infinite, eternal universe

OK - Let's drop this statement.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(A boundary that separated space from other space would not be a "boundary to space", by definition.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So now the jump has to be made from here.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If space has a boundary, then the boundary must separate space from non-space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
To here.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Therefore, the premise that "space has a boundary" is excluded. And that proves that space has no boundary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I fail to see the logical progression. First you display the option for a boundry, then proceed to outrightly ignore the possibility. I might argue that space is unbounded because it is a moving target. I.E. The reality of Non-Existence is an ongoing process. MM would reject this absolutely - There being no contradiction possible. Yet the universe is full of contradictions. People begin a race with the sole purpose of ending it. A woman says no when she really means yes! In all seriousness - How do you account for contradictions that do exist, but apparently not in MM?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This gives an excellent insight into your thinking. You know enough quantum mechanics to get into logical difficulty (something that is inherent in modern QM, not something that is your doing).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I prefer not to be lumped in with those associated with modern QM, or BB for that matter. About the only agreement I have with these two baastards of wisdom is a beginning and fundamentalism. I disagree with who, what, when, where, why, and how it all plays out.

Here are some cogitations I consider to be most definately true. I am doubtful I am in anyones court, and expect that few if any will have an understanding of this particular game. I expect derision at every turn with the caveat that my progress to win the game will not be impeded by the mockery imposed on me. This is to be expected on any newly beaten path.




1. One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist.

2. One key point to be made here is that if we take a reductionist approach toward the removal of everything. We eventually come to the conclusion that nothing cannot be removed. We must accept that all things are made of nothing, and I must say that means everything to me.

3. What is a thing? I propose that all things on all scales are understood through the same process. A baseball, a stop sign, a fundamental unit, a planet, a monitor, are all understood to be things under the same premise. You see a thing..like your monitor and the procedure is - nothing inside it, and infinitely nothing outside it. This is the geometric reality of the monitor (The conceptual understanding of one, and the form of it).

4. Keep thinking that Existence is equally dependent on what it is not, and you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.

5. In our universe there are only ONES, one at a time, Where time is the nothing that ONES are composed of.

6. To comprehend the simplicity of my own existence...I must abruptly exclaim to myself - How could I have been so stupid?

1. One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist.
____________________________________________________________________

Skarp

define "state of non-existence".


2. One key point to be made here is that if we take a reductionist approach toward the removal of everything. We eventually come to the conclusion that nothing cannot be removed.

ANS: why?

____________________________________________________________________

We must accept that all things are made of nothing, and I must say that means everything to me.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: if that were true then your photon could not become,because the interaction that must take place between matter for a photon to become would not happen.

if this is not the case then define what you mean by nothing.


got to go to work,later

Hmmm. Lets see now. Six more conclusions; zero more explanations/justifications. Standard game plan 1B with the "mockery whine" and "I'll win anyway" embellishments.

Actually we do understand this game of yours. We've seen it a number of times now and it is in no way a newly beaten path.

And yes, you have succeeded in goading a few of us into casting some asparagus in your direction. We are rightly embarassed by our weakness, but we go on.

===

There is still a possibility that you see something that none of us see. Something important, perhaps even profound. But until you start trying to explain what you mean all we can do is rely on what you have actually said. And so far it has been non sense.

That possibility is excedingly remote, however. If you could explain or justify any of your conclusions you would have already done so. But you know they are unsupportable so you always run off on a new tangent when one of us tries to get you to focus.

Once the more experienced in our group begin discussing these CONIE tactics out loud, the less experienced stop falling into your traps. They realize you are trying to get them to yell at you rather than talk with you, and they mostly just stop talking for a while.

===

Your predecessors have generally faded into the elysium at that point. You may, too.

Or you could prove me wrong in your case. Just take your six most recent conclusions and explain them. In such a way that WE stop seeing them as non sense and start seing them as having actual meaning. It won't do any good to "explain" one bit of non sense with another bit of non sense. If we don't get it, you will have to try again or answer questions until WE are satisfied.

===

Come to think of it, at this point I'd settle for an explanation for NONE of them (pun definitely intended).

Regards,
LB

Skarp,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sorry, but reading this almost makes my finger go through my eye into my brain and start whirling it around... (don't take this remark too seriously)

1. One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist.
____________________________________________________________________

Skarp

define "state of non-existence".

As I have been stating all along - Existence is the definition of Non-Existence. I'll go one step further and give the definition of the sentence in question word for word. To you I expect this will be a complication in terms. Nevertheless here it is.

"Being a single thing, there is an obligation or necessity, to occupy a certain place, used to indicate location, a condition of being, distinguished by absence in the direction of bringing into being, something indicating one or ones out of a group, to accomplish a statement, negative to real or actual being."

Non-Existence
home.att.net/~jrabno9/non-existence.jpg
The initial partial definition in Non-Existence
home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg