Creation ex nihilo

[]Wow, I'm off to read up on Hegel's account of the spurious infinite, wish me luck, as it's heavy stuff [8D]

(edited) Hmm, The number seven raised to the power of a googleplex, is from now on, to be refered to as a "Stoat." [] I won't charge anything for this.[8D]

Tom insist that the world is made up of marbles (lots of them). In fact there are an infinity of marbles of infinitely diferent sizes, and the whole panoply is complete. i.e. infinity is attained .... not partially but completely (full choke). This of course raises the impossibilty of motion, but never mind that miracle, marbles is a fun game! He's in a catch 22 here. If he dismisses an infinity of constituents, he must necessarily abandon that the universe has always been, and submit to a beginning, which would constitute another miracle by his standards. Something from nothing is a miracle by his standards, so he will stay with his model, which he has spent thousands of hours on. This is of no surprise because how many people abandon their babies?

I won't shy away from something from nothing. I don't consider it a miracle at all, and won't abandon it for it is all we have in my opinion. The key to understanding it requires that you put your marbles away, in favor of a new variety, of constituent geometric thoughts composed of nothing at all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />I won't shy away from something from nothing. I don't consider it a miracle at all, and won't abandon it for it is all we have in my opinion. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ditto. And in my infinite ignorance (or whatever the quote was) I don't really even think of it as "something from nothing". I think of it as something from the unobservable, undetectable, to the the observable, detectable, whether we're talking about "An explosion of something somewhere in space at some time......or.......an explosion OF time and space."

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />

[Ditto. And in my infinite ignorance (or whatever the quote was) I don't really even think of it as "something from nothing". I think of it as something from the unobservable, undetectable, to the the observable, detectable, whether we're talking about "An explosion of something somewhere in space at some time......or.......an explosion OF time and space."

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm not a Big Bang proponenent. They seem to say that the universe began with an expansion of time and space, but fail to explain the reality of space, nor in my opinion do they give an acceptable answer to what time is. Much of the theory quite frankly plays into a religious nutcase fairy tale, by which miracles get placed on a table as an option, because of an infinitely thick brick wall they put themselves in front of. Big Bang proponents have nowhere to go in the direction of the wall, but they remain there because they say to themselves {{well we've come so far that it is in our best interest not to turn back}}. So they bang their heads against the wall in futility, while telling everyone else about their Bible book of numbers that has led them to ............... [a wall?].

It is my understanding that the universe stands as the definition of nothing in an ongoing process that shall never be completed. The universe is a collection of discrete geometric entities composed of nothing at all. They are not physical but conceptual in nature. Absolute nothing in the broadest sense is a conceptual beast, and to no surprise will be conceptual by way of geometric definition. Hence the universe is tantamount to the written word of a thick novel in process of becoming an infinitely thick novel. We live within this book, as the pages and print stand for boundries with nothing in between. This is where our sense of time comes from, time being the nothing ..... the composition of these conceptual entities. This is also why absolute nothing will never be defined, because absolute nothing is all of time. It knows no boundries but for it's definition, which the universe provides in an infinitely small way.

I'm sure I left a plane load of crap out, but it'll fly, with more guidance. []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Fopp</i>
<br />Zenos paradoxes are not paradoxes if you assume time and space are discrete, whereas they can't be resolved if you assume time and space are continuous.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Chapter one of my book explains in depth why just the opposite is true. Zeno himself argued that motion was impossible because a paradox would exist either way. The math of infinities finally allows us to understand a way out of those paradoxes, but only if everything is infinitely divisible and infinitely constructible.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: The most damning of these, IMO, is that discrete time units means that the entire universe must be created ex nihilo in state #1, then be entirely de-created back into nothingness, then (after an unknown interval that might approach infinity) get recreated again in state #2, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Once again, why does it have to be created at all? State #1 is the first state there is. There is no state #0. There is no nothingness.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Something from nothing is the classic example of a logical impossibility requiring a miracle.

We are in agreement about there being no nothingness. In the Meta Model, every place that exists is occupied, and the absence of anything at any scale is identical to non-existence, not merely emptiness. So then we have to deal with existence. Substance either came from nothing, or it always existed. You arbitrarily chose to label your “first state” as State #1. Let’s instead agree arbitrarily to call it State #99. The point is that the transition from State #98 to State #99 requires a miracle by the ordinary meaning of the word. You simply do not accept that ordinary meaning and arbitrarily declare “it just is, but it’s not a miracle”.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The second part doesn't really make sense to me at all. Why does it have to be de-created?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Does the next state of the universe at the next unit of time add to the first state, or replace it? If the former, then we have twice the substance. If the latter, then State #1 had to pass out of existence. Remember, in your picture, there is no motion, so there is to transition from State #1 to State #2. So what happens to State #1 at time unit State #2?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What interval are you talking about? There is no interval between state #1 and state #2. State #2 follows state #1. There is nothing in between. That's why it's called state #2. There are no middle-states.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are State #1 and State #2 simultaneous, or separated in time? If the former, then they co-exist. If the latter, then there is an interval, the length of a time unit, which is apparently arbitrary and could be anything.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It seems that our disagreement boils down to the way we think about the concept of nothingness. You seem to think of it as a state of some kind, whereas I try to not to think of it at all. It's simply non-existent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, as I said, we agree about that. I think of the vacuum as filled, but a “void” as a hypothetical nothingness, and agree that true voids cannot exist.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It doesn't matter if I granted you eternal life. You would still never be able to write all the integers down.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">About that, we disagree. Moreover, you are in disagreement with everyone who has studied and accepts the math of infinities. If I write down one integer and its negative every millennium, and do it for an eternity, there will be a one-to-one correspondence between millennia and integers that is equally complete for both.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">we will still never reach an actual infinity. It's simply impossible. Since an eternal (in past time) universe requires an actual infinity, an eternal universe is not possible. There must be an (uncreated) beginning.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We agree about all forms being finite, both in extent and in duration. How do you make the logical leap from that obvious truism to the notion that the universe must be finite? All integers are finite, yet the set of all integers is infinite. All time intervals are finite, yet the set of all time intervals is infinite. All forms are finite, yet the set of all forms is infinite. Note the one-to-one correspondences with the integers. Such correspondences are how finite minds can deal with infinities – by mathematical logic.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: I can create a one-to-one correspondence (the standard way of dealing with infinities) between the integers and the ticks of a gedanken clock measuring the passage of time all through an eternal past and completely through an eternal future.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> No, you can't do such a thing!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But I just did. Show me where the one-to-one correspondence is incomplete. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</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 tvanflandern</i>
<br />But the Big Bang is a theory about an explosion OF time and space, ..... That could not have happened without a miracle because it came from a singularity (i.e., nothing).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's where I disagree with you. That's the part I'm saying we don't know, although I can see that you think we do. The fact that it appears by all known laws to be a "singularity" doesn't mean it's not possible that something is still unknown that could change the picture. It happens all the time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MY point that YOU are missing is that this “ignorance” argument works with regard to anything subject to observation or experiment, but fails for logical arguments.

In addition, the Big Bang is built around a true singularity. You might well propose another theory with another kind of explosion. But that would have nothing to do with the Big Bang, which requires a true singularity at it origin. Otherwise, at least some time and some space would pre-exist before the bang.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I don't really even think of it as "something from nothing". I think of it as something from the unobservable, undetectable, to the observable, detectable<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But then you are not talking about <i>the beginning</i>, but just an event that happened somewhere, sometime. The issue of the existence or non-existence of a beginning is subject to logical reasoning. The details of later events we cannot observe must always remain somewhat unknowable. -|Tom|-