What is the Origin of Everything?

  • Thread starter Eyesee
  • Start date
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thingthat doesn't come from anything." ... to... "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."The meaning of the words are clear.Originally posted by EyeseeIn summary, everything in the universe can be traced back to the concept of "nothing", as it is the only thing that does not come from anything else. This idea is often debated and can be viewed as a joke or a serious philosophical concept. However, it is important to note that the concept of "nothing" is not a tangible thing or state, but rather a
  • #141
It is the ineffable, that which cannot be put into words. That which cannot be said.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
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"?
 
  • #143
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.
 
  • #144
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 referring 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.
 
  • #145
Originally posted by Mentat
This whole time, you are referring 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. The theory is WAY too long to post here.

Hang in there Mentat.
 
  • #146
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)
 
  • #147
Originally posted by Messiah
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. 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 got to go now :wink:.
 
  • #148
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 got to go now :wink:.

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 you tomorrow?? (I like the mental excercise)
 
  • #149
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.
 
  • #150
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
 
Last edited:
  • #151
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #152
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 you 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.
 
  • #153
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
 
  • #154
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".
 
  • #155
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.
 
  • #156
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.
 
  • #157
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'.
 
  • #158
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #159
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.
 
  • #160
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.
 
  • #161
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.
 
  • #162
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 existence. The real question is what is before existence? 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 existence according to the gods can be to see which order or patterns we will take on using what they have already created for us.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
everything is nothing

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 realize what we are trying to say. thank you.
 
  • #164
Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existence. The real question is what is before existence? 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 existence according to the gods can be to see which order or patterns we will take on using what they have already created for us.
 
  • #165
Originally posted by Netme
Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existence. The real question is what is before existence?

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')
 
  • #166
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #167
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)
 
Last edited:
  • #168
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"?
 
  • #169
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #171
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 really 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #172
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."
 
  • #173
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.
 
  • #174
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 dimensions that collapsed into a little infinitesimal ball- how does it relate to our present universe?
 
  • #175
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?
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
865
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
903
Replies
6
Views
503
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
510
Back
Top