Is time really a dimension and why is it associated with relativity?

[Les Sleeth]

Recently there has been a lot of talk at PF about nothing, what it means, and if something can come from nothing. I want to take a shot at it by claiming there is no such beast as “nothing” and no need to worry about infinite regress if we understand the richness of potentiality.

I think Heusden, Mentat and others have been right to point out that some arguments go on because we’ve not clearly defined “nothing.” When I’ve responded I have assumed it meant that the universe came into existence from a total void; that in one instant there was a void, and then the next was the big bang. I did not assume “nothing” meant there was no cause of the universe, as some said, because I don’t think it is possible for something that has a beginning not to have a cause. Also, looking at the universe it all does appear to operate by way of cause and effect, so it seems logical to assume that such a nature reflects what it is born of (i.e., it is the offspring of cause and effect, or at least a cause). Why is it so difficult to imagine a cause-less effect? Because it defies logic, and logic is based on the relationships between cause and effect.

I have a theoretical perspective on the first cause dilemma that, for me and for now at least, satisfies logic. To begin with I look at cause and effect as neutrally as possible and call it movement (one could also call it change, which is movement too, but I have reason for calling it movement). Without movement there is no cause and effect. If we imagine the big bang as movement (which it clearly was), we might ask what preceded it. What was the status quo then? Is it possible there was no movement (or change)? Was it still, and then movement began for no reason? There seems no way to say that something didn’t change/move that then brought about the big bang. In words, prior to our universe’s existence, something was there either moving or capable of moving.

Thus we come to the concept of potentiality, which is not nothing. Stated as a principle we might say it as follows: All that exists in time must be preceded by the potential for it to exist. Our universe apparently did have beginning, and therefore we can wonder about the potential it sprang from. Since the nature of our universe is movement, for example, we might assume that part of the nature of this potentiality is dynamic, that it fluctuates in some manner, which can lead to events like a big bang.

I’ve tried to imagine what such a fluctuation might be like, if there are any clues in our universe which might guide one. Something I’ve noticed about reality is that besides movement are three other universally present traits: light (EM of course), vibration, and concentration. Everything which can be shown to exist, without exception, possesses these qualities. All matter is atoms, and atom types are determined by how much energy is concentrated in them. When energy escapes its bond to matter it does so as light (photons) whose character is also influenced by energy concentration. And of course, both atoms and EM relentlessly vibrate.

Now, might this give us clues about the nature of the potentiality creation emerged from? Could that potentiality, for instance, be some sort of fluctuating luminescent vibrancy? Might one sort of fluctuation that happens be a sudden, intense concentration and release?

Now, let’s say that is exactly what the big bang was, and what the universe is doing now is returning to pure potentiality. Does that solve the something from nothing problem? Not yet, because our logic wants to know the “cause” of that potentiality. To me, I think this is where one has to accept the possibility that this potentiality has always existed; it was never created, it will never be destroyed; it had no beginning and it has no end. It just is. It exists and cannot not exist. It is, in fact, existence itself.

I don’t think the concept of an uncaused potentiality, whose fluctuations “causes,” answers all questions -- obviously it isn’t scientific since one can’t test the hypothesis. But if true nonetheless, it would be why there cannot be nothing.

 

[Lifegazer]

I thought your post was very good LW.
Just a few thoughts from the end-bit...

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Does that solve the something from nothing problem? Not yet, because our logic wants to know the “cause” of that potentiality. To me, I think this is where one has to accept the possibility that this potentiality has always existed; it was never created, it will never be destroyed; it had no beginning and it has no end. It just is. It exists and cannot not exist. It is, in fact, existence itself.

I might be able to help you out here. For there is no need to "think this is where one has to accept the possibility[/color] that this 'potentiality' has always existed;". In my opinion, the application of reason simply insists that A Being MUST be the cause of change, always and forever.. For 'nothing' is not a cause for any change. It's absoluteless-ness cannot give-rise to any 'thing'. And of course, no thing can give-rise to itself from nothing.
And that means that 'nothing' cannot be the cause for the change to existence. Which means, rationally, that existence is eternal. We have no need to defend ourselves behind the "possibility" that existence has always reigned-supreme. You can know that it must be.

 

[Mentat]

Fantastic post, LW Sleeth! Very admirable.

I think yours is not only a good idea, but an important one, because it clears up another part of the "nothing" problem.

I agree that potentiality is something - some might say that it only exists conceptualy, but I think that it is a physical phenomena.

I especially liked this bit:

what the universe is doing now is returning to pure potentiality.

It opens up a new avenue of discussion, by itself, and is obviously consistent with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
We have no need to defend ourselves behind the "possibility" that existence has always reigned-supreme. You can know that it must be.

Thank you LG for appreciating my thoughts on the subject of existence.

I agree that an individual can know, as you say, . . . but I do not believe it can be proven, through reason, to others (I think in the past we've agreed to disagree on this point ).

So when I say "possibility" I am acknowledging the fact that each person must discover for themselves the truth, or not, of existence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Thank you LG for appreciating my thoughts on the subject of existence.

I agree that an individual can know, as you say, . . . but I do not believe it can be proven, through reason, to others (I think in the past we've agreed to disagree on this point ).

So when I say "possibility" I am acknowledging the fact that each person must discover for themselves the truth, or not, of existence.

So are you saying that there is true existence, or do you take the stance that things only exist in individual perception?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
It opens up a new avenue of discussion, by itself, and is obviously consistent with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Mentat, you've understood me perfectly!

I believe entropy is the de-concentration of the universe, and the return to full potential.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
So are you saying that there is true existence, or do you take the stance that things only exist in individual perception?

I am saying there is true existence, and that the only way to know that is for each individual to experience, and consequently "know," for themselves.

An analogy.

I try describe to you how good a perfectly prepared pasta dish tastes. I can employ precise reason in my explanation, and you can listen and imagine expertly, but you still will never know about the experience of perfectly prepared pasta until you taste it for yourself.

Similarly, I am saying that the truth of existence must be personally experienced to know. I can give you all the brilliant reasons and explanations, but you still won't know until you yourself "taste" it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Mentat, you've understood me perfectly!

I believe entropy is the de-concentration of the universe, and the return to full potential.

]

I think it's a very good point.

The whole "everything comes from nothing" idea didn't really agree with me, but I wasn't quite sure why. I think this (what you have pointed out) is one of the reasons, since potentiality is something.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Thank you LG for appreciating my thoughts on the subject of existence.

You talk a lot of sense. I'm bound to appreciate your thoughts.

I agree that an individual can know, as you say, . . . but I do not believe it can be proven, through reason, to others (I think in the past we've agreed to disagree on this point ).

Yes. I just don't understand how you can posit that an absolute-source cannot be defined in relation to its parts. Given that stance, we cannot know the whole of anything - which kinda makes a mockery out of the things we are saying - as all 'things' are a whole unto themselves.

So when I say "possibility" I am acknowledging the fact that each person must discover for themselves the truth, or not, of existence.

I understand. But if each person must discover the truth for themselves, then why do we talk to each other?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
But if each person must discover the truth for themselves, then why do we talk to each other?

I would say, in regard to issues so important as existence, that there are people who discover things in their search for meaning. To other sincere seekers, a point in the right direction is quite a treasure. But each person must be left the option to explore the direction pointed toward; plus, even if you convince someone the direction you are pointing is true, it will never be actual knowledge for them until they walk in that direction and discover for themselves whatever truth might lie there.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You talk a lot of sense. I'm bound to appreciate your thoughts.

Yes. I just don't understand how you can posit that an absolute-source cannot be defined in relation to its parts. Given that stance, we cannot know the whole of anything - which kinda makes a mockery out of the things we are saying - as all 'things' are a whole unto themselves.

I understand. But if each person must discover the truth for themselves, then why do we talk to each other?

To help each other find the truth. There is an old saying that goes: "In the end, the only person one can convince is onself". So, all that talking is for, is to help one be more open to different viewpoints, before convincing themselves of anyone view.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
To help each other find the truth. There is an old saying that goes: "In the end, the only person one can convince is onself". So, all that talking is for, is to help one be more open to different viewpoints, before convincing themselves of anyone view.

If the views of other people are the bricks which formulate your own views, then you haven't helped yourself in the slightest.
In the same vein, if the money from other peoples' wallets is responsible for sustaining your existence, then you haven't "paid your own way".
The 'moral' of the story is that it is impossible to have a theory of your own, without stretching specific knowledge/definitions/ideas from others, or from 'another'. The causality-chain of knowledge must proceed from an 'absolute-well' of knowledge.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Recently there has been a lot of talk at PF about nothing, what it means, and if something can come from nothing. I want to take a shot at it by claiming there is no such beast as “nothing” and no need to worry about infinite regress if we understand the richness of potentiality.

I think Heusden, Mentat and others have been right to point out that some arguments go on because we’ve not clearly defined “nothing.” When I’ve responded I have assumed it meant that the universe came into existence from a total void; that in one instant there was a void, and then the next was the big bang. I did not assume “nothing” meant there was no cause of the universe, as some said, because I don’t think it is possible for something that has a beginning not to have a cause. Also, looking at the universe it all does appear to operate by way of cause and effect, so it seems logical to assume that such a nature reflects what it is born of (i.e., it is the offspring of cause and effect, or at least a cause). Why is it so difficult to imagine a cause-less effect? Because it defies logic, and logic is based on the relationships between cause and effect.

I have a theoretical perspective on the first cause dilemma that, for me and for now at least, satisfies logic. To begin with I look at cause and effect as neutrally as possible and call it movement (one could also call it change, which is movement too, but I have reason for calling it movement). Without movement there is no cause and effect. If we imagine the big bang as movement (which it clearly was), we might ask what preceded it. What was the status quo then? Is it possible there was no movement (or change)? Was it still, and then movement began for no reason? There seems no way to say that something didn’t change/move that then brought about the big bang. In words, prior to our universe’s existence, something was there either moving or capable of moving.

Thus we come to the concept of potentiality, which is not nothing. Stated as a principle we might say it as follows: All that exists in time must be preceded by the potential for it to exist. Our universe apparently did have beginning, and therefore we can wonder about the potential it sprang from. Since the nature of our universe is movement, for example, we might assume that part of the nature of this potentiality is dynamic, that it fluctuates in some manner, which can lead to events like a big bang.

I’ve tried to imagine what such a fluctuation might be like, if there are any clues in our universe which might guide one. Something I’ve noticed about reality is that besides movement are three other universally present traits: light (EM of course), vibration, and concentration. Everything which can be shown to exist, without exception, possesses these qualities. All matter is atoms, and atom types are determined by how much energy is concentrated in them. When energy escapes its bond to matter it does so as light (photons) whose character is also influenced by energy concentration. And of course, both atoms and EM relentlessly vibrate.

Now, might this give us clues about the nature of the potentiality creation emerged from? Could that potentiality, for instance, be some sort of fluctuating luminescent vibrancy? Might one sort of fluctuation that happens be a sudden, intense concentration and release?

Now, let’s say that is exactly what the big bang was, and what the universe is doing now is returning to pure potentiality. Does that solve the something from nothing problem? Not yet, because our logic wants to know the “cause” of that potentiality. To me, I think this is where one has to accept the possibility that this potentiality has always existed; it was never created, it will never be destroyed; it had no beginning and it has no end. It just is. It exists and cannot not exist. It is, in fact, existence itself.

I don’t think the concept of an uncaused potentiality, whose fluctuations “causes,” answers all questions -- obviously it isn’t scientific since one can’t test the hypothesis. But if true nonetheless, it would be why there cannot be nothing.

That is exactly the position hold by Materialism, only you state it in some other terms. Remember though that the claim of materialism is that matter and motion belong together. There is no matter without motion and no motion without matter. Note these are generalized terms, so don't confuse matter with just particles but any form of matter (energy, fields, particles, whaterver) and motion just means that matter at all levels changes, whether this be the position in space (relative to other matter), or otherwise. The material world thus requires space and time to be in existence as it's mode of existence.

Furthermore the materialist claim is that there exist a material world, which is ever changing. The reasons for matter to be in motion/change always is because of the contradictions within the material existence itself, that cause it to change.
Fundamentally, the way the material world evolves, is best described using dialectical laws. This viewpoint taken in is also known as dialectical-materialism, which is a good starting point for further reading.
The world didn't have a begin, since matter can't be destroyed or created, and the fact that the world exists, explains that there isn't "nothing". Well "nothing" (the absence of anything existing) isn't existing anyway, so why bother?
But I have explained that kind of issue on "nothing" already.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I thought your post was very good LW.
Just a few thoughts from the end-bit...

I might be able to help you out here. For there is no need to "think this is where one has to accept the possibility[/color] that this 'potentiality' has always existed;". In my opinion, the application of reason simply insists that A Being MUST be the cause of change, always and forever.. For 'nothing' is not a cause for any change. It's absoluteless-ness cannot give-rise to any 'thing'. And of course, no thing can give-rise to itself from nothing.
And that means that 'nothing' cannot be the cause for the change to existence. Which means, rationally, that existence is eternal. We have no need to defend ourselves behind the "possibility" that existence has always reigned-supreme. You can know that it must be.

This post is in contrast with earlier posts, in which you defended the position that existence couldn't be eternal, but had to have a definite beginning. But maybe you learned something here.

Btw. being or existence is not the cause of change, but material existence exists by changing/moving. You can not have matter without motion/change or vice versa.

I suggest anyone on here to take some time and study some more on the philosophical viewpoint of materialism, and especially on dialectical-materialism.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
That is exactly the position hold by Materialism, only you state it in some other terms. Remember though that the claim of materialism is that matter and motion belong together. There is no matter without motion and no motion without matter. Note these are generalized terms, so don't confuse matter with just particles but any form of matter (energy, fields, particles, whaterver) and motion just means that matter at all levels changes, whether this be the position in space (relative to other matter), or otherwise. The material world thus requires space and time to be in existence as it's mode of existence.

I must disagree a bit. Just because my idea that motion in our universe might be a reflection of some more basic state of existence, it does not mean I agree that matter and motion are inextricably intertwined. Matter, yes, motion no. If motion is more basic than matter, as I've suggested, then motion can exist independently of matter.

Originally posted by heusdens
The world didn't have a begin, since matter can't be destroyed or created, and the fact that the world exists, explains that there isn't "nothing". Well "nothing" (the absence of anything existing) isn't existing anyway, so why bother?

That matter can't be destroyed or created is not supported by evidence. I suppose you mean energy because you have indicated that you believe energy is matter. But there are indications that protons (the hard part of matter) will deteriorate in approximately 10^50 years.

Originally posted by heusdens Furthermore the materialist claim is that there exist a material world, which is ever changing. The reasons for matter to be in motion/change always is because of the contradictions within the material existence itself, that cause it to change.

The material world is ever changing, no one can dispute that. But I think you miss my point.

What I did was try to show that traits we see universally present in creation might reflect basic, inalterable condtions of potentiality. Because motion, vibration, and light are part of every feature of our universe, those qualities might also be inherent properties of absolute potentiality and therefore existence. And what is material? Well, that is the other universally-present trait we can observe: concentration (i.e., of potentiality).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
I suggest anyone on here to take some time and study some more on the philosophical viewpoint of materialism, and especially on dialectical-materialism.

Well, because it is a popular or published position doesn't make it true. I would trust points you make yourself far more than those made appealing to a speculative philosophical authority.

 

[Eyesee]

Potential is a good word. In a void, there is potential for something to happen, as opposed to something that is well defined. I would say there was a potential for anything to happen and our universe and the set of matter/energy/properties it came with was just one of the potentials that came to be.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I must disagree a bit. Just because my idea that motion in our universe might be a reflection of some more basic state of existence, it does not mean I agree that matter and motion are inextricably intertwined. Matter, yes, motion no. If motion is more basic than matter, as I've suggested, then motion can exist independently of matter.

I don't think so, but this may be due to the way you define matter.

I poin to the philosophical term matter, and not particles (mass having matter), but also energy or even fields.

I don't think you can talk about motion or change, without there being anything that moves or changes.

That matter can't be destroyed or created is not supported by evidence. I suppose you mean energy because you have indicated that you believe energy is matter. But there are indications that protons (the hard part of matter) will deteriorate in approximately 10^50 years.

Energy is a form of matter, protons and electrons are forms of matter, the gravitational field is a form of matter, etc. Mass having matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa.
So, the only thing happening is that matter is transformed from one form to another. But never destroyed or created.

The material world is ever changing, no one can dispute that. But I think you miss my point.

What I did was try to show that traits we see universally present in creation might reflect basic, inalterable condtions of potentiality. Because motion, vibration, and light are part of every feature of our universe, those qualities might also be inherent properties of absolute potentiality and therefore existence. And what is material? Well, that is the other universally-present trait we can observe: concentration (i.e., of potentiality). [/B]

Well matter in the philospohical sense can point to normal matter (in the physical meaning of the term matter) like electrons and protons and neutrons, or energy, or even more fundamental forms as fields.

The inflation theory is build around the concept of a scalar field.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think you can talk about motion or change, without there being anything that moves or changes.

You can talk about the "mover." It is hardcore materialists who can't seem to appreciate anything other than some "thing" that is moved by the mover.

It is like if you only appreciate those people who are loved. But what about love itself? It precedes those loved, and the subject would be non-existent if love were not possible. So too is the value of the mover, or potential as I've been calling it, overlooked when you only want to talk about things moved.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Potential is a good word. In a void, there is potential for something to happen, as opposed to something that is well defined. I would say there was a potential for anything to happen and our universe and the set of matter/energy/properties it came with was just one of the potentials that came to be.

Thank you for responding.

But I wonder if you don't see a contradiction in saying a void has potential? I am not trying to play semantic games, but "void" means absolutely nothing. This is my objection to those who suggest that something came from nothing (a true void). If it really is a void, then nothing! is there, not even potential. It is absense, its non, it is nil, it is blank . . . nothing, and so something cannot possibly be born by it.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Thank you for responding.

But I wonder if you don't see a contradiction in saying a void has potential? I am not trying to play semantic games, but "void" means absolutely nothing. This is my objection to those who suggest that something came from nothing (a true void). If it really is a void, then nothing! is there, not even potential. It is absense, its non, it is nil, it is blank . . . nothing, and so something cannot possibly be born by it.

It's not impossible- just irrational. But something existing uncaused is just as irrational. So, you basically are preferring one irrationality for another. I prefer the void since nothing comes before it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Then what would the potential be? Empty space? Or, something beyond time and space?

Would you say the Universe was "conceived" in a moment?

 

[wuliheron]

It's not impossible- just irrational. But something existing uncaused is just as irrational. So, you basically are preferring one irrationality for another. I prefer the void since nothing comes before it.

The Buddhists referred to it as the "formless void". Beyond space, beyond time, beyond conception, beyond experience.

. Mystery

Looked at but cannot be seen
It is beneath form;
Listened to but cannot be heard
- It is beneath sound;
Held but cannot be touched
It is beneath feeling;
These depthless things evade definition,
And blend into a single mystery.
In its rising there is no light,
In its falling there is no darkness,
A continuous thread
Beyond description,
Lining what cannot occur;
Its form formless,
Its image nothing,
Its name silence;
Follow it, it has no back,
Meet it, it has no face.
Attend the present to deal with the past;
Thus you grasp the continuity
Of the Way,
Which is its essence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You can talk about the "mover." It is hardcore materialists who can't seem to appreciate anything other than some "thing" that is moved by the mover.

Where in space/time should we place the "mover"?

Movement and change is the way of existence of matter. You can't separate the two. Perhaps one better call it a process, you can't separate change or progess from the things that undergo the change and progress.

It is like if you only appreciate those people who are loved. But what about love itself? It precedes those loved, and the subject would be non-existent if love were not possible. So too is the value of the mover, or potential as I've been calling it, overlooked when you only want to talk about things moved.

There is not anything called "love" cause this term referers to a category of the mind, a concept, which refers to processes in the material world (the behaviour of people, their emotions and stuff, etc).

One can say however that people have the potential to love. But love exists by way of people who experience and excercise love and loving relations.

For movement, I would say that this is a capacity or property of all things which is intrinsically and necessary there. All things are in motion or the process of change (even when on macro scale some things seem motionless or changeless) always.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
It's not impossible- just irrational. But something existing uncaused is just as irrational. So, you basically are preferring one irrationality for another. I prefer the void since nothing comes before it.

Well a characteristic of "the void" (I prefer to call it "nothingness", cause a void is used for intergalactic space, which is'nt really empty) is that neither there isn't something before neither something after it. There isn't even time or space to provide for the possibility of there being something. And since there is not nor has been or ever will be or can be a state of total "nothingness" it is and cannot be a "cause" for anything. And that leads directly to the conclusion that "there being something" is preceded and followed by "there being something". It is the very nature of being that it develops in time and space.

Your error in thinking is that you say that existence is uncaused.
Perhaps this is due to statements like "The universe is uncaused", and we just have a language problem there expressing this without ambiguity.

Existence is causal. Every part of existence is developing and establishing itself through causal chains, so everything is caused, there is an eternal chain of causal effects for everything. And because of this fact, there can't have been a time in which there was a "begin" to this eternal chain of causal effects.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
It's not impossible- just irrational. But something existing uncaused is just as irrational. So, you basically are preferring one irrationality for another. I prefer the void since nothing comes before it.

I wonder if when you use the word "irrational" you mean "non-rational." As you probably are aware, the primary use of the word irrational is to mean reasoning that doesn't make sense or is illogical; but I suspect you are using it in a more neutral way, to refer to that which is simply outside the scope of reason.

In either case, I am not convinced it is irrational (as outside the scope of reason) for something uncaused to exist whereas I am certain that it is irrational (as illogical) to say "something" can come from a true void.

Something uncaused may be outside our scope of experience but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. What seems irrational is infinite regress. An eternally-existing potentiality that can "cause" solves that problem, and so brings existence back into the realm of reason.

But to say a void can generate something is a contradiction in terms since a void, by definition, is the absense of anything including potential. If what you call a void at some point produces something, then it had that potential all along, and therefore was never a true void.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what would the potential be? Empty space? Or, something beyond time and space?

Would you say the Universe was "conceived" in a moment?

Being and potential being are one and the same. You are not a human, but you are a potential for becoming a human, you are always in the process of becoming human, that is your human development. Your struggle for becoming human is what makes you human.

Would you say the Universe was "conceived" in a moment?

Yes, but the moment is the now, since the universe also is an eternal process, and in fact the universe never "is" (this would refer to "being out of time"), but is always in the process of becoming. Every moment.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what would the potential be? Empty space? Or, something beyond time and space?

Would you say the Universe was "conceived" in a moment?

If you review my original post for this thread, I used an inductive method to suggest what that potential might be like. It is not empty, but it is beyond time and space. I suggested there is no such thing as "nothing" because this potential is and always has been present (and always will be).

I suspect the bang that started our universe in motion occurred in a moment, but obviously its been developing ever since. To me, all "time" is is the rate our universe is returning to pure potentiality (i.e., time is the rate of entropy), and all "space" is is our inability to detect potentiality between hunks of matter.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Where in space/time should we place the "mover"?

Some have said you can meet the mover inside your self.

Originally posted by heusdens
Movement and change is the way of existence of matter. You can't separate the two. Perhaps one better call it a process, you can't separate change or progess from the things that undergo the change and progress.

I've never suggested anything of the sort.

Originally posted by heusdens
There is not anything called "love" cause this term referers to a category of the mind, a concept, which refers to processes in the material world (the behaviour of people, their emotions and stuff, etc).

Spoken like a true hardcore materialist.

Originally posted by heusdens
Your reasoning turns the world upside down again, as if there would have been love (or the potentially for real phenomena that belong to this mental category) before this real phenomena was even actual. Like "love" has been always around somewhere, even before there were people or living animals, only waiting for people to discover it.

The point of my thread was to propose there might be an uncaused realm of potentiality. That is the purpose of the discussion here, to explore the possibilities of that idea.

I gave the love analogy to distinquish the experience of love from the object loved, and to point out that love precedes the object it is bestowed upon. In the same way, potentiality must precede all manifestations in time. I simply was saying that you seem only interested in the manifestations of potential, and not what the nature of that potential is itself (i.e., before it manifests as "something").

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you review my original post for this thread, I used an inductive method to suggest what that potential might be like. It is not empty, but it is beyond time and space. I suggested there is no such thing as "nothing" because this potential is and always has been present (and always will be).

If the "potential" is out of time and space, it does not contain the potential to change and motion, and for that reason can not be the "cause" of an existing world.

I suspect the bang that started our universe in motion occurred in a moment, but obviously its been developing ever since. To me, all "time" is is the rate our universe is returning to pure potentiality (i.e., time is the rate of entropy), and all "space" is is our inability to detect potentiality between hunks of matter.

And what do you assume happened at the moment of the bang, other then some already existing material form and content causing another existing material form and content?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
If the "potential" is out of time and space, it does not contain the potential to change and motion, and for that reason can not be the "cause" of an existing world. . . . And what do you assume happened at the moment of the bang, other then some already existing material form and content causing another existing material form and content?

If you understand how I've defined time and space, then potentiality certainly can be the cause since time and space are simply manifestations of it (and relative to it).

As far as what happened at the moment of the big bang, I proposed a suggestion for that in my original post when I discussed "fluctuations."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The point of my thread was to propose there might be an uncaused realm of potentiality. That is the purpose of the discussion here, to explore the possibilities of that idea. [/b]

Material existence is the potential and actual existing world.

[
I gave the love analogy to distinquish the experience of love from the object loved, and to point out that love precedes the object it is bestowed upon. In the same way, potentiality must precede all manifestations in time. I simply was saying that you seem only interested in the manifestations of potential, and not what the nature of that potential is itself (i.e., before it manifests as "something").

As I explained the way you use the term love, it belongs to an abstract catergory of the mind, which is in a way out of time and space. It is a mental category. Like a line, a mathematical expression and a triangle, as mathematical and geometrical terms also belong. So a "triangle" can be said to have existed before anything material had a form that resembles that geometrical form.

But as I explained the mental categories of the mind can be said to be timeless. There is not somewhere in time/space you can find a triangle, there are only material objects that are nearly shaped having that geometrical properties.

Your mentioning of "before" has not any meaning for terms referring to abstract forms of existence, since that is timeless existence.

So "love" did not exists before neither after or at the same time as the experience and emotions involved in the process of loving, but exists apart from it, as an abstract mental category of the mind.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you understand how I've defined time and space, then potentiality certainly can be the cause since time and space are simply manifestations of it (and relative to it).

As far as what happened at the moment of the big bang, I proposed a suggestion for that in my original post when I discussed "fluctuations."

Yes I know, but the only problem I have is that you take "potentiality" as something distinct from material existence, while I argue from the point that potentiality and material existence are one and the same.

let me explain more profoundly, the idea you came up with of "fluctuations of potentiality" are already part of an established scientific theory, namely the theory of eternal/open/chaotic inflation. The basic of this is that at first there only exist a scalar field, holding the potential for everything, that fluctuates due to quantum mechanical effects. For me that takes it into the category of material existence, which is existence in space and time, and contains motion and change.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The Buddhists referred to it as the "formless void". Beyond space, beyond time, beyond conception, beyond experience.[/I]

As you probably know by now, I distinquish between someone like the Buddha, and "Buddhists." The latter come in many philosophical garbs, the former just one. Who was the master and origniator - - the Buddha was. For that reason in my efforts to understand the Buddha, I read his words; and I take what all Buddhists say with a grain of salt.

What the Buddha said isn't quite what you said. It is true he said that the formless is beyond time, space and conception, but he did not say it was beyond experience. Here's a quote I've posted before, "There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

What is the escape route? It was the eightfold path of which samadhi was the primary focus. Samadhi is precisely the experience of that ". . . unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded" and union with it is how one escapes the ups and downs (including birth and death) of material existence. If one can merge permanently with it, that is what the Buddha referred to as nirvana.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Material existence is the potential and actual existing world.

It is all you know. Others might disagree.

Originally posted by heusdens
As I explained the way you use the term love, it belongs to an abstract catergory of the mind, which is in a way out of time and space. It is a mental category. Like a line, a mathematical expression and a triangle, as mathematical and geometrical terms also belong. So a "triangle" can be said to have existed before anything material had a form that resembles that geometrical form.

You are over-complicating things. I am very aware of this platonic view, but that was not my point. You want to make love mental, I think it is utterly non-mental. One can have mentality about it, but that isn't the love itself. I am talking about the experience of love, not the idea of love, so when I bestow love on my child the love I feel was already there when I began to bestow it.

This is a very simple point. If I eat because I am hungry, which came first, eating or hunger? If I write a great book, which came first, the writing or the potential in me to write? I am simply suggesting that whatever exists in time (i.e., had a beginning and ends) had to have been preceded by the potential to exist. My point is to wonder about the nature of potentiality, especially if all existence might proceed from some singular realm of potentiality.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you understand how I've defined time and space, then potentiality certainly can be the cause since time and space are simply manifestations of it (and relative to it).

When you talk about the ability for movement and change of the potentiality, then you need to talk about time and space also.
How can something move or change if there is no time and no space?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It is all you know. Others might disagree.


You are over-complicating things. I am very aware of this platonic view, but that was not my point. You want to make love mental, I think it is utterly non-mental. One can have mentality about it, but that isn't the love itself. I am talking about the experience of love, not the idea of love, so when I bestow love on my child the love I feel was already there when I began to bestow it.

This is a very simple point. If I eat because I am hungry, which came first, eating or hunger? If I write a great book, which came first, the writing or the potential in me to write? I am simply suggesting that whatever exists in time (i.e., had a beginning and ends) had to have been preceded by the potential to exist. My point is to wonder about the nature of potentiality, especially if all existence might proceed from some singular realm of potentiality.

Ok, I understand. So your contribution was about the potentiallty to love or maybe the feeling of love, before this is excercised.
Like your brain has the ability to learn math, before you start learning math.
But then it is clear, you are talking not about abstact categories, but real existing phenomena, so about material things.

Talking about the ability to love for example, you can ask yourselve where this potentially origanlly arrived from. Well as you know, our human system has acquired this ability by way of evolution, it should be seen in the context of evolution and the necessity for it in terms of genetics, reproduction, and to establish the species. So, love originated out of a necessity for the ability to reproduce the species. Without it, we would be extinct. In prrimitive forms one can argue that this ability to love must be present in other species too.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes I know, but the only problem I have is that you take "potentiality" as something distinct from material existence, while I argue from the point that potentiality and material existence are one and the same.

Why do you have a problem with potentiality being immaterial? If you read my originial post carefully, you will see I suggest that what we refer to as "material" might be the result of concentrating the qualities of potentiality. In other words, if you could get matter to fully de-concentrate, that would be the full potential condition.

Originally posted by heusdens
let me explain more profoundly, the idea you came up with of "fluctuations of potentiality" are already part of an established scientific theory, namely the theory of eternal/open/chaotic inflation. The basic of this is that at first there only exist a scalar field, holding the potential for everything, that fluctuates due to quantum mechanical effects. For me that takes it into the category of material existence, which is existence in space and time, and contains motion and change

I know about inflation theory, as well as zero point speculations; in fact, I partly chose the word "fluctuations" to harmonize with that thinking. But, neither of them are the same concept for reasons I've been trying to get you to see. You want to talk about physical manifestations only, I want to talk about the nature of the potentiality they arise from.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Why do you have a problem with potentiality being immaterial? If you read my originial post carefully, you will see I suggest that what we refer to as "material" might be the result of concentrating the qualities of potentiality. In other words, if you could get matter to fully de-concentrate, that would be the full potential condition.

You have a wrong concept of matter. Whatever you do or occurs to matter, matter remains matter. Your term of potential can only point to some special form of matter.

And you didn't my question how in your vision of potentially, it could "fluctuate" without there being time or space. Matter can not exist withtout time and space.

I know about inflation theory, as well as zero point speculations; in fact, I partly chose the word "fluctuations" to harmonize with that thinking. But, neither of them are the same concept for reasons I've been trying to get you to see. You want to talk about physical manifestations only, I want to talk about the nature of the potentiality they arise from.

But then you take potentiality into the realms of abstract categories of the mind, and take it outide material existence.

it's like saying that the pure geometrical shape of a triangle has caused the world to be.

You are advocating a point of view which contradicts materialism.
I could talk for example about potential kinetic energy, when lifting a stone in Earth's gravity field. That stone when lifted contains an (invisible) amount of potential (kinetic) energy.
Yet this potential only exist, because the stone exist and the Earth's gravity potential field exist. The potential does not exist without those material existence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
When you talk about the ability for movement and change of the potentiality, then you need to talk about time and space also.
How can something move or change if there is no time and no space?

I really like this question because it key to understanding immateriality. But it is extremely difficult to answer because few people agree what time and space are.

In the realm of matter, movement and change are impossible outside of time and space, time particularly. You can only agree that movement and change are time/space limited if you see matter as potenial in "form." Permit me to make an analogy.

Let's say that the only thing that exists is an ocean of water. This ocean was never created, it has always existed, and it goes on in every direction without end. It sloshes about incessantly, with water bunching up here, spreading out there. So it changes and moves all the time, but without the slightest bit of loss.

Occasionally during the sloshing, so much pressure builds up in an area of the ocean, that it causes the area to freeze into a big ball (okay, suspend your physics for the moment). The weight of the frozen ball causes it to break apart into little pieces, and they begin floating apart. They are also melting.

Now, on one of the frozen pieces an iceman evolves, and he takes note of what's going on around him. He builds an ice telescope and see that other ice chunks are floating away from him, and those areas in between the ice chunks he calls "space." He also notices he is melting, and in fact all the ice chunks are melting too. He calculates how my ice crystals are left and creates an equation that expresses the rate of melting relative to the rate of staying frozen. That ratio he calls "time."

From his perspective, all change and movement increase space and decrease ice, so from his view there is no possibility of change and movement outside time and space. However, inside the ocean itself is a little water molecule who has become conscious, and for him, living in that infinite and eternal ocean, there is no "time" or "space." It is all "one." When the ice is all melted, will another ice chunk arise? There is no way to know.

So, I am suggesting that the universe is preceded by a potentiality that matter arises from and is now returning to. While in form, we call this potenial "material" and when not in form, we call it immaterial. The changes in the material realm do take place in time and space, but in the immaterial realm the terms are meaningless.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I really like this question because it key to understanding immateriality. But it is extremely difficult to answer because few people agree what time and space are.

Time and space are modes of existence of matter, but this in itself does not explain what time and space are.

In the realm of matter, movement and change are impossible outside of time and space, time particularly. You can only agree that movement and change are time/space limited if you see matter as potenial in "form." Permit me to make an analogy.

Let's say that the only thing that exists is an ocean of water. This ocean was never created, it has always existed, and it goes on in every direction without end. It sloshes about incessantly, with water bunching up here, spreading out there. So it changes and moves all the time, but without the slightest bit of loss.

Occasionally during the sloshing, so much pressure builds up in an area of the ocean, that it causes the area to freeze into a big ball (okay, suspend your physics for the moment). The weight of the frozen ball causes it to break apart into little pieces, and they begin floating apart. They are also melting.

Now, on one of the frozen pieces an iceman evolves, and he takes note of what's going on around him. He builds an ice telescope and see that other ice chunks are floating away from him, and those areas in between the ice chunks he calls "space." He also notices he is melting, and in fact all the ice chunks are melting too. He calculates how my ice crystals are left and creates an equation that expresses the rate of melting relative to the rate of staying frozen. That ratio he calls "time."

From his perspective, all change and movement increase space and decrease ice, so from his view there is no possibility of change and movement outside time and space. However, inside the ocean itself is a little water molecule who has become conscious, and for him, living in that infinite and eternal ocean, there is no "time" or "space." It is all "one." When the ice is all melted, will another ice chunk arise? There is no way to know.

So, I am suggesting that the universe is preceded by a potentiality that matter arises from and is now returning to. While in form, we call this potenial "material" and when not in form, we call it immaterial. The changes in the material realm do take place in time and space, but in the immaterial realm the terms are meaningless.

Well thanks for this anology. I see what you mean.
But I do reject to call the "water ocean" in your anology as "immaterial" although you may be right that time would be a less meaningfull concept there.
Yet there is movement, so there is matter and time and space.
It is in an unusual form, it does not have the shape and form as ordinary atoms, or gravitation field, or energy, but that does not make it "immaterial" in my point of view. Real time and real space do exist in such a state of matter, since there is change and movement.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
But I do reject to call the "water ocean" in your anology as "immaterial" although you may be right that time would be a less meaningfull concept there.
Yet there is movement, so there is matter and time and space.
It is in an unusual form, it does not have the shape and form as ordinary atoms, or gravitation field, or energy, but that does not make it "immaterial" in my point of view. Real time and real space do exist in such a state of matter, since there is change and movement.

Of course you can call it matter, but then it seems to me that matter loses all defintion. As I predicted, it is very difficult to make points about the sorts of change I've imagined in raw potentiality because we can't agree what time is. There is a real difference between change/movement that is entropic, which is the only way matter can change, and change/movement that is not entropic. I say without entropy, there is no time.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Of course you can call it matter, but then it seems to me that matter loses all defintion. As I predicted, it is very difficult to make points about the sorts of change I've imagined in raw potentiality because we can't agree what time is. There is a real difference between change/movement that is entropic, which is the only way matter can change, and change/movement that is not entropic. I say without entropy, there is no time.

Change DID take place else the "potential" could not have caused the "material world".
And the way the change took place is dialectical, turning quantitave changes into a qualitative change, hence inflation and the big bang.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
There is a real difference between change/movement that is entropic, which is the only way matter can change, and change/movement that is not entropic. I say without entropy, there is no time.

Can you elaborate some on this entropy issue. I have seen lengthy discussions about that topic, which were rather inconvincingly for me.
Do you advocate a point of view in which the universe is running out of entropy and will be lost in a heat death or some?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Can you elaborate some on this entropy issue. I have seen lengthy discussions about that topic, which were rather inconvincingly for me.
Do you advocate a point of view in which the universe is running out of entropy and will be lost in a heat death or some?

As the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is a term used to describe the extent energy is available for conversion to work. The first law says energy is conserved in a closed system, but the second law recognizes that the distribution of energy changes doing work in an irreversible manner, and that change is toward disorder.

With the popularization of science, entropy has been generalized to describe the entire universe, and has arisen in debates between, for example, creationists and evolutionary biologists. The creationists like to say the extensive organization found in life breaks the rule of entropy, while evolutionists point out that entropy is increased overall in life, and so the rule is not broken.

Just from a common sense point of view, entropy means that the universe is using up its stores of energy. All energy is stored in some system/organized form, and so when the energy of a system/form is used, it is gone (it exists, but it's no longer available for work) and it leaves the universe a little less organized. Eventually, if things keep going the way they are going, all the energy bound up in matter will have dissapated, and the universe will be gone.

There are those here who disagree with me about what time is. Mentat thinks time is a "dimension." Others seem to think time is not related to our universe or matter, but somehow goes on whether there is a universe or not.

I've argued that those views contradict our everyday experience of time. We always use it in relation to entropy, even if we don't realize it. Someone will say time passes, for example, which is like saying the sun rises even though it doesn't really. It isn't "time" that passes, but the endurance of "things" which diminishes. Each moment so much energy in the universe is no longer availble for work. Each moment, so much of our bodies have lost order. We and the universe are passing, not time.

So it is my view that the rate of entropy is "time." That is related to our discussion because we were talking about change/movement, and I pointed out that change/movement in the physical world is not possible without increasing entropy. But in concept of potentiality as I've modeled it, change/movement will occur not only without an overall increase in disorder, but in the case of the birth of our universe, can happen with an increase in order (even if only temporarily).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
As the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is a term used to describe the extent energy is available for conversion to work. The first law says energy is conserved in a closed system, but the second law recognizes that the distribution of energy changes doing work in an irreversible manner, and that change is toward disorder.

With the popularization of science, entropy has been generalized to describe the entire universe, and has arisen in debates between, for example, creationists and evolutionary biologists. The creationists like to say the extensive organization found in life breaks the rule of entropy, while evolutionists point out that entropy is increased overall in life, and so the rule is not broken.

Just from a common sense point of view, entropy means that the universe is using up its stores of energy. All energy is stored in some system/organized form, and so when the energy of a system/form is used, it is gone (it exists, but it's no longer available for work) and it leaves the universe a little less organized. Eventually, if things keep going the way they are going, all the energy bound up in matter will have dissapated, and the universe will be gone.

There are those here who disagree with me about what time is. Mentat thinks time is a "dimension." Others seem to think time is not related to our universe or matter, but somehow goes on whether there is a universe or not.

I've argued that those views contradict our everyday experience of time. We always use it in relation to entropy, even if we don't realize it. Someone will say time passes, for example, which is like saying the sun rises even though it doesn't really. It isn't "time" that passes, but the endurance of "things" which diminishes. Each moment so much energy in the universe is no longer availble for work. Each moment, so much of our bodies have lost order. We and the universe are passing, not time.

So it is my view that the rate of entropy is "time." That is related to our discussion because we were talking about change/movement, and I pointed out that change/movement in the physical world is not possible without increasing entropy. But in concept of potentiality as I've modeled it, change/movement will occur not only without an overall increase in disorder, but in the case of the birth of our universe, can happen with an increase in order (even if only temporarily).

Well an issue here is of course what time is. If you define time as the rate of change or dropping of the entropy level, then you have a problem. Because how do you measure the rate of change if it is equal to time. We can measure the rate of change with time, because time is different and independend from change.

(see for example this text: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5" )

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well an issue here is of course what time is. If you define time as the rate of change or dropping of the entropy level, then you have a problem. Because how do you measure the rate of change if it is equal to time. We can measure the rate of change with time, because time is different and independend from change.

I checked out the site you suggested but I couldn't see how any of those rationalistic considerations apply to what we are discussing.

But I did not define time as the rate of change exactly (by the way, an increase in entropy is an increase in disorder). What is said is that in our universe, all change and movement is accompanied by an increase in entropy; that is a fact I believe no physicist would dispute. So I am not saying time is the rate of change, but rather, the rate at which the universe is losing its order.

Just think about what we know (or at least strongly suspect). We strongly suspect the universe began with the big bang. That event, as far as we know, gave us whatever order there is in the universe, and made all the energy available for work possible. Since then, it has been downhill order-wise.

We can see the moment we believe created order, and that the trend now is disorder. That initial order, along with the balance that developed between it and entropy, has allowed us to exist. If energy could not escape matter, then there would be no energy available to fuel evolution and life.

But the thing is, at some point (again, if things keep going the way they are) there will be no universe, and no "us." In time, when things still existed, there was not a single thing which wasn't getting older; that is, there wasn't a single thing which was not undergoing entropy. But with no things present, what is getting older? Nothing! So how does one measure time?

So I say that time is merely our way of recording the relentless march of creation toward disorder. Because to move or change physically one must use energy, time has been recognized as an integral element of physical measurement. But again, once all matter and energy have gone their way, there will be nothing left to measure unless, that is, a new universe bangs itself into existence once again (as you've indicated you think happens).

 

[Iacchus32]

"But the Orphics say that black-winged Night, a goddess of whom even Zeus stands in awe, was courted by the Wind and laid a silver egg in the womb of Darkness; and that Eros, whom some call Phanes, was hatched from this egg and set the Universe in motion." ~ Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, Vol. 1 ...

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Recently there has been a lot of talk at PF about nothing, what it means, and if something can come from nothing. I want to take a shot at it by claiming there is no such beast as “nothing” and no need to worry about infinite regress if we understand the richness of potentiality.

I think Heusden, Mentat and others have been right to point out that some arguments go on because we’ve not clearly defined “nothing.” When I’ve responded I have assumed it meant that the universe came into existence from a total void; that in one instant there was a void, and then the next was the big bang. I did not assume “nothing” meant there was no cause of the universe, as some said, because I don’t think it is possible for something that has a beginning not to have a cause. Also, looking at the universe it all does appear to operate by way of cause and effect, so it seems logical to assume that such a nature reflects what it is born of (i.e., it is the offspring of cause and effect, or at least a cause). Why is it so difficult to imagine a cause-less effect? Because it defies logic, and logic is based on the relationships between cause and effect.

I have a theoretical perspective on the first cause dilemma that, for me and for now at least, satisfies logic. To begin with I look at cause and effect as neutrally as possible and call it movement (one could also call it change, which is movement too, but I have reason for calling it movement). Without movement there is no cause and effect. If we imagine the big bang as movement (which it clearly was), we might ask what preceded it. What was the status quo then? Is it possible there was no movement (or change)? Was it still, and then movement began for no reason? There seems no way to say that something didn’t change/move that then brought about the big bang. In words, prior to our universe’s existence, something was there either moving or capable of moving.

Thus we come to the concept of potentiality, which is not nothing. Stated as a principle we might say it as follows: All that exists in time must be preceded by the potential for it to exist. Our universe apparently did have beginning, and therefore we can wonder about the potential it sprang from. Since the nature of our universe is movement, for example, we might assume that part of the nature of this potentiality is dynamic, that it fluctuates in some manner, which can lead to events like a big bang.

I’ve tried to imagine what such a fluctuation might be like, if there are any clues in our universe which might guide one. Something I’ve noticed about reality is that besides movement are three other universally present traits: light (EM of course), vibration, and concentration. Everything which can be shown to exist, without exception, possesses these qualities. All matter is atoms, and atom types are determined by how much energy is concentrated in them. When energy escapes its bond to matter it does so as light (photons) whose character is also influenced by energy concentration. And of course, both atoms and EM relentlessly vibrate.

Now, might this give us clues about the nature of the potentiality creation emerged from? Could that potentiality, for instance, be some sort of fluctuating luminescent vibrancy? Might one sort of fluctuation that happens be a sudden, intense concentration and release?

Now, let’s say that is exactly what the big bang was, and what the universe is doing now is returning to pure potentiality. Does that solve the something from nothing problem? Not yet, because our logic wants to know the “cause” of that potentiality. To me, I think this is where one has to accept the possibility that this potentiality has always existed; it was never created, it will never be destroyed; it had no beginning and it has no end. It just is. It exists and cannot not exist. It is, in fact, existence itself.

I don’t think the concept of an uncaused potentiality, whose fluctuations “causes,” answers all questions -- obviously it isn’t scientific since one can’t test the hypothesis. But if true nonetheless, it would be why there cannot be nothing.

Why is this here ?
It belongs in the Theo. Physics or Theory Dev.
forums. This is an attempt to think of a physical
theory, of which a poor amateur like me can
not be a judge. It is NOT, however, a philosophical
theory with philosophical implications of any sort.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by drag
Why is this here ?
It belongs in the Theo. Physics or Theory Dev.
forums. This is an attempt to think of a physical
theory, of which a poor amateur like me can
not be a judge. It is NOT, however, a philosophical
theory with philosophical implications of any sort.

I posted here, if you are asking me, because of ongoing discussions in this section about "nothing" and if "something" can come from it.

If you notice, I start out with a philosophical point, that "potential" must precede all events in time. But rather than make the argument one of simply rationalizing, I attempted to support this point of philosophy with a bit of inferential reasoning.

Why should an idea that can't be empirically tested be debated in physics? I wanted to join the "nothing" debate here, not where it isn't being discussed. What's wrong with "hardening" up the debate with some facts? Besides, purely rationalistic proposals unsupported by any attempt to reconcile facts doesn't seem to me to be the way one should philosophize in a science forum.