irrefutable answer is "NOTHING".

And if Nothing is the only thing imaginable that need not a cause, it can be said to be the first cause. Everything came from nothing.

This is absurd reasoning. There can't be a state of "nothing" cause it is a timeless and unchanging state. If we recognize the fact that we now observe an existing world, it can't have started from a "non-existing" world.

Because we should negate your thesis that any existing state can be a successor of a non-existing state or a state of "nothing", it follows that there can't have been a beginning state (which would be the only state where there was no preceding state, in other words, it came from "nothing"). So, the world is in eternal movement, without begin or end.

[wuliheron]

This is absurd reasoning. There can't be a state of "nothing" cause it is a timeless and unchanging state. If we recognize the fact that we now observe an existing world, it can't have started from a "non-existing" world.


Yes, that's correct, magic is absurd. That's part of its magic. The meaning of life, the universe, and everything may well be dill pickles, albeit, crunchy ones thank you. With that attitude, it becomes possible to look at life, the universe, and everything with an unbiased mind that does not axiomatically reject the irrational.

I called it "mumbo jumbo" because some people are already citing this interpretation as the "truth." I believe they do that because they are desparate for a source of the universe's energy, and they don't have it. I have read everything I can find on the zero point concept and find the interpretation of "something from nothing" to be an incredible leap.

If you have evidence/studies that suggest I should hve more faith in this interpretation, I would love to see it.

You miss the central issue imo. Paraconsistent logic has proven invaluable over the last hundred years and is central to Quantum Mechanics. Hence applying the Aristotlian principle of the excluded middle is simply not always productive or appropriate and simply does not describe everything we see. Of course such ideas sound absurd, but that does not prove they don't actually occur or that they are useless. :0)

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is absurd reasoning. There can't be a state of "nothing" cause it is a timeless and unchanging state. If we recognize the fact that we now observe an existing world, it can't have started from a "non-existing" world.

Because we should negate your thesis that any existing state can be a successor of a non-existing state or a state of "nothing", it follows that there can't have been a beginning state (which would be the only state where there was no preceding state, in other words, it came from "nothing"). So, the world is in eternal movement, without begin or end.

No, it is not absurd. I can't follow your post- please rewrite it. As for eternal existence, tell me how you are going to prove that? Can you count to infinity? If not, then you can't claim to know that existence is eternal. So, why not start at 0? Nada? Null? Nothing? Forget the negative numbers, let's just start at 0 then the question of existence is resolved.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
You say "if there was". That implies time, there can also be no time (as time is something), in your supposed "nothing". This is a key point, because to imply that there was a thing called "nothing" that existed before "everything" is to imply that "nothing" exists on the T dimension, and this is contradictory.



Not necessarily. One must break the cause-and-effect chain, yes. But not logic. An existence that had no creator/cause can be logical.

Ok, you're right. Nothing is hard to describe. But we do agree on the fact that we have to assume something irrational for existence to exist. By irrational I mean that it doesn't follow the causal principle.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
No, it is not absurd. I can't follow your post- please rewrite it. As for eternal existence, tell me how you are going to prove that? Can you count to infinity? If not, then you can't claim to know that existence is eternal. So, why not start at 0? Nada? Null? Nothing? Forget the negative numbers, let's just start at 0 then the question of existence is resolved.

Resolved? You are just applying "plain magic" there, and want me to accept that as an explenation?
Why start at the arbitrary point 0? What makes you think there is such a special point on the timeline? How do you know that? Any point in time is exactly the same as any other point on the time line with respect to the fact that every point has preceding points and succesive points, in other words, the timeline has no begin or end.

And please tell me exactly how you arrive from nothing to something, even if the something is infinitesimally small.

Therefore I just assume, with good reasons, that material existence is without begin or end. I don't need to count it, in order to proof that. There is no way one can count an infinite set. I can't even start counting on the infinite timeline, cause wherever I start, I always leave behind an infinite set.

Read further this text, by Friedrich Engels (1877) "Anti-Duhring". Philosophy of Nature: Time and Space (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff' come from?" So if you stipulate that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or by imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the infinitely regressing cause-effect chain by assuming something irrational- something that had no cause.

I just think "magic" is an even more "basic" explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

The cause-and-effect law can be applied to something definite, like the moon, the sun, the solar system, an apple. The cause-and-effect law can describe how something formed out of something else.

A territory in which the cause-and-effect law can not be applied to, is when you want to apply it to the whole of totality (everything that exists, the totality of material existence). Cause the totality of material existence already includes everything, therefore there can be no "outside" cause for material existence.

This can be also looked at as follows. Material existence has no alternative. For the only candidate for an existing material world, in whatever form or shape, would be a non-existing material world, which by definition, does not exist.

So, there isn't anything that "created" material existence, material existence just is (in eternal motion, without begin or end).

Read this: Why does the Universe exist? (http://www.everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Ok, you're right. Nothing is hard to describe. But we do agree on the fact that we have to assume something irrational for existence to exist. By irrational I mean that it doesn't follow the causal principle.

I don't think one has to assume something "irrational" to explain existence. It can't be explained using causal relations, cause they are only applicable within existence, and not for existence itself.
(since existence includes all that exists, there is not anything out of existence, so no "outside" cause can be proposed to explain existence itself).

The question about existence is the issue of why there exist something rather then nothing. Different philosophers have tried to deal with this issue in different ways (mainly in the field of ontology) and came up with different answers.
According to some philosophers the question is meaningless. For instance any explenation of "why is it the case that A?" needs an answer in the form of "because B is the case". But in this case, such an explenation cannot be given, since we can not assume the existence of anything to give grounds for such an explenation.

The question of why there is existence is a peculiar question, and one which is unanswerable. Existence just is, it has no cause or reason.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
LW Sleeth, It isn't mumbo jumbo, it's Quantum Uncertainty. You see, nothing is ever perfectly definable, so from a state of absolutely no existence could pop up an entire universe. All that this "0" argument proves is that the very "energy" didn't have to come from energy, but could have just come about.

Anyway, it's not my idea, it just seemed pertinent to the discussion.

The quantum vacuum state is imo not a candidate for a real state of nothingness. A state of nothingness is a state outside time, space and material existence, so not even quantum effects are existence in such a state.
Quantum mechanics just explains us that there isn't and can't be such a state of true nothingness.

The quantum mechanical state of a vacuum is not inexistence, it is existence in a material way, in a spatiotemporal way. It is existence at all times and all places in an ever changing way.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.

A statement as "everything came from nothing" seems to implie that it is the application of causal laws. However this application is outside of it's context, cause causal effects are spatiotemporal bound to material existence. Every material form or shape is caused by another material form or shape, but there isn't a material shape or form that is not caused by any material shape or form, or in other words: material existence doesn't "pop out of nothing".

If we negate the statement (i.e. everything came not from nothing) we see that the opposite is true, namely that every existing state of the material world is the effect of an previous state of the material world, which means that material existence is without begin or end.
It's the only sensible statement we can make about material existence.

[wuliheron]

The question of why there is existence is a peculiar question, and one which is unanswerable. Existence just is, it has no cause or reason.

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

Saying existence just IS, is just so much rhetorical nonsense. It is neither an explanation nor even a meaningful discription. Might as well just say it is magical at that rate or that dill pickles explain everything.

If existence is ineffable, unspeakable, then why do you keep trying? Why do you keep insisting infinity explains existence and then contradicting yourself by admitting infinity cannot be proven?

If we negate the statement (i.e. everything came not from nothing) we see that the opposite is true, namely that every existing state of the material world is the effect of an previous state of the material world, which means that material existence is without begin or end.
It's the only sensible statement we can make about material existence.

More nonsense disguised as meaningful statements. Sorry, but again this denies a century of evidence in Quantum Mechanics that everything may very well not be derived from some previous existent state. As any little kid knows, it's easy to get lost in infinity when you attempt to use it to explain anything.

Again, infinity is a paradoxical concept and to say it is sensible is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. For something to have no limits is, in itself, a limit. Every bit as misleading and self-referential as saying everything comes from nothing or from dill pickles. The only sensible thing we can say about existence is that it is demonstrably Paradoxical and possibly ineffable.

Of course, such elementary prehistoric reasoning doesn't stop people from infinitely attempting to explain existence using infinity. What a waste of time. Careful, don't spin in circles too fast or you'll throw up.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Ok, you're right. Nothing is hard to describe. But we do agree on the fact that we have to assume something irrational for existence to exist. By irrational I mean that it doesn't follow the causal principle.

If by "irrational", you mean "without cause", then I agree.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think one has to assume something "irrational" to explain existence. It can't be explained using causal relations, cause they are only applicable within existence, and not for existence itself.
(since existence includes all that exists, there is not anything out of existence, so no "outside" cause can be proposed to explain existence itself).

The question about existence is the issue of why there exist something rather then nothing. Different philosophers have tried to deal with this issue in different ways (mainly in the field of ontology) and came up with different answers.
According to some philosophers the question is meaningless. For instance any explenation of "why is it the case that A?" needs an answer in the form of "because B is the case". But in this case, such an explenation cannot be given, since we can not assume the existence of anything to give grounds for such an explenation.

The question of why there is existence is a peculiar question, and one which is unanswerable. Existence just is, it has no cause or reason.


"Existence just is, it has no cause or reason", in other words, it's magic?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[B]Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

Saying existence just IS, is just so much rhetorical nonsense. It is neither an explanation nor even a meaningful discription. Might as well just say it is magical at that rate or that dill pickles explain everything.

If existence is ineffable, unspeakable, then why do you keep trying? Why do you keep insisting infinity explains existence and then contradicting yourself by admitting infinity cannot be proven?


Infinity can not be proven, since it cannot be measured. As such I agree on this, even on the fact that infinity is a contradictional concept.

However, my statement does make sense, in that it negates the supposed fact that material existence had a begin or final cause.


More nonsense disguised as meaningful statements. Sorry, but again this denies a century of evidence in Quantum Mechanics that everything may very well not be derived from some previous existent state. As any little kid knows, it's easy to get lost in infinity when you attempt to use it to explain anything.


I hold it that the existence of Quantum Mechanical effects itself is some form of material existence.


Again, infinity is a paradoxical concept and to say it is sensible is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. For something to have no limits is, in itself, a limit. Every bit as misleading and self-referential as saying everything comes from nothing or from dill pickles. The only sensible thing we can say about existence is that it is demonstrably Paradoxical and possibly ineffable.


I agree that material existence is full of contradictions, and all attempts to get rid of the contradictions will create more and deeper contradictions.


Of course, such elementary prehistoric reasoning doesn't stop people from infinitely attempting to explain existence using infinity. What a waste of time. Careful, don't spin in circles too fast or you'll throw up.

Here is a text that deals more substantially with these issues: Philosophy of Nature: Space and Time (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
[B]"Existence just is, it has no cause or reason", in other words, it's magic?

No, on the contrary. In my mind to state that material existence DID have a beginning, can be hold as a form of MAGIC that occured (material existence suddenly popping out of nowhere). Since I state that such a begin did not occur, I think there was no magic involved.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.

Suppose we have a box with coines in them. I make the following statement about this box of coins. I say: "everything in the box weights less then 1 kilogram".
Now the fact shows up that the coin with the maximum weight is exactly 100 gram. However the weigt of the box of coins minus the weight of the box itself is 2 kilograms, so the coins together weight 2 kilograms.

Is my statement true or not?

You can argue it is true because there is no coin which weights more then 1 kilogram. Each coin weights less then 1 kilogram.
And you can argue that it is false because the weight of all the coins together is more then 1 kilogram.

This is an introduction to the slippery use of language, which is used in the statement "everything came from nothing".

The statement has double meaning, it can either mean that every individual thing came from nothing, i.e. the statement says that is is true for every individual thing that it came from nothing, i.e. it did not come from anything.
Or, alternatively, it can mean to say that everything in totallity came from nothing, i.e. it didn't come from anything.

The first statement is of course false, because of the law of causal effect. The second statement is however true.

This may seem contradictional, but you have to consider that the truthvalue of a statement about all members of a group is not necessarily the same as the truthvalue of a statement about the group itself.

For instance, we can say that every member of a football team has a parent. But the football team itself does not (necesarily) have a parent.

This type of argument, based on this confusion, is often used in defending the existence of a "creator", which in simple forms is the following line of argument: Everything has a cause. The world exists. So, it must have a cause, or been caused by something. Hence, a creator is needed (no creation without creator).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Suppose we have a box with coines in them. I make the following statement about this box of coins. I say: "everything in the box weights less then 1 kilogram".
Now the fact shows up that the coin with the maximum weight is exactly 100 gram. However the weigt of the box of coins minus the weight of the box itself is 2 kilograms, so the coins together weight 2 kilograms.

Is my statement true or not?

You can argue it is true because there is no coin which weights more then 1 kilogram. Each coin weights less then 1 kilogram.
And you can argue that it is false because the weight of all the coins together is more then 1 kilogram.

This is an introduction to the slippery use of language, which is used in the statement "everything came from nothing".

The statement has double meaning, it can either mean that every individual thing came from nothing, i.e. the statement says that is is true for every individual thing that it came from nothing, i.e. it did not come from anything.
Or, alternatively, it can mean to say that everything in totallity came from nothing, i.e. it didn't come from anything.

The first statement is of course false, because of the law of causal effect. The second statement is however true.

This may seem contradictional, but you have to consider that the truthvalue of a statement about all members of a group is not necessarily the same as the truthvalue of a statement about the group itself.

For instance, we can say that every member of a football team has a parent. But the football team itself does not (necesarily) have a parent.

This type of argument, based on this confusion, is often used in defending the existence of a "creator", which in simple forms is the following line of argument: Everything has a cause. The world exists. So, it must have a cause, or been caused by something. Hence, a creator is needed (no creation without creator).

You make a good point, heusdens. Actually, it is even more of a "slippery language" condition than you mentioned - because you mentioned how the use of "everything" can have double meaning, but the use of the word "nothing" can also have double meaning.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
You make a good point, heusdens. Actually, it is even more of a "slippery language" condition than you mentioned - because you mentioned how the use of "everything" can have double meaning, but the use of the word "nothing" can also have double meaning.

I think nothing just means "not any thing" and can't and shouldn't be used otherwise (at least not in the context in which it is supposed to be a thing).

But it's true that most confusion here on the forum on some topics arise out of flawed use of language expressions.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think nothing just means "not any thing" and can't and shouldn't be used otherwise (at least not in the context in which it is supposed to be a thing).

But it's true that most confusion here on the forum on some topics arise out of flawed use of language expressions.

Exactly, and that's the point of my "exercise". Seriously, if you take any sentence, in which one makes a case for "nothing"'s being something, and use my "exercise" on it, it usually either ceases to have meaning, or becomes rational.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly, and that's the point of my "exercise". Seriously, if you take any sentence, in which one makes a case for "nothing"'s being something, and use my "exercise" on it, it usually either ceases to have meaning, or becomes rational.

Well your intitial statement "everything came from nothing" is a typical example of flawed use of language expressions. It should have been stated like "The universe is uncaused". (we can for reasons of avoiding ambiguity not use the term "everything" for "universe")

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well your intitial statement "everything came from nothing" is a typical example of flawed use of language expressions. It should have been stated like "The universe is uncaused". (we can for reasons of avoiding ambiguity not use the term "everything" for "universe")


"Uncaused" has the same meaning as caused by "nothing", depending on the usage of the word nothing. I do agree however that "uncaused" is more clear. But "uncaused" for me is also synonymous with "magic".


I consider any phenomena, process, substance, etc, that does not obey the causal principle as "magical".

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
"Uncaused" has the same meaning as caused by "nothing", depending on the usage of the word nothing. I do agree however that "uncaused" is more clear. But "uncaused" for me is also synonymous with "magic".


I consider any phenomena, process, substance, etc, that does not obey the causal principle as "magical".

Anything IN the universe obeys causal principles (at least to some extent, QM may tell a different story however) but not the universe as a whole.

It may sound 'magical', yet it realy is not. In fact the opposite (the universe being 'caused' by some unknown entity) is magical.
It is contradictionary also, cause the fact that the universe is best seen as 'all there is' does BY DEFINITION not provide for the existence of something outside it.

The real meaning of the statement that the universe is uncaused is however is that it did not appear suddenly out of nothing, but had existed always, and will always exist.

The irronical thing however that - based on scientific knowledge - we know that this is not true, at least not in a trivial way. Everything in the universe is evolving, and will eventuale evade. This holds true for stars, planets, star systems, galaxies, etc. But even when we provide for a mechanism that recreates starts, planets and galaxies, for theoretical reasons (mainly because of the overall domination of gravity) the universe could not be stable for all of eternity.
Moreover the Big Bang theory provides us a global history of the universe, a model of an expanding universe, which in the past was much smaller and much more dense and much hotter.
It even puts a practical limit on how far we can see back, cause we are not able to directly observe things in the universe before the Big Bang happened. The cause of the Big Bang is still under investigation.
Note however that if we use the concential terms here, and say the universe was caused in the big bang, we run into deep trouble again, because the big bang cannot have a cause then. We can circumvade this problem only by assuming that some or other form of material existence in a spatiotemporal way, already existed before the big bang, and caused the big bang. It follows then that the universe we witness today, even including that what we assume is outside of our horizon of sight in the same 'spacetime bubble', can only be part of the universe.

Some might claim however that the universe 'started' in the Big Bang, that time, space and material existence started in the Big Bang.
This brings us back to the old days of mysticism...

Future scientific discoveries will eventually provide a better answer then that.

[wuliheron]

The real meaning of the statement that the universe is uncaused is however is that it did not appear suddenly out of nothing, but had existed always, and will always exist.


These are just two ways of saying the same thing, that is, that existence has no cause. Here is the dictionary definition of supernatural:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.


Existence can be said to fullfill all of these criteria.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
These are just two ways of saying the same thing, that is, that existence has no cause. Here is the dictionary definition of supernatural:

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


Existence can be said to fullfill all of these criteria.

I don't see that exactly.
Existence is not supernatural, and existence does not fullfill any of your criteria, I'm affraid.

You are trapped into thinking that what is true for all members of a group, must be true for the group itself. You cannot place the laws of causality outside the existing material world they don't have meaning there, material existence is an eternal process, the process itself consists of endless excercises of the law of cause-and-effect, so existence is causality.

1. Existence (material existence) is not 'outside' the natural world. The natural world IS existence, without the need for a 'deity'.

2. Natural forces don't violate natural forces, natural forces can only violate our models of natural forces, which means either we have conducted a bad experiment, or we discovered a new behaviour in nature, not previously known

3. Existence does not relate to a 'deity', not withstanding the fact that some existing people are exercising a 'relation' to a 'deity'.

4. Nor does existence relate to 'divine power/

5. This is self-referential (something miraculous is mysterious), so also falls of.

Not much mystery left then, don't you think?

The last remark is, if you call all of existence a mystery, then everything is mysterious and at the same time nothing is mysterious, the word 'mystery' is without meaning then, because then you can't distinguish between something mysterious and something that is not. There is only light because there is dark. There can only be mystery (a phenomena that can not be explained in terms of natural and understood phenomena) because there are phenomena that are fully understood.

But if is satisfies you, call life a mystery, an adventure, or anything you please!!!

[wuliheron]

Existence is not supernatural, and existence does not fullfill any of your criteria, I'm affraid.

You are trapped into thinking that what is true for all members of a group, must be true for the group itself. You cannot place the laws of causality outside the existing material world they don't have meaning there, material existence is an eternal process, the process itself consists of endless excercises of the law of cause-and-effect, so existence is causality.


I recommend you check into the "hotel paradox" of infinity.

1. Existence (material existence) is not 'outside' the natural world. The natural world IS existence, without the need for a 'deity'.

2. Natural forces don't violate natural forces, natural forces can only violate our models of natural forces, which means either we have conducted a bad experiment, or we discovered a new behaviour in nature, not previously known


You realize this contradicts your original argument above that I am confusing the group and the members of the group. Which is it? Is existence seperate and distinct from from its constituents or not?

The last remark is, if you call all of existence a mystery, then everything is mysterious and at the same time nothing is mysterious, the word 'mystery' is without meaning then, because then you can't distinguish between something mysterious and something that is not. There is only light because there is dark. There can only be mystery (a phenomena that can not be explained in terms of natural and understood phenomena) because there are phenomena that are fully understood.


Existence is evidently a paradox, of course anything I can say about it is paradoxical and contradicts itself. Everything I say is a lie, existence is nonexistence, reality is illusory, etc. These are all variations of the "liar's paradox" which are variations of the paradox of existence.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I recommend you check into the "hotel paradox" of infinity.


We cannot conceive of infinity without contradiction.

Further more, as Kant has shown, the beginning of time is equally well provable as the infinity of time. So, existence therefore is a contradiction.


You realize this contradicts your original argument above that I am confusing the group and the members of the group. Which is it? Is existence seperate and distinct from from its constituents or not?


The universe (all of existence) is the group, everything in the universe are it's members. Causality explains how things in the universe are the effects of previous causes. Causality can not be applied to the universe as a whole.


Existence is evidently a paradox, of course anything I can say about it is paradoxical and contradicts itself. Everything I say is a lie, existence is nonexistence, reality is illusory, etc. These are all variations of the "liar's paradox" which are variations of the paradox of existence.

Not pradadox, it is a contradiction. Material existence is in contradiction with itself, which causes it to change/move.
Material existence without change/motion would be incomprehensible.

[wuliheron]

Not pradadox, it is a contradiction. Material existence is in contradiction with itself, which causes it to change/move.
Material existence without change/motion would be incomprehensible.

Paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true. Unfortunately people also have different ideas about exactly what is rational, logical, and true which make defining paradox all that much more difficult. It may be that paradox is ultimately ineffable.

You can assert of course that existence is infinite by default as the "least absurd" explanation, however one absurdity is as good as another one according to which standards you care to use. Especially an absurdity with no evidence to support it. As Zeno and others have demonstrated, existence without change/motion is obviously not any more or less incomprehensible than infinity and may even actually be the same thing-- singularity.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I recommend you check into the "hotel paradox" of infinity.


Do you mean Hilberts hotel?

[wuliheron]

Exactly. Essentially you are asserting the paradoxical position that Change is the only constant. If you attempt to work your way around this by piling one infinity on top of another, you run into Hilbert's Hotel paradox which just leads to more absurdities.

Bottom line, all of logic is based upon reductio ad absurdum. This is what I call the "backdoor" approach. Instead of proving something directly, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are absurd. In the case of the paradox of existence, like the liar's paradox, every explanation is absurd as Zeno and others have repeatedly demonstrated for thousands of years.

[drag]

Greetings !

Huh... What's "Hilbert's Hotel" ? [t)]
Originally posted by heusdens
Anything IN the universe obeys causal principles (at least to some extent, QM may tell a different story however) but not the universe as a whole.

Oh... really ? Prove it.
The Universe is a system - it is two or more
components with some kind of connection between
themselves. The rest (components & connections)
are probabalistic assumptions.
Originally posted by heusdens
Suppose we have a box with coines in them. I make the following statement about this box of coins. I say: "everything in the box weights less then 1 kilogram".
Now the fact shows up that the coin with the maximum weight is exactly 100 gram. However the weigt of the box of coins minus the weight of the box itself is 2 kilograms, so the coins together weight 2 kilograms.

Is my statement true or not?

You can argue it is true because there is no coin which weights more then 1 kilogram. Each coin weights less then 1 kilogram.
And you can argue that it is false because the weight of all the coins together is more then 1 kilogram.

This is an introduction to the slippery use of language, which is used in the statement "everything came from nothing".

The statement has double meaning, it can either mean that every individual thing came from nothing, i.e. the statement says that is is true for every individual thing that it came from nothing, i.e. it did not come from anything.
Or, alternatively, it can mean to say that everything in totallity came from nothing, i.e. it didn't come from anything.

The first statement is of course false, because of the law of causal effect. The second statement is however true.

This may seem contradictional, but you have to consider that the truthvalue of a statement about all members of a group is not necessarily the same as the truthvalue of a statement about the group itself.

For instance, we can say that every member of a football team has a parent. But the football team itself does not (necesarily) have a parent.

This type of argument, based on this confusion, is often used in defending the existence of a "creator", which in simple forms is the following line of argument: Everything has a cause. The world exists. So, it must have a cause, or been caused by something. Hence, a creator is needed (no creation without creator).
Hmm... What ?!

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well your intitial statement "everything came from nothing" is a typical example of flawed use of language expressions. It should have been stated like "The universe is uncaused". (we can for reasons of avoiding ambiguity not use the term "everything" for "universe")

I didn't say "everything came from nothing"! That was Eyesee.

[M. Gaspar]

Why do we chase our tails?

[wuliheron]

We chase our tails because existence is demonstrably paradoxical. What else would you have us do? :0)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Why do we chase our tails?

What are you talking about?

[Eyesee]

If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

Whoah, hold the phone. Why does "existence is eternal" = "'things' can't come into existence"?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say "everything came from nothing"! That was Eyesee.

I see. Well I meant to say The initial statement of this thread. Sorry.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Whoah, hold the phone. Why does "existence is eternal" = "'things' can't come into existence"?

Well, the saying is "from nothinh comes nothing" which means that the existing world didn't come from nothing. So, there was no 'begin' to existence, and therefore existence is eternal.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


The implications are merely "philosophical". A point of view taken in by Idealist (and Religion) is mostly that there was a definite beginning to the world ("creation"). Materialist however claim there was no beginning.


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

What do you mean "came into existence"? A causal effect. So, the world itself is the effect of ... yes, of what then? If there was no previous cause, which must be a previous world in whatever form, then how can there be an effect?

So, in fact you didn't resolve the question of existence, but made it into a miracle (the world popping up out of nothing).

The way the world exists is that the world is the effect of the world itself, by way of motion and change that takes place in the world.
The world is ever in motion, is ever reshaping itself, and this goes on without end.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly. Essentially you are asserting the paradoxical position that Change is the only constant. If you attempt to work your way around this by piling one infinity on top of another, you run into Hilbert's Hotel paradox which just leads to more absurdities.


The world is changing always, yes. But is that a paradox?
I don't think that Hilbert's Hotel is a paradox, it is more a description of the properties of infinity (namely infinity plus any number = infinity, etc).


Bottom line, all of logic is based upon reductio ad absurdum. This is what I call the "backdoor" approach. Instead of proving something directly, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are absurd. In the case of the paradox of existence, like the liar's paradox, every explanation is absurd as Zeno and others have repeatedly demonstrated for thousands of years.

The paradox of Zeno ( the paradox of movement) is fully resolved with infinitesimal calculus.

What kind of direct proof are you referring to? Proof of existence?
What proof do you want or suggest?

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
The implications are merely "philosophical". A point of view taken in by Idealist (and Religion) is mostly that there was a definite beginning to the world ("creation"). Materialist however claim there was no beginning.



What do you mean "came into existence"? A causal effect. So, the world itself is the effect of ... yes, of what then? If there was no previous cause, which must be a previous world in whatever form, then how can there be an effect?

So, in fact you didn't resolve the question of existence, but made it into a miracle (the world popping up out of nothing).

The way the world exists is that the world is the effect of the world itself, by way of motion and change that takes place in the world.
The world is ever in motion, is ever reshaping itself, and this goes on without end.


Yes, something from nothing is a miracle, but existence is a miracle, anyway you look at it. The more interesting questions are the characteristics of existence, imo. Like, is existence intelligent? Is it evolving? Is it moving towards a goal? Is it just mechanical parts moving randomly?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Yes, something from nothing is a miracle, but existence is a miracle, anyway you look at it. The more interesting questions are the characteristics of existence, imo. Like, is existence intelligent? Is it evolving? Is it moving towards a goal? Is it just mechanical parts moving randomly?

Material existence is evolving, it is historical. And the way it evolves is far from randomly, otherwise we would not have discovered forces like gravity, and so. Gravity determines the way matter moves in a structured way. A randomly moving world would be uncausal, it would not provide for any structure, neither for any progress in the world. There is of course randomness in the world, but not total randomness. Things are chaotic but at the same time we can discover patterns and establish laws that govern the evolution of material existence.

The way material existence is evolving, can be called progressive.
This is true for the complexity of the universe (the formation of large scale structures, stars, planetary systems), for life forms (macromolecules able of self-reproduction, one-celled life forms, complex life forms, etc.), and for human society (society of hunters and gatherers, to a society performing space traveling and science).

Hence the term used for this property of the material world: historic.
A randomly moving material world, would not be historical, cause there would not be a difference between paste and future.

For further reading, see:
- Historical Materialism
- Dialectical Materialism

[wuliheron]

Hence the term used for this property of the material world: historic.
A randomly moving material world, would not be historical, cause there would not be a difference between paste and future.


The bottom line is that both views are useful, and for the last century what has proven the most useful is the random view. What you are calling "historical" is more commonly called "causal". As useful as Relativity and other causal views have proven to be, QM randomness is by far the most useful yet discovered.

Whether or not everything is ultimately random or causal may be a moot point and, in the final analysis, unprovable. In the name of order, beauty, and dignity Plato burned all of Democritus' books, but he had the last laugh anyway.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The bottom line is that both views are useful, and for the last century what has proven the most useful is the random view. What you are calling "historical" is more commonly called "causal". As useful as Relativity and other causal views have proven to be, QM randomness is by far the most useful yet discovered.

Whether or not everything is ultimately random or causal may be a moot point and, in the final analysis, unprovable. In the name of order, beauty, and dignity Plato burned all of Democritus' books, but he had the last laugh anyway.


I do not agree on this. Of course, QM shows us that at the lowest level of matter, the material world seems totally random.
On the large scale however, we can see that the world is evolving progressively, and that even when there is randomness on lower levels, distinguished patterns can be found.

If the material world was truly random, we could have never discovered the law of gravity, and other laws of nature. Even worse, the world would not provide for any progressive evolution, and a universe like we see now that provides for life forms to emerge, would be far too hostile to produce any large scale structure.

No matter where you look and what you investigate, everywhere in nature you find development, and certain laws governing this development. This is true for the formation of stars, star systems, planets, living organisism, human society, and the universe as a whole.

In a truly random material world, this kind of progress would not be found for certain.

[wuliheron]

No matter where you look and what you investigate, everywhere in nature you find development, and certain laws governing this development. This is true for the formation of stars, star systems, planets, living organisism, human society, and the universe as a whole.

Is it live, or is it memorex? Do we exist or not? Is everything ultimately random or ordered? Is randomness just an indication of our perceptual limitations, or does order arise from randomness?

Such questions are just so much silliness from my point of view. You might as well ask how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They are the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical. That is the bottom line.

From this bottom line we can either build meaningful lives or run in circles screaming and shouting. :0)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Is it live, or is it memorex? Do we exist or not? Is everything ultimately random or ordered? Is randomness just an indication of our perceptual limitations, or does order arise from randomness?

Such questions are just so much silliness from my point of view. You might as well ask how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They are the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical. That is the bottom line.

From this bottom line we can either build meaningful lives or run in circles screaming and shouting. :0)

I don't think they are silly, cause on macroscopic (time/space) scales and microscopic (time/space) scales we see this overall progress and ordering.

Don't you think they are usefull concepts?

If you would imagine the evolution of the earth from the begin to now, wouldn't you agree on that there occured some progressive development?

Or take the human history from the last 100 years, wouldn't you agree there wasn't progress?

[M. Gaspar]

Randomness and order are not mutually exclusive. To compare them, however, is like comparing apples and oranges, because one it a "tool" while the other is a "product".

I speculate that randomness is BUILT INTO the system of the Universe as the lynch-pin from potentiality to reality. What triggers the lynch-pin (and we're talking about an infinite number of lynch-pins) might be INTENTION...the INTENTION to bring things into functional coherent chuncks.

As a simple example: flying squirrels. There was probably a time when they didn't have those flaps of skin that kept them in the air a little longer. Now some would say that randomness of genes produced those flaps of skin on some, and these squirrels were more "fit" to survice and you know the rest...

I say that evolutionists might be missing an essential ingredient, which is the SQUIRRELS OWN INTENTION to grow some skin. I think INTENTION acts on randomness within the "sea of infinite possibilities" in which we -- and everything else - swims.

Another example has to do with synchronicity -- meaningful coincidences, that many shrug off ...like swine stepping on pearls.

An example: for three weeks I visited Yahoos "Physics" chat rooms...and a more vacuus collection of cretins you will never find. Then, last Sunday I think it was, I followed a book review to a site that referenced three other sites, one of which was this one.

I say it was my INTENTION to find such a forum that led me here via what seemed at the time a random meandering.

And that is why I speculate that RANDOMNESS in the Universe is a natural component of the System which is ACTED UPON by INTENTION which leads to ORDER.

[Messiah]

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, itself, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

For every left there exists a right. For every to, there is a fro. For every up, there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. Sir Isaac Newton captured this essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. As it applies to physics from simple inertia to the relativity between mass and energy, the law of natural balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey. It is no coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Without that symmetry, logic, itself, would not exist. Natural balance is demonstrably the most fundamental attribute of the phenomenon of existence.

Could Newton’s law be a reflection of a deeper, more fundamental truth? If we apply his template to the underlying phenomenon of existence, it would suggest that for everything in the Universe there must exist an opposite equivalent. It would imply that for every value in the Universe there must exist a reciprocal such that for every value in the Universe there exists a countervalent reciprocal.

In short, the logical equivalent of NOTHING exists, and such must have always been and will continue to be the case.

Existence was not conjured by a mystical process. It is based upon a fundamental principle.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think they are silly, cause on macroscopic (time/space) scales and microscopic (time/space) scales we see this overall progress and ordering.

Don't you think they are usefull concepts?

If you would imagine the evolution of the earth from the begin to now, wouldn't you agree on that there occured some progressive development?

Or take the human history from the last 100 years, wouldn't you agree there wasn't progress?

Of course they are useful concepts. Wuhileron's explanation for everything that he doesn't understand is that :it's a paradox.
Though the existence of existence is paradoxical, the nature of
existence (i.e. its characteristics), is quite comprehensible,
I don't think wuhileron is making a distinction between the two.

It may not be of much practical use to question the existence of existence but it is of utmost importance to understand the nature (i.e. characteristics) of existence. That's what all of science is about and look how much we have progressed in such a short period of time. I definitely don't think the universe is just a mindless mechanical system whose parts are acting in total randomness. If so, probability would predict that the origin of life can never happen. Or if by some miracle it did, more miracles would be needed for every time one species mutated to give rise to another.

There are some "hidden variables". Else, probability math is garbage.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, itself, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

For every left there exists a right. For every to, there is a fro. For every up, there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. Sir Isaac Newton captured this essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. As it applies to physics from simple inertia to the relativity between mass and energy, the law of natural balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey. It is no coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Without that symmetry, logic, itself, would not exist. Natural balance is demonstrably the most fundamental attribute of the phenomenon of existence.

Could Newton’s law be a reflection of a deeper, more fundamental truth? If we apply his template to the underlying phenomenon of existence, it would suggest that for everything in the Universe there must exist an opposite equivalent. It would imply that for every value in the Universe there must exist a reciprocal such that for every value in the Universe there exists a countervalent reciprocal.

In short, the logical equivalent of NOTHING exists, and such must have always been and will continue to be the case.

Existence was not conjured by a mystical process. It is based upon a fundamental principle.


Yes, good one. But I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

[wuliheron]

I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.


Sorry, but the idea the universe came from nothing is no more complete or rational than the idea it all originated from dill pickles, infinity, or whatever. Bottom line, they are all patently irrational explantions and semantics is just one of many issues.

You don't need wildly abstract theories, hard scientific evidence, or anything like that to appreciate the situation. All you need is an open mind and, for that, all that is required is acceptance. If you need someone to debate the semantics of acceptance, then you need serious help.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of nothing...

From here on, your argument is flawed, because it refers to "nothing" as though it were something that exists.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Yes, good one. But I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

That which does not exist....well...uhhhh....well...it doesn't exist. It HAS no definition for by its very nature it is undefined. Mathematically, it is not the 'empty set' - it is not a set at all. To understand nothing is NOT to understand.

If you want to discuss the LOGICAL definition of nothing, I can tell you that the ONLY logical definition of nothing is the empty set - or Ø (keystroke ALT+216) or Zero.

If you want to discuss the ABSTRACT definition of nothing, all I can say is " ".

Understand??

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but the idea the universe came from nothing is no more complete or rational than the idea it all originated from dill pickles, infinity, or whatever. Bottom line, they are all patently irrational explantions and semantics is just one of many issues.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the phenomenon of existence arose from a process. It didn't. It is based on a physical principle - natural balance. Processes are governed by principles - laws of nature. Cause and effect is a process. Existence is NOT a process. It is a principle of nature. And that principle seems to indicate that Sum v(u)=Ø or the sum of all value in the Universe = Ø (keystroke ALT+216). It is Newton's principle (3rd law) taken to a more basic level.

Compared to infinity, any finite element has a size of Ø. From a given point one may extend infinite lines to infinity in all the XYZ coordinates. This inscribes a sphere. The sphere encompasses the Universe. By definition the center of the sphere is the center of the Universe. The same can be done for all points in the Universe; hence there is no (Ø)relative differential compared to infintiy.

If for every quality in the Universe there is a reciprocal, the point that Sum V(U)=Ø is complete. Matter and anti-matter is too simplistic. There is a more logical approach -

Theory of Reciprocity (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com)

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
From here on, your argument is flawed, because it refers to "nothing" as though it were something that exists.

Ok...ok....

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

[wuliheron]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the phenomenon of existence arose from a process.

No, I'm not stuck on the idea of existence as a process. I'm stuck on the idea that words have specific meanings. The universe may be eternal, without beginning or end, for all I know. However the concept of eternity is illogical, irrational, and paradoxical.

Zeno of Elias was the first famous western philosopher to point this out. He asserted existence is in actuality indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. Talk about a view of existence that doesn't require process! What it does require is paradox as all explanations do.

[M. Gaspar]

Although current evidence suggests that the Universe will expand forever, might there still be an as-yet undiscovered/un-though-of countervaling force that may pull it in?

I want to put my hat in the ring and say that -- although I have no evidence -- I think that the Universe will eventually collapse into a singularity which, in turn, will burst forth into ANOTHER so-called "Big Bang".

For the sake of discussion, let us dispense with an "outside Creator" "who" needed to be CREATED itself before it could "create the Universe." Let's just say that the Universe ITSELF is an eternal entity of energy that expands and contracts through infinate incarnations.

Thus, the Universe didn't pop out of a void, but popped out of ITSELF...from it's last collapsed singularity from its last incarnation.

The portion of one of your posting regarding using Newton's law as a template suggests that the expansion of the Universe might eventually be reversed.

Meanwhile, will someone please tell me how to capture quotes?

[Netme]

The universe will continue to expand until the universal disaster which will destroy not only the univers but all of existance occurs.
which we must stop.

[M. Gaspar]

What should we do?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, I'm not stuck on the idea of existence as a process. I'm stuck on the idea that words have specific meanings. The universe may be eternal, without beginning or end, for all I know. However the concept of eternity is illogical, irrational, and paradoxical.

Zeno of Elias was the first famous western philosopher to point this out. He asserted existence is in actuality indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. Talk about a view of existence that doesn't require process! What it does require is paradox as all explanations do.

The existence of 'nothing' is the only natural phenomenon which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If 'nothing' existed, it would need no justification. My contention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of 'nothing' as it pertains to logic. Logically, it is NOT "that which does not exist" because 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It has no properties. It is not defined and logic requires definition. The logical definition of 'nothing' is the empty set or Ø.

When you juxtapose the finite and infinity, suddenly the size and position of any finite element assume a ratio of Ø. If you throw in reciprocal qualities, then the LOGICAL equivalent of Ø actually exists. If (Logical) 'nothing' exists, it intrinsically complies with the precepts of reason. It is the principle of natural balance which explains existence, not a process.

[Netme]

Logically 0 cannot be defined as nothing since that is what all things are created from. I see 0 as the medium in which god uses to create existance.

[Netme]

Netme
What should we do?


__________________
You are what you DO.

Do something.

We should understand what our universe is actually doing and from what If we can figure this out then our role in existance will be known

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
Ok...ok....

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

What about the summation of all natural numbers, would that be 0?

Like:

(+1 + -1) + (+2 + -2) + ... = 0

but equally well it could be defined as:

+1 + (+2 + -1) + (+3 + -2) + ... = ??? (infinite)

or

-1 + (-2 + +1) + (-3 + +2) + ... = ??? (-infinity)

or any number between.

[M. Gaspar]

If the Universe were an "eternal entity of energy" that explodes from a singularity that was made up of "Everything that Is"...

...then EXPANDS for a long while, still being "Everything that Is"....

...then, at a certain point, begins to contact due to natural forces until "Everything that Is" once more condenses into a singularity...

THEN...this pulsaing Eternal Entity of Energy would, in effect, be "giving birth" to ITSELF...through infinite incarnations...

THEREBY eliminating the need for "nothing" in favor of the eternal existence of "Everything that Is".


And "our role" -- I believe -- might be to HAVE AN INTERESTING EXPERIENCE ...a small part of the EXPERIENCE OF THE UNIVERSE...which I believe might be ITS Primary Intent:

In other words, it might be that the Primary Intent of the Universe is ...TO HAVE ANOTHER EXPERIENCE...via the experiences of us and everything else that It has given rise to.

I believe that there is NO "outside" force named "God" who "created the Universe." The Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity out to see what It can create THIS time...in this incarnation.



And this is why they may "net me" too!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Ok...ok....

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

There is no "that which does not exist". How much sense does it make to say that there is something that doesn't exist? If it's something, it exists. If it's not something, then there is no "it" to speak of.

Your flaw is rather evident in a post where you said that an abstract definition of "nothing" is " ". This is incorrect, as there is a defined place for something to exist (between the two quotation marks (thus it can be measured)), and you are refering to "it", thus showing that there is something to refer to.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of 'nothing' is the only natural phenomenon which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If 'nothing' existed, it would need no justification. My contention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of 'nothing' as it pertains to logic. Logically, it is NOT "that which does not exist" because 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It has no properties. It is not defined and logic requires definition. The logical definition of 'nothing' is the empty set or Ø.

When you juxtapose the finite and infinity, suddenly the size and position of any finite element assume a ratio of Ø. If you throw in reciprocal qualities, then the LOGICAL equivalent of Ø actually exists. If (Logical) 'nothing' exists, it intrinsically complies with the precepts of reason. It is the principle of natural balance which explains existence, not a process.

Run your post through the "exercise in "nothing" semantics", and you get:

Revised Version of Messiah's Post:
The lack of any existence is the only natural phenomena which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If there wasn't anything that existed, it (what?) whould need no justification. My conention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of that which isn't anything, as it pertains to logic. Logically it is NOT "that which does not exist", because "that which doesn't exist" doesn't exist...


That last sentence strikes at the heart of that matter, because that is exactly what the concept of "nothing" is ("that which doesn't exist"). And that is why the "exercise in nothing semantics" works. There is no thing called "nothing", because that would be something, and by definition "nothing" isn't anything. If it's not anything, than there is no "it" to speak of, and the logic of something's coming from "it" has no meaning.

P.S. Did you notice how well your logic worked against the ability of "nothing" to exist, once run through the "exercise"?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Revised Version of Messiah's Post:
The lack of any existence is the only natural phenomena which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If there wasn't anything that existed, it (what?) whould need no justification. My conention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of that which isn't anything, as it pertains to logic. Logically it is NOT "that which does not exist", because "that which doesn't exist" doesn't exist...

The lack of any existence is not 'nothing'. That is JUST my point.
The logical definition of nothing is that which is equivalent to Zero.

Math has a mechanism which describes this. It is called an equation. It requires the elements of every argument to be equivalent on opposite sides of the equation. The difference between the left and right side of an equation is always Ø. It is the foundation of logic.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
There is no "that which does not exist". How much sense does it make to say that there is something that doesn't exist? If it's something, it exists. If it's not something, then there is no "it" to speak of.

Your flaw is rather evident in a post where you said that an abstract definition of "nothing" is " ". This is incorrect, as there is a defined place for something to exist (between the two quotation marks ...

Yes, I was using absurdity to illustrate the point. :)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The lack of any existence is not 'nothing'. That is JUST my point.
The logical definition of nothing is that which is equivalent to Zero.

Math has a mechanism which describes this. It is called an equation. It requires the elements of every argument to be equivalent on opposite sides of the equation. The difference between the left and right side of an equation is always Ø. It is the foundation of logic.

How many things fit in the set of "nothing"? Take the word apart, it means no...thing. There are no things in the set of "nothing". Thus, nothing does mean the lack of any existence, because if anything exists, then it is the set of something, not nothing.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Netme
Logically 0 cannot be defined as nothing since that is what all things are created from. I see 0 as the medium in which god uses to create existance.

Please allow us your definition of 'nothing'.

Is is empty space??

If something has a physical presence in the Universe, then it EXISTS. Though it is quite different in nature from the physical phenomenon we call matter, space is not a non-existence. And the fact that the only property of space we can discern is its inertness is not remarkable. The existence of an infinite expanse of space devoid of matter would require no less justification than an infinite expanse of matter devoid of space.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
How many things fit in the set of "nothing"? Take the word apart, it means no...thing. There are no things in the set of "nothing". Thus, nothing does mean the lack of any existence, because if anything exists, then it is the set of something, not nothing.

We are becomming bogged down in semantics.
The definition of 'nothing' as it applies to logic is Ø, Zero, the empty set.
If you try to define 'Nothing' as that which is not defined (does not exist), your premise is self-defeating.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
We are becomming bogged down in semantics.
The definition of 'nothing' as it applies to logic is Ø, Zero, the empty set.
If you try to define 'Nothing' as that which is not defined (does not exist), your premise is self-defeating.

I didn't say it was not defined. I said that it was the set of all things that are not things (how can this be wrong?). Since there are no things that are not things, nothing is a set of things that don't exist.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say it was not defined. I said that it was the set of all things that are not things (how can this be wrong?). Since there are no things that are not things, nothing is a set of things that don't exist.

That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes. It is not what mathematicians call the 'empty set'. It is not a set at all. The easiest way to depict 'Nothing' in its abstract form would be to imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same inert, infinitesimal point NOT in space.

Logic is the interpretation of reality. By observing, defining and comparing the nature of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables. Logic requires definition, so in its abstract or undefined connotation, to perceive 'Nothing' is not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' is not to understand.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is that which does not exist. It is undefined and cannot be perceived.

'Nothing' - in logical terms - is defined as 'the empty set' or 'that which has a logical value of Ø'.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes.

Suppose a group a architects talk about a new bridge to be built. The bridge obviously does not exist. Their plans for building the bridge, attribute properties to the bridge to be realized. Even something that does not exist, can have properties (like height, weight, strength, materials, colour, etc).

[wuliheron]

Suppose a group a architects talk about a new bridge to be built. The bridge obviously does not exist. Their plans for building the bridge, attribute properties to the bridge to be realized. Even something that does not exist, can have properties (like height, weight, strength, materials, colour, etc).

Those are the properties of the concept, the plan.

The confusion here is over General Semantics. Nothing and something are like up and down, left and right, front and back. Attempting to define one term independent of the other leads to infinite regress and meaningless mumbo jumbo. Infinite nothingness. Division by zero. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes. It is not what mathematicians call the 'empty set'. It is not a set at all. The easiest way to depict 'Nothing' in its abstract form would be to imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same inert, infinitesimal point NOT in space.

Logic is the interpretation of reality. By observing, defining and comparing the nature of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables. Logic requires definition, so in its abstract or undefined connotation, to perceive 'Nothing' is not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' is not to understand.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is that which does not exist. It is undefined and cannot be perceived.

'Nothing' - in logical terms - is defined as 'the empty set' or 'that which has a logical value of Ø'.

Saying that "nothing" is undefinable is just obviously wrong. Yes you can refer to "it" in terms of what "it" lacks. "It" lacks everything. That means everything, from matter to conceptual potential.

There is, in point of fact, no "it" to refer to. If you can refer to an "it" you are refering to something. The "it" that you are trying to refer to is your concept of what the word, "nothing", means. In truth, there is no "nothing". "Nothing" by definition and logic, is not a thing, and is in fact not anything at all.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Saying that "nothing" is undefinable is just obviously wrong. Yes you can refer to "it" in terms of what "it" lacks. "It" lacks everything. That means everything, from matter to conceptual potential.

If something lacks 'Everything', it must lack a definition.

Thank you for proving the point.

JMc

[wuliheron]

It is the ineffable, that which cannot be put into words. That which cannot be said.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
If something lacks 'Everything', it must lack a definition.

Thank you for proving the point.

JMc

That's it's definition, "lacking everything". Thus, since a definition is something, the very concept of "nothing" is paradoxical. I remove the need for talking about such paradoxes, by replacing "nothing" with "not anything" (or a variant thereof).

What do you think it means, when you say "nothing"?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat

What do you think it means, when you say "nothing"?

The only thing which is paridoxical is trying to define the undefined.

Nothing in the abstract is undefined. That which lacks everything would also certainly lack a definition.

The only 'logical' definition (and logic REQUIRES definition) of 'nothing' is Zero or the logical equivalent of Ø.

Have you studied calculus?
When you integrate a differential, there is always an unknown or arbitrary constant in the result.

Logic is a derivative of reality. It loses a bit of definition in the translation of reality to logic.

Yes, the mind has limits. But any question (which does not have a faulty premise) which can be asked, can be answered.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The only thing which is paridoxical is trying to define the undefined.

Nothing in the abstract is undefined. That which lacks everything would also certainly lack a definition.

The only 'logical' definition (and logic REQUIRES definition) of 'nothing' is Zero or the logical equivalent of Ø.

Have you studied calculus?
When you integrate a differential, there is always an unknown or arbitrary constant in the result.

Logic is a derivative of reality. It loses a bit of definition in the translation of reality to logic.

Yes, the mind has limits. But any question (which does not have a faulty premise) which can be asked, can be answered.

This whole time, you are refering to a null set, and naming it "nothing". I could name it "buttocks", and it wouldn't matter, because that's not what the word "buttocks" means, and it's not what the word "nothing" means.

A set is something, that means that the word "nothing" does not refer to a set.

There is no thing that truly "lacks everything". Take the 3rd and 4th words of the previous sentence, put them together, and you get a word that must meant (because of the previous sentence) something that does not exist.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
This whole time, you are refering to a null set, and naming it "nothing". I could name it "buttocks", and it wouldn't matter, because that's not what the word "buttocks" means, and it's not what the word "nothing" means.

A set is something, that means that the word "nothing" does not refer to a set.

There is no thing that truly "lacks everything". Take the 3rd and 4th words of the previous sentence, put them together, and you get a word that must meant (because of the previous sentence) something that does not exist.

APPLAUSE ! ! !
I think you are getting the idea. YES, nothing (in the abstract sense) doesn't exist. It is a fiction.

Mathematics is a QUANtitative analysis. There IS a logical definition of 'nothing' in mathematics. It is Ø. It can be +1+(-1). ANY countervalent values which have the logical value of Ø.

What I am trying to portray is the idea that there is a QUALatative equivalent of 'Ø' or nothing which can be +banana+(-banana). Matter and anti-matter. But the actual countervalent equivalence may be more complicated than a simple positive vs negative.

Have you browsed Theory of Reciprocity (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com). The theory is WAY too long to post here.

Hang in there Mentat.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
It is the ineffable, that which cannot be put into words. That which cannot be said.

YEAH - Semantics is a bit*h. Can you develop a device by which we can transfer ideas in brain language??

(Don't laugh - they are working on it as we speak)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
[B]APPLAUSE ! ! !
I think you are getting the idea. YES, nothing (in the abstract sense) doesn't exist. It is a fiction.

Mathematics is a QUANtitative analysis. There IS a logical definition of 'nothing' in mathematics. It is Ø. It can be +1+(-1). ANY countervalent values which have the logical value of Ø.

What I am trying to portray is the idea that there is a QUALatative equivalent of 'Ø' or nothing which can be +banana+(-banana). Matter and anti-matter. But the actual countervalent equivalence may be more complicated than a simple positive vs negative.

Have you browsed Theory of Reciprocity (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com). The theory is WAY too long to post here.


You are missing the point. "Nothing" (as you refer to it), or the state of non-existence, obviously/logically does not exist. This means that there isn't anything for mathematics to try and quantify/measure/explain, on this topic. The number "0" is something. The empty set is something.


Hang in there Mentat.

Actually, I gotta go now [;)].

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
You are missing the point. "Nothing" (as you refer to it), or the state of non-existence, obviously/logically does not exist. This means that there isn't anything for mathematics to try and quantify/measure/explain, on this topic. The number "0" is something. The empty set is something.
Actually, I gotta go now [;)].

Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.

See ya tomorrow?? (I like the mental excercise)

[wuliheron]

Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.


The fact or state of existing; being.
The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.

Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, irrational. Saying existence just IS or, is Being itself is rhetorical nonsense. Saying it is not a condition, state of being, or process denies the very definition of the word.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact or state of existing; being.
The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Life is a condition, something temporary. Existence is not. When you die, the cosmic dust which comprises your body will continue to exist. And so will you - the thing inside which compiled and compells it - you will BE dead...but you will BE.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, irrational. Saying existence just IS or, is Being itself is rhetorical nonsense.

Logic is derived from the laws of nature. The laws of nature are derived from the properties of all which exists. Existence is the very foundation of logic.

Originally posted by wuliheron Saying it is not a condition, state of being, or process denies the very definition of the word.

Ok - then what is YOUR definition

[wuliheron]

Life is a condition, something temporary. Existence is not. When you die, the cosmic dust which comprises your body will continue to exist. And so will you - the thing inside which compiled and compells it - you will BE dead...but you will BE.


More of the same rhetorical nonsense, "you will BE dead....but you will BE". Also more contradictory nonsense. This is what you said before:

Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.


Again, to say existence is not a state, process, or condition is to deny the dictionary definition of the word as is to say it is not life. The "cosmic dust" that makes up my body is not eternal either and is precipitated by processes.

Logic is derived from the laws of nature. The laws of nature are derived from the properties of all which exists. Existence is the very foundation of logic.


Existence encompasses more than logic and the laws of nature, it encompasses everything including the irrational. Logic is based on faith that the irrational and absurd exist, on reductio ad absurdum. Hence you are saying nature is absurd and so is logic.

Ok - then what is YOUR definition

I accept the dictionary definition, but I would add to it that existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it does not make rational sense.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.

See ya tomorrow?? (I like the mental excercise)

Alright, I'm back.

First you say, "it (existence) is being".

Then you say, "it is not a state of being"

Is this not contradictory? Besides, you are just telling me what you don't think it is. You should try telling me what it is.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
First you say, "it (existence) is being".

Then you say, "it is not a state of being"

Is this not contradictory? Besides, you are just telling me what you don't think it is.

Not contradictory.

Existences change in condition - position or configuration - and assume various 'states of being'.

In order for something to change or be changed it must exist. Change is a function of existence. I.e. - 'states of being' are derived from 'being', itself.

The two are obviously related, but very different - one is the derivative of the other.

You should try telling me what it is.
Def: EXISTENCE - To have a physical presence in the Universe

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Not contradictory.

Existences change in condition - position or configuration - and assume various 'states of being'.

In order for something to change or be changed it must exist. Change is a function of existence. I.e. - 'states of being' are derived from 'being', itself.

The two are obviously related, but very different - one is the derivative of the other.


Def: EXISTENCE - To have a physical presence in the Universe

Oh, so concepts don't exist?

Read Wu Li's dictionary definition of "existence", in Heusden's thread - "Existence".

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, so concepts don't exist?

Read Wu Li's dictionary definition of "existence", in Heusden's thread - "Existence".

Certainly concepts exist. They are physically present in the Universe, represented by a change in condition of the element or entity which conceives the concept. Its 'being' is changed and that change is physical.

They are not separate 'entities', but they can be shared with other elements/entities by communicating with them.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Certainly concepts exist. They are physically present in the Universe, represented by a change in condition of the element or entity which conceives the concept. Its 'being' is changed and that change is physical.

They are not separate 'entities', but they can be shared with other elements/entities by communicating with them.

Concepts are not physically present. The change in my brain (that results in my having concieved of something) is physically present, but the concept itself is not.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Concepts are not physically present. The change in my brain (that results in my having concieved of something) is physically present, but the concept itself is not.


"Cogito ergo sum.". I think, therefore I am.

One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist.

It is not possible to ‘be’ more than - or less than - a single entity. Multiple entities cannot share a single identity any more than they can simultaneously occupy the same space. The domain of each element stops at the boundary where the domain of another begins.

If the body is a composite arrangement of cells, molecules and atoms which are comprised of elemental particles, and if you can only be a single existence, it must be logically concluded that you are an element of existence concealed within the assemblage of your body. Some call it a soul. Experiences are filtered through the body and the body amplifies the nature of its inhabitant. Yes, brains are an important feature. Our consciousness would be very different without them.

When you have a concept, your being (and, reflexively, your brain) physically changes. That is the physical representation wherein resides the 'concept'.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, so concepts don't exist?

Of course concept exist, but they belong to another category of existence, that is dependend on the mind.

Look at it like this. We have a "real" flower. We can take a phot of it. Now we have a photograpic image of the flower. The image is not the real object, although it is a reality on it's own too, with different physical properties (f.i. it is 2-D and not 3-D, and it is made of paper and emulsion, not biological cells).

So, therefore we need two different and disinguishable sets or catagories of existence. The material existence itself, and the category of existence that depend on the mind.

We could argue that apart from these two categories of existence, there also needs to be a third one, that is defined as not being material existence, so not being physically there, and not being dependend on the mind.

It could be named the category of universals or truths. Like arithmetics. "Things" belong to this category, if they are not dependend on the mind, in other words, if all minds would cease to be, and reappear later in evolutionary history, the mind would "learn" or "discover" or "invent" these same truths.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
It is not possible to ‘be’ more than - or less than - a single entity. Multiple entities cannot share a single identity any more than they can simultaneously occupy the same space. The domain of each element stops at the boundary where the domain of another begins.

What about the "split brain" syndrome? Is a person having a split brain/multiple personality, still one person? What do you call "entity" in this case. Each individual pesonality? Or each body.
It is one body, that in this cases has one or more minds, but not simputaniously. In the case of multiple personality, it might be the case each personality occupies it's own place in the brain.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by heusdens
What about the "split brain" syndrome? Is a person having a split brain/multiple personality, still one person? What do you call "entity" in this case. Each individual pesonality? Or each body.
It is one body, that in this cases has one or more minds, but not simputaniously. In the case of multiple personality, it might be the case each personality occupies it's own place in the brain.

The two 'multiple personality' disorders with which I am familiar are
1) Conversion hysteria - where an individual crawls into himself and puts up a facade personality to deal with a highly stressful situation. Often the facade personality will have full memory while it is engaged and the 'real' personality may hide painful memories so it does not have to deal with them.

2) Schitzophrenia - a chemical imbalance evidenced by delusion and hallucination. The individual seems to have more than one personality, but usually retains full memory. The problem of chemical balance ebbs and flows causing changes in behavior.

Yes, the body has a vast influence on the consciousness of the entity which wears it and consciousness may not be possible without the amplification and feedback of the body. But every particle in a body is an individual existence. The fact you experience is convincing proof you exist. You cannot be more than one existence; hence, the phenomenon of a soul or entity which 'wears the mud' is highly likely.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Of course concept exist, but they belong to another category of existence, that is dependend on the mind.

Look at it like this. We have a "real" flower. We can take a phot of it. Now we have a photograpic image of the flower. The image is not the real object, although it is a reality on it's own too, with different physical properties (f.i. it is 2-D and not 3-D, and it is made of paper and emulsion, not biological cells).

So, therefore we need two different and disinguishable sets or catagories of existence. The material existence itself, and the category of existence that depend on the mind.

We could argue that apart from these two categories of existence, there also needs to be a third one, that is defined as not being material existence, so not being physically there, and not being dependend on the mind.

It could be named the category of universals or truths. Like arithmetics. "Things" belong to this category, if they are not dependend on the mind, in other words, if all minds would cease to be, and reappear later in evolutionary history, the mind would "learn" or "discover" or "invent" these same truths.

But the photograph of the flower exists, and so does the concept of a flower, that you've caused me to produce in my mind.

The thing is that complex brains (which are physical parts of the universe) produce minds (which are "programs" that are run on the "brain computer"), which in turn produce concepts. So, while concepts are not physical, they exist, and can be traced back to physical origins.

[Netme]

Originally posted by Mentat
But the photograph of the flower exists, and so does the concept of a flower, that you've caused me to produce in my mind.

The thing is that complex brains (which are physical parts of the universe) produce minds (which are "programs" that are run on the "brain computer"), which in turn produce concepts. So, while concepts are not physical, they exist, and can be traced back to physical origins.

When you talk about concepts not being physical, they exist, and can be traced back to physical origins What if i were to make up a concept in my mind that was not possible.. how can that be traced back to something physical? So you see the mind is capable of creating false realities which can decieve you if you let it. Man kind is the first of all beings on earth to evolve a mind that is capable of percieving fiction from reality which explains why we dominate earth.

Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existance. The real question is what is before existance? Just remeber that everything that will ever happen has already happened in creation only to be discovered. This has to be given the fact that we are even able to speculate who are creator is and where life came from. The only purpose then of our existance according to the gods can be to see which order or patterns we will take on using what they have already created for us.

[greeneagle3000]

at first there was nothing. not even nothing. you see, nothing is a word. but the 'real' nothing is no word. instead, it was nothing at first. sick of being nothing, it forms to something. then eventually everything.

i am giving this all out to readers out there. you may choose this to be ridiculus. if you do, don't make unethicle comments to other peoples beliefs. instead, try to read it carefully and realise what we are trying to say. thank you.

[Netme]

Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existance. The real question is what is before existance? Just remeber that everything that will ever happen has already happened in creation only to be discovered. This has to be given the fact that we are even able to speculate who are creator is and where life came from. The only purpose then of our existance according to the gods can be to see which order or patterns we will take on using what they have already created for us.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existance. The real question is what is before existance?

Eveything that exists has only a temporal form or shape. Take for instance an apple. Now it is an apple. After some days, it will have changed, but still look an apple. In a couple of weeks, it has transformed completely, and ceased to be an apple.

Existence is in eternal change and motion.
The issue of "what came before existence" is unanswerable, or is better answered as "nothing".

(see also the thread: 'The Fundamental Question')

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens
Eveything that exists has only a temporal form or shape. Take for instance an apple. Now it is an apple. After some days, it will have changed, but still look an apple. In a couple of weeks, it has transformed completely, and ceased to be an apple.

Existence is in eternal change and motion.
The issue of "what came before existence" is unanswerable, or is better answered as "nothing".

(see also the thread: 'The Fundamental Question')

Existence cannot change.. If something exists it can only change its physical or mental properties Either it exists or it does not exist. Whose to say that existence cannot exist within existence?And what came before our existence cannot be unanswerable seeing how we even exist at all. There must be a way to answer where we came from and by who. For example think about computers they function on operations that we have programed them to Our very existence is much like this except that we are the gods and computers our creation. Now if there was a way that computers could find out who we are we could use this to find out who our god is.

[pelastration]

Nothingness creates mass and energy.
This can be realized by a special , very simple, manifold.
Manifold = restructered nothingness.
Diversity comes with subquential similar manifolds or their inter-combinations.
Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundry (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by pelastration
Nothingness creates mass and energy.
This can be realized by a special , very simple, manifold.
Manifold = restructered nothingness.
Diversity comes with subquential similar manifolds or their inter-combinations.
Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundry (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)

What is a "pelastration"?

[pelastration]

Pelastration: penetration + elastic + strada (layers).

Pelastration: penetration of an unbreakable (infinite elastic) tube through another unbreakbale (infinite elastic) tube, creating thus a new tube with two layers (dimension added).
This manifold has never been described and unknown in math.

More on http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
Existence cannot change..

Wrong. Existence IS change!

To exist, means to change/move/transform etc.


If something exists it can only change its physical or mental properties Either it exists or it does not exist. Whose to say that existence cannot exist within existence?And what came before our existence cannot be unanswerable seeing how we even exist at all. There must be a way to answer where we came from and by who. For example think about computers they function on operations that we have programed them to Our very existence is much like this except that we are the gods and computers our creation. Now if there was a way that computers could find out who we are we could use this to find out who our god is.

If you mean with "our existence" the present material forms as they have been shaped in the event of the Big Bang 9what exactly took place there, is still under investigation), there can be a reference to a "previous existence".

Note however that all forms of existence require change/motion and time and space. That is, there never was, has been or can be "unchanging existence" in whatever form.

Your ideas reflect the idea of an "embedded" existence, so as to say that this universe was formed in and from a broader/higher universe, and if so, how can we find out about that.

It's an intriguing question. I consider it however possible that the human mind is able to discover that.

And in fact it is the subject of investigation of present day cosmology, that investigates the issue of what caused and formed the present universe. Brane cosmology, supserstring theory, eternal inflation, to name some, are recent competing theories in this field.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Nothingness creates mass and energy.
This can be realized by a special , very simple, manifold.
Manifold = restructered nothingness.
Diversity comes with subquential similar manifolds or their inter-combinations.
Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundry (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)

I would not state that in an EXISTING universe, there can't be the possibility that energy and mass, that were not previously existent, were formed out of the previously existing universe, on the condition that it this universe contained CHANGE/MOTION, or in other words, if that universe had a MATERIAL FORM.

But THAT to me means that it (the universe existing in a state without mass or energy) is not NOTHINGNESS, cause a real NOTHINGNESS contains no such quality or possibility. In the first place because in a real nothingness no change whatsoever takes places, which excludes the possibility of anything to take place ever. And further because a real nothingness has no properties, has no boundary, etc.

There isn't a possibility for there to be realy nothing, the universe could not have been or ever become in such a state, because the universe would forever (in a timeless manner) be in such a state.
Which is clearly not the case, and can thus be excluded as a possibility.

[pelastration]

My postulate was: "Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundary (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)".

So the nothingness I am referring is an area that is surrounded by the void and - implicit - it can be pushed by forces behind the void (like a balloon-membrane can be pushed by your fingers). Even if there is a non-active medium inside such balloon that medium will become active by these external vibrations. This description uses standard semantics.

The pelastration concept - this special space curvature - shows the creation of a new dimension. Still the content stays identical in the totality.

The nothingness can also be a local restructured part (island) of what is behind the Void.
The moment that the void pelastrates itself can be: the point of singularity.

Suddenly from the Void (Hyperspace) appears a NEW DIMENSION : the start of our Universe.

As Stephen Hawkins explained: 'Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers...there is a point in the universe where the general theory of relativity breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity.... all our theories of science break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. One may say that Time had a beginning at the Big Bang'.

And since you probably started laughing about those crazy pelastrations, read this: Michio Kaku (see below more): "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

In the pelastration concept the original structure splits in a basic passive part (receptive tube) and the pelastrating second part (impact tube) that becomes double layered. 10 = 6 + 4

This is like the paradox of self-fertilization in old myths, in the symbol of the Uroboros and the paradox of the Trinity in several religions. Without wanting to hurt religious feeling or vision of others: God is totality: there is only one. There is however also the trinity: the Father (still behind the Void - Six dimensions), the Son ( the local manifestation in other dimensions - the four dimensions), and the Holy Spirit (the way to realize this - the universal manifold).
Without the aid of anthropomorphism we can now see a creation process or mechanism in which such trinity makes sense also for non religious people.

The Pelastration concept gives probably for the first time a glimpse how this point of singularity started.

De-pelastration= when the impact redraws this acts like a block-hole (shrinking and increasing density) till it disappears in a funnel (Kaku: "One puzzle, however, is that, according to Einstein's equations, the funnel of a black hole necessarily connects our universe with a parallel universe. Furthermore, if the funnel connects our universe with itself, then we have a "worm hole"

Look now to the design of the pelastration: a black hole.

Interesting:
Michio Kaku ( HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey ) : What Happened Before the Big Bang?
"One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of "wormholes" and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The current expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe."

Pelastration is maybe a bizarro approach but Michio Kaku again: "Given the fruitless search that has stumped the world's Nobel Prize winners for half a century, most physicists agree that the Theory of Everything must be a radical departure from everything that has been tried before. For example, Niels Bohr, founder of the modern atomic theory, once listened to Wolf gang Pauli's explanation of his version of the unified field theory. In frustration, Bohr finally stood up and said, "We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
My postulate was: "Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundary (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)".

So the nothingness I am referring is an area that is surrounded by the void and - implicit - it can be pushed by forces behind the void (like a balloon-membrane can be pushed by your fingers). Even if there is a non-active medium inside such balloon that medium will become active by these external vibrations. This description uses standard semantics.

The pelastration concept - this special space curvature - shows the creation of a new dimension. Still the content stays identical in the totality.

The nothingness can also be a local restructured part (island) of what is behind the Void.
The moment that the void pelastrates itself can be: the point of singularity.

Suddenly from the Void (Hyperspace) appears a NEW DIMENSION : the start of our Universe.

As Stephen Hawkins explained: 'Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers...there is a point in the universe where the general theory of relativity breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity.... all our theories of science break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. One may say that Time had a beginning at the Big Bang'.

And since you probably started laughing about those crazy pelastrations, read this: Michio Kaku (see below more): "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

In the pelastration concept the original structure splits in a basic passive part (receptive tube) and the pelastrating second part (impact tube) that becomes double layered. 10 = 6 + 4

This is like the paradox of self-fertilization in old myths, in the symbol of the Uroboros and the paradox of the Trinity in several religions. Without wanting to hurt religious feeling or vision of others: God is totality: there is only one. There is however also the trinity: the Father (still behind the Void - Six dimensions), the Son ( the local manifestation in other dimensions - the four dimensions), and the Holy Spirit (the way to realize this - the universal manifold).
Without the aid of anthropomorphism we can now see a creation process or mechanism in which such trinity makes sense also for non religious people.

The Pelastration concept gives probably for the first time a glimpse how this point of singularity started.

De-pelastration= when the impact redraws this acts like a block-hole (shrinking and increasing density) till it disappears in a funnel (Kaku: "One puzzle, however, is that, according to Einstein's equations, the funnel of a black hole necessarily connects our universe with a parallel universe. Furthermore, if the funnel connects our universe with itself, then we have a "worm hole"

Look now to the design of the pelastration: a black hole.

Interesting:
Michio Kaku ( HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey ) : What Happened Before the Big Bang?
"One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of "wormholes" and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The current expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe."

Pelastration is maybe a bizarro approach but Michio Kaku again: "Given the fruitless search that has stumped the world's Nobel Prize winners for half a century, most physicists agree that the Theory of Everything must be a radical departure from everything that has been tried before. For example, Niels Bohr, founder of the modern atomic theory, once listened to Wolf gang Pauli's explanation of his version of the unified field theory. In frustration, Bohr finally stood up and said, "We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."

I can not judge the complete theory behind this "pelastration" theory, but I object only against the use of "nothingness" as something that has properties (it has a boundary) and exist in a spatio/temporal way, in other words, which implies the existence of matter and motion in some or other form.

I can think you use the term "nothingness" for reviving the concept of "creation ex nihilo", but to keep the discussion clear, I would suggest using different terms for the material brane that formed the pre-existing universe.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by pelastration
My postulate was: "Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundary (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)".

So the nothingness I am referring is an area that is surrounded by the void and - implicit - it can be pushed by forces behind the void (like a balloon-membrane can be pushed by your fingers). Even if there is a non-active medium inside such balloon that medium will become active by these external vibrations. This description uses standard semantics.

The pelastration concept - this special space curvature - shows the creation of a new dimension. Still the content stays identical in the totality.

The nothingness can also be a local restructured part (island) of what is behind the Void.
The moment that the void pelastrates itself can be: the point of singularity.

Suddenly from the Void (Hyperspace) appears a NEW DIMENSION : the start of our Universe.

As Stephen Hawkins explained: 'Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers...there is a point in the universe where the general theory of relativity breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity.... all our theories of science break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. One may say that Time had a beginning at the Big Bang'.

And since you probably started laughing about those crazy pelastrations, read this: Michio Kaku (see below more): "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

In the pelastration concept the original structure splits in a basic passive part (receptive tube) and the pelastrating second part (impact tube) that becomes double layered. 10 = 6 + 4

This is like the paradox of self-fertilization in old myths, in the symbol of the Uroboros and the paradox of the Trinity in several religions. Without wanting to hurt religious feeling or vision of others: God is totality: there is only one. There is however also the trinity: the Father (still behind the Void - Six dimensions), the Son ( the local manifestation in other dimensions - the four dimensions), and the Holy Spirit (the way to realize this - the universal manifold).
Without the aid of anthropomorphism we can now see a creation process or mechanism in which such trinity makes sense also for non religious people.

The Pelastration concept gives probably for the first time a glimpse how this point of singularity started.

De-pelastration= when the impact redraws this acts like a block-hole (shrinking and increasing density) till it disappears in a funnel (Kaku: "One puzzle, however, is that, according to Einstein's equations, the funnel of a black hole necessarily connects our universe with a parallel universe. Furthermore, if the funnel connects our universe with itself, then we have a "worm hole"

Look now to the design of the pelastration: a black hole.

Interesting:
Michio Kaku ( HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey ) : What Happened Before the Big Bang?
"One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of "wormholes" and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The current expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe."

Pelastration is maybe a bizarro approach but Michio Kaku again: "Given the fruitless search that has stumped the world's Nobel Prize winners for half a century, most physicists agree that the Theory of Everything must be a radical departure from everything that has been tried before. For example, Niels Bohr, founder of the modern atomic theory, once listened to Wolf gang Pauli's explanation of his version of the unified field theory. In frustration, Bohr finally stood up and said, "We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."


Not clear on the point about the 6 dimesions that collapsed into a little infinitesimal ball- how does it relate to our present universe?

[wuliheron]

He's talking about compactified dimensions, essentially, the forces of nature. String theory is a metric (geometric) extension of Einstein's Relativity that incorporates Indetermancy. Just as Relativity speculates that time is the forth dimension and is vastly larger than we can see, String Theory speculates the forces of nature are actually dimensions so small we can't see them. Hence, they explain action-at-a-distance.

He's right in my opinion, his weird theory is no more or less rediculous than String theory or Quantum Mechanics.... nothing can be weirder than those two, but unless it can make predictions it remains a purely philosophical issue. String theory has yet to make any predictions that have proven true, but it has helped to narrow the range of possibilities.

Pelastration, does your theory make predictions? Does it help to narrow the range of possibilities?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Nothingness creates mass and energy.
This can be realized by a special , very simple, manifold.
Manifold = restructered nothingness.
Diversity comes with subquential similar manifolds or their inter-combinations.
Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundry (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)

Your using a word that has no meaning: "Nothingness". "Nothingness" implies an essence of that which isn't anything. However, that which isn't anything has no essence, because essence is something.

[nevagil]

I think we should admit the explainations come from somewhere we don't have a chance of seeing, hearing or probably thinking about.
Its like a fish in water can't learn much about outside of water like Mars, Venus, Pluto, etc.. We can't come close to understanding valid questions that cannot have logical answers, like "What did existence come from?", or "Whats at the end of the Universe?".

Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. Example, if I lie on my back and hold something above my stomach, when I let go it drops, even if I build a cement floor under me. I realize that I and the cement floor have a tiny bit of gravity but it doesn't seem logical that the gravity goes thru us and maybe gains more strength. We add to it, yet not block it.
Anyway, my thought is if gravity etc can go thru us and cause things to happen, then maybe something we don't know of might go thru "nothingness" and cause something to happen. Afterall, doesn't gravity go thru parts of space that have nothing there (I'm assuming parts of outer space is a vaccuum or is it always nitrogen, hydrogen or something? Maybe our universe appears to expand sometimes because something is doing some gravity affect on it from a far away place with a lot of "nothing" in between it and our universe.

Therefore existence may have appeared out of nothing because other things far away affect it(the nothing). Maybe in the nothing there was gravity and things from somewhere else or not somewhere else.


Gilnv of www.surrealcity.com

[heusdens]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think we should admit the explainations come from somewhere we don't have a chance of seeing, hearing or probably thinking about.
Its like a fish in water can't learn much about outside of water like Mars, Venus, Pluto, etc.. We can't come close to understanding valid questions that cannot have logical answers, like "What did existence come from?", or "Whats at the end of the Universe?".

Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. Example, if I lie on my back and hold something above my stomach, when I let go it drops, even if I build a cement floor under me. I realize that I and the cement floor have a tiny bit of gravity but it doesn't seem logical that the gravity goes thru us and maybe gains more strength. We add to it, yet not block it.
Anyway, my thought is if gravity etc can go thru us and cause things to happen, then maybe something we don't know of might go thru "nothingness" and cause something to happen. Afterall, doesn't gravity go thru parts of space that have nothing there (I'm assuming parts of outer space is a vaccuum or is it always nitrogen, hydrogen or something? Maybe our universe appears to expand sometimes because something is doing some gravity affect on it from a far away place with a lot of "nothing" in between it and our universe.

Therefore existence may have appeared out of nothing because other things far away affect it(the nothing). Maybe in the nothing there was gravity and things from somewhere else or not somewhere else.


Gilnv of www.surrealcity.com

You use "nothing" in a way that contrasts its definition.
Nothing is absence of anything. The "Nothingness" does not exist.

The voids between galaxies and galaxie clusters contain atoms (like Hydrogen) in very small quantities (perhaps 1 atom H2 per m3 or less), they contain photons from star light, they contain the gravity field, cosmic rays, and virtual particles (quantum effects).

In physics there at no place and no time there can be nothing due to the laws of Quantum Mechanics.

[nevagil]

___________________________________________
You use "nothing" in a way that contrasts its definition.
Nothing is absence of anything. The "Nothingness" does not exist.

The voids between galaxies and galaxie clusters contain atoms (like Hydrogen) in very small quantities (perhaps 1 atom H2 per m3 or less), they contain photons from star light, they contain the gravity field, cosmic rays, and virtual particles (quantum effects).

In physics there at no place and no time there can be nothing due to the laws of Quantum Mechanics.
__________________________________________________ ___

Thanks for the info, I was curious and now I can reform some of my theories and thoughts.
Now for a first thought I'll say that the photons and gravity out there was maybe nothing because it is so far away that the gravity was barely anything and the photons may be non-existent befor the big bang (no stars then?)
The cosmic rays and virtual particles are beyond my present knowledge since its been 14 yrs since my yr of physics. You'll have to take it from there.
But for the sake of stubborn argueing I meant "nothing" in the way that most humans mean "nothing". "Nothing" means nothing that we know about or comprehend, I guess even a vaccuum is something, its a vaccuum.

When ya say in physics there can be no "nothing" does that mean befor the big bang also or is the big bang considered impossible now?

[RuroumiKenshin]

Also, consider negative energy. In a vacuum/void, there is no positive energy but there is negative energy. AND there's also dark matter....

[heusdens]

Originally posted by nevagil
Thanks for the info, I was curious and now I can reform some of my theories and thoughts. Now for a first thought I'll say that the photons and gravity out there was maybe nothing because it is so far away that the gravity was barely anything and the photons may be non-existent befor the big bang (no stars then?)
The cosmic rays and virtual particles are beyond my present knowledge since its been 14 yrs since my yr of physics. You'll have to take it from there.
But for the sake of stubborn argueing I meant "nothing" in the way that most humans mean "nothing". "Nothing" means nothing that we know about or comprehend, I guess even a vaccuum is something, its a vaccuum.

When ya say in physics there can be no "nothing" does that mean befor the big bang also or is the big bang considered impossible now?

Nothing means that there isn't anything existing. So whatever you think that can or might exist, is absent in a plain nothing. Thereofore the "nothing" does not exist, it is just a concept which is usefull sometimes.

The laws of physics, esp. quantum physics, tell us that nowhere space can be completely devoid of anything material. We can at least not find a factual clue with certainty that any volume of space contains no matter (particles, energy, fields) at all, cause that would beat the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg. This states that we can not observe with absolute certainty both the place and momentum of anything material. It's only applicable to the quantum world. But it also means that one cannot find with absolute certainty that a certain place is completely devoid of anything material.

The Big Bang is not considered impossible, but the theory is still incomplete and not consistent. But whatever the theory of what "caused" the Big Bang, evolves into, we will always have a contradiction regarding the existing world, which we cannot get around. For a deeper discussion about this issue, read for instannce the tread Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958) which discusses a deep rooted contradiction in the nature of space and time itself. The contradiction is that both the beginning of time, and the opposite (infinite time), can be proven, but have their own problems, which are not solvable. Any way of removing the contradiction will raise more profound and even more absurd contradictions.

If you are saying that because of the insolvability of this contradiction the world itself is impossible, because it contradicts itself, you may say so. Yet it is a clear fact that the world DOES exist, including you, and that is just a fact of life.

[pelastration]

Hi ... back on line.
(I was looking into some Hinduism ... related to pelastration ... found some interesting things on Brahman and Atman, and MAYA)

Now on the discussion on "nothingness, nothing, ..." I thing it's more semantics. If you prefer "emptiness" its fine to me.

This is what Michio Kaku wrote in HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey: Chapter: What Happened Before the Big Bang? :" ... The 10 dimensional superstring theory ... the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty."

So that's Michio Kaku talking = "nothing in it ... empty".

Nevagil said: "Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. ".

Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area. So simple! When you would look to it from a distance you see two layers (= darker) on the area that is penetrated. It becomes more visual!. It's a new dimension. The crazy thing is that it will have still the same content. And even stranger: it is still has the same outside membrane, but infolded in "apparently" independent (isolated) structures with other properties.
Let's say this happens thousand times. Now when you tear at one piece ... ALL OTHER will move also! Just like the gravity works.
This logic shows that the basic membrane in EVERYWHERE. That means that (what we call) gravity is structurally embedded it every element of the universe.

To Wuliheron: Yes I think that pelastration gives predictions. I am just looking for a mathematically skilled person who wants to spend some hours to calculate the basic formula. (Later that formula will have a number of variable parameters such as the impact radius, tension, impact angle, number of layers, ... ).
With that formula you will be able to analyze all actual other theories and I am sure a lot will be confirmed. But I am also sure (I feel it intuitively) that based on the speed of light it will be possible to calculate the basic stretchability of the membrane. ;-).

Finally it will be clear that everything is the membrane itself (because it creates just boxes). With the empty boxes we build houses (which we call Matter). That emptiness is called in Hinduism: Maya, the Illusion. We (made of boxes ourselves) will "see" other boxes but they are just reshaped membrane.

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Hi ... back on line.
(I was looking into some Hinduism ... related to pelastration ... found some interesting things on Brahman and Atman, and MAYA)

Now on the discussion on "nothingness, nothing, ..." I thing it's more semantics. If you prefer "emptiness" its fine to me.

This is what Michio Kaku wrote in HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey: Chapter: What Happened Before the Big Bang? :" ... The 10 dimensional superstring theory ... the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty."

So that's Michio Kaku talking = "nothing in it ... empty".

Nevagil said: "Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. ".

Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area. So simple! When you would look to it from a distance you see two layers (= darker) on the area that is penetrated. It becomes more visual!. It's a new dimension. The crazy thing is that it will have still the same content. And even stranger: it is still has the same outside membrane, but infolded in "apparently" independent (isolated) structures with other properties.
Let's say this happens thousand times. Now when you tear at one piece ... ALL OTHER will move also! Just like the gravity works.
This logic shows that the basic membrane in EVERYWHERE. That means that (what we call) gravity is structurally embedded it every element of the universe.

To Wuliheron: Yes I think that pelastration gives predictions. I am just looking for a mathematically skilled person who wants to spend some hours to calculate the basic formula. (Later that formula will have a number of variable parameters such as the impact radius, tension, impact angle, number of layers, ... ).
With that formula you will be able to analyze all actual other theories and I am sure a lot will be confirmed. But I am also sure (I feel it intuitively) that based on the speed of light it will be possible to calculate the basic stretchability of the membrane. ;-).

Finally it will be clear that everything is the membrane itself (because it creates just boxes). With the empty boxes we build houses (which we call Matter). That emptiness is called in Hinduism: Maya, the Illusion. We (made of boxes ourselves) will "see" other boxes but they are just reshaped membrane.

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)

I would state that if it were not for matter and motion, neither space nor time would exist. Matter and motion are insperable; space and time are "modes of existence" of matter.

So, I would not think a 10-D space or even 3-D space would exist with nothing in there.
(Super)string and brane physics are just a mathematical toy tool, but as far as now they realy explain nothing about physical nature itself. There is still a huge gap between theory and experiment/observation. Not likely to be bridged soon.

The pelestration idea, basically a brane that consists of some form of material substance, well what can I say? It seems more of an idea then a real physical theory, if you ask me. The point to be made is that from such a model to actually fit reality, there need to be calculable results that can be experirimentally testified, and the theory should bring forward clear predictions that can be tested.
If not... well then it is just another idea out of many.

[wuliheron]

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)


If you need any help just ask. I'm a Philosophical Taoist myself, but I have studied the philosophical implications of religion and spirituality a fair amount. The Hindu faith has been studied extensively over the last century by theologians precisely because it does appear to answer all possible theological questions with its paradoxically imminent yet transcendent perspective.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If you need any help just ask. I'm a Philosophical Taoist myself, but I have studied the philosophical implications of religion and spirituality a fair amount. The Hindu faith has been studied extensively over the last century by theologians precisely because it does appear to answer all possible theological questions with its paradoxically imminent yet transcendent perspective.

Thanks for offering.
Without pushing yet on a possible TOE concept I see pelastration as an energetic presentation that unpuzzles a number of semantic paradoxes (no only in Hinduism).
When you read - with the P-manifold idea in mind - some texts they make sense in a new way:

The Lord on account of Maya is perceived as manifold - Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II-v 19

Gita, Ch. 7, Verse 4.
"I am endowed with two Shaktis, namely the superior and the inferior natures; the field and its knower (spirit is the knower of the field; matter is the field.) I unite these two".

Gita,Ch.13, verse 26.
"Wherever a being is born, whether unmoving or moving, know thou Arjuna, that it is from the union between the field and the knower of the field".
(Purusha is the knower of the field; Prakriti is the field; Shiva is another name for the knower of the field and Shakti is the field; Spirit is another name for the knower of the field and Matter (Prakriti) is the field).

[M. Gaspar]

..."I only buy blue cars" ... would it make any sense at all to ask "and how did you like the red ones you purchased"?

If the Universe is "eternal" then it makes no sense to ask "what happened BEFORE"...just as, if the Universe is defined as Everything That Is, there can be no "other" universes because "they" would be a part of the "Big One."

In my estimation, the Universe doesn't arise from a "void"...it arrises from ITSELF...over and over again.

Perhaps the word "membrane" refers to the force(s) that hold Everything together...and/or that which comprises the "stuff" that interconnects Everything. It seems an extraneous term...but I don't have all the info to assess it.

As to "the field and its knower": this fits into MY speculations thusly:

At the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe (ie, at each "Big Bang") there is a Primary Will: to have an Experience (a real COMPLEX one!). It is the WIll or INTENTION of the Universe -- as well as the Will/Intention of all of Its parts, including us -- that EFFECTS the ENERGY of the Universe, condensing some of that energy into "matter" as a natural function.

The Will of the Universe might be called the "knower" and the energy could be called the "field" upon which It acts.

And, as gravity seems to be "imbedded" in all "matter"...so may CONSCIOUSNESS, too...and, in fact, might be a better candidate then "membrane" to describe the interconnecting medium.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by pelastration


Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area.
If the sum of the qualitative values in each element in the Universe is Ø and the Universe is the collection of all elements which are capable of having equivalent countervalent properties, then YES - everything IS connected by the value of Zero. I have no problem with that.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
..."I only buy blue cars" ... would it make any sense at all to ask "and how did you like the red ones you purchased"?

Of course it would make sense if I had painted those red cars first blue and sold them to him then only blue cars .
Remember: you like the (re)incarnation idea.
Repainting: restructering

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

As to "the field and its knower": this fits into MY speculations thusly:

At the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe (ie, at each "Big Bang") there is a Primary Will: to have an Experience (a real COMPLEX one!). It is the WIll or INTENTION of the Universe -- as well as the Will/Intention of all of Its parts, including us -- that EFFECTS the ENERGY of the Universe, condensing some of that energy into "matter" as a natural function.

The Will of the Universe might be called the "knower" and the energy could be called the "field" upon which It acts.

And, as gravity seems to be "imbedded" in all "matter"...so may CONSCIOUSNESS, too...and, in fact, might be a better candidate then "membrane" to describe the interconnecting medium.

A membrane is more concrete as a concept and offers mathematical steps. The tube I can calculate and bend. Quiet difficult with Consciousness.

[pelastration]

A membrane is more concrete as a concept and offers mathematical steps. The tube I can calculate and bend.

And the membrane is the isolating system which keeps the dimensions (layers) separate after the pelastration, but it also the jointing force between them.

Thus like us: Spirit and body jointed. After death (depelastration) : separation

[M. Gaspar]

...about the cars.

Regarding consciousness: are there not some aspects of science that cannot be detected or measured but are "known" only by their EFFECT?

How might one set up an experiment to detect the effect of consciousness? Or of intention (will) ?

And how might math be used?

I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an incomplete theory.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...about the cars.

Regarding consciousness: are there not some aspects of science that cannot be detected or measured but are "known" only by their EFFECT?

How might one set up an experiment to detect the effect of consciousness? Or of intention (will) ?

And how might math be used?

I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an incomplete theory.

Agree completely, but consciousness is part of the whole pelastration. Here we enter in the resonance. If your tube (unity Gaspar = body + spirit + basic tube) is layered then when something happens in the outer tubelayer (body) also vibrations will go on the other layers (think at sleeve on your arm). In meditation people try to hear the sound of the silence (meaning the vibrations of the most inner tube = god).

Our braincells works with microtubules (Penrose-hammeroff). I am working on that.
But here is some darft work:
the explanation of quantum consciousness in the brain seems an interesting job (check: http://glendhu.com/ai/bluesky/quantumconsciousness.html). Quote: " "Quantum state reduction" is the term used to describe what happens when you try to measure the state or the location of a very small particle. It seems that it is the actual act of measuring which determines where the particle is, this is known as the "collapse of the wave function". Objects remain in wave-like quantum superposition until observed by a conscious human being - consciousness causes collapse of the wave function. Thus consciousness and reality seem to be fundamentally intertwined. "

De-Pelastration of that superposition will open that brain worm gate = energy back in normal position.

Penrose-Hameroff believe that consciousness is associates with cytoskeletal (walking) microtubule proteins within neurons of the brain. (tubes!)

In a post on Mkaku forums I posted:

"I believe that - like in the Morphic theory (Ruppert Sheldrake)- knowledge is spreading in a collective way (over distance without material transfer). Think about archetypes and collective unconsciousness (CG Jung). Pelastration now explains those also.
If my approach is correct it will show that our universe is in fact a giant Fedex/DHL/TNT package delivery service system (sending box-in-box-in-box-in-box-in-box packages and box+box+box packages, on receipt taking out one box and forwarding the rest to another recipient who adds another bibibibi box and takes out a box of the first, repacks all in a larger package and resends that to another ..., ... till the 'final recipient" has enough (quantum) boxes to built his temporal house. Although all boxes are empty ... a house is made ;-).
Empty boxes are the building stones of the Universe ... Logic?"

So Gaspar I am working on it.
Matter? It's all a matter of perception."

[wuliheron]

Thanks for offering.
Without pushing yet on a possible TOE concept I see pelastration as an energetic presentation that unpuzzles a number of semantic paradoxes (no only in Hinduism).


Yes, the Taoist equivalent was dubbed, "Energetic Taoism" by Huston Smith. It is also similar to the early Greek philosophy of Heraclitus. What they all have in common is an emphasis on Pantheism or, in western terms, materialism or dynamicism. This does not deny the possibly of Panenthistic implications, but declares the Pantheistic ones are the most easily descerned and meaningful in our personal everyday lives.

Gita, Ch. 7, Verse 4.
"I am endowed with two Shaktis, namely the superior and the inferior natures; the field and its knower (spirit is the knower of the field; matter is the field.) I unite these two".


This is an affirmation of duality as well as monodaism, both of which are very Pantheistic concepts.

Gita,Ch.13, verse 26.
"Wherever a being is born, whether unmoving or moving, know thou Arjuna, that it is from the union between the field and the knower of the field".
(Purusha is the knower of the field; Prakriti is the field; Shiva is another name for the knower of the field and Shakti is the field; Spirit is another name for the knower of the field and Matter (Prakriti) is the field).

This demonstrates the great strength of Hinduism from my point of view. The Hindu faith far outstrips all others in the shear amount of theological writings on the subject. If you have anything philosophical, theological, or scientific you care to develop on the subject, the Hindu faith has something poinent and meaningful to say about the issue.

In general, Asian thought can be divided into three catagories along the lines of paradox. Taoism presents the most mystical elegant and purely descriptive view, Buddhism presents the most Pantheistic and readily adaptable, and Hinduism presents the most detailed and broadly applicable with its Panenthism. Thus each presents its own strengths and weaknesses.

In the case of Taoism it's strength is its directness and its weakness is its difficulty in putting this to practical use on a large scale. For Buddhism, its strength lies in its adaptability and its weakness is in its absolutism. For Panentheism like the Hindu faith, its strength is in its diversity and its weakness in its lack of elegance.

[M. Gaspar]

...when you mentioned Rupert Sheldrake. I just recently bought Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness which he authored with two others...but haven't opened it yet.

The first time I heard of Sheldrake was when he was part of a PBS special...when I was FLOORED to hear him say something ASTONISHING!

It appears he had reached a conclusion that I had reached myself, quite independently. And that is: STARS ARE CONSCIOUS!

I wonder what your take on that is. Very tubular, no doubt.

Meanwhile, I'm printing out this page of this thread to process contents offline. [g)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Hi ... back on line.
(I was looking into some Hinduism ... related to pelastration ... found some interesting things on Brahman and Atman, and MAYA)

Now on the discussion on "nothingness, nothing, ..." I thing it's more semantics. If you prefer "emptiness" its fine to me.

This is what Michio Kaku wrote in HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey: Chapter: What Happened Before the Big Bang? :" ... The 10 dimensional superstring theory ... the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty."

So that's Michio Kaku talking = "nothing in it ... empty".

Nevagil said: "Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. ".

Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area. So simple! When you would look to it from a distance you see two layers (= darker) on the area that is penetrated. It becomes more visual!. It's a new dimension. The crazy thing is that it will have still the same content. And even stranger: it is still has the same outside membrane, but infolded in "apparently" independent (isolated) structures with other properties.
Let's say this happens thousand times. Now when you tear at one piece ... ALL OTHER will move also! Just like the gravity works.
This logic shows that the basic membrane in EVERYWHERE. That means that (what we call) gravity is structurally embedded it every element of the universe.

To Wuliheron: Yes I think that pelastration gives predictions. I am just looking for a mathematically skilled person who wants to spend some hours to calculate the basic formula. (Later that formula will have a number of variable parameters such as the impact radius, tension, impact angle, number of layers, ... ).
With that formula you will be able to analyze all actual other theories and I am sure a lot will be confirmed. But I am also sure (I feel it intuitively) that based on the speed of light it will be possible to calculate the basic stretchability of the membrane. ;-).

Finally it will be clear that everything is the membrane itself (because it creates just boxes). With the empty boxes we build houses (which we call Matter). That emptiness is called in Hinduism: Maya, the Illusion. We (made of boxes ourselves) will "see" other boxes but they are just reshaped membrane.

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)

Well, if you are stating that everything came from emptiness, then that is a perfectly fine opinion. However, the word "nothing" is to be treated/used with care.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, if you are stating that everything came from emptiness, then that is a perfectly fine opinion. However, the word "nothing" is to be treated/used with care.

This reminds me of an interesting feature of inflation theory, which is basically is established around one (or more) scalar fields in space and time, that are nothing more then assigning a "value" to every point of space, which can fluctuate due to quantum effects.
The fact is there realy isn't anything there in space/time, besides of this fields, and if all values at a certain moment in time would state a value of 0, this would be exactly the concept of "emptiness".
The value is arbitrary, in that there is no absolute 0. Same like an electric field potential. The toal value of the electric field potential in the whole of the universe is assumed to be 0 Volt, yet this could be as well be 110 Volts, or any other value, we could not detect that.

Another nice feature of this dynamic scalar field changing in time that it shows a good example of the dialectical law of "Quantity into Quality", because solely on the basis of the quantum effected change in the value of this scalar field, a transformation is possible that creates a new quality: the occurence of inflation, which expands space and creates a new space-time bubble, forming a new universe.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
It appears he had reached a conclusion that I had reached myself, quite independently. And that is: STARS ARE CONSCIOUS!


Hmmm. Well then we can ask the stars perhaps some day how to solve the energy crisis.

But seriously, it is a rather vague stand to say that stars are "consciousness".

Let me try to explain what I mean here, it has to do with formal reasoning.

Suppose we define a certain property or quality, and name that Q. Now we can only know if anything has "Q-ness" on the basis that we can distinguish it from things that don't have "Q-ness".
But suppose we would state that everything has "Q-ness". How could we then distringuish this property, or even proof it is existent?
The anwer is: we can't.

Consciousness is reserved for living organisms, until now only discoverd on the planet earth, and only for a few living species.
This property of living organisms, must be derived from something, of course. If we disassmble conscious beings, we will find different layers of organic material, and finally we will just find electrons, protons, neutrons, and the things they are made of.
Where does this quality of consciousness derive from? In the electron, the proton, the neutron? If we adopt a thinking in which we say that the quality of consciousness in a being, must be inheretly present in the components of it, then we are faced with a problem. Because either we have to claim that all dead matter has consciousness too, or we would have to claim that consciousness as such is inexistent.
Of course, this is not the case. Matter has the potential to form structures that in their ensembled form have the property or quality of consciousness, but this does not mean that in their components, this quality is also present. Like for instance a single neuron is not consciousness, although it's the basic component of a material brain.

So if we claim a star to be consciousness, why wouldn't this allow us for anything else to be called consciousness? And the soon as we do that, the next argument is that nothing is consciousness, cause we could not establish any distinction then.

Same reasoning as that dark exists, because light exists. etc.

You have to ask yourself, what property is it that makes a "thing" consciousness? What kind of behaviour can stars establish, that would make you think so?

I would not limit consciousness to a couple of species on earth, it is certainly arguable that consciousness is universal, and other forms of life on other planets, could be consciousness too.

But dead objects, like the earth (excluding it's life inhabitants) or the sun or galaxy, don't have consciousness. They just form a very sophistocated system, enabling life forms, and are pre-conditions to life forms and living matter, and also consciousness.

[nevagil]

Maybe there is nothing with intermittent connectivity (pelastration may term it vibration), maybe one day a week a photon goes thru it.
Out in faraway space where starlight(photons) and gravity are weak or intermittent, and we look inbetween the h2 things, there may be spots of nothing. Especially if there may have been explosions creating different structures of molecules or whatever, like no more h2.

Just picture the edge of our universe and then go out far enough so that gravity is weak and photons are weak (because our universe has a limited amount of stuff its gravity and photons can only reach so far with any significance, in it there should be a spot out there that is usually empty, a square mile of nothing or at least a square centimeter).
Take that "nothing" on a day, lets say Tuesday, and have something from our universe reach it and something from another universe reach it and a collision results creating a new source of gravity, universe etc.
It seems possible to me that a big bang could occur out of "nothing" with the help of universes or stuff outside the nothing.

To define "nothing" or "emptyness" a bit more I'd like to say that "nothing" if next to "something" should show a osmosis affect in that stuff should flow into it if gravity, membrane, and structure permit it. Then it would also be "something" but not its own universe, it would have joined the universe that reached it and certainly it would no longer be "nothing".


This idea of "intermittent nothing" could fit into a re-incarnating universe, it might disperse into other universes thus dying and become "nothing" again.
So those of you that feel there can't be "nothingness" do ya think there can be "intermittent nothingness"? Can there be a temporary "nothing" like near a black hole?
Btw, if there is a temporary "nothingness" then it did occupy space and time without having matter or motion.

gilnv of www.surrealcity.com

[M. Gaspar]

I am going to take the next six hours to formulate my response to your last posting. I even took the time to look up the word "formulate" so that now I must say that I mean to "express in systematic terms or concepts" rather than "devise or invent"...'tho you might feel the latter is the case.

First, I want to say that I appreciate your thoughtful response to my alignment with Rupert Sheldrake that "stars are conscious". I want to emphasize the word "thoughtful" because I did not detect a tone of derision even as you proceded to "pluck my feathers".

Let's look at the "material world": according to my rather tenuous understanding of what has been proposed by recent cosmologists ('tho I understand there are other theories afoot)...

...the "beginning" of the Universe was the event we have called the "Big Bang".

...while we "don't know" what happened during the "first second" after the Big Bang, we "know" about what happened after the "second second"! (I'm speaking figuratively here with regard to actual time frame.)

...what happened in the second second was that the "singularity" that was, at the time, Everything That Is, spread itself out in a very thin "soup" of elementary particles.

...those elementary particles, in some form or another, were somehow "contained" within the singularity.

Now, before I go too far (say, into the "third second"), let us establish that "matter" has been established as "bound-up energy." Might we not be able to say, then, that "matter" is a "state of energy"? Or even, energy itself? Then, would not EVERYTHING BE ENERGY? (I know you'll tell me[;)] ).

...thus, the singularity is ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME...

...just as in its present state as the expanding Universe, it is ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME.

...thus, each elementary particle was/is actually a form of energy.

...that "materialized" out of "virtuality"...just as elementary particles do all the time out of the "energy rich" "vacuum".

Then, at a certain point, the neonatal Universe "cooled" (I believe) to a point where elementary particles joined together (through natural processes, I would assume) to form dynamic little systems called "atoms"...and photons were "released".

So, although atoms SEEM like "matter", they are actually energetic systems of energy, gathered together as a natural function of natural forces.

If the Universe is "truly" all energy, then might not CONSCIOUSNESS be a form of energy, too? And might it not, like "matter", have been "blown apart" at the moment of the "Big Bang" into "elementary particles of consciousness"?

And might it not, through natural forces, ACCRETE like "matter" to form dynamic coherent systems?

"Matter" is "here" because somewhere in that singularity there existed the ingredients and forces to make it so.

The stuff of consciousness, then, might have been a part of the singularity...perhaps existing in every "morsal" of energy, meaning every quantum of energy that became every elementary particle, that joined together to form "communities" of physicality and consciousness.

Matter continued to accrete. Consciousness continued to accrete.

I am going to end this posting here (tho I have a lot more to say) because I fear being disconnected and losing all this good stuff.

[M. Gaspar]

...you concider the dynamic and coherent energetic system that we call an "atom" DEAD!

In fact, all this DEAD STUFF remains dead to you (and your brainy brethren) until it combines itself with exquisite complexity into even LARGER dynamic and coherent energetic systems that walk and talk. Short of that, any other dynamic and coherent energetic systems are likewise DEAD.

So Goodbye Gaia...your DEAD IN THE WATER! Oh, sure, you are infested with some walkers and talkers who exchange energy with other coherent energy systems, and sure, you regulate your own temperature, and sure, you have a dynamic core that generates energy that, among other things, deflects (and draws in) certain energies from the GREAT BIG DEAD THING IN THE SKY...but don't go thinking you're a "living organism". And never, NEVER "think" you can, well, THINK!

And you, Ra...or Sun...or whatever the heck the walkers and talkers call you...don't YOU go getting delusions of grandeur.

You're a medium-size star. That's it. You do what stars do. Nothing more. Sure, you "got lucky" and are "hosting" one lousy planet with "life"...but don't "think" that you can exchange steady streams of consciousness back and forth because consciousness is "confined" to the walkers and talkers "down there" and, most of all, you can't THINK...remember?!

Look, Heusdens...I need now to do some research to see how Sheldrake came to HIS conclusion. As background on Sheldrake, I will say that he obtained his PhD. in biochemisry from Cambridge in 1967. He also studied philosophy at Harvard. This, of course, does not preclude his being a crackpot. And don't think it hasn't crossed my mind that I might be one, too.

I'll be back with whatever case he makes.

Meanwhile, let us remember that this thread is about "Everything from Nothing" and I'm maintaining that Everything is from SOMETHING.

And, when I finally learn how to "capture" these postings, I'm going to copy THIS and my prior posting on this thread to the thread "Is the Universe Conscious"...unless you would be so kind to do it for me.

This is such fun.[8)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...you concider the dynamic and coherent energetic system that we call an "atom" DEAD!

Yes, of course. What is your problem? I never killed a single atom, I swear! (lol)

But your post contains no reasoned assumption of why we should call an atom not dead, and why large complex organic organisms, like a fish, are not dead. Well, all what we can state that all the properties of a fish as a system, are ultimately derived from the properties of atoms.
The conclusion, you implictly make that because a fish is a living thing (at some time it certainly is or was) does not mean that therefore all the components are life too.

Because as you see between the living fish and the lowest levels of matter, there are several and numerous layers of systems, that have different properties then the ones below. The higher levels ultimately depend on the lower levels, but new properties can arise out of ensembling lower levels to higher structures.

And to put some reason in my arguments. What distinguishes 'dead' matter from 'living' matter? It is difficult to say exactly where the boundaries are, but one of the chief capabilities of living matter is that it is able (because of the DNA) to re-produce. And this property can arise only when we ensemble enough molecules of the right stuff together, to create that property of matter.

Same as the property of walking comes from having 2 (or 4 or more) legs, and not from just one (exception is the snake/snail, but this one could not call 'walking').

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is difficult to say exactly where the boundaries are, but one of the chief capabilities of living matter is that it is able (because of the DNA) to re-produce.

Crystals grow. Is that re-production? Not really, it more like available empty electro-magnetic spaces which will collect relevant atoms.

Possible entry:
Consciousness: next to individual you have also collective.
Think how the first cells started. = joined actions -> specialization (Symbiotics) caused by extreme surrounding situation.
Condition: inter-communication between the parts.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Crystals grow. Is that re-production? Not really, it more like available empty electro-magnetic spaces which will collect relevant atoms.

Re-production is not the only criteria for life. All living organism have a metabolism too, they take food from the surrounding environment.

[pelastration]

Of course.

It was no critic ... just stating that also non living things grow ... but I added immediatelly that the growth of crystals is not real reproduction.

To check your statement that living organism have metabolism too ... I am going to take a beer now. [6)]

[M. Gaspar]

I would have preferred a reply to the posting PRIOR to the one about "living" or "dead" dynamic and coherent systems...tho I will be back to discuss these distinctions, too.

My interest has more to do with consciousness, and I'm interested in your thoughts regarding my contention that, perhaps, consciousness was part of the singularity that burst forth in what we call the "Big Bang"...especially the idea that there may be "elementary particles of consciousness"...or, perhpas, consciousness "in" elementary particles.

Might these "particles of consciousness" accrete like "matter" does via gravity, via a corresponding (tho unnamed as yet) force?

Why is this premise fundamentally wrong...aside from the fact that I can't "prove" it.

Would not such a symmetry between the natural processes of physicality and consciousness be, at the very least, beautiful...and might it not explain the interconnectedness of all things?

I have a few feathers left, so...pluck on!

P.S.

I want to send these (my) postings to the "A Conscious Universe?" thread. Is this possible?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Of course.

It was no critic ... just stating that also non living things grow ... but I added immediatelly that the growth of crystals is not real reproduction.

To check your statement that living organism have metabolism too ... I am going to take a beer now. [6)]

I must admit a proper definition of "life" in a way slipped out of my mind, so I am not exactly sure about it either....

Enjoy your beer!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I would have preferred a reply to the posting PRIOR to the one about "living" or "dead" dynamic and coherent systems...tho I will be back to discuss these distinctions, too.

My interest has more to do with consciousness, and I'm interested in your thoughts regarding my contention that, perhaps, consciousness was part of the singularity that burst forth in what we call the "Big Bang"...especially the idea that there may be "elementary particles of consciousness"...or, perhpas, consciousness "in" elementary particles.

Might these "particles of consciousness" accrete like "matter" does via gravity, via a corresponding (tho unnamed as yet) force?

Why is this premise fundamentally wrong...aside from the fact that I can't "prove" it.

Would not such a symmetry between the natural processes of physicality and consciousness be, at the very least, beautiful...and might it not explain the interconnectedness of all things?

I have a few feathers left, so...pluck on!



That is a matter of taste, if you like such an idea.

But there are more ways to express the interconnectedness of "all things"!

From philospohical viewpoint, I would say that this makes no sense.
Your position is lended on the fact that you are inclined to think that since our material brain has consciousness, so also matter itself must have that quality.

That is in fact as to say that also one molecule of air is able of producing hurricanes. It's the way thinks work as an ensemble of things, that provides such properties of course.

Or take another example. When looking at a painting, you might discover the property "beauty" in it. But where does this property come from? The molecules in the paint?


[b]
P.S.

I want to send these (my) postings to the "A Conscious Universe?" thread. Is this possible? [/b

Is this a question to me?

You can insert either a link in that thread to this thread, or copy/past it in there.

[M. Gaspar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by heusdens
[B]That is a matter of taste, if you like such an idea.

But there are more ways to express the interconnectedness of "all things"!

From philospohical viewpoint, I would say that this makes no sense.
Your position is lended on the fact that you are inclined to think that since our material brain has consciousness, so also matter itself must have that quality.

That is in fact as to say that also one molecule of air is able of producing hurricanes. It's the way thinks work as an ensemble of things, that provides such properties of course.

Or take another example. When looking at a painting, you might discover the property "beauty" in it. But where does this property come from? The molecules in the paint?



"Matter" is "constructed" of atoms which are "constructed" of elementary particles (which are "constructed" of...?), etc. In other words, the "building blocks of matter" EXISTED in the Universe...having "come out of", presumably, the "Primal Sigularity".

Matter didn't come from nothing. It came from whatever was "contained" in the "Primal Singularity" which, in turn, "condensed out" (of WHAT?) pretty quickly after the "Big Bang".

I speculate that CONSCIOUSNESS was there, also, condensed down -- like everything else from the PRIOR INCARNATION of the UNIVERSE -- into the "Primal Singularity". When the Singularity "blew"...consciousness "fragmented" too...and has spent these subsequent eons to coallesce, once again, via processes as natural as gravity and its effect on matter.

Matter accretes. Consciousness accretes.

Matter comes from something. Consciousness comes from something. The Universe comes from something, too: Itself!

MY RESPONSE TO YOU, HEUSDENS. starts after you "molecules of paint (I'm having a tough time figuring out how to effectively use the quote capturing feature...maybe someday):

By the way, the "beauty of the painting" is not a characteristic of anything...it's a PERCEPTION/INTERPRETATION by an OBSERVER.

[pelastration]

Gaspar and Heusdens

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
.... the idea that there may be "elementary particles of consciousness"...or, perhpas, consciousness "in" elementary particles.
Might these "particles of consciousness" accrete like "matter" does via gravity, via a corresponding (tho unnamed as yet) force?
Would not such a symmetry between the natural processes of physicality and consciousness be, at the very least, beautiful...and might it not explain the interconnectedness of all things?

Originally posted by heusdens
That is a matter of taste, if you like such an idea.
But there are more ways to express the interconnectedness of "all things"!
Your position is lended on the fact that you are inclined to think that since our material brain has consciousness, so also matter itself must have that quality.
That is in fact as to say that also one molecule of air is able of producing hurricanes. It's the way thinks work as an ensemble of things, that provides such properties of course.
Or take another example. When looking at a painting, you might discover the property "beauty" in it. But where does this property come from? The molecules in the paint?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[QUOTE]
"Matter" is "constructed" of atoms which are "constructed" of elementary particles (which are "constructed" of...?), etc. In other words, the "building blocks of matter" EXISTED in the Universe...having "come out of", presumably, the "Primal Sigularity".
Matter didn't come from nothing. It came from whatever was "contained" in the "Primal Singularity" which, in turn, "condensed out" (of WHAT?) pretty quickly after the "Big Bang".
I speculate that CONSCIOUSNESS was there, also, condensed down -- like everything else from the PRIOR INCARNATION of the UNIVERSE -- into the "Primal Singularity". When the Singularity "blew"...consciousness "fragmented" too...and has spent these subsequent eons to coallesce, once again, via processes as natural as gravity and its effect on matter.
Matter accretes. Consciousness accretes.
Matter comes from something. Consciousness comes from something. The Universe comes from something, too: Itself!
MY RESPONSE TO YOU, HEUSDENS. starts after you "molecules of paint (I'm having a tough time figuring out how to effectively use the quote capturing feature...maybe someday):
By the way, the "beauty of the painting" is not a characteristic of anything...it's a PERCEPTION/INTERPRETATION by an OBSERVER.

Essential in this discussion: the Relativity of the Observer. Depending from his POSITION in the matter/spiritual level his surrounding (his world of reality) contains other parameters which seems to be important. This gives a level of OVERVIEW. If you have no overview the surrounding becomes paradoxical. (Cfr. the QM explanation of the quantum leap = the search for overview).

The separation of "matter" and "spiritual" is only the description of two other layers of interconnectedness.
Example: A sheep, milk, skin, hair, and ....
The sheep is the isolated unity on our 3D world of animals. (knowledge level)
But "MY" sheep is called Bonny = specific unity in my garden. (personal daily level)
The sheep has a skin, if we transform it, it becomes LEATHER. We can make shoes of it.
The sheep has Hair, if we transform it, it becomes WOOL.

For the observing farmer the sheep has another direct 'signification' then for the observing manufacture of shoes. Without the existence of sheeps the shoe manufacturer could not make sheep-shoes.

LEVEL of consciousness: So the manufacture and the farmer are conscious about the various possibility the sheep and his related sub-elements have in THEIR WORLD. But the sheep has a LOWER level of consciousness. When it sees the (fancy sheep-leather made) shoes of the farmer it will have no degree of consciousness that those might made out of sheep leather. The sheep just wants food, water, some sex, housing to protect itself against the rain, sun and ... the big bad wolf.
A painting of sheeps has only (artistic) SIGNIFICATION for humans because the higher level gives OVERVIEW.
So: the the Relativity of the Observer.

In the same way the separation of matter and spiritual is artificial. There is an hierarchy of manifestations of interconnectedness. You know my vision of manifolded intertwining by pelastration: these create such layering and interconnectivity. This hierarchy is related to Einstein's gravitational ether (which he searched for his last 30 years but never found) showing that kinetics are the base of such hierarchy. (http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html)
Einstein needed a valid kinetic mechanism next to TIME (and space-time) in his formula to position "separate" time-relatities. The pelastration mechanism provides this image. So we can finally rewrite the original formula Einstein had in mind.

[M. Gaspar]

Something to think about...thanks.

Meanwhile, you remind me of a phrase from an article I read a long time ago about a man sitting on his living room floor, with instructions in his hand and the components of his new stereo system (or whatever) strewn about him.

The article said that he was looking at all this stuff "with no more comprehension than shrimp examining a nuclear submarine".


I still get a laugh from that one. [:D]


But is the laugh on ME? [8)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"Matter" is "constructed" of atoms which are "constructed" of elementary particles (which are "constructed" of...?), etc. In other words, the "building blocks of matter" EXISTED in the Universe...having "come out of", presumably, the "Primal Sigularity".

Matter didn't come from nothing. It came from whatever was "contained" in the "Primal Singularity" which, in turn, "condensed out" (of WHAT?) pretty quickly after the "Big Bang".

I speculate that CONSCIOUSNESS was there, also, condensed down -- like everything else from the PRIOR INCARNATION of the UNIVERSE -- into the "Primal Singularity". When the Singularity "blew"...consciousness "fragmented" too...and has spent these subsequent eons to coallesce, once again, via processes as natural as gravity and its effect on matter.

Matter accretes. Consciousness accretes.

Matter comes from something. Consciousness comes from something. The Universe comes from something, too: Itself!

MY RESPONSE TO YOU, HEUSDENS. starts after you "molecules of paint (I'm having a tough time figuring out how to effectively use the quote capturing feature...maybe someday):

By the way, the "beauty of the painting" is not a characteristic of anything...it's a PERCEPTION/INTERPRETATION by an OBSERVER.

Matter in the philosophical meaning is not just particles, but any form of matter (energy, fields). Matter is not created or destroyed, so there was always matter, in whatever form.
(for explaining the big bang, one could think of the idea of eternal inflation).

Consciousness has arisen out of the material world, in the form of living organisms, due to the evolution of life forms in billions of years.

This quality of matter was not orginally there!

For further explenation of Matter, Materialism, Dialectics, Dialectical Materialism: see the thread Dialectical Materialism (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1496)

[M. Gaspar]

"The quality of consciousness was not already there" is an assumption and nothing more.

I may not be able to empiracly "prove" that consciousness exists in Everything, but nor can you "prove" that it does NOT.

On the other hand, with a little time and thought -- and the "functional resistence" of countervaling views -- I will make my case to (at the very least) my OWN satisfaction.

Meanwhile...lunch.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"The quality of consciousness was not already there" is an assumption and nothing more.

I may not be able to empiracly "prove" that consciousness exists in Everything, but nor can you "prove" that it does NOT.

Yeah. And in the same way one can claim that the molecules of the air in themselves hide the property of hurricanes, and that molecules of paint hide in themselves the property of beauty...Neither this can be disproven, but it contains just absolute nonsense.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[B]"The quality of consciousness was not already there" is an assumption and nothing more.

I may not be able to empiracly "prove" that consciousness exists in Everything, but nor can you "prove" that it does NOT.


True, but it does seem to make sense (to me at least) that something that is conscious will show itself to be so. A rock never gives any hint of how conscious it is.

[M. Gaspar]

A hurricane is "made up of" molecules of air. This does not mean that each molecule of air "carries" the properties of a hurricane.

But one cannot deny that, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecule of air, a hurricane -- a dynamic coherent system itself (albeit temporary, which, in fact, ALL dynamic coherent systems are...except for maybe One: the ongoing Universe...but I digress) -- as I was saying, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecules of air, a hurricane would not come into being.

Without the tendency of the Universe to have "matter" "condense out of" energy -- wherein it (matter/energy) apparently exists in virtuality -- "materialists" would have nothing to look at, including THEMSELVES.

"Beauty" is a perception/interpretation (as I have said before) so does not parallel our "particles of consciousness" discussion.

The title of this thread is "Everything Came From Nothing" which I believe allows to me contend that "Everything Came from Something" and still be on point.

Now I'm wondering if it makes a difference to anyone to see consciousness as integral to the "mix". Putting it another way, how does it hurt to have people thinking that consciousness -- like Everything Else -- arose from Nothing?

Would the world be a better place if everyone believed that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts?

Or are we better off believing that the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE is ALL THERE IS...relegating consciousness to a fortunate accident within the accident of life?

Honestly, I don't know. The world -- and the many "geniuses" in it -- have believed worse rubbish then yours or mine...and the world has gotten along just fine. Or has it? [?]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
A hurricane is "made up of" molecules of air. This does not mean that each molecule of air "carries" the properties of a hurricane.

But one cannot deny that, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecule of air, a hurricane -- a dynamic coherent system itself (albeit temporary, which, in fact, ALL dynamic coherent systems are...except for maybe One: the ongoing Universe...but I digress) -- as I was saying, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecules of air, a hurricane would not come into being.

To explain hurricanes, which is a high order phenomena, one can not take much explenation from properties of individual air molecules, so it's rather a useless interpreation to declare hurricanes as consisting of matter. Instead, hurricanes must be explained on the basis of air pressure, and heating of air due to sunlight, causing differences in air pressure, which forces the air to flow.
That hurricanes are ultimately existing in the form of patterns of moving air molecules is an obvious fact of course, but that fact does not explain us much.
When one would have never seen a hurricane, or any other weather phenomena, I hold it for impossible to figure out that air molecules can cause hurricanes. You have to take into consideration other factors here as just the air molecules themselves (for instance the heating of the earth by the sun, is an important factor here; without it, no hurricanes would exist! you don't know that fact from just studying the properties of air molecules!).

In almost the same way, one cannot deal with explaining consciousness, just by decribing the chemical and physical compounds of our brain. You can make no relation to these two distinct things.
One has to explain consciousness by way of explaining the process that caused consciousness to form, which is in terms of evolution.



Without the tendency of the Universe to have "matter" "condense out of" energy -- wherein it (matter/energy) apparently exists in virtuality -- "materialists" would have nothing to look at, including THEMSELVES.

What is the "virtual existence" of matter? Are you referring to matter in the form of fields?

Please do not mix the physical meaning of matter (the baryonic stuff and leptons for instance) with the philosophical meaning of matter (which covers physical notions such as normal matter, energy, fields, etc.).



"Beauty" is a perception/interpretation (as I have said before) so does not parallel our "particles of consciousness" discussion.

In the same way portraying the universe as consciouss is a perception/interpretation!


The title of this thread is "Everything Came From Nothing" which I believe allows to me contend that "Everything Came from Something" and still be on point.

[b][quote]
Now I'm wondering if it makes a difference to anyone to see consciousness as integral to the "mix". Putting it another way, how does it hurt to have people thinking that consciousness -- like Everything Else -- arose from Nothing?

Consciousness does not arise from nothing! It took more as 3 billions years to get us here our of mere organic macro molecules and the forces of nature!


Would the world be a better place if everyone believed that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts?


No, since that would portray a false picture of reality! First, fund out yourself how consciouess beings evolved in a process that lasted 3 billions years from very simple organic matter, then you get *some* idea of what consciousness is about!


Or are we better off believing that the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE is ALL THERE IS...relegating consciousness to a fortunate accident within the accident of life?


The physical universe is all there is but the physicallity is not all there is to the universe!

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
True, but it does seem to make sense (to me at least) that something that is conscious will show itself to be so. A rock never gives any hint of how conscious it is.

There are living things -- like roaches and dragonflies -- that give "hints" that they are conscious to rather high extent (for a bug). Let your own experience with them in the past (or next opportunity in the future) to see if you can "take the hint" that they are aware of us as (1) threats or (2)something of interest, respectively.

The fact that we can not detect consciousness in a rock does not mean that some level of it -- however simple -- might be there.

[M. Gaspar]

There was a time when someone from the distant past conjectured that "matter" -- baryonic matter -- was made up of small "building blocks" called "atoms". He couldn't provit it. But he had deduced it and eventually...science caught up.

Much of what Einstein proposed had to wait a few years for observational or mathematical confirmation.

Yes, consciousness is to baryonic matter what air molecules are to a hurricane...with some important distinctions:

To the forming hurricane (and let us take "Will" out of the quation at the outset) molecules of air are "everywhere"...a resource to DRAW FROM. The dynamic coherent -- tho transient -- system that is the hurricane EMPLOYS air molecules to perform IN CONCERT the function of swirling around to regulate global temperatures.

Particles of consciousness might be "everywhere" too -- in baryonic matter...in "Dark Matter"...in photons of light!

However, particles of consciousness might not "cluster" as matter does, but "unite" or "cooperate" -- even at great distances -- with other particles of consciouesness to form a dynamic, non-physical NETWORK that, nonetheless, resides partially in the physical.

Thus, particles of consciousness are being USED by EACH OTHER for the the function of becoming AWARE.

Of course, there are probably different levels of consciousness, with awareness of "self" the most basic. Perhaps on one end of the consciousness spectrum there is an awareness of that which is WITHIN "self" and at the other end of the spectrum is an awareness of that is is OUTSIDE "self". I'm shooting from the hip on this paragraph, because I haven't given the "continuum" enough thought.

More on next posting...

[M. Gaspar]

Each molecule of air, no doubt [a)] , has a consciousness of its own but probably its NETWORK does not allow for a level of consciousness that would allow the molecule of aire to "think about" the leaves it is passing in its flight.

MY consciousness is more "hooked-up" than that of an air molecule, meaning MINE has more "sites" ...which allows me to have more "sights" ...as well as INsights!

The evolution of sentient life on this planet does not PRECLUDE my speculations. What I am speaking of, in fact, is "simply" another avenue of EVOLUTION: the functional accretion of consciousness which, like matter, didn't come from nothin'.

If energy evolves into matter and matter evolves into life...AND, if consciousness evolves (out of the fragmented bits of the former "whole" imbedded in the "Primary Singularity") into coherent systems of thought...wouldn't that be an example of SYMMETRY at its best?!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
There was a time when someone from the distant past conjectured that "matter" -- baryonic matter -- was made up of small "building blocks" called "atoms". He couldn't provit it. But he had deduced it and eventually...science caught up.

Much of what Einstein proposed had to wait a few years for observational or mathematical confirmation.

Yes, consciousness is to baryonic matter what air molecules are to a hurricane...with some important distinctions:

To the forming hurricane (and let us take "Will" out of the quation at the outset) molecules of air are "everywhere"...a resource to DRAW FROM. The dynamic coherent -- tho transient -- system that is the hurricane EMPLOYS air molecules to perform IN CONCERT the function of swirling around to regulate global temperatures.

Particles of consciousness might be "everywhere" too -- in baryonic matter...in "Dark Matter"...in photons of light!

However, particles of consciousness might not "cluster" as matter does, but "unite" or "cooperate" -- even at great distances -- with other particles of consciouesness to form a dynamic, non-physical NETWORK that, nonetheless, resides partially in the physical.

Thus, particles of consciousness are being USED by EACH OTHER for the the function of becoming AWARE.

Of course, there are probably different levels of consciousness, with awareness of "self" the most basic. Perhaps on one end of the consciousness spectrum there is an awareness of that which is WITHIN "self" and at the other end of the spectrum is an awareness of that is is OUTSIDE "self". I'm shooting from the hip on this paragraph, because I haven't given the "continuum" enough thought.

More on next posting...


PROVIDING that you have CONSCIOUSNESS, all I can tell you is that you will never find PARTICLES of CONSCIOUSNESS, because all I can make of this post is that you haven't the slightets idea what CONSCIOUSNESS in fact IS.

One of it is that CONSCIOUSNESS is not MATTER, and that MATTER is not CONSCIOUSNESS. Same as WEATHER is not AIR MOLECULES and AIR MOLECULES ain't WEATHER.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Each molecule of air, no doubt [a)] , has a consciousness of its own but probably its NETWORK does not allow for a level of consciousness that would allow the molecule of aire to "think about" the leaves it is passing in its flight.

MY consciousness is more "hooked-up" than that of an air molecule, meaning MINE has more "sites" ...which allows me to have more "sights" ...as well as INsights!

The evolution of sentient life on this planet does not PRECLUDE my speculations. What I am speaking of, in fact, is "simply" another avenue of EVOLUTION: the functional accretion of consciousness which, like matter, didn't come from nothin'.

If energy evolves into matter and matter evolves into life...AND, if consciousness evolves (out of the fragmented bits of the former "whole" imbedded in the "Primary Singularity") into coherent systems of thought...wouldn't that be an example of SYMMETRY at its best?!

Do you realy hold it that a molecule of air has consciousness of it's own? I don't know what your definition of consciousness is then, but it certainly ain't mine.
All one can state is that a molecule or any other form of matter has the property of interacting. If matter would not interact, we would not even know it is there, so that is the basic property of matter. But interacting does not require consciousness, because it is mechanical.

So try again, and use a more sensible definition of consciousness.

[M. Gaspar]

And I say that YOU don't know what Consciousness is.

For instance -- and now I will quote Rupert Sheldrake because he puts it forth so well:

"Right from the beginning, since my Book A NEw Science of Life was published, my aim has been to try to find a wider picture or paradigm for science that is not constricted to an inanimate, mechanistic view of things. One approach to this "bigger picture" is the idea of the whole universe as a living organism. The big bang theory describes the orgigin of the universe as a small undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. THIS IS MORE LIKE A DEVELOPING ORGANISM THAN LIKE A MACHINE (my caps). The old idea of the earth as dead has given way to Gaia, the idea of the lving earth....So, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."


Let me add here that I came to his conclusion by myself -- not having read anything by him until a week ago.

Sure, there's room on this planet for more than one crackpot...and more than one REACTIONARY , too! [;)]

[RuroumiKenshin]

M.Gaspar:
First of all, the quote is insufficiently substantiated. Take for example the geological evolution of the planet earth. It, like the universe evolved, developed. The universe is only developing through a series of random chain reactions, with no apperent purpose/goal. Whereas, in organisms, there is a purpose.

[M. Gaspar]

I was recently chided for not recognizing the distinction between purpose (which implies "will") and function (which does not).

While I could make a case that includes "purpose" for the evolution of the cosmos -- including this planet and its inhabitants -- I can also make a case for functionality only...especially with regards to the evolution of the living organisms that are accepted as such.

There are some who conjecture that the element of "randomness" is simply part of the overall SYSTEM of the Universe...there at the juncture between "reality" and "virtuality". It is thought, by such persons, that INTENTION (a product of consciousness) is that which ACTS UPON the lynchpin of randomness...bring certain possibilities into existence and not others.

What might look to be a "random chain of events" may, in fact, be the manifestation of potentiality into reality driven by intention.

Certain things can only be "evidenced" by their "effect" rather than measured, or even detected? What might be a good experiment to "prove" the effect of intention on randomness.

And what might "prove" the Universe is conscious???

[RuroumiKenshin]

GOOD JOB! Excellent argument!

A highly complex series of algorithmic actions created by the universe could possibly not be random. We have seen that there are laws which govern the universe, and these laws are standard.

But none the less, the question remains: What is the meaning of existence, as a living being?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I was recently chided for not recognizing the distinction between purpose (which implies "will") and function (which does not).

While I could make a case that includes "purpose" for the evolution of the cosmos -- including this planet and its inhabitants -- I can also make a case for functionality only...especially with regards to the evolution of the living organisms that are accepted as such.

There are some who conjecture that the element of "randomness" is simply part of the overall SYSTEM of the Universe...there at the juncture between "reality" and "virtuality". It is thought, by such persons, that INTENTION (a product of consciousness) is that which ACTS UPON the lynchpin of randomness...bring certain possibilities into existence and not others.

What might look to be a "random chain of events" may, in fact, be the manifestation of potentiality into reality driven by intention.

Certain things can only be "evidenced" by their "effect" rather than measured, or even detected? What might be a good experiment to "prove" the effect of intention on randomness.

And what might "prove" the Universe is conscious???

Let us investigate this from another viewpoint. What is the purpose of claiming that the Universe is consciouss?

Let me argue from the perspective this has no purpose.

When we denote some property which we can meaningfully attribute to something, this can only have meaning because we can detect 'things' that have that property and distinguish it from everything else that does not have that property. If however we assert that everything has that property, then this is the same as stating that nothing has this property, cause we cannot give any detection mechanism to distinguish things with that property and things without. In other words, the property itself becomes meaningless then. There is only dark, because there is light. etc.

Now, the current assumption is that we call that what the universe is material, because it allows us to distinguish our consciousness from that. Even when we are in large part material, in some part we are not, cause we are consciousness.

If, however, we would claim that if we are conscious then also the universe is conscious, then this statement has the same truth value as saying that since the universe is material, also we are material, and nothing more.

Which would then be the very end of us, reflecting on ourselves as conscious beings. For what purpose?

[RuroumiKenshin]

Even when we are in large part material, in some part we are not, cause we are consciousness.


We are a result of consciousness, are we not? Consciousness=awareness.
So "we are awareness" is incorrect. We are a result of it.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
We are a result of consciousness, are we not? Consciousness=awareness. So "we are awareness" is incorrect. We are a result of it.

I don't get this, but probably you mean that our consciousness is a result of awareness. That is not entirely true, cause there is also consciousness of which we are not aware, which is therefore entitled subconsciousness.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
We are a result of consciousness, are we not? Consciousness=awareness.
So "we are awareness" is incorrect. We are a result of it.

We are most definitely not a result of consciousness. If we didn't exist, then we wouldn't be conscious, but we could still exist, and not be conscious.

It is not that we are awareness, it is that we are aware.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't get this, but probably you mean that our consciousness is a result of awareness. That is not entirely true, cause there is also consciousness of which we are not aware, which is therefore entitled subconsciousness.

Heusdens, you are using the word "subconscious" inappropriately here. "Subconsciousness" the state of anything that is not conscious. A rock is subconscious. Reactions that require no conscious thought are subconscious.

Also, I think you may be wrong in distinguishing between awareness and consciousness. They are (AFAIK) synonymous.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Mentat
We are most definitely not a result of consciousness. If we didn't exist, then we wouldn't be conscious, but we could still exist, and not be conscious.

It is not that we are awareness, it is that we are aware.

Yes, you're right. But I was only refering to living things.

what does this have to do with how everything came from nothing? (this sounds more like "is the universe conscious?")

[von_Bismarck]

'Subconscious' refers to mental activity (esp. in humans) which is below the threshold of ordinary consciousness, but which still exists. Those objects which don't possess consciousness (such as rocks) are 'unconscious', or more simply, 'not conscious'.

[Another God]

I am amazed at how long this thread has gone on, considering its origins.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, you are using the word "subconscious" inappropriately here. "Subconsciousness" the state of anything that is not conscious. A rock is subconscious. Reactions that require no conscious thought are subconscious.

Also, I think you may be wrong in distinguishing between awareness and consciousness. They are (AFAIK) synonymous.

No. You mean unconscious, which means lack of consciousness.
Subconscious doesn't mean unconscious, it means things (thoughts, memories) one is not conscious of, but still have been brought into memory, and can be brought to awareness again.
Part of behavious is also subconscious, like auto-relfexes and so.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by heusdens
No. You mean unconscious, which means lack of consciousness.
Subconscious doesn't mean unconscious, it means things (thoughts, memories) one is not conscious of, but still have been brought into memory, and can be brought to awareness again.
Part of behavious is also subconscious, like auto-relfexes and so.

Not just memory. Quite simply, consciousness is a state of awareness[of one's surroundings]. Subconsciousness is the state of "non awareness".

[heusdens]

Book I: The Doctrine of Being (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_82)

part of this text:A Being
§ 132

Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

B Nothing
§ 133

Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content — undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.®

C Becoming
1. Unity of Being and Nothing
§ 134

Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself. ®

Remark 1: The Opposition of Being and Nothing in Ordinary Thinking

Remark 2: Defectiveness of the Expression 'Unity, Identity of Being and Nothing'

Remark 3: The Isolating of These Abstractions

Remark 4: Incomprehensibility of the Beginning



Highlighted phrase/conclusion:

. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.

[heusdens]

Incomprehensibility of the Beginning (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103)

§ 170

What has been said indicates the nature of the dialectic against the beginning of the world and also its end, by which the eternity of matter was supposed to be proved, that is, the dialectic against becoming, coming-to-be or ceasing-to-be, in general. The Kantian antinomy relative to the finitude or infinity of the world in space and time will be considered more closely under the Notion of quantitative infinity. This simple, ordinary dialectic rests on holding fast to the opposition of being and nothing. It is proved in the following manner that a beginning of the world, or of anything, is impossible:

§ 171

It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself.

§ 172

It is obvious that in this proof nothing is brought forward against becoming, or beginning and ceasing, against this unity of being and nothing, except an assertoric denial of them and an ascription of truth to being and nothing, each in separation from the other. Nevertheless this dialectic is at least more consistent than ordinary reflective thought which accepts as perfect truth that being and nothing only are in separation from each other, yet on the other hand acknowledges beginning and ceasing to be equally genuine determinations; but in these it does in fact assume the unseparatedness of being and nothing.

§ 173

With the absolute separateness of being from nothing presupposed, then of course — as we so often hear — beginning or becoming is something incomprehensible; for a presupposition is made which annuls the beginning or the becoming which yet is again admitted, and this contradiction thus posed and at the same time made impossible of solution, is called incomprehensible.

§ 174

The foregoing dialectic is the same, too, as that which understanding employs the notion of infinitesimal magnitudes, given by higher analysis. A more detailed treatment of this notion will be given later. These magnitudes have been defined as such that they are in their vanishing, not before their vanishing, for then they are finite magnitudes, or after their vanishing, for then they are nothing. Against this pre notion it is objected and reiterated that such magnitudes are either something or nothing; that there is no intermediate state between being and non-being ('state' is here an unsuitable, barbarous expression). Here too, the absolute separation of being and nothing is assumed. But against this it has been shown that being and nothing are, in fact, the same, or to use the same language as that just quoted, that there is nothing which is not an intermediate state between being and nothing. It is to the adoption of the said determination, which understanding opposes, that mathematics owes its most brilliant successes.

§ 175

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry. For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition sublates itself. It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth.

[string_theory]

Everything came from nothing...
God created everything. that is the ultimate solution to this difficult question...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by string_theory
Everything came from nothing...
God created everything. that is the ultimate solution to this difficult question...

It can be argued that that statement does not in fact "solve" the issue, but only shifts the issue from the Natural world, to the phenomena of the being of God, and is therefore not much help.
Does it raise any understanding of Nature by declaring that it "came from God"?

While solving one mystery (where did Nature arise from) it creates another mystery (the mystery of God). The effect is nihil.

Understanding the world means to gain knowledge about the (Natural) world through research and exploration. God isn't much of an explorable entity, therefore we need to explore Nature instead, and try to make sense of it.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
It can be argued that that statement does not in fact "solve" the issue, but only shifts the issue from the Natural world, to the phenomena of the being of God, and is therefore not much help.
Does it raise any understanding of Nature by declaring that it "came from God"?

While solving one mystery (where did Nature arise from) it creates another mystery (the mystery of God). The effect is nihil.

Understanding the world means to gain knowledge about the (Natural) world through research and exploration. God isn't much of an explorable entity, therefore we need to explore Nature instead, and try to make sense of it.

Here's what will "solve the issue": eliminating the extraneous element of "God" and seeing the UNIVERSE Itself as a living Entity that is PART of the "natural world"...evolving by changing Its form(s) and assembling Its consciousness.

Wouldn't this "raise our understanding of Nature"? if it were true? And eliminate "the mystery of God" to boot!

[l'Anvers]

Everything comes from nothing, you say...

But what if nothing never was? Everything comes from one point in the universe, since it exploded x years ago. There is no proof that before that, there was nothing. It could be a pulsating universe that always has been. All comes from 1 (dimension) and 0 is a difficult number to create something with it.

If you say that first, there was nothing, how can nothing evolve in something? How to create with nothing? If you have no bricks to start with, how do you build a house?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by string_theory
Quantum physics is WRONG

Well, then why it (quantum physics) agrees with experiment to 12-13 digits accuracy? (and the accuracy is limited by errors of experiment, not by uncertainty of theory.)

Do you know any other theory being so accurate?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Do you know any other theory being so accurate?

Creationism? [8)]

(Hey Alexander, I wondered if you were ever coming back!)

[Alexander]

How accurate is creationizm, indeed? Any non-negative or non-zero number (of % match between theory and observation)? And if so, can creationizm approach (not to say beat) the accuracy of quantum physics?


{About coming back. I am quite lazy (may be that is why I like thinking?). So, after PF moved, I was unable to lift my b..., sorry, my fingers to retype basic info. Finally semester is now over and there are not much other excuses to continue to suffer from NHBS (natural heavy b... sindrome)}.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
How accurate is creationizm, indeed? Any non-negative or non-zero number (of % match between theory and observation)? And if so, can creationizm approach (not to say beat) the accuracy of quantum physics?

Good point, but you forgot Swami Zero's theorem which states any atom losing its electron can be positive about everything, including all secrets of creation. If you want to get up to speed on the NEW standards of reason at PF I suggest you study his thread on deepness.


Originally posted by Alexander
{About coming back. I am quite lazy (may be that is why I like thinking?). So, after PF moved, I was unable to lift my b..., sorry, my fingers to retype basic info. Finally semester is now over and there are not much other excuses to continue to suffer from NHBS (natural heavy b... sindrome)}.

Ah yes, the catatonic-finger-combined-with-NHB syndrome. But then you said "sin" drome -- a Freudian slip if I've ever heard one. It means you hate your mother (or something like that). I bet that's why you are a materialist too. [a)]

[pelastration]

Most of the threads on these forums are about the same question: the degree (or density) of existence (reality, consciousness, nothingness, God, paradoxes, truth,...), it's interrelationship(s). When you see the discussions from a distance you will see that we are trapped in semantic frames with paradoxical implications.

When we just use words we will not come out.

THE NEED FOR OVERVIEW

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.
When we have such a mechanism then everyone can call that after his own believe system: GOD, Maya, nothingness, Logos, Jamjam, ....

Starting from pure logic - based on only one postulate (there is one unbreakable membrane) - such an mechanism can be imagined. This unbreakable membrane can manifold itself creating that way new layers which will separate (make isolated islands) but still will stay connected too to previous islands, and are still connected to the original starting 'something'. This means that the 'form' which contains 'essential movement' creates diversity.

DUALISM

This universal manifold (probably described by alpha: coupling constant) will create already on the second level the separation between basic ENERGY (3+) and basic MATTER (3-), which are in fact differently layered. From there the combinations are higher than traditional squared or factored.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposing views like Materialism and Idealism. The various explanations or interpretations of the paradoxical Origin brought humanity : religious fanatics, Inquisition(s), wars and (auto) believes in superior races ('chosen' by GOD). So it's time to de-mystify!!!!

From the monkey view we see 'islands of reality'.
We live on such an island. (this is my Universe).
Our body is such an island. (this is my Island ... this is my realtity! I am the best ...).
But from the Eye of Ra we will say: an island is just an PART of the earth surface (that is higher than the other surrounding earth surface) that is surrounded by water. And we can see that all islands are connected by earth but on another level separated by water.

LIFE.

The further this process of division (by adding new layers) goes the more complexity starts and conditions for 'life' appear on their level(s). Level dependent self-organizing will create collective and individual consciousness on several relevant levels.

This means also that spiritual energies (as emanations/infolding) of the basic energy (3+) has degrees of (relative) independence, which explain the possibilities in connectivity in consciousness systems.

Humans are thus each an individual universe with billions of combinations of internal isolated islands (fundamental particles which are 'boxed' in atoms, atoms which are 'boxed' in molecules, molecules which are 'boxed' in DNA, ... finally creating Jim, Alan, Mary, ...; but on down-levels they still are connected on common (collective) starting islands.
Inside they are still connected with the original movement, and internally there is still the original membrane between each layer.

The paradox of life (the connection of a physical body with spiritual body) can be analyzed and solved in the same way. The connection (starting life) happens with tiny white holes and de-connection (death) with tiny black holes.

MEMBRANE is GRAVITATION.

Trapped inside the human monkey view is the idea of gravitation. What we call gravity (fundamental connectivity) is only the result of the infolded membrane in every fundamental particle, subsequential atom, subsequential molecule, ...

The question of God or reality, existence, .... is thus the ability to see with the Eye of Ra. ;-)

If you want to see a solution on the fundamental Paradox click on below image.

[string_theory]

Originally posted by Alexander
Well, then why it (quantum physics) agrees with experiment to 12-13 digits accuracy? (and the accuracy is limited by errors of experiment, not by uncertainty of theory.)

Do you know any other theory being so accurate?

well, Alexander... I just feel it, in fact I am on the way of preparing myself to prove it is wrong... I hope you will read my new theories in a short time. I need first to improve my mathematical skills. At the moment I feel it but in the future I will show it...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Here's what will "solve the issue": eliminating the extraneous element of "God" and seeing the UNIVERSE Itself as a living Entity that is PART of the "natural world"...evolving by changing Its form(s) and assembling Its consciousness.

Wouldn't this "raise our understanding of Nature"? if it were true? And eliminate "the mystery of God" to boot!

The only approach made thus far with proven succes is that of science, and science is founded on materialism. It doesn't leave room for a "creator" (since the world isn't created, it is ever changing and moving in eternity).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by von_Bismarck
'Subconscious' refers to mental activity (esp. in humans) which is below the threshold of ordinary consciousness, but which still exists. Those objects which don't possess consciousness (such as rocks) are 'unconscious', or more simply, 'not conscious'.

Right! I already stated the same myself.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
The only approach made thus far with proven succes is that of science, and science is founded on materialism. It doesn't leave room for a "creator" (since the world isn't created, it is ever changing and moving in eternity).

May I take this as a point of AGREEMENT, then?

[M. Gaspar]

When this "page" of this thread ends, I will print it out, read it and get back to you.

Likewise, Heusdens on another thread.

[pelastration]

Thanks Gaspar,

I am sure that you will find a direction to your and sheldrakes goal. I will not go personnaly that far, but its not excluded.

Like I said supra: "This means also that spiritual energies (as emanations/infolding) of the basic energy (3+) has degrees of (relative) independence, which explain the possibilities in connectivity in consciousness systems."

Smile, look with the Eye of Ra and have fun ;)

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.



That is almost exactly what scientists (mainly theoretical physicists) do for living. (But instead of using imagination they use math (=logic) to find what kind of world some proposed mechanism results in. Then they compare it with world around us and either accept or dismiss proposed mechanism).



The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.



Scientists do not use ears, eyes, nose, tactile, etc senses. Senses are useless in investigating nature.

Indeed, to someone a mountain is seen huge, to someone else - tiny. So, scientists use INDEPENDENT from senses tools: a meter stick, a balance, a stopwatch, a spectrometer, etc. This way whether you are a dino, an alien or a robot, the size of mountain is the same (say 1.5 miles +/- 0.3 mile) for all.



This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposing views like Materialism and Idealism.



If by matter you mean fermions and by energy - bosons, then there is not much mathematical differemce between them. Both are same entity with slightly different parameters.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

Ah yes, the catatonic-finger-combined-with-NHB syndrome. But then you said "sin" drome -- a Freudian slip if I've ever heard one. It means you hate your mother (or something like that). I bet that's why you are a materialist too. [a)] [/B]

Sleeth, do not translate your own feelings/relationship to other people - people are different. What works well for you (hating your own mother) may not work well for others. Obviousely, I was raised not in so "free minded" society as you were (US, I presume). In my society we were taught to respect family members, and to care about elders, disabled and youngs. We were taught to respect other races and nations, and not to consider society a jungle. While in US views are way more diverse - more close to freedom of jungle (and sometimes to the extreme of shooting/blowing relatives and neighbors as frequently seen on TV), I do not share you wiew to hate own relatives, especially immediate ones. Hate is destructive to social life, not constructive. I think, materialistic (=pragmatic) position here is better: do not desire/do for others what you don't want to be done/desired to yourself. You may need a help from this other one some day, and if you hate him/her you can insted be hated too - not good for survival.

(As Marx said, freedom comes with responsibilities. So, do not abuse freedom.)

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Sleeth, do not translate your own feelings/relationship to other people - people are different. What works well for you (hating your own mother) may not work well for others. Obviousely, I was raised not in so "free minded" society as you were (US, I presume). In my society we were taught to respect family members, and to care about elders, disabled and youngs. We were taught to respect other races and nations, and not to consider society a jungle. While in US views are way more diverse - more close to freedom of jungle (and sometimes to the extreme of shooting/blowing relatives and neighbors as frequently seen on TV), I do not share you wiew to hate own relatives, especially immediate ones. Hate is destructive to social life, not constructive. I think, materialistic (=pragmatic) position here is better: do not desire/do for others what you don't want to be done/desired to yourself. You may need a help from this other one some day, and if you hate him/her you can insted be hated too - not good for survival.


LOL!!! Alexander, I was joking! I worried whether you'd "get" my American teasing, but what I said is so silly I figured you would know. It was my way of welcoming you back to PF. You crazy Russian! If you read less Dostoyevski and Marx, and watch more Rodney Dangerfield, one day you will understand the humor of we savages of the freedom jungle.[a)]

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is almost exactly what scientists (mainly theoretical physicists) do for living. (But instead of using imagination they use math (=logic) to find what kind of world some proposed mechanism results in. Then they compare it with world around us and either accept or dismiss proposed mechanism).
Thanks Alexander. If you think the pelastration concept is not perfect abstract logic we need discuss about that. I need only one postulate to explain a universal mechanism, how many do you need in QM just to start? Can you explain the quantum leap? I can ... and will show it soon on my website. (I mean show the image how the transaction goes ... all is ready just some other business now). And just like you do in QM I will predict some events (i.e. a gap between wave and particle which can maybe measured as a increasing particle value (?)).

If you believe that I don't check the world around ;-) ... and as I stated already in some threads before I like measuring (check discussions between Lifegraze and heusdens) ... and I check all questions and anomalies in your QM and other theories.

If you want to check again my website you will find out that Andrei Linde's monopoles and mini-universes are not so different from my 'islands'. My approach is however like the famous nesting Matryoshka doll boxes (inside, inside, inside, ...). So Linde's bubbles even keep their original integrity! Which is more ... logic and more TOE-ed.

If you think Einstein can be called a scientist read this:

1. Einstein stood on the point that the notion of "space" designates "gravitational ether", which is a physical reality. "With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether", says he in his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity"
2. According to Einstein, gravitational ether does not have the same properties as ponderable matter, that is why it cannot be described by notions such as "time" and "motion"
3.In the general theory, gravitational ether could be described by the curvedness of 4-dimensional space-time: the curvedness of space-time is a measure of the density of gravitational ether, which in its turn is dependent on the quantity of matter in a given volume of space-time. In the inter-galactic space, the density of gravitational ether is minimal, with maximums occurring in the centre of black holes
4. The speeds of changes are proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks. In gravitational ether, time does not run, and neither does it run on the surface of space bodies or in space ships. Experiments with clocks, these high precision pendulums, only record the speeds, durations and numerical order of changes taking place in the gravitational ether. Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Changes take place "here and now" in the gravitational ether.

Now my pelastration concept talks about that.

And Michio Kaku wrote (http://www.mkaku.org/articles/becoming-a-physicist.shtml ) : "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping.

Nothing ... but bookkeeping. (Alexander ... remember I am not telling that ... )

So don't show me yet your math, but show me your picture ;-)
Tell me how how it might work. I am open, ... listening.

Originally posted by Alexander
Scientists do not use ears, eyes, nose, tactile, etc senses. Senses are useless in investigating nature.
seriously? I never figured out they were aliens ;-)
What about observing birds and flowers (Is biology a science? ).
Originally posted by Alexander
Indeed, to someone a mountain is seen huge, to someone else - tiny. So, scientists use INDEPENDENT from senses tools: a meter stick, a balance, a stopwatch, a spectrometer, etc. This way whether you are a dino, an alien or a robot, the size of mountain is the same (say 1.5 miles +/- 0.3 mile) for all. As told ... measurement is an objective way to make 'repeatable' statements. We need them.
Originally posted by Alexander
If by matter you mean fermions and by energy - bosons, then there is not much mathematical differemce between them. Both are same entity with slightly different parameters.
All what we can observe today in CERN is in my opinion MATTER. But there is more. And you have not yet the tools to measure it :/
Neither do I. But all inventions starts with a dream, a picture ... only then we can start to materialize it.
;-)
Nice seeing you on this thread (or back on the forum?).

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by pelastration

And Michio Kaku wrote (http://www.mkaku.org/articles/becoming-a-physicist.shtml ) : "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping.

So don't show me yet your math, but show me your picture ;-)
Tell me how how it might work. I am open, ... listening.


Good job defending you theory (conjecture, hypothesis, speculation, idea, ruminations or whatever the "semantic police" will allow me to call it)...as well as your right to have one!

I've visited your website and do "get" what you're suggesting via the "picture".

Referencing Einstein's admonishment to mathheads...I better get myself a "picture", too. Unfortunately, what would be a "picture" of "consciousness"...of its evolution from "fragmentation" (just after the "Big Bang) into coherent systems within -- and extending OUT of -- ALL THINGS!

Don't tell me. I'll get it on my own. Meanwhile, all I've got at the moment is a concept -- shared by many -- with a NEW IDEA imbedded in it.

So I take heart from Kepler's quest...and folly: He came up with something USEFUL even as he pursued a geometric deadend!

Still, I'd settle for a small contribution to humanity's understanding of the nature and evolution of the Universe...a Theory of Everything that includes CONSCIOUSNESS!

How about you?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
4. The speeds of changes are proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks. In gravitational ether, time does not run, and neither does it run on the surface of space bodies or in space ships. Experiments with clocks, these high precision pendulums, only record the speeds, durations and numerical order of changes taking place in the gravitational ether. Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Changes take place "here and now" in the gravitational ether.

You interchange here the concept of "time" with "change". However, "time" is not equal to (the rate of) "change", cause we measure the (rate of) change with time. This is only possible because time is something different then change.

A statement as "the speed of change is proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks" is therefore a nonsense statement. Because if all changes occur slower, also clocks run slower in a gravitational ether that is less dense.
So how could we ever measure that? The clock would just appear to run in an equal rate everywhere..

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
You interchange here the concept of "time" with "change". However, "time" is not equal to (the rate of) "change", cause we measure the (rate of) change with time. This is only possible because time is something different then change.

A statement as "the speed of change is proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks" is therefore a nonsense statement. Because if all changes occur slower, also clocks run slower in a gravitational ether that is less dense.
So how could we ever measure that? The clock would just appear to run in an equal rate everywhere..
Sorry Heusdens, I quoted Einstein.
The number 1 to 4 are his (or Einstein described by Sorli). I will check and give you the link.

Additional:
here is the link.
It's not really clear what is of Einstein and what of Sorli.
http://www.mystae.com/streams/science/gravity.html
I think Gaspar will like that. Consciousness, consciousness, ...
You Heusdens probably less :-)

This is also a nice approach (more math's) on wormholes:
Pitkanen: http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/illua.html

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Sorry Heusdens, I quoted Einstein.
The number 1 to 4 are his (or Einstein described by Sorli). I will check and give you the link.

Additional:
here is the link.
It's not really clear what is of Einstein and what of Sorli.
http://www.mystae.com/streams/science/gravity.html
I think Gaspar will like that. Consciousness, consciousness, ...
You Heusdens probably less :-)

This is also a nice approach (more math's) on wormholes:
Pitkanen: http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/illua.html

I did not hear before that Einstein thought that space was ether.

Space can be qualified as a gravitational field, caused by matter. Matter "curves" spacetime. This means simply this: without matter, neither there would be space/time (and vice versa).


In GR differences in the gravitational field also means a difference in IFR (inertial frame of reference). This comes from the analogy between a gravitational field and accelerated motion.

Clocks running slower or faster relative to each other, is a consequence of the space time curvature acc. to GR.

However, if you were unable of comparing clocks in different spacetime regions, one could never measure the difference in the "rate of change" for regions with different space-time curvatures.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
I did not hear before that Einstein thought that space was ether.


Here some on Einstein's idea and frustration on the gravitational ether. Einstein wanted a kinetic mechanism:

In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote:"I agree with you that the general relativity theory admitsof an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena."


Albert Einstein, in an address (Ether and the Theory of Relativity) delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden: "It is only with reluctance that man's desire for knowledge endures a dualism of this kind. How was unity to be preserved in his comprehension of the forces of nature? Either by trying to look upon contact forces as being themselves distant forces which admittedly are observable only at a very small distance and this was the road which Newton's followers, who were entirely under the spell of his doctrine, mostly preferred to take; or by assuming that the Newtonian action at a distance is only apparently immediate action at a distance, but in truth is conveyed by a medium permeating space, whether by movements or by elastic deformation of this medium. Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether. This hypothesis, to be sure, did not at first bring with it any advance in the theory of gravitation or in physics generally, so that it became customary to treat Newton's law of force as an axiom not further reducible. But the ether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical science, even if at first only a latent part." (full text: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/einstein.html )

Ludwik Kostro quotes Einstein who said in 1930 (L.Kostro, 1988, p.239, “Einstein and the ether”): "[…] that now it appears that space will have to be regarded as a primary thing and that matter is derived from it, so to speak, as a secondary result. Space is now having its revenge, so to speak, and is eating up matter".
Einstein didn't found although the picture how a mechanical (kinetical) gravitational system could work, and in next text you will feel his frustration and dissapointment. He knew ... but could not express it.

Einstein in The Evolution of Physics (1938): "The Galilean relativity principle is valid for mechanical phenomena. The same laws of mechanics apply to all inertial systems moving relative to each other. Is this principle also valid for nonmechanical phenomena, especially for those for which the field concepts proved so very important? All problems concentrated around this question immediately bring us to the starting point of the relativity theory.
....
Is the ether carried with [a] room as the air [is]? Since we have no mechanical picture of the ether it is extremely difficult to answer this question. If the room is closed, the air inside is forced to move with it. There is obviously no sense in thinking of ether in this way, since all matter is immersed in it and it penetrates everywhere. No doors are closed to ether. The 'moving room,' now means only a moving CS [coordinate system] to which the source of light is rigidly connected. It is, however, not beyond us to imagine that the room moving with its light source carries the ether along with it just as the sound source and air is carried along in the closed room. But we can equally well imagine the opposite: that the room travels through the ether as a ship through a perfectly smooth sea, not carrying any part of the medium along but moving through it. In our first picture, the room moving with its light source carries the ether. An analogy with a sound wave is possible and quite similar conclusions can be drawn. In the second, the room moving with its light source does not carry the ether. No analogy with a sound wave is possible and the conclusions drawn in the case of a sound wave do not hold for a light wave. These are the two limiting possibilities. We could imagine the still more complicated possibility that the ether is only partially carried by the room moving with its light source. But there is no reason to discuss the more complicated assumptions before finding out which of the two simpler limiting cases experiment favors
....
Every attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving Coordinate Systems (CS) with the help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these motions, proved unsuccessful.
Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative. Looking back over the development of physics we see that the ether, soon after its birth, became the 'enfant terrible' of the family of physical substances.

First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused, to a great extent, the breakdown of the mechanical point of view.
Second, we had to give up hope that through the presence of the ether-sea one CS would be distinguished and lead to the recognition of absolute, and not only relative, motion.
This would have been the only way, besides carrying the waves, in which ether could mark and justify its existence. All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name. We shall say: our space has the physical property of transmitting waves, and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid.
The omission of a word from our vocabulary is, of course, no remedy. Our troubles are indeed much too profound to be solved in this way!"

Einstein: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

QB (after talking with) Kostro: "Einstein's 4-dimensional ether, if we wish to call it so, cannot provide the same natural causal explanations which, on the contrary, could be supplied by the introduction of a physical "fluid", filling up the whole 3-dimensional space. The action, and properties, of this universal medium could, in principle, rationally explain all physical phaenomena by means of a simple mechanical analogy (in which, for instance, a force can be interpreted only as a vis a tergo, a field as a perturbation of the space, etc.). Einstein's ether, instead, cannot be thought of but in four dimensions, which means that time must be included in the structure of "space" itself (which is in fact more properly called space-time). This circumstance implies that it is absolutely impossible for the human mind to make an intuitive image of it, and to give any simple meaning for instance to expressions like: "dynamical ether", which would have, vice versa, an easy interpretation with respect to a 3-dimensional fluid ether. As a matter of fact, an ether "moving" with respect to what time?

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens

In GR differences in the gravitational field also means a difference in IFR (inertial frame of reference). This comes from the analogy between a gravitational field and accelerated motion.
Thought experiment.

Thinking of gravitation.
What the essence of it?
Isn't it interconnectivity?
A molecule in my jupiter finger should be in some way directly or indirectly be connected with each star in the Orion space zone, etc.

Image there would be only two objects in space: you, Heusdens and one sun in Orion.

After some millions of years you would be more and more attracted to that sun and finally would fall in it.
Now what's your relations with that sun?

How is it possible that you are attracted?
To me the only valid mechanism is an elastic fundamental connection (embedded in your structure and also embedded in that sun or in parts of that sun) or you believe it will be separate units/particles interlinked?

[wimms]

whew, whadda oval race. 260 laps and growing. Who's on leading lap? I'm hopelessly late here..

pelastration, you seem to have done some work. Why not start your own thread?

[FZ+]

Originally posted by string_theory
well, Alexander... I just feel it, in fact I am on the way of preparing myself to prove it is wrong... I hope you will read my new theories in a short time. I need first to improve my mathematical skills. At the moment I feel it but in the future I will show it...
ROTFLMAO! [:D]
This really needs to be framed and put into some sort of display...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Thought experiment.

Thinking of gravitation.
What the essence of it?
Isn't it interconnectivity?
A molecule in my jupiter finger should be in some way directly or indirectly be connected with each star in the Orion space zone, etc.

Image there would be only two objects in space: you, Heusdens and one sun in Orion.

After some millions of years you would be more and more attracted to that sun and finally would fall in it.
Now what's your relations with that sun?

I think I would become a comet in that solar system.

How is it possible that you are attracted?

As a human being, how can I not be attracted by "stars"?


To me the only valid mechanism is an elastic fundamental connection (embedded in your structure and also embedded in that sun or in parts of that sun) or you believe it will be separate units/particles interlinked?

Ok. This time for serious.

I still envision the "curved spacetime" model of gravitation. The curvature of space around a massive object, causes me to "fall" into the centre of gravity.

This model of curved space, is action at a distance. The way I can measure the curvature of space is by measuring the effect of it: a force that is directed towards the center of gravity.

I think your idea of a membrane that connect everything with anything, although seemingly applies to this ununderstood issue of "action on a distance" fails in some ways.
What is the membrane itself consisting of? And how is that stuff "bound to itself" then?

I see no difference in quarks that are bound together by gluon forces, as massive particels that are bound together by gravitation forces. Only the scale of the acting force is different.


And some comments on your "everything is connected hypothese".

I think the source of your hypothese/thought that everything is connected, which in your "pelastration" theory has the form of one huge membrane that literally connects everything to evereything else, is a fundamental thought, which reflects on the world in total, and our being in this world.

The way I think of that connection, and reasoned about that within, can be found in the topic The Fundamental Question (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876). In that way I could "connect" the existence of everything within my own existence.

This forms a reasoned ground for "beliefs" regarding the interconnectedness of everything to everything. But this connectedness only exists within my reasonings. I don't assume that the material world itself should be in a material way interconnected (at least no more then physics has shown those connections by postulating the material interactions in the form of the 4 fundamental forces). I don't think that some physical substance is causing me to be drawn to a star, other then the spacetime curvature/gravitational force.

[Alexander]

Pela, what is the speed of gravity in your hypothesis? Is it instant or c?

Also, what is the difference between your unbreakable all-encompassing meduim and not found Lorentsian (or Maxwellinan - don't remember who was stronger proponent of it) aethir?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration

seriously? I never figured out they were aliens ;-)


What makes you think they are aliens? And what difference does it makes who is doing observation - alien, robot, monkey, etc? Mountain is still 1.5 km +/-0.2 km tall for ALL of them.



What about observing birds and flowers (Is biology a science? ).


It depends on HOW you observe them. Watching/hearing them is not a science yet. Science starts with numbers. So, measuring the frequency of bird's voice or the size (or wavelength) of flower is where science starts.

And no senses here, please ("what a big flower..." or "what a nice tweet...", "what a sweet smell", etc). Not of much use.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Book I: The Doctrine of Being (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_82)

part of this text:

Highlighted phrase/conclusion:

. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.

Re "B Nothing 133:

Talk about "pure meta-physics"!!!

[pelastration]

Originally posted by wimms
whew, whadda oval race. 260 laps and growing. Who's on leading lap? I'm hopelessly late here..

pelastration, you seem to have done some work. Why not start your own thread?
Thanks Wimms, might be a good idea.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Re "B Nothing 133:

Talk about "pure meta-physics"!!!

The post about Hegel, are texts of Hegel, and don't show my opinion on the issue. I can't help Hegel is a meta-physicists.

[pelastration]

[/B][/QUOTE] Originally posted by Alexander
What makes you think they are aliens? And what difference does it makes who is doing observation - alien, robot, monkey, etc? Mountain is still 1.5 km +/-0.2 km tall for ALL of them.
Biology and most science started with observation of the "reality".
Observations give the finding of similarities/differences, making classes, groups and catalogizing. That's all part of science. In a number sciences the human senses are used as a basic analyzing system. What about chemistry? The color of a solution, the smell, etc.
Robots maybe equipped with sensors and detectors but finally it will be the human brain that will interpret the data in function of a goal. Hubble can make billions of photo's but if there is no human to interpret it has no sense.
Originally posted by Alexander
It depends on HOW you observe them. Watching/hearing them is not a science yet. Science starts with numbers. So, measuring the frequency of bird's voice or the size (or wavelength) of flower is where science starts.
Your idea about science is very restricted. What did Mendel? Did he used numbers? So he was no scientist?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
The post about Hegel, are texts of Hegel, and don't show my opinion on the issue. I can't help Hegel is a meta-physicists.

What was your purpose in posting his views if you do not align with them? (And don't shoot back that one does not have to align with views that one posts...because I know that. But you must have been trying to make SOME point...and I am asking what that point IS.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What was your purpose in posting his views if you do not align with them? (And don't shoot back that one does not have to align with views that one posts...because I know that. But you must have been trying to make SOME point...and I am asking what that point IS.

The point I was making that even to an exponent of objective idealism it is incomprehensible to state that everything could come from nothing.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
The point I was making that even to an exponent of objective idealism it is incomprehensible to state that everything could come from nothing.

When you say "incomprehensible" do you mean that it is "impossible" or do you mean that it is possible, but we could never understand how it might be so?

Careful. This is a trick question.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
The point I was making that even to an exponent of objective idealism it is incomprehensible to state that everything could come from nothing.

I thought idealism was SUBJECTIVE! Wrong again?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I thought idealism was SUBJECTIVE! Wrong again?

Solipsism is subjective idealism. The "Absolute Idea" (God) is objective idealism.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
When you say "incomprehensible" do you mean that it is "impossible" or do you mean that it is possible, but we could never understand how it might be so?

Careful. This is a trick question.

It means it is impossible to comprehend. If the real world behaves in an incomprehensible way, then it is not understandable to us.

We are still in the process of trying to understand how the real world realy works, and all we will find is a model of behaviour of the world which is understandable to us. We think our model of reality is improving and becomes a better understanding of what reality realy is, but we will never have a complete understanding.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
It means it is impossible to comprehend. If the real world behaves in an incomprehensible way, then it is not understandable to us.

We are still in the process of trying to understand how the real world realy works, and all we will find is a model of behaviour of the world which is understandable to us. We think our model of reality is improving and becomes a better understanding of what reality realy is, but we will never have a complete understanding.

Ah, FINALLY: a point of AGREEMENT.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Ah, FINALLY: a point of AGREEMENT.

We better find a point of disagreement, it will be better for the thread.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
We better find a point of disagreement, it will be better for the thread.

Not to worry.

Later.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Pela, what is the speed of gravity in your hypothesis? Is it instant or c?

Also, what is the difference between your unbreakable all-encompassing meduim and not found Lorentsian (or Maxwellinan - don't remember who was stronger proponent of it) aethir?

Alexander, to answer your question about the speed of gravity I need to explain more about the nature of the layering caused by pelastration. It's a different way of looking to nature then you are used to. When you want to appreciate this new approach you need to put some other spectacles. If you stick on the superiority of maths you will be not able to see it. But that will be your problem not mine. ;-)

In Pelastration approach the (unbreakable but very strong elastic) membrane is present in everything because it is the essence of everything. It fact: it is the basic structure of everything.

As such the membrane MAKES basic BOXES by the pelastration manifolding. That manifold is like a "white hole' which connects two type of hyperspaces in a NEW COMBINATION. As long as the white hole connection exists as long the two hyperspaces are connected making thus a NEW UNITY (= a new box). The two hyperspace are connected but have each another "position" in the new unity (in a separate dimensions = higher or large dimension in the new unity).
Although they are jointed they still keep there INTEGRITY (their quality of previous layerings = History).

As such there exist in the pelastration approach not the traditional vision of 'fusion'.
What we observe as 'fusion' is a new restructuring of hyperspaces in a new layering combination. (thus elements de-connect [= black hole decay] to become back separate (original) hyperspaces and then - in combinations with other hyperspace restructure in a new white hole (become a plasma white hole for the observer).

Now Motion in one hyperspace in a new unity influences also the other inter-connected hyperspace because the are layered. (Image: when you move your arm you textile sleeve will follow your arm. = unit internal friction).

What we call thus a human observers:'reality or pseudo-reality' are various manifestations (spiritual levels, material levels, ...) of the membrane. They are the result of combinations in the basic layerings, this means the 'restructuring' of the membrane. This restructuring creates apparent "isolated" island or multi-layered boxes. (cfr. Andrei Linde's monopoles).

"Gravity" is thus the result of the restructuring and is NOT a "separate force". For the moment our scientists look after a separate force and tries to calculate the effects in the hope to predict how the separate force will work.
What we call "Gravity" is directly related to the degree of stretchability of the membrane. The degree of stretchability of a unite will depend from the number of layers which are combined internally. So each UNITY (or island or monopole) has it's own degree of combined stretchability. This makes why "light" has it's speed limit in our universe. Thus the degree of stretchability of the membrane determinates a number of our observed constants.
Experimentally found proprieties of electro-weak (photons acting Quarks and Leptons), strong (gluons acting on Quarks and gluons), etc. indicate which membrane levels are combined (and interact) and thus explain the fundamental (level) differences between quarks, leptons and bosons. Because the membrane is the fundamental essence or "material/tissu" of quarks, leptons and bosons it is obvious that these fundamental particles act within the limits offered by the membrane stretchability.
Interesting in this approach is that also mass-less particles can be understood as a concept.

Now the alpha-constant or coupling constant (Freynman's magic number) is probably the mathematical expression of the manifolding mechanism itself, and indicates the bending proprieties of the membrane.

In one box there are thus several layers of the membrane. This mapping of the membrane explains thus also the boundaries between manifestations levels -> explaining the incredible size difference between atoms, electrons, protons, .... Remember: Atoms (10^-10), the nucleus (10^-14), protons (10^-15) and Quarks and electrons (10^-18 or less), and ask yourself "why is there nothing at i.e. 10^-16-level"?

Membrane: from unity the manifold creates internal separation, but creates NEW UNITS (which appears to an observer) as coming from Nothing (but in fact coming from two 'invisible' hyperspaces which are jointed). Each of these hyperspaces have also a number of 'historic' layers, etc.

So my conclusion about the "speed of gravity': the membrane is the essence of everything and has does not have speed, it 'IS'. "Speed" is only a human definition of a repeatable or unique observation between two or more "units" which interact, and thus question: "with what velocity they interfere given a certain observed location". This implicates that an action or motion in a certain 'island' provoke also DIRECT actions by which surface changes in the whole membrane but also INDIRECT vibrational changes in the contacting (local) layers within the island.

PS: Now there is a level that I not touched yet which is that of the dynamics within islands. I will just tell you for the moment that the rotations of tubes (caused by moves of the composing previous hyperspaces) can create (dynamo type) excitation inside sub-layers, next to the length friction of expanding or decaying tubes and next to the inter-vibrations caused by internal events in a, island. So there are three basic movements related to the membrane inside pelastrated islands.

Chaos theory will approach this surface changes and depth interactions from a mathematical model trying to find patterns of behavior, and using fuzzy logic. Synchronicity of CG Jung tried to explain it by referring to causal but non-observable inter-relationships. Kaku explains it with the world of the carp.

To give the essence in a simple image: "If my approach is correct it will show that our universe is in fact a giant Fedex/DHL/TNT package delivery service system (sending box-in-box-in-box-in-box-in-box packages and box+box+box packages, on receipt taking out one box and forwarding the rest to another recipient who adds another bibibibi box and takes out a box of the first, repacks all in a larger package and resends that to another ..., ... till the 'final recipient" has enough (quantum) boxes to built his temporal house. Although all boxes are EMPTY ... a house is made ;-).
Empty boxes are the building stones of the Universe ... Logic?
Matter? It's all a matter of perception."

On Lorentz. H A Lorentz' hypothesis that everything contracted as it moved through the ether. His ether was fixed in the universe: matter consisted of changes of state of the ether, a change in one sense at the front of a particle being balanced by one in the opposite sense at the back.
That's fundamentally different from our approach.
"Theory of Electrons". He comes to the conclusion that he must reluctantly accept that the earth contracts (everything contracts) in its direction of motion. But he also says that if we could find a way around two problems with Stokes' theory, it would give a very neat solution, with none of the maths -- no "Lorentz" transformation. Source: http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/Essays/aether.htm

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think I would become a comet in that solar system.
;-). The Heusdens Comet ;-) I like that.
Originally posted by heusdens
As a human being, how can I not be attracted by "stars"? [/B]
With "HOW" I meant describe me the mechanics behind attraction.
Don't use describing definitions about forces ... just show me.
Originally posted by heusdens
Ok. This time for serious.
I still envision the "curved spacetime" model of gravitation. The curvature of space around a massive object, causes me to "fall" into the centre of gravity.
This model of curved space, is action at a distance. The way I can measure the curvature of space is by measuring the effect of it: a force that is directed towards the center of gravity. [/B]
Heusdens, as you know i like measuring because it gives us causal information (repeatable) about an event. But I am not interested in knowing how high the house is and it's weight ... i am interested to know how you build it. What's the architectural plan and the engineer plan ... and how can I make it also.
A TOE will not describe properties as the essence, but will give the building plan ... so we can rebuild it in ALL DIFFERENT sizes and weights.

You said: "The way I can measure the curvature of space is by measuring the effect of it: a force that is directed towards the center of gravity.". Nice ... this will give you the curvature of space. And then? With that information ... can you build it? Can you build ... a force, can you build ... a center of gravity? OK ... then with combined measurings we can try to make a plan how it can be build given those and those conditions. Next to that we need TOOLS (a type of mechanism) to reshape the building blocs and to connect them. (the magic mechanism of Feynman: the coupling constant). That's the engineering part. That's the essence. Without that ... no explanation.:/

Originally posted by heusdens I think your idea of a membrane that connect everything with anything, although seemingly applies to this ununderstood issue of "action on a distance" fails in some ways. What is the membrane itself consisting of? And how is that stuff "bound to itself" then? [/B]
Your question is correct.
I don't know. ;-). Therefor it is a postulate! If I would know it would be a fact.
Maybe we can find the solution together. ;-)

But important is that - based on this postulate - we can imagine a mechanism which provokes:
1. Restructuring a minimal of "something" into complex combinations.
2. Combinations which keep their integrity (historical reference framework).
3. Combinations which are reversible. (white hole <-> black hole --> restructuring ... validity of the conservation of energy)
4. Combinations which create density differences (additional layers create higher density) and thus explain the gradual density difference in manifestations levels (matter, sub-matter, sub-sub-matter ... leading even to un-explained events in spirituality)
5. Combinations which create internal friction (and thus a 'global' island vibration = resonance)
6. Combinations which create interaction between non-directly positioned islands.
7. Billion of combinations in which the inter-connectivity (that we call gravitation) is valid.
8. With which the most important experimental measurements and sub-processes are still valid. (explains the quantum leap, speed limit of light, the difference of mesons and bosons, ...)
8. A mechanism that is valid for: MICRO COSMOS and MACRO COSMOS!
Originally posted by heusdens I see no difference in quarks that are bound together by gluon forces, as massive particels that are bound together by gravitation forces. Only the scale of the acting force is different. [/B]
How do gluons work? Same question as above.
The Higgs boson is supposed to bring the solution. It's a mediator which would carry gravitational powers (0,0). My problem with the Higgs boson is: there is still no fundamental mechanical "continuous" relationship.
Originally posted by heusdens And some comments on your "everything is connected hypothese".
I think the source of your hypothese/thought that everything is connected, which in your "pelastration" theory has the form of one huge membrane that literally connects everything to everything else, is a fundamental thought, which reflects on the world in total, and our being in this world. [/B]
That's correct. But my target is to show an engineering picture not a descriptive game of words, weights and heights.
Originally posted by heusdens The way I think of that connection, and reasoned about that within, can be found in the topic The Fundamental Question (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876). In that way I could "connect" the existence of everything within my own existence.
This forms a reasoned ground for "beliefs" regarding the interconnectedness of everything to everything. But this connectedness only exists within my reasonings. I don't assume that the material world itself should be in a material way interconnected (at least no more then physics has shown those connections by postulating the material interactions in the form of the 4 fundamental forces). I don't think that some physical substance is causing me to be drawn to a star, other then the spacetime curvature/gravitational force. [/B]
For me the pelastration concept affirms that I am an unique being, like you are and all members of these forums ... and all creations. We are each of us a combination of empty boxes, but the empty boxes have the ability to interact between them inside the unique island called "ME" or "I". My consciousness is an active brain-wave-based interactive system that sensors the internal layers and their interaction, but sensors also the surrounding of that temporal island called "Dirk". In the total of the Universe that Dirk is just a temporal island of virtual reality (VR). Thinking he exists. (The Matrix ? :-0). But he is feed by vibrations and other levels of VR (which also seems to exist). To Dirk these other VR-elements really can make him happy, unhappy, hurt him, kill him, ... by good or bad "interactions". So it's not just reasoning, it's on that level: reality. ...
As "Dirk" I observe my reality, my body and the 3D world that really surrounds me. Another level of that Dirk is just acting like an automatic (following previous stored interactions). This total reality "Dirk" follows his own time frame(s) and lives conscious only in the NOW. Dirk is build of empty boxes in empty boxes etc. (see previous thread) but his "physical surrounding" is build on the same level by other empty boxes which bring interaction (food, water, girls, music, brain waves, ...). The connectedness does exists not only in my reasonings but also in the fact that there are the interactions with others (my five sexy girlfriends), with objects (my car, my hamburger, ...) or processes (fire, car accident, that crazy dog, ...) from the surrounding. The "significance" of those elements of the surrounding is based on the appreciation that the (isolated) island Dirk has for them. (ie. Dirk can deny that there is a fire in his house but will see the consequences if his chosen not to leave = decay = struggle of life). Dirk's limits are embedded in his structure.
Although you and I am "apparently" isolated units/islands we are still really part of all underlying (restructured) combinations of the membrane (cells -> DNA -> molecules -> atoms -> protons, neutrons and electrons -> quarks, etc. called in the Basic Paradox the 3(-) level of matter, but are also all (to our relevant) spiritual levels emanating from the 3(+) level, and both are connected by so many levels of white holes and other interconnections.

So on the yet knowledge based "feeling of Awe" you can add now a "feeling of Joy" that you are part of the whole Unity.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
It means it is impossible to comprehend. If the real world behaves in an incomprehensible way, then it is not understandable to us.

We are still in the process of trying to understand how the real world realy works, and all we will find is a model of behaviour of the world which is understandable to us. We think our model of reality is improving and becomes a better understanding of what reality realy is, but we will never have a complete understanding.

Everyone is working from a "model" of the way things "are". Even describing what your morning was like is to create a "model" that includes only the few things you describe.

Models are "used" to find a way to COMMUNICATE about something. No model is "true"...but only approximates that which MAY be true.

For instance, Pelastrations "model" has merit. If you look at his illustration of "tubes going through tubes" to create "something new" yet still be "attached" to everything else...you can see that this MAY be a possibility for what is "going on"...except there may not really be ACTUAL "tubes"...just a system that can be "explained" by thinking about what "tubes" DO.

Of course, I don't fully (or even minimally) understand Pelastration's view of things. But perhaps this is ANOTHER way to look at the evolution of the Universe...which does not preclude another "model" which may be accurate, too.

I'm not saying that ALL "models" are accurate...only that more than one MIGHT be.

And every time someone makes a "guess" -- and has the COURAGE to put it forward -- the Universe Itself may be "looking at" another POSSIBILITY about Itself.

My "model" has the Universe as a living, conscious Being ...a worthwhile contribution to Its SELF-IMAGE should this, in fact, be the case.

Personally, I think the Sun LIKED it when it was recognized in Ancient Egypt as a conscious Being they called "Ra"...but, as usual, our species went too far and called it "God".

We make the same mistake of "seeking God" when the Universe is all we need...as our SOURCE to be APPRECIATED rather than "worshipped".

If MY model is (ALSO) correct, then I am just giving the Universe its PROPS!

And if you think that I don't know that the above sounds like "pure mysticism" and/or "pure crap"...you're wrong...I DO know how it sounds/reads.

But we only have this limited language to create our limited models ...and this includes the languages of science and mathematics.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Everyone is working from a "model" of the way things "are". Even describing what your morning was like is to create a "model" that includes only the few things you describe.

Models are "used" to find a way to COMMUNICATE about something. No model is "true"...but only approximates that which MAY be true.

For instance, Pelastrations "model" has merit. If you look at his illustration of "tubes going through tubes" to create "something new" yet still be "attached" to everything else...you can see that this MAY be a possibility for what is "going on"...except there may not really be ACTUAL "tubes"...just a system that can be "explained" by thinking about what "tubes" DO.

Of course, I don't fully (or even minimally) understand Pelastration's view of things. But perhaps this is ANOTHER way to look at the evolution of the Universe...which does not preclude another "model" which may be accurate, too.

I'm not saying that ALL "models" are accurate...only that more than one MIGHT be.

And every time someone makes a "guess" -- and has the COURAGE to put it forward -- the Universe Itself may be "looking at" another POSSIBILITY about Itself.

My "model" has the Universe as a living, conscious Being ...a worthwhile contribution to Its SELF-IMAGE should this, in fact, be the case.

Personally, I think the Sun LIKED it when it was recognized in Ancient Egypt as a conscious Being they called "Ra"...but, as usual, our species went too far and called it "God".

We make the same mistake of "seeking God" when the Universe is all we need...as our SOURCE to be APPRECIATED rather than "worshipped".

If MY model is (ALSO) correct, then I am just giving the Universe its PROPS!

And if you think that I don't know that the above sounds like "pure mysticism" and/or "pure crap"...you're wrong...I DO know how it sounds/reads.

But we only have this limited language to create our limited models ...and this includes the languages of science and mathematics.

Models in physics are used not only for explaining/understanding of what goes on in the material world, but also have predictive power.
Predictions which can be verified/tested, can show if a model fits reality or not.

I don't see any predictive value in explaining the universe as "conscious", and if you ask me, the explenation itself is pure meta-physics.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Models in physics are used not only for explaining/understanding of what goes on in the material world, but also have predictive power.
Predictions which can be verified/tested, can show if a model fits reality or not.

I don't see any predictive value in explaining the universe as "conscious", and if you ask me, the explenation itself is pure meta-physics.

I'm working on it.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by pelastration
Alexander, to answer your question about the speed of gravity I need to explain more about the nature of the layering caused by pelastration. It's a different way of looking to nature then you are used to. When you want to appreciate this new approach you need to put some other spectacles. If you stick on the superiority of maths you will be not able to see it. But that will be your problem not mine. ;-)

In Pelastration approach the (unbreakable but very strong elastic) membrane is present in everything because it is the essence of everything. It fact: it is the basic structure of everything.

As such the membrane MAKES basic BOXES by the pelastration manifolding. That manifold is like a "white hole' which connects two type of hyperspaces in a NEW COMBINATION. As long as the white hole connection exists as long the two hyperspaces are connected making thus a NEW UNITY (= a new box). The two hyperspace are connected but have each another "position" in the new unity (in a separate dimensions = higher or large dimension in the new unity).
Although they are jointed they still keep there INTEGRITY (their quality of previous layerings = History).

As such there exist in the pelastration approach not the traditional vision of 'fusion'.
What we observe as 'fusion' is a new restructuring of hyperspaces in a new layering combination. (thus elements de-connect [= black hole decay] to become back separate (original) hyperspaces and then - in combinations with other hyperspace restructure in a new white hole (become a plasma white hole for the observer).

Now Motion in one hyperspace in a new unity influences also the other inter-connected hyperspace because the are layered. (Image: when you move your arm you textile sleeve will follow your arm. = unit internal friction).

What we call thus a human observers:'reality or pseudo-reality' are various manifestations (spiritual levels, material levels, ...) of the membrane. They are the result of combinations in the basic layerings, this means the 'restructuring' of the membrane. This restructuring creates apparent "isolated" island or multi-layered boxes. (cfr. Andrei Linde's monopoles).

"Gravity" is thus the result of the restructuring and is NOT a "separate force". For the moment our scientists look after a separate force and tries to calculate the effects in the hope to predict how the separate force will work.
What we call "Gravity" is directly related to the degree of stretchability of the membrane. The degree of stretchability of a unite will depend from the number of layers which are combined internally. So each UNITY (or island or monopole) has it's own degree of combined stretchability. This makes why "light" has it's speed limit in our universe. Thus the degree of stretchability of the membrane determinates a number of our observed constants.
Experimentally found proprieties of electro-weak (photons acting Quarks and Leptons), strong (gluons acting on Quarks and gluons), etc. indicate which membrane levels are combined (and interact) and thus explain the fundamental (level) differences between quarks, leptons and bosons. Because the membrane is the fundamental essence or "material/tissu" of quarks, leptons and bosons it is obvious that these fundamental particles act within the limits offered by the membrane stretchability.
Interesting in this approach is that also mass-less particles can be understood as a concept.

Now the alpha-constant or coupling constant (Freynman's magic number) is probably the mathematical expression of the manifolding mechanism itself, and indicates the bending proprieties of the membrane.

In one box there are thus several layers of the membrane. This mapping of the membrane explains thus also the boundaries between manifestations levels -> explaining the incredible size difference between atoms, electrons, protons, .... Remember: Atoms (10^-10), the nucleus (10^-14), protons (10^-15) and Quarks and electrons (10^-18 or less), and ask yourself "why is there nothing at i.e. 10^-16-level"?

Membrane: from unity the manifold creates internal separation, but creates NEW UNITS (which appears to an observer) as coming from Nothing (but in fact coming from two 'invisible' hyperspaces which are jointed). Each of these hyperspaces have also a number of 'historic' layers, etc.

So my conclusion about the "speed of gravity': the membrane is the essence of everything and has does not have speed, it 'IS'. "Speed" is only a human definition of a repeatable or unique observation between two or more "units" which interact, and thus question: "with what velocity they interfere given a certain observed location". This implicates that an action or motion in a certain 'island' provoke also DIRECT actions by which surface changes in the whole membrane but also INDIRECT vibrational changes in the contacting (local) layers within the island.

PS: Now there is a level that I not touched yet which is that of the dynamics within islands. I will just tell you for the moment that the rotations of tubes (caused by moves of the composing previous hyperspaces) can create (dynamo type) excitation inside sub-layers, next to the length friction of expanding or decaying tubes and next to the inter-vibrations caused by internal events in a, island. So there are three basic movements related to the membrane inside pelastrated islands.

Chaos theory will approach this surface changes and depth interactions from a mathematical model trying to find patterns of behavior, and using fuzzy logic. Synchronicity of CG Jung tried to explain it by referring to causal but non-observable inter-relationships. Kaku explains it with the world of the carp.

To give the essence in a simple image: "If my approach is correct it will show that our universe is in fact a giant Fedex/DHL/TNT package delivery service system (sending box-in-box-in-box-in-box-in-box packages and box+box+box packages, on receipt taking out one box and forwarding the rest to another recipient who adds another bibibibi box and takes out a box of the first, repacks all in a larger package and resends that to another ..., ... till the 'final recipient" has enough (quantum) boxes to built his temporal house. Although all boxes are EMPTY ... a house is made ;-).
Empty boxes are the building stones of the Universe ... Logic?
Matter? It's all a matter of perception."

Have finally read your treatise above and am delighted to tell you that I understand at least 50% of it...maybe more! This I attribute to your ability to communicate your paradigm in simple terms. Bravo on that.

I am even more pleased to tell that I have found several "links" between your paradigm and mine. Here goes...

Unfortunately, before I start, I need to say that I am still unable to isolate QUOTES and respond to them individually (whenever I try it, my comments wind up INSIDE the other person's quote...and nobody wants THAT!!!) So, I'm going to have to respond to your post from the top down...and only with regard to aspects I'm INTERESTED in.

PARAGRAPH 1: I am finding that oftentimes, when one has a certain way of viewing things, they cannot "look through other spectacles". This is frustrating for both the sender and the receiver of new information. Fortunately, I'm a little flexible, so could open my mind to what you are saying.

P2: I "get it" with regard to the "unbreakable but very strong elastic membrane"...which is "present in everything because it is the essence of everything. In fact: it is the basic structure of everything." You have said -- tho I can't find it now -- that you are coming from an engineer's point of view...which is why you can discuss "structure". I believe also that Everything is made from the same stuff -- ENERGY -- but to tell you the truth, I don't have a good "picture" as yet .

P3: Why the term "boxes"? It seems too "rigid" for something that must be "fluidic". Why not "bubbles"? Still, I get your drift...and especially like how they "keep their INTEGRITY (their quality of previous (historical)layerings." This especially means something to me with regard to EVOLUTION in general...how the "memory" of the past is "contained" in the "structure" of the "moment". ...why birds know where to migrate and "we" "know" there's something "higher".

I'm really fearful now that I will be disconnected and all will be lost...so I'm posting at this juncture...but am not finished.

[M. Gaspar]

P4: This paragraph, for some reason, makes me want to recommend the movie "Tron". The first time I saw it I "got" that "realities" could IMPING on other "realities"...that, say, the "emotional content" of one "system" could influence the emotional content of another (or others ).

P5: Didn't "get it".

P6: Really DO "get it" with regard to gravity being a function of the degree of stretchability of the membrane. The "fact" that it's
NOT a 'separate force'" corresponds to my proposal that "everything is in everything" ...or, that consciousness and spirit are "contained" -- or are INTRINSIC PARTS OF -- every particle and coherent system of "matter".

Ya know, you have TOO MANY paragraphs here, so I think I'll just deliver the goods:

Your way of looking at INTERCONNECTEDNESS makes sense in MY paradigm also, and "explains" (HA HA) how INTENTION may have INFLUENCE on RESULTS by nudging the lynchpin of RANDOMNESS via FORCES that are something like GRAVITY.

Finally, I LOVED your FEDEX analogy because I see It that way too...that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts !!!

The BEST part of all of this is that EACH of us may be "right"...that, although no ONE will ever have ALL the answers as to what the Universe is or is not ...a few of us will come up with a PIECE of the puzzle...and it doesn't really matter if nobody "get it" but US ...and the Universe ITSELF.

After all, this may be one of the "reasons" the Universe takes the trouble to create sentient verbal beings...to inquire about ITSELF.

WUHDUHYA THINK?

[nevagil]

A living universe like a big organism fits a lot of logical analogies but still leaves the "where it came from (nothing?)"question hanging.
It fits well because everything seems to be part of somethin larger.

Membrains, I mean membranes seem to fit into my realm of possible theories because everything seems to be able to be broken down into smaller things or strings or membranes.
I wonder if membranes could be seen by any creatures, you know like snakes see heat that we humanoids don't and bats use radar to see in their own way, etc. So I wonder if some mosquitoes or possibly alien creatures somewhere can see those Pelastration membranes or strings or something. Maybe really tiny aliens could. Super tiny.

I still think nothing may be vaguely comprehensable, spelling be dammed, like if our living universe has some dead spots in it like humans have dead spots maybe it has nothing spots too. Afterall, if our universe is expanding then what is outside it now? Nothing? The nothing could serve a purpose. AREAS OF NOTHING.
I don't comprehend everything that exists, but it can still exist.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by nevagil
A living universe like a big organism fits a lot of logical analogies but still leaves the "where it came from (nothing?)"question hanging.
It fits well because everything seems to be part of somethin larger.

Membrains, I mean membranes seem to fit into my realm of possible theories because everything seems to be able to be broken down into smaller things or strings or membranes.
I wonder if membranes could be seen by any creatures, you know like snakes see heat that we humanoids don't and bats use radar to see in their own way, etc. So I wonder if some mosquitoes or possibly alien creatures somewhere can see those Pelastration membranes or strings or something. Maybe really tiny aliens could. Super tiny.

I still think nothing may be vaguely comprehensable, spelling be dammed, like if our living universe has some dead spots in it like humans have dead spots maybe it has nothing spots too. Afterall, if our universe is expanding then what is outside it now? Nothing? The nothing could serve a purpose. AREAS OF NOTHING.
I don't comprehend everything that exists, but it can still exist.

With regard to MY perspective that "sees" the Universe as a living, conscioius Entity responsive to all of its parts"...let me say that once you "accept" that something is "eternal" then you do not "look for" a "beginning" nor a "BEFORE the beginning". As I have said in posts you have probably missed...the Universe might be "an eternal Entity of energy" Whose "life cycle" is "contained" between an infinite number of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches".

As to the "membrane theory"...let me pre-empt Pelastration's reply and say that the "membrane" CAN be seen by ALL "creatures" because Everything is -- theoreticaly -- made up of the membrane "substance". Of course, there are parts of the membrane that CAN'T be seen -- like "gravity" for instance -- in which case, we can only see its EFFECTS.

Did I get it Pelastration...or am I off?

[pelastration]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
As to the "membrane theory"...let me pre-empt Pelastration's reply and say that the "membrane" CAN be seen by ALL "creatures" because Everything is -- theoreticaly -- made up of the membrane "substance". Of course, there are parts of the membrane that CAN'T be seen -- like "gravity" for instance -- in which case, we can only see its EFFECTS.

Did I get it Pelastration...or am I off?
Pretty good Gaspar ;-)

'Islands' are like white holes coupling at least two different islands (or two hyperspaces).
So the active hyperspace (male, spiritual or ie. blue) impacts in the passive hyperspace (female, matter or ie. yellow).
The active blue penetrates and receives as a second yellow layer as part of the passive hyperspace.
This is the start of an island or holon or "white hole" (hold by a type of pressure valve).
This new island has now two layers. A blue in the center and a yellow one at the outside. To the observer this island will look GREEN.
As long as conditions of inter-pressure in the coupling area stay ... the green island will survive.

A. If there is decay (black hole process) the green island will shrink and will at the end become a tiny green spot with extreme high pressure (just like a black hole is described by Kerr, etc). Once they de-couple completely there is back a separate blue and yellow hyperspace. They are free again.
You can visualize like this: death (separation of spirit and body).

B. If there is further progress our green island can even impact a new other island ( ie. a passive magenta). Then the green has it's two layers (blue and yellow) in it's center and an extra magenta layer, together for an observer: a new purple island.

Result: the green is coupled with the magenta hyperspace and they keep together their POSITION, they are joined. The green has still it's historic integrity (layers: yellow and blue). Now these three layers (blue, yellow, blue and magenta) will press on each other: creating inter-layer tension and inter-layer friction. When the purple island moves ... they move of course all together. ;-)

Add some extra pelastrations and maybe you have an electron or quark. So simple. In our case the blue center will still be the center. and ... it's all membrane .... but restructured membrane in a more complex island.

Now the strange thing is that since the membrane can create - depending from the stretchability - even outside or inside of the specific island - on all levels of layers - tiny micro membrane tubes again.
For example the blue membrane may be excited by the yellow membrane vibration and create twenty tiny sub-blue-membrane tubes. And also these can couple and de-couple just like the bigger ones. That's how "fields-effects" can be explained in a mechanical way.
But that's also how you can visualize consciousness.
And store knowledge.

[If there would be a decay of the purple island back in magenta and green ... those sub-blue-membrane-tubes would still be inside the blue layer. ;-) Got it?] [ some will like this because such a mechanism may explain reincarnation]

The conditions of sub-membrane tubes will depend from the oscillation of the whole island or the inharmonic or harmonic resonance (friction) between the layers.

Finally you can come to our visual world with humans, animals, plants, etc.
So indeed you can see the membrane became visual (dense) by it's many layers. Indeed you see the dense effect.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by pelastration
Pretty good Gaspar ;-)

'Islands' are like white holes coupling at least two different islands (or two hyperspaces).
So the active hyperspace (male, spiritual or ie. blue) impacts in the passive hyperspace (female, matter or ie. yellow).
The active blue penetrates and receives as a second yellow layer as part of the passive hyperspace.
This is the start of an island or holon or "white hole" (hold by a type of pressure valve).
This new island has now two layers. A blue in the center and a yellow one at the outside. To the observer this island will look GREEN.
As long as conditions of inter-pressure in the coupling area stay ... the green island will survive.

A. If there is decay (black hole process) the green island will shrink and will at the end become a tiny green spot with extreme high pressure (just like a black hole is described by Kerr, etc). Once they de-couple completely there is back a separate blue and yellow hyperspace. They are free again.
You can visualize like this: death (separation of spirit and body).

B. If there is further progress our green island can even impact a new other island ( ie. a passive magenta). Then the green has it's two layers (blue and yellow) in it's center and an extra magenta layer, together for an observer: a new purple island.

Result: the green is coupled with the magenta hyperspace and they keep together their POSITION, they are joined. The green has still it's historic integrity (layers: yellow and blue). Now these three layers (blue, yellow, blue and magenta) will press on each other: creating inter-layer tension and inter-layer friction. When the purple island moves ... they move of course all together. ;-)

Add some extra pelastrations and maybe you have an electron or quark. So simple. In our case the blue center will still be the center. and ... it's all membrane .... but restructured membrane in a more complex island.

Now the strange thing is that since the membrane can create - depending from the stretchability - even outside or inside of the specific island - on all levels of layers - tiny micro membrane tubes again.
For example the blue membrane may be excited by the yellow membrane vibration and create twenty tiny sub-blue-membrane tubes. And also these can couple and de-couple just like the bigger ones. That's how "fields-effects" can be explained in a mechanical way.
But that's also how you can visualize consciousness.
And store knowledge.

[If there would be a decay of the purple island back in magenta and green ... those sub-blue-membrane-tubes would still be inside the blue layer. ;-) Got it?] [ some will like this because such a mechanism may explain reincarnation]

The conditions of sub-membrane tubes will depend from the oscillation of the whole island or the inharmonic or harmonic resonance (friction) between the layers.

Finally you can come to our visual world with humans, animals, plants, etc.
So indeed you can see the membrane became visual (dense) by it's many layers. Indeed you see the dense effect.


I should have quit while I was ahead!

Say what? [8)]

Will printout what you have written and will get back to you after I "submerse" myself in it with the hope of extracting some comprehension. (Apparently, I'm not in the right "space" at the moment.)

BY THE WAY, I'm hoping your "Pretty Good, Gaspar" includes the two LONGER posts above...and not just my stab at responding to Nevagil. I'm talking about the end of pg. 19 and the beginning of this pg. 20.

[LogicalAtheist]

"Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything."

Someone said they hoped it was a joke, you said it wasn't. I sure hope it's a joke to you now.

Everything can't come from nothing. Nothing can't be possible, thus you can't have everything coming from a false state.

This is just a use of creative language, but it means nothing in reality. It's a poem at best, and it doesn't even rhyme.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
"Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything."

Someone said they hoped it was a joke, you said it wasn't. I sure hope it's a joke to you now.

Everything can't come from nothing. Nothing can't be possible, thus you can't have everything coming from a false state.

This is just a use of creative language, but it means nothing in reality. It's a poem at best, and it doesn't even rhyme.

HE'S BAAACK...l'enfant terrible!

I do not recall saying that your lead statement above was or wasn't a joke. Rather than get lost in double negatives and the like...here is where I stand.

Everything comes from Something ! Can I be CLEARER?

Now I have to "Submit Reply" to re-read your poetic contribution. Then I'll be back to say whether you have wasted my time...

...re 1. and 2....you'll have to do #3. Meanwhile, I've always wondered whether idiots KNOW they're idiots. Please say.

[LogicalAtheist]

Gaspar - I reported your post. Furthermore, I'm gonna say you're being immature and unintelligent, please apoligize.

First off, my post was not something I wrote. Read the first post in this thread.

What makes you think I was talking to you.

Secondly you mistook my words for someone else.

Thiurdly because of this you tried to insult me?

Get real, pay attention, apoligize.

there's a reason it was in quotes. It's the damn point of this whole thread - the first post. Pay attention man, yer looking horrible here! [<:)]

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gaspar - I reported your post. Furthermore, I'm gonna say you're being immature and unintelligent, please apoligize.

First off, my post was not something I wrote. Read the first post in this thread.

What makes you think I was talking to you.

Secondly you mistook my words for someone else.

Thiurdly because of this you tried to insult me?

Get real, pay attention, apoligize.

there's a reason it was in quotes. It's the damn point of this whole thread - the first post. Pay attention man, yer looking horrible here! [<:)]

When you, LogicalAtheist, use the pronoun "you" directly after my post, my erroneous assumption was that you were addressing me . Since you believe in "defining one's terms", you might, in the future, identify who you are addressing.

Secondly, it seemed to me that YOU mistook MY words for someone else('s). But I was wrong: you weren't addressing me.

I may look "horrible" to you...yet good to others. It's a mystery.

Meanwhile, I've reported a few of your posts... -- including the fact that you EDITED your "poem" -- with the promise that I would not allow myself to be "baited" and that you will become the first charter member of my "IGNORE LIST".

Bye.

[Alexander]

None of the known conservation laws prohibit origin of universe(s) from nothing. Indeed, net energy of our universe is zero, net momentum is zero, net angular momentum is zero, net charge is zero.

Math indeed allows to have something from nothing: 0=+1-1, so if math lets it then why can't nature do so?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
None of the known conservation laws prohibit origin of universe(s) from nothing. Indeed, net energy of our universe is zero, net momentum is zero, net angular momentum is zero, net charge is zero.

Math indeed allows to have something from nothing: 0=+1-1, so if math lets it then why can't nature do so?

You are talking blattant nonsense here.
You are talking about summed values (sum of energy, momentum, etc).
This is something completely different as talking about a "nothingness" in which nothting material, not even space or time do exist. This "state" (which can not be called an "existing state") is eternal or timeless, and without change.
It can not even exist, so what are you talking about?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gaspar - I reported your post. Furthermore, I'm gonna say you're being immature and unintelligent, please apoligize.


You must be outside of your mind!

M.Gaspar's post is nothing compared to the horrible attitude that you have had in some of your posts. How is it possible that someone with your attitude can get hurt feelings over a little frustration, on M.Gaspar's part?

Don't get me wrong, I like you, and I appreciate your participation in the Forums, but don't ever expect to be treated better than you treat others, cuz it just ain't happening.

[LogicalAtheist]

I don't "treat" people. I treat their claims. If they take offense to it, as I said look at my signature and take the advice on how to prepare your claim better.

I don't take offense to anyone attacking problems in my claims, as you saw mentat when you corrected my errors.

Ad hominems are fine sometimes. If I need to say to someone "learn more before you propose things" or "you're posting ideas that go against way to much science, and providing no evidence" then I am going to say it. I'm not name calling here (really).

If one is emotionally attached to their claims, they're gonna feel offended, I can't smile and pat everyone on the back, this place is for debate and discussion.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I don't "treat" people. I treat their claims. If they take offense to it, as I said look at my signature and take the advice on how to prepare your claim better.

I don't take offense to anyone attacking problems in my claims, as you saw mentat when you corrected my errors.

Ad hominems are fine sometimes. If I need to say to someone "learn more before you propose things" or "you're posting ideas that go against way to much science, and providing no evidence" then I am going to say it. I'm not name calling here (really).

If one is emotionally attached to their claims, they're gonna feel offended, I can't smile and pat everyone on the back, this place is for debate and discussion.

But when someone says something that is out of line, in your opinion, you wont hesitate to point out exactly how idiotic it was. Also, it is your attitude about "attacking" ideas that leads some (myself not included) to dislike you.

[LogicalAtheist]

If some dislike me, that's OK. But it gets them nowhere. However if they took into account my signature suggestions, it'd be better for both them and me. They are not able to bring to the forum a well constructed idea like people such as MENTAT yourself, is able to do.

I merely ask them to do so because it would allow me to address it better. If I don't understand the question, or the question is loaded or falsely presumptious, I just wasted time reading something that's worthless. It bothers me.

Rather than taking offense, one should take the advice.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
If some dislike me, that's OK. But it gets them nowhere. However if they took into account my signature suggestions, it'd be better for both them and me. They are not able to bring to the forum a well constructed idea like people such as MENTAT yourself, is able to do.

I merely ask them to do so because it would allow me to address it better. If I don't understand the question, or the question is loaded or falsely presumptious, I just wasted time reading something that's worthless. It bothers me.

Rather than taking offense, one should take the advice.

Alright then, can we agree: No harm, no foul?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens
You are talking blattant nonsense here.
You are talking about summed values (sum of energy, momentum, etc).
This is something completely different as talking about a "nothingness" in which nothting material, not even space or time do exist.

Nope. Mathematically 0 and +1-1 are EQUAL.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Alexander
Nope. Mathematically 0 and +1-1 are EQUAL.

0 is not the mathematical representation of "nothing". In fact, 0 is something: it is the additive identity.

What Heusdens is talking about is more closely represented in mathematics by the empty set {}, which contains no elements, not even itself.

The empty set is not a sum of any two things.

[Alexander]

If empty set does not contain itself, then does it exist?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Alexander
If empty set does not contain itself, then does it exist?

Only as a concept, which I think is the same kind of "nothingness" that heusdens is talking about.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Nope. Mathematically 0 and +1-1 are EQUAL.

Yeah. Well in theory it can be even sillier.
Take for example an electric potential function. For all of the universe, we hold it, this should equal to 0 (zero), but this is just by definition, it could be any value (like + 100.00 Volts or - 20.000.000 Volts), we can not know that, because we can not compare it with anything outside the universe. Therefore it is said to be 0.

Inflation theory goes about a scalar field, it designates to any point in space time a certain field potential, which can vary in time due to quauntum mechanical effects.
The total potential of the field, also is defined to be 0 (zero).

It sure looks like all matter and energy and fields, everything material, can equal something defined as 0 (zero). But again, that ain't nothing, instead, it is everything.

[Alexander]

0 V for universe is same as +100 V or as -20.000.000 V - this is indeed correct. No difference.

That is why electric charge conserves (because universe is invariant to shifts in electric potential).

And conservation of charge mean that the net charge of entire universe shall be zero (if universe originated from nothing).

That is what we indeed observe in universe - net charge is zero. Number of electrons coinside with the number of protons.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
0 V for universe is same as +100 V or as -20.000.000 V - this is indeed correct. No difference.

That is why electric charge conserves (because universe is invariant to shifts in electric potential).

And conservation of charge mean that the net charge of entire universe shall be zero (if universe originated from nothing).

That is what we indeed observe in universe - net charge is zero. Number of electrons coinside with the number of protons.

The universe did not orgininate from nothing, the universe has no "origin". From nothing, comes nothing. The fact that the universe exist (is not nothing, even when it could contain the summation of things which yield zero), means it could not come from nothing, hence has existed all the time.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
The universe did not orgininate from nothing, the universe has no "origin". From nothing, comes nothing. The fact that the universe exist (is not nothing, even when it could contain the summation of things which yield zero), means it could not come from nothing, hence has existed all the time.

Thank you!

[nevagil]

Maybe the universe came from one part nothing and two parts something.

If you're not laughing too hard at this stupid idea, bear with me, it seems okay to me.

Example - a full bucket of kool-aid powder and a full bucket of water can't mix until you get a empty bucket (yes, a bucket of nothing) for them to mix in.
So, maybe there was a area of nothing that was met by a couple of dense universes that couldn't do anything but travel until the found the area of "nothing".

To me "nothing" seems possible to exist unless we consider membranes, etc are everywhere. Isn't there spaces of "nothing" between electrons, or other tiny things? ?

BTW, if the universe is expanding, isn't it expanding into an area of nothing? And I'm don't even care if the "nothing" has an area.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens
The universe did not orgininate from nothing, the universe has no "origin". From nothing, comes nothing.


Any proof? These are just empty words.

Proof of opposite: 0=-1+1.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Alexander
Any proof? These are just empty words.

Proof of opposite: 0=-1+1.

Alex - Your small equation proves nothing. You're making the mistake of thinking that some use of the mathematical language must fit into reality.

It's identical to saying that because one can say something in the english language (just another language) it must be true in reality.

Besides, your equation includes negative one, which is already known to be completely impossible. So you're using an impossible argument.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by nevagil
Maybe the universe came from one part nothing and two parts something.

If you're not laughing too hard at this stupid idea, bear with me, it seems okay to me.

Example - a full bucket of kool-aid powder and a full bucket of water can't mix until you get a empty bucket (yes, a bucket of nothing) for them to mix in.
So, maybe there was a area of nothing that was met by a couple of dense universes that couldn't do anything but travel until the found the area of "nothing".

To me "nothing" seems possible to exist unless we consider membranes, etc are everywhere. Isn't there spaces of "nothing" between electrons, or other tiny things? ?

BTW, if the universe is expanding, isn't it expanding into an area of nothing? And I'm don't even care if the "nothing" has an area.

I urge you to read the first post of This Thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99&highlight=Exercise+Nothing+Semantics)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex - Your small equation proves nothing. You're making the mistake of thinking that some use of the mathematical language must fit into reality.

It's identical to saying that because one can say something in the english language (just another language) it must be true in reality.

Besides, your equation includes negative one, which is already known to be completely impossible. So you're using an impossible argument.

Actually, the "-1" refers to the negative energy of gravitational fields (which directly cancels out the energy of the mass itself).

However, I agree with your other point.

[LogicalAtheist]

mentat.intelligent = true

[Mentat]

On the chance that you wont read the link I provided, I would like to explain the fundamental flaw in your post: It relies on "nothing"'s being something. But "nothing" doesn't refer to something, it doesn't refer to anything.

Originally posted by nevagil
Maybe the universe came from one part nothing and two parts something.


You see what I mean? You are saying that there can be "parts" of "nothing". That doesn't make sense, as, if it can be divided into parts, it's something.


Example - a full bucket of kool-aid powder and a full bucket of water can't mix until you get a empty bucket (yes, a bucket of nothing) for them to mix in.


Ok, here's where the problem lies: you are confusing the word "nothing" for "emptiness". To be empty, is to be in a certain state, but the word, "nothing", is not a state.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex - Your small equation proves nothing. You're making the mistake of thinking that some use of the mathematical language must fit into reality.



It does. Look at the universe - it is quite math obedient. Very and very much. Why? Very simple. Because math is NOT a language. Math is just a logic of existence/ inexistence. That is why anything existing obeys math.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Besides, your equation includes negative one, which is already known to be completely impossible. So you're using an impossible argument.

How about, electric charge in atom? There are plenty of negative (and positive) charges there.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
It does. Look at the universe - it is quite math obedient. Very and very much. Why? Very simple. Because math is NOT a language. Math is just a logic of existence/ inexistence. That is why anything existing obeys math.

Does logic exists? Is math reality? Is math valid without the existence of humans?

addition:
Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

[RuroumiKenshin]

It relies on "nothing"'s being something. But "nothing" doesn't refer to something, it doesn't refer to anything.


Would you say that 'nothing' is an adjective? But an adjective describes a noun, something. How would you classify 'nothing'?

[Alexander]

Obviousely math is valid without humans and with or without aliens from planet X. Math of all civilizations is the same (despite variety of notations used). Pithagorean theorem (sin2+cos2=1) is same with or without humans/aliens/robots, etc. Shredinger or Maxwell equations are same anywhere in universe, and their solution (say, a hydrogen atom, or mutual inductance of two coils) is same in any notations used.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Obviousely math is valid without humans and with or without aliens from planet X. Math of all civilizations is the same (despite variety of notations used). Pithagorean theorem (sin2+cos2=1) is same with or without humans/aliens/robots, etc. Shredinger or Maxwell equations are same anywhere in universe, and their solution (say, a hydrogen atom, or mutual inductance of two coils) is same in any notations used.
Are mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Would you say that 'nothing' is an adjective? But an adjective describes a noun, something. How would you classify 'nothing'?

"Nothing" refers to the concept of that which doesn't exist, it doesn't refer to that which doesn't exist, itself (as there, obviously, is no such thing). So, "nothing" is a noun, but only because it refers to a specific concept - and it remains a noun, inspite of the fact that the concept that it refers to isn't a concept of anything [g)].

[pelastration]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Have finally read your treatise above and am delighted to tell you that I understand at least 50% of it...maybe more! This I attribute to your ability to communicate your paradigm in simple terms. Bravo on that.

P3: Why the term "boxes"? It seems too "rigid" for something that must be "fluidic". Why not "bubbles"? Still, I get your drift...and especially like how they "keep their INTEGRITY (their quality of previous (historical)layerings." This especially means something to me with regard to EVOLUTION in general...how the "memory" of the past is "contained" in the "structure" of the "moment". ...why birds know where to migrate and "we" "know" there's something "higher".
Gaspar, thanks.
First a new definition: I will use in the future the term: PELLON (that's a pelastratic holon, island or box = indeed to rigide). A pellon hold all the layers of the hyperspaces from which is it coming /emanated. A pellon is thus the result of two hyperspaces which are coupled together in a new white hole (in fact 'white hole' is a bad word, it should be a white pellon. When it decays it becomes a black hole).

I made an extra webpage about the storage of knowledge and thus implications on memory and consciousness. That approach will explain Sheldrake's morphing fields and CG Jungs archetypes. Penrose-Hameroff need to refer to quantum coherent states (Bose-Einstein condensation) but this simple mechanical pelastration approach tells it straight. http://hollywood.org/cosmology/knowledge.html.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
P4: This paragraph, for some reason, makes me want to recommend the movie "Tron". The first time I saw it I "got" that "realities" could IMPING on other "realities"...that, say, the "emotional content" of one "system" could influence the emotional content of another (or others ).

P5: Didn't "get it".
I wrote: "Now Motion in one hyperspace in a new unity influences also the other inter-connected hyperspace because the are layered. (Image: when you move your arm you textile sleeve will follow your arm. = unit internal friction)."
I meant: the pellon contains the layers of hyperspace 1 and 2 together. If something happens in the basic hyperspace 1 or 2 it will also influence the conditions in the new pellon. Imagine that hyperspace 1 has a sudden pressure drop, it's layers in the pellon will also drop pressure and change the inter-balance in the new pellon. Maybe it will decay very fast (=de-pelastrate).

Image of the arm: the center: arm, second layer: shirt, third layer: jacket. Now if the conditions of the second layer change to tough you can not move your arm no more or very difficult.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Your way of looking at INTERCONNECTEDNESS makes sense in MY paradigm also, and "explains" (HA HA) how INTENTION may have INFLUENCE on RESULTS by nudging the lynchpin of RANDOMNESS via FORCES that are something like GRAVITY.
Finally, I LOVED your FEDEX analogy because I see It that way too...that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts !!!
The BEST part of all of this is that EACH of us may be "right"...that, although no ONE will ever have ALL the answers as to what the Universe is or is not ...a few of us will come up with a PIECE of the puzzle...and it doesn't really matter if nobody "get it" but US ...and the Universe ITSELF.
After all, this may be one of the "reasons" the Universe takes the trouble to create sentient verbal beings...to inquire about ITSELF.
WUHDUHYA THINK?
That is one approach. A nice one. I am sure that the 'knowledge' extension will give you some extra ammunition for your quest.

For my it is important to have a simple engineering picture to understand the 'whole system'. But indeed INTERCONNECTEDNESS is a very fine

Einstein said: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."
and ... Albert Einstein, in an address (Ether and the Theory of Relativity) delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden: "It is only with reluctance that man's desire for knowledge endures a dualism of this kind. How was unity to be preserved in his comprehension of the forces of nature? Either by trying to look upon contact forces as being themselves distant forces which admittedly are observable only at a very small distance and this was the road which Newton's followers, who were entirely under the spell of his doctrine, mostly preferred to take; or by assuming that the Newtonian action at a distance is only apparently immediate action at a distance, but in truth is conveyed by a medium permeating space, whether by movements or by elastic deformation of this medium. Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether. This hypothesis, to be sure, did not at first bring with it any advance in the theory of gravitation or in physics generally, so that it became customary to treat Newton's law of force as an axiom not further reducible. But the ether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical science, even if at first only a latent part."

... by elastic deformation of this medium : that's what pelastration is about.

[M. Gaspar]

Could not access your Hollywood/org/etc.com.

Meanwhile, am presently percolating...but I'll be back.