Search results

There's the point, that isn't explained. The nothing that preceeded it, that isn't explained. The nothing it's in, that isn't explained. The point and the space expanding into what, that isn't explained. The big bang theory, explains less than nothing. An infinite universe, both...

Is space empty... and is matter full (solid)?

It seems like it's comfortable in it's imperfection though. Maybe not so much a flaw but a limit. Kind of like saying "it's a fun job, I can't be boss, but I can't be fired either."

A point with no internal parts does not exist.

... and yes, please keep all time machines clean and serviced.

"Retart"... don't bring up women at a serious time like this.

Existence... then logic... then science?

There is no true solidity in the universe... nor does it ever truly disappear.

It does seem that any theory that uses mulitples of the same thing (albeit in different configurations), in this case strings... AND without explaining the "space" in between them... is presumably flawed. Some seem to forget that it's all about a "singularity." I got a "hair" theory I'll...

My feeling is that they are both imperfect... the geometry and the real world. True perfection only happens once. That's the nature of perfection in it's truest sense... at the fundamental level we are talking about. Anything inside the universe including geometry, and probably the...

I'm actually not questioning your doubt as to whether nothing can give rise to something... nor am I assuming that a very fundamental idea can only be "mistaken" for fact. I'm actually wondering if at the root of existence... idea and fact are the same thing? Plato "seems" to suggest it...

I wonder if sufficient contemplation could arrive at an accountable relationship between something and nothing... and if that "idea" would be so compelling that it would be taken as "fact?"

There is also nothing readily available to demonstrate that our universe is the container. I think the task is to define "container." Is it impossible to logically define the container that isn't contained? Given enough time we can theoretically reach the first or last thing in the...

Prometheus... How would you restate it in the context of the theory of relativity?

Uncertainty in the universe, isn't necessarily something we need to get rid of, to explain the universe. It might be the most fundamental thing in the universe. If we didn't have uncertainty we wouldn't have change. Getting beyond it, to explain the origin of the universe, is another thing...

Can't have a fluctuation or anything else in nothingness. Explaining this universe using other universes doesn't get us down to the bottom of it. There are essentially, only two choices. Explain how something came from nothing without using any other thing in the explanation. Explain...

There have been no "real" values established for anything. There has been no answer to what, how and why... anything exists or functions. Bunch of relative stuff... no absolute(s).

Why can't the origins of the universe and of god too... be completely logical?

I realize his talk had nothing to do with the big bang. I also realize that it's not commonly thought of that the big bang and black holes are the same thing... but I think they are representations of each other. The big bang being the macro and the black hole being the micro. Doesn't...

"Value system?"

I would suggest a black hole and the big bang are the same. They both surmise that something and nothing can interchange. One goes from something to nothing... one goes from nothing to something. Niether seems to be that case. Or am I misunderstanding it?

It wasn't much of a theory to begin with. It couldn't find the beginning, much less before the beginning.

At any given time one of me is a tall guy... another is living as a wide guy... and my third persona is a thick guy...

I'm glad you characterized it as a "humble" concept. There's too much presumption around here some times.

The container is the container. The question is... "what is the container?" What is it that has no "outside?" If space/time is the container... given enough time and space, one will always encounter more universe... never reaching the container. Not to mention not being able to...

I agree we live in space and time... but it doesn't mean they aren't contained in something else. If I told you, I'd have to shoot you. :)

All "things" are events, of course. Time itself however, is not an event. Nor is space. All events happen in space, separated by distance, because of time. Space and time are contained within something else.

Just thought I'd bring this thread up to the front again. Again, the question... "what is something?" First there's the biggest question... how does something come from nothing, if it did? Then... how do other somethings come from the original something? Then... are the multiple...

Which kind of "zero" are you refering to? The zero that comes after something... meaning a lack of something? Or the zero that preceeds the something?

In terms of an "initial" state... the nature of nothing doesn't contain time... therefore that implies at least one reason why nothing can't change to something. It would have to do it at a certain time. Not to mention that there wouldn't be any space for it to happen. After something exists...