Creation ex nihilo

I vaguely remember participating in an exceedingly long forum discussion on this topic an eternity ago. Perhaps it could be dredged up from the archives for our newer inquisiters to peruse and save Tom the effort of having to explain these difficult concepts <i>ad infinitum</i>.

JR

<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 />I vaguely remember participating in an exceedingly long forum discussion on this topic an eternity ago. Perhaps it could be dredged up from the archives for our newer inquisiters to peruse and save Tom the effort of having to explain these difficult concepts <i>ad infinitum</i>.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I appreciate the idea. The "archives" are always there. Anyone who wishes to see older discussions need only go the the "topics overview" page (e.g., "Big Bang and Alternatives") and change the viewing window from "last 30 days" (or whatever it is now) to "all topics".

We've had a lot of discussions over the last five years. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hmmm. You claim to be an expert on nothing. (Or is it NOTHING? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well Larry - there are several kinds of nothing when put under different context. I do assume that most anybody here knows that, nevertheless it can get confusing even for me when discussing a subject like creation ex nihilo. Thats why it requires some effort. Sometimes I'll put nothing down like this, (nothing), or this, {NOTHING}, or this, NOTHING, or this, nothing, or this, no thing, or this, NO thing, or this, no (THING) or this, or this, or this?. If there is a variation in how it is dispayed, it is an attempt at some kind of emphasis. My hope is that it will get picked up by the reader. The word will get used very often, and very often with different meaning. Do we mean infinite nothing?, finite nothing?, one nothing? nada? zero?.

So if I use the word twenty times in a post with perhaps ten slightly different meanings, am I to spend a paragraph explaining each use? I'd much rather hope that the reader makes the transitions work for them than play a definition game every few words.

I did take what you said here seriously though.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The only appropriate response at this point is for you to post definitions and/or explanations of all the words and phrases you believe could be misunderstood by someone that is not an expert on your idea.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In other words put down at the beginning of each post the definitions for nothing in the varying context.

<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 />How is motion possible in an infinitely composed universe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because there is no "absolute space", there is no such thing as "non-motion". Everything potentially has an indefinitely large velocity relative to anything else. Some collisions bounce and result in the exchange of momentum between bodies. Other collisions stick and combine the two momentums into a single body. Part of that momentum will appear as "heat", meaning increased molecular vibration speed compared to what the body had before. But the original "motion" never vanishes because motion cannot be created or destroyed. It just changes form.

The fundamentals are explained in chapter one of my book <i>Dark Matter...</i>. Because the Meta Model is purely deductive from first principles and is not based on assumptions, observaqtions, or experiments, it has minimal input from me. Mostly, it was made possible by the ideas of others, such as Zeno's paradoxes and the math of infinities. But I'm always on the look-out for helpful new ideas.

By contrast, you seem locked into your own ideas, and not interested in comparing them point-by-point with other models. So your complaint that I don't look at the ideas of others is not just false, but disingenuous. As Larry says, you seem to make accusations against others designed to distract from your own behavior and deflect the same accusation from being leveled at you.

If you have some interesting ideas, start with definitions and assumptions as needed, then develop them in logical syllogisms. That way, minds with different backgrounds and experiences can follow and understand. But if you have merely associated some ill-defined concepts and then became attached to them without using controls against bias or the challenges that scientific method demands, you would then have what I call a "fuzzy think" model of the type that I receive several of per week. I have yet to see a useful idea come from fuzzy think. -|Tom|-

[Skarp] "So if I use the word twenty times in a post with perhaps ten slightly different meanings, am I to spend a paragraph explaining each use?

That's one way to do it.

Ten meanings for one word. In one post. With no definitions. &lt;guffaw&gt; In a situation like this it might take more than one paragraph.

[Skarp] "I'd much rather hope that the reader makes the transitions work for them than play a definition game every few words."

Yes. I wish the audience could read my mind, too. Dang it. But when that didn't work, I went to Plan B.

===

It would actually be more useful (for your audience) if you embedded the definition in the text, at the place where a word needing definition is first used.

However - if you really do have more than one meaning for a word, then it becomes even more important to embed the definition at the point of use. AND, you should embed the definition after each use, not just the first use. Now, that sounds like a lot of work to me. But you are in the driver's seat, and you are the one who decided to use the same word for several different things.

===

An alternative approach, which seems likely to be less burdensome (for both you and your audience), is to give each meaning a different name by adding pre or post qualifers. Call one of the meanings "classical &lt;whatever&gt;". Call another meaning "special &lt;whatever&gt;", and a third meaning could be called "conditional &lt;whatever&gt;". And so on. (The qualifiers should be related to the meaning, so that remembering each meaning is easier.)

Embed the definition of each term when it first appears in your discussion. But be prepared for someone to enter the discussion late and ask " ... what's the difference between special &lt;whatever&gt; and classical &lt;whatever&gt;?". you can either point them back to the post where you first mentioned it, or repeat the definition in your next reply.

With a new idea that requires using old words in new ways, understanding can be slow. Even if you use pre or post qualifying words as suggested. It is probably a good idea to repeat your definitions every few posts just for the convenience of your audience.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How is motion possible in an infinitely composed universe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Because there is no "absolute space"


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> That's it? That's all you've got? If anything that's the reason why no motion is possible. Perhaps you can explain with a bit more detail? I don't see how, but humor us for a moment please. Explain to us how it is that any particle no matter what size, that is completely surrounded by an infinity of other particles, can move without an infinity of other particales getting in the way. My analogy for this is I put you in a vat of concrete mix, we let it set, and I tell you to go to the liqueur store to pick up a bottle of rum. You aint going nowhere!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">