- Thank you received: 0
EXISTENCE (not creation) Ex Nihilo
20 years 10 months ago #8359
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Tom,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>On the contrary. The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the initial explosion. But matter dominates the present universe. Other galaxies can’t be antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not seen. See Science 278, 226, (1997); Sci.News 158, 86, (2000). -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<font color="yellow"><b>ANS: On the contrary indeed. Nobody was referring to the Big Bang.
www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html
"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"><b>On the contrary. The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the initial explosion. But matter dominates the present universe. Other galaxies can’t be antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not seen. See Science 278, 226, (1997); Sci.News 158, 86, (2000). -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<font color="yellow"><b>ANS: On the contrary indeed. Nobody was referring to the Big Bang.
www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #8395
by Messiah
Replied by Messiah on topic Reply from Jack McNally
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />
What are you saying here?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The realm of logic pertains to two basic phenomena -
1) the phenomenon of existence
2) the phenomenon of change
Like the structure of an equation, Newton's 3rd law pretty much sums it up for #2. For every attribute of change there is an equivalent opposite, all action/reaction is reciprocal about a Ø axis -
Action = Reaction OR
Action - Reaction = Ø
Existence is basic and change is a 'function of' existence. I believe that the reason the principle of reciprocity (opposite equivalence) applies to the phenomenon of change is because it also applies to the more fundamental phenomenon of existence - from which change is derived.
If the principle holds true for #1, then for every attribute of existence there is an equivalent opposite. Existentially, the logical equivalent of Ø is maintained. Reciprocity is, in fact, the most basic principle in the Universe.
Applying the principle of reciprocity to qualitative analysis yields some interesting insights. It suggests that every entity (whether it be material i.e. like matter, or etherial - spacelike - in nature) is comprised of reciprocal qualitative values. It is, indeed, the very feature which defines each entity as a singular identity, a unique unit of Zero value, an element comprised only of itself.
Though the explanation is too long for this discussion box, it can be viewed at
[url] www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/entity.htm [/url]
<br />
What are you saying here?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The realm of logic pertains to two basic phenomena -
1) the phenomenon of existence
2) the phenomenon of change
Like the structure of an equation, Newton's 3rd law pretty much sums it up for #2. For every attribute of change there is an equivalent opposite, all action/reaction is reciprocal about a Ø axis -
Action = Reaction OR
Action - Reaction = Ø
Existence is basic and change is a 'function of' existence. I believe that the reason the principle of reciprocity (opposite equivalence) applies to the phenomenon of change is because it also applies to the more fundamental phenomenon of existence - from which change is derived.
If the principle holds true for #1, then for every attribute of existence there is an equivalent opposite. Existentially, the logical equivalent of Ø is maintained. Reciprocity is, in fact, the most basic principle in the Universe.
Applying the principle of reciprocity to qualitative analysis yields some interesting insights. It suggests that every entity (whether it be material i.e. like matter, or etherial - spacelike - in nature) is comprised of reciprocal qualitative values. It is, indeed, the very feature which defines each entity as a singular identity, a unique unit of Zero value, an element comprised only of itself.
Though the explanation is too long for this discussion box, it can be viewed at
[url] www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/entity.htm [/url]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #8644
by Messiah
Replied by Messiah on topic Reply from Jack McNally
<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>
<br />Messiah,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Existence is eternal.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
ANS: Therein lies your failing. Eternal requires an infinite accumulation of time intervals. Since intervals of time are physical and are quantifiable, they can never become infinite.
Nothing physical can be or become infinite in quantity by definition. Infinity by definition is larger than any quantitative value. Hence nothing can have aready existed for eternity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Time is nothing more than the measurement of the relative rate of change. Change is a 'function of ' existence. You cannot have change with out existence - nor time.
Intervals are simply definitions applied by the user to facilitate interpretation. Indeed, there are an infinite number of 'points' in every physical manifestation . . . please tell me from where and whom your definition arises.
<br />Messiah,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Existence is eternal.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
ANS: Therein lies your failing. Eternal requires an infinite accumulation of time intervals. Since intervals of time are physical and are quantifiable, they can never become infinite.
Nothing physical can be or become infinite in quantity by definition. Infinity by definition is larger than any quantitative value. Hence nothing can have aready existed for eternity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Time is nothing more than the measurement of the relative rate of change. Change is a 'function of ' existence. You cannot have change with out existence - nor time.
Intervals are simply definitions applied by the user to facilitate interpretation. Indeed, there are an infinite number of 'points' in every physical manifestation . . . please tell me from where and whom your definition arises.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #8360
by Messiah
Replied by Messiah on topic Reply from Jack McNally
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><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>
<br />A study has been done that shows, within the range of observational error, energy pluses equals energy minuses and that the net energy of the universe equal's "Zero".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On the contrary. The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the initial explosion. But matter dominates the present universe. Other galaxies can’t be antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not seen. See Science 278, 226, (1997); Sci.News 158, 86, (2000). -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What 'science' labels matter and anti-matter are not, in fact, countervalent existences. When matter and anti-matter encounter each other, mass is decreased and energy increases. Mass and energy are just two properties of 'existence'. If matter and 'anti-matter' were truly countervalent, both mass and energy would be annihilated. Anti-matter is a misnomer.
<br /><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>
<br />A study has been done that shows, within the range of observational error, energy pluses equals energy minuses and that the net energy of the universe equal's "Zero".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On the contrary. The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the initial explosion. But matter dominates the present universe. Other galaxies can’t be antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not seen. See Science 278, 226, (1997); Sci.News 158, 86, (2000). -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What 'science' labels matter and anti-matter are not, in fact, countervalent existences. When matter and anti-matter encounter each other, mass is decreased and energy increases. Mass and energy are just two properties of 'existence'. If matter and 'anti-matter' were truly countervalent, both mass and energy would be annihilated. Anti-matter is a misnomer.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #8767
by Messiah
Replied by Messiah on topic Reply from Jack McNally
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Just as the logical paradox demonstrates the falsity of the assumption, the logical dichotomy demonstrates invalidness of the question. The position that non-existence is some sort of ground state of being and that existence must be explained is unjustified. There is no argument of logic to explain existence from non-existence, nor is there an argument of logic to explain non-existence from existence. Therefore, the fact of existence excludes the possibility of non-existence.
JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
APPLAUSE ! ! !
Existence IS eternal. Because the phenomenon of existence is based upon natural balance (Ø) doesn't mean the Universe was 'created'.
<br />Just as the logical paradox demonstrates the falsity of the assumption, the logical dichotomy demonstrates invalidness of the question. The position that non-existence is some sort of ground state of being and that existence must be explained is unjustified. There is no argument of logic to explain existence from non-existence, nor is there an argument of logic to explain non-existence from existence. Therefore, the fact of existence excludes the possibility of non-existence.
JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
APPLAUSE ! ! !
Existence IS eternal. Because the phenomenon of existence is based upon natural balance (Ø) doesn't mean the Universe was 'created'.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #8362
by jrich
Replied by jrich on topic Reply from
Messiah,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Just as the logical paradox demonstrates the falsity of the assumption, the logical dichotomy demonstrates invalidness of the question. The position that non-existence is some sort of ground state of being and that existence must be explained is unjustified. There is no argument of logic to explain existence from non-existence, nor is there an argument of logic to explain non-existence from existence. Therefore, the fact of existence excludes the possibility of non-existence.
JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
APPLAUSE ! ! !
Existence IS eternal. Because the phenomenon of existence is based upon natural balance (Ø) doesn't mean the Universe was 'created'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I hate to burst your bubble, but eternal existence lends no support to your theory. I refer to theories like yours as "Accounting Theories". Popular versions claimed that by showing that some finite universe model was consistent with the 2nd Law, that creation ex nihilo was possible. Your theory seems to be an infinite universe version. You've replaced finite with infinite, real nothing with logical nothing, creation ex nihilo with existence ex nihilo, but the essense is the same. The claim is that not only is the universe balanced, but that this balance point, this nothing, is more than just a summation or accounting, it is the source of existence. This assertion that relation means causation is a common logical fallacy.
JR
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Just as the logical paradox demonstrates the falsity of the assumption, the logical dichotomy demonstrates invalidness of the question. The position that non-existence is some sort of ground state of being and that existence must be explained is unjustified. There is no argument of logic to explain existence from non-existence, nor is there an argument of logic to explain non-existence from existence. Therefore, the fact of existence excludes the possibility of non-existence.
JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
APPLAUSE ! ! !
Existence IS eternal. Because the phenomenon of existence is based upon natural balance (Ø) doesn't mean the Universe was 'created'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I hate to burst your bubble, but eternal existence lends no support to your theory. I refer to theories like yours as "Accounting Theories". Popular versions claimed that by showing that some finite universe model was consistent with the 2nd Law, that creation ex nihilo was possible. Your theory seems to be an infinite universe version. You've replaced finite with infinite, real nothing with logical nothing, creation ex nihilo with existence ex nihilo, but the essense is the same. The claim is that not only is the universe balanced, but that this balance point, this nothing, is more than just a summation or accounting, it is the source of existence. This assertion that relation means causation is a common logical fallacy.
JR
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.294 seconds