## Everything came from Nothing

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.

 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.

 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!
 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.
 mentat.intelligent = true

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.

 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.

 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?

Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

 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'?
 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.

 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?

 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)].

 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.