Creation of the Big Bang!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"NOTHING" is actually an entity rather than a description. In this theory, "NOTHING" is actually the entity that created everything. Think of it aa a human egg, firtilized, then it multiplies x2 then, x2 again, then x2 again, until you have the billions of cells in the body, now multiply that out by everything in existance or that could possibley exist.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well now you have a NOTHING which is actually SOMETHING since it is dividing and multiplying like an egg. My definition of nothing, like most people's, is a complete lack of matter, time or physical properties of any kind. You are giving the term NOTHING some strange meaning of your own.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The number line does go in 2 directions but in order to get from one side to the other it must first go through "0", the place at which positive ends and negative begins. This is also the place where the positive numbers began. "0" is the beginning of infinity and infinity needs "0" in order to exist yet "0" does not need infinity to exist.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

History doesn't support your assertion. Mankind's mathematics proceeded with integers and fractions. Zero had to be invented, if it was essential they would have discovered zero first. A minimal number system requires 0 and 1 cojointly to work. We have a binary number system but no monary system. Numbers can be defined without 0, check out John Conways surreal number system that uses set theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Think of the big bang from the view of the example I gave above, the one about the human egg. Like the egg turning to an embryo, to a fetus, to a human. Does it address the idea of the expanding universe?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Only if the universe IS expanding which most of us here are not convinced of. Even then the conventional theory does a better job of explaining it then the general principles you elude to. A theory has to be developed past the point of general philosophical statements and produce an actual number or two that can be checked against reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I still need someone to help me find the opposite of TIME, SPACE, and MATTER.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Just be sure you aren't trying to square the circle here. You are stating authoritatively that everything has an opposite. You don't know this to be true and there is every reason to believe it is not. What is the opposite of a chicken? You cannot say somethiing has an opposite unless you have some objective definition of what you mean by "opposite" - opposite in what sense? The only opposite of time that I could think of would be backwards movement of time but I cannot conceive in what sense matter or space would have an opposite unless antimatter is opposite enough for you.

What Patrick is trying to push onto us here is a very simple idea that zero can contain an infinity of zeroes.
But this bears no apparent connection with reality for a simple reason that there's no such thing around that could be identified with his "zero/nothing". In fact, even if all the space dimensions are illusionary and can be wrapped, we still have the absolute time in the sense of causal order of events - that's infinitely far from nothing.

Quote

...the entity "nothing" is actually something but the theory is that "nothing" is the only thing that is capable of existing by itself making everything else only temporary. Hence, "nothing" created everything. <Patrick

Patrick,
Please describe why "nothingness" would not serve the same role in your theory as "existence." Or in other words, why is "nothingness" preferred to "existence?" Both seem to claim self-evidence.

(I go for "existence")

Quote (from Patrick)


Is the "NOTHING" theory similar to the meta model? Does the "NOTHING" theory add mathmatical proof to the meta model?

It adds no proof.

According to MM, scale does not allow for "zero," but only infinity(namely, "existence"). In other words, "all that could be, is."

All dialogue in these foums deals with what "is." All dialoge that deals with what "is not" is not mentioned.

(Since a picture's worth a thousand words)

No, any starting point you might pick on the graph below is purely arbitrary ...

<img src=" www.capricorndreams.com/No%20Beginning1.gif " border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I need help understanding how infinity exists without a starting point. Even if you add 1 to any number you still had a starting point. The starting point was 1 now it is 2 etc.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is the beauty of mathematics, pick any numerical starting point you desire and we can proceed infinitely past it in either direction. Pick positive infinity? Fine, set theory gives us infinite levels of heirarchies of infinities.

I think the inherent problem with your NOTHING theory is that you are doing like Humpty Dumpty in Alice In Wonderland and defining words to some meaning that only you understand. Several of us here have a mathematical background and want to keep our terminology on agreed upon meaning. The whole dialog here so far sounds like discussions that the old Platonic cults had about the meaning of 2 or 3, or that some numbers were "feminine" an others "masculine". Like Tom has pointed out, you have to get past the conceptual stage and predict a physical result that can be measured to prove or deny your theory. So far I haven't observed any increase in my understanding and in fact am being thouroughly befuddled by it.