Creation Ex Nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Mac]
So yours is a universe constructed as you say it is by "Proclamation"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm afraid that you'll have to read Dr. Van Flandern's book (or at least the first 6 chapters) to understand why this misses the point. Dr. Van Flandern <b>might</b> be able to summarize it, but I'm not even going to try. Maybe in ten more years ...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Mac]
It does seem to me that an airing of many views is constructive. Arguing over such views is not. Particularily when people begin to call others absurd ect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think we all agree to all three sentences here. I certainly do.

I know that a few of the participants aren't as careful as they should be about criticizing the idea instead of the thinker, but lately at least it seems to be a minor problem. There have been times when I wished Dr. Van Flandern would step in sooner than he did, but when analyzing an altercation after the fact I have to admit that he does a good job of controlling things.

I'm glad I don't have to do it.

===

So I'm puzzled. I bent over backwards (I thought) to stress that I'm NOT saying "don't talk about that other stuff here". What I AM saying is, since this is Dr. Van Flandern's message board, HE gets to say what a word like universe (without any qualifiers) means in the discussions on this board.

On your Website, YOU get to say what the word universe (without qualifiers) means.

This is just common sense. And common courtesy.

===

At this Website the word universe is defined as "everything" (including multiple sub-universes if they turn out to be real). If someone discovers something new tomorrow morning - literally new, something that no one has ever seen before - it is automatically included. By definition.

That does not mean that the REAL universe must be the way MM say it is, any more than it must be the way the UNIKEF Model says it is. or BB, or Quantum Rediculousness, or ...

As you have observed more than once, no one really knows for sure.

But ...

1) IF you want to use the word universe with a non-standard meaning while you are here
2) and IF you want to avoid problems communicating with many of us

3) THEN it seems prudent for you to qualify your non-standard (for this venue) use of the word universe.

===

Another suggestion - call it the "UNIKEF universe", or maybe the "UU". I'll bet that if you think it about for a little while you can come up with a really cool qualifier. Perhaps something that hints at a deeper meaning to those in-the-know.

===

But if you continue to just say "universe" you are going to continue to be misunderstood (unless you actually do mean the MM universe). And continue getting flack from us. I guarantee it.

Regards,
LB

<font face="Century Gothic">rouse johnny,

What would we have then if E=MC squared principle were used deductively to change all matter into energy and the charges were to cancel out to equal 0. This would by your own words above not be something but rather "nothing". This is the only nothing that is possible. It is not detectable, but quantitatively deducible (is that a word?)./

</font id="Century Gothic">
Mac said:

[navy]ANS: Actually I don't think this fits a good definition of "Notingness". The Cornell paper stays that +/- energy in the observable univers calculates to be a net zero. The plus is energy/matter and the -is gravity/time.

Your E=mc^2 example would create maximum sapce with no gravity or time. Whle it might not be detectable due to the absence of time it would still not be "Nothing". It would be space without time, which while not very interesting or useful would still be "Something".

Response:

Gravity and time are the result of the dynamic of matter and energy. Matter is energy in positive, negative and neutral compression. It would indeed be space without time, which is the only nothing that is possible. Any definition of nothing that requires the absents of space is more far reaching than physics can allow, that is almost metaphysical.

Jan said:

Then, by taking an inception event, how could this event have discriminated a significantly different configuration of nothingness from which the universe was born. How could this event have been managed by forms that did not exist? What changed the equilibrium of nothingness to the universe as we know it? You have to admit, these are tough questions.

Response:

The neutron is called lazy in order to explain beta-decay in an atom. This Universal Neutron I have described must be a lazy bum as well and split. The Plus in Mac's equation is Positive energy in my concept, and the (-) is negative energy not Gravity and Time. The size of the decay and weather the laziness in infinate I do not know. I do agree with MM in that Space is infinate and so is the neutrally charged energy, I do think it is possible that electromagnetism has closed of a system, viewed by some as our closed Universe. Gravity and time are the result of the Universal Lazy Neutron realizing how much work it created and trying to return to homogeny. It can never return to that state but will eventually return to the simplest possible form of one Meta Atom if I may.

Larry Buford,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> What I AM saying is, since this is Dr. Van Flandern's message board, HE gets to say what a word like universe (without any qualifiers) means in the discussions on this board.

On your Website, YOU get to say what the word universe (without qualifiers) means.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I would agree with that but let me add that personally I feel it is the MM definition that seems to cause the greater problem and perhaps Tom might consider making a change.

That is it seems to me to declare that the universe is all there is which includes other possible universes, is a bit of blurring of the lines. That is why I have adopted the Universe to define each universe in a stand alone fashion, meaning that which is physical to observers of such a universe.

Another universe, should they exist would not be physical to us until and unless there is a collision of such universes such that their domains overlap. In that case there would be common objects to both universes which each would include as being part of their own but would not include the entireity of each other.

In that manner other universes are part of a common and larger Creation. So my Creation is your Universe and my universe is your sub-universe.

Do I understand that you consider sub-universes to be independant enities? I do. If so then we should actually be close to agreement on a lot of things that we have appeared to not agree on.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>That does not mean that the REAL universe must be the way MM say it is, any more than it must be the way the UNIKEF Model says it is. or BB, or Quantum Rediculousness, or ...</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: Again I find we are in agreement. I very quickly tend to discount posters views that become entrenched in "I am right and you are wrong" absolute type statements. There currently is no such clarity or evidence to prove any of these concepts, UniKEF included.

One can favor one view and should be able to give their reasons for doing so but one cannot declare theirs is correct and others are wrong. (Unless one violates some known and accepted principle of physics on the whole).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Another suggestion - call it the "UNIKEF universe", or maybe the "UU". I'll bet that if you think it about for a little while you can come up with a really cool qualifier. Perhaps something that hints at a deeper meaning to those in-the-know.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: For the moment to satisfy your need to differentiate between MM's Sub-Universe and my Universe I will refer to it as a UniKverse.

I don't think my use of the term Creation conflicts with your use of the term Universe. They seem to be the same enity.

Now speaking a common language, lets see where our differences are.

I see UniKverse(s) as being bound finite enities where the boundry is defined as the absence of time and space. Beyond such boundry has no meaning in physics terms but pragmatically in the larger creation there may exist other UniKverses of simular definition.

While I see no limiting factors, there must be some, hence I do not see the Creation as being infinite. I see that as a physical impossiblity by definition. It would infact require that there be an actual physical count of an infinite number of finite UniKverses or a UniKverse that is unbounded and hence infinite.

This latter choice I do not believe is a possibility since the definition requires the UniKverse to be larger than the sum of finite components that comprise it.

Questions:

Do you agree that UniKverses are independant enities that are not physically connected?

Are you familiar with and understand the "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" Domain concepts of UniKEF and how they apply to the issue of possible multiKverses?

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I see UniKverse(s) as being bound finite enities where the boundry is defined as the absence of time and space. Beyond such boundry has no meaning in physics terms but pragmatically in the larger creation there may exist other UniKverses of simular definition.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


So your sub-universes are finite but disjoint sets. Then how many of these sub-universes are accounted for, finitely many?

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>So your sub-universes are finite but disjoint sets.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I think I agree. I don't like the "Set", "Sub-Sets" terminology. It tends to reduce things to mathematics and makes it easy to establish false limits on reality. I got enough problems keeping physical models viable. I don't touch mathematical ones. []


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Then how many of these sub-universes are accounted for, finitely many?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: There can obviously not be a proof but it could only be one but it might also be many, very many, or even damn near an infinite number.

But in my view it cannot be declared as an infinite number since that requires the the number of finite UniKverses be greater than the actual number itself. Something cannot become greater than it is which is what to become infinite requires.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
ANS: There can obviously not be a proof but it could only be one but it might also be many, very many, or even damn near an infinite number.

But in my view it cannot be declared as an infinite number since that requires the the number of finite UniKverses be greater than the actual number itself. Something cannot become greater than it is which is what to become infinite requires.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You say here in fact that you assume that the multiplicity of unikverses has to proceed from the definate to the indefinate, from a finite multitude to an infinite multitude.
In that way, they can not become infinite. But what if they already are? And why do you assume that can not be the case?
Because of the mathematical habbit to start from finite to the infinite? But why would that be compulsory for the universe itself to proceed that way?
Why should the number of unikverse be countable anyway? Is there some process that has to administrate that number and account for it?
Maybe for universal taxpayment? lol
An infinitude of unikverses is not susceptible of being counted. When one tries to count them, all one can count up to is a definite, finite number, without ever having counted them all. There is no finite number that places an upper bound to the number of unikverses.