Creation ex nihilo

Ok Tom: I have a better idea on which words to use to be more specific after your last post. These will be questions and statements regarding the Meta Model. lets just scratch the other post and start from here.

The Meta Model universe has no voids. {Void = absolute nothing}
The Meta Model is infinitely composed, i.e. every particle is compose of smaller particles. Unless of course you wish to add a word such that it reads - The Meta Model is almost infinitely composed. I don't think you would like the word almost, so I'm assuming you mean that the Meta Model universe is infinitely compose in the (complete) sense, but this means there is a smallest particle, and you would be forced to say that this smallest particle is composed of nothing, for this is what an infinitely compose universe (must) lead to in the complete sense. I see no option here other than void. This is a dead horse before it's even born.
Did I miss something?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by modu</i>
<br />You say "a state without a cause is a miracle", (which I agree with) but isn't an "infinite universe" a state without a cause?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, that is the point. There is no beginning or end to the cause-effect sequences, the universe always was and always will be essentially as it is today, even though our world, Sun, and Galaxy will all eventually perish.

Think of the integer analogy. An integer without a preceding integer is impossible. Integers are a sequence with no beginning or end, that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with ticks on a gedanken clock measuring time in the universe, which then likewise has no beginning or end.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"1+1/2+1/4+1/8..... =2", but "1.999.....9+1.999.....8" = infinity<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your example is bad because that is a finite series, but I think I know what you meant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">in other words the sum of an infinite series (providing we use all possible numbers) is infinite even if the series came origanely from a finite number (which seem somewhat paradoxial) and bring about the qustion - how a finite universe contain an infinite particles?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All integers are finite, but the set of all integers is infinite. All forms (e.g., particles) in the universe are finite, yet the set of all forms is infinite (meaning unbounded). That may be mind-boggling to contemplate, but where do you see any logical contradiction in it?

Perhaps it may help to think in Meta Model terms. Only space that is occupied, at least on some infinitesimal scale, exists. Truly empty space cannot exist. So the only natural state is one in which infinite space contains infinite forms/particles. -|Tom|-

<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 />The Meta Model universe has no voids. {Void = absolute nothing}
The Meta Model is infinitely composed, i.e. every particle is composed of smaller particles. ... but this means there is a smallest particle<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Huh? Infinitely composed means just the opposite -- there is no smallest particle. So I completely fail to see the logic in your argument.

Not only is there no smallest prticle, but the universe looks essentially the same on all scales, however large or small. Forms evolve, but the universe as a whole does not evolve in space, over time, or anywhere in scale. -|Tom|-

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If space is a chess board with horizontal squares lettered A through H, and vertical squares numbered 1 through 8, how do we get from A1 to C8 without passing inside supposedly indivisible cells and without zig-zagging?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At state #1 you are at A1. At state #2 you are at C8.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, but that is a miracle because state A1 was decreated back into nothing, and state C8 was created from nothing. There is no connection between A1 and C8 in your statement.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since nothingness doesn't exist, all the problems you mention in relation to it are also non-existent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The only problem is that your solutions are all miracles. You just deny that for no good reason I can see. So let's give it up.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's nothing but a mathematical convention that the series you mentioned sums to 2. Logically it's not possible to sum an infinite amount of terms because infinity is not a set amount.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are badly mistaken, and obviously have not only never studied infinities, but have also nevr studied integral calculus, where infinities are essential to getting exact results in many practical applications, such as measuring the area under a curve.

There is no point in continuing until you have remedied that situation.

<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]: To make any further progress, at a minimum, you would have to describe the origin of the "First State” and/or give a clear, concise definition of “miracle” that excludes a First State as something only God can bring about.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Call it what you want. It doesn't change anything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I call it a miracle, and that ends the discussion for me. Miracles are not allowed in deep reality physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maybe it's better not to be trained in logical thought.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We're done. -|Tom|-

Hi jrich, I've no problems with what you say, I would think that scalability is built into it.

I do have problems with quantized time however. Our cartoon has to have 10^ 44 frames per second. The frame edge is very small but it exists. So let's say frame ten, frame eleven; A is A, B is B. The premise is, A is not B. The "is not" refers to things which exist. I cannot therefore remove the congeries of categories from the cupula "is not" without removing them from both A and B as well.

On this unit of quantum time [] An ugly brute isn't it? sqrt ( G h / c ^5) Of course, a quantum of time means that time has 3 dimensions, so expect a new model of the big bang anytime soon. I did note as I looked arounfd for it that there is an argument , saying that galaxy red shifts show signs of being quantized. I think that will show itself to be an artifact of the theory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, but that is a miracle because state A1 was decreated back into nothing, and state C8 was created from nothing. There is no connection between A1 and C8 in your statement.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You obviously don't even understand the concept of nothingness. Please refrain from using it until you do.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The only problem is that your solutions are all miracles. You just deny that for no good reason I can see. So let's give it up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I've explained why again and again, but you just keep repeating your tired old mantra.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You are badly mistaken, and obviously have not only never studied infinities, but have also nevr studied integral calculus, where infinities are essential to getting exact results in many practical applications, such as measuring the area under a curve.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I have studied integral calculus. You only need potential infinities to use integral calculus. You don't understand the difference between potential and actual infinities.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I call it a miracle, and that ends the discussion for me. Miracles are not allowed in deep reality physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
How convenient for you! You're just sticking your head in the sand waiting for me to go away. I explained very clearly why it's not a miracle in my example with the two adjacent items, but you have for some reason chosen to ignore that example even though I wrote it twice. I guess you have too much invested in this Meta Model of yours.