Creation ex nihilo

<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 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|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Now your just cherry picking to pull it out of context. It looks like dodging to me, because I happen to think you're sharp as a tack. [] The Meta Model says that the universe is infinitely composed. A most important word here needs to be address. That word is {{{IS}}}, as opposed to {{{isn't}}}. If the universe isn't infinitely compose, we have a smallest particle, at least as far as the Meta Model is concerned, and if the Meta Model says that the universe (is) infinitely composed, we also have a smallest particle. The word (is) is an exclamation of completeness. i.e. The universe isn't in the process of being composed, but that it is finished in it's composition, and always has been. So if we infinitely follow a path to smaller and smaller particles, in the complete sense ..... we (must) necessarily end up with nothing, for to stop shy of nothing we are not infinitely compose, so in the Meta Model, the universe is infinitely composed of nothing.

You're in a catch 22 here. You either take the red pill. or the blue pill. The red pill says the universe isn't infinitely composed. this doesn't make any sense by your own previous writings. The blue pill says that the universe (is) infinitely composed, and that leads to nothing, by which you must accept a miracle by your very own standards.

Option 3, the universe is infinitely composed.

I take your smallest particle and cut it into two smaller particles (something I can always do, by definition[1], in a universe that is infinitely composed). You scratch your &lt;head&gt; and mumble as you walk away.

[1] infinite composition means that all things have smaller parts, and all things are part of something larger.

I see Tom's point, Tom is correct regarding infinities of scales that go on forever at all levels. In other words, since the smaller scales are nested angular momentum of focal points of energies on a non-local basis within larger scales these nested wave forms would contain a continuum of smaller and smaller scale focal points. The universe is an infinity period, if it is not infinite then there certainly would be a stop or boundary zone that came to an upper and lower scale limit. If that were the case then NOTHING could exist.

Hard to imagine an unlimited Universe with zero ultimate boundaries. It is almost like an infinity mirror that goes in two directions. All energy is angular momentum of fields in motion, mass becomes the focal point in any given scale. Now, this is where it gets interesting because E=M*C^2 is very misleading because mass itself owes all of its energy to the angular momentum of these non-local infinities in motion. Are there common centers of motion or focal points creating mass every where in the Universe? Yes but because of the infinite dipolar motion of nested scales most likely on extreme infinities the centers are spaced at extreme distances. Then, we are talking about Hyper-dimensional geometries in motion and then the non-local mirror of scale wide energy becomes represented as an infinity within the smaller scale focal points. So, we need to re-think E=MC^2 because just as Tesla stated all energy originates outside of the atom.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Option 3, the universe is infinitely composed.

I take your smallest particle and cut it into two smaller particles (something I can always do, by definition[1], in a universe that is infinitely composed). You scratch your &lt;head&gt; and mumble as you walk away.

[1] infinite composition means that all things have smaller parts, and all things are part of something larger.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You're not understanding the word {{{IS}}}. You're still in the mode of cutting up smaller pieces on a chopping block. i.e. You are still in the finite scale mode. The word {{{is}}}, followed by the word {{infinitely}}, completes the chopping process. The completed task leaves you with nothing, for anything else would be incomplete, and still be in a finite scale. No further chopping is possible on the completed task such as the one decribed on the previous post. Hence the smallest particle has no size by which we can chop yet one more time.

Skarp, your logic fails me. Do you not understand the word INFINITY? Nothing can only exist if the UNIVERSE is NOT INFINITE!!!

In fact, I would take this a step further because without infinities there would not be a UNIVERSE. Then of course you and I would not be having this conversation.

So, where is the ZERO POINT? Within all things!!!! For nothing to exist the UNIVERSE would have to collapse back to the ZERO POINT. That is what it is always trying to do but it cannot because fortunately there is INFINITY. Without INFINITY then your NOTHING COULD EXIST, but actually that is an impossibility fortunately for us.

John

Larry, Skarp is interpreting Tom's use of the word <i>composed</i> as a verb as though the infinite universe has been constructed. We understand that Tom was using the word as an adjective: <i>made up of individual elements</i>. His confusion follows from his belief that real infinities cannot exist because they cannot be counted. What he fails to realize is that the uncountability of infinities precludes only their <b>creation</b>, not their <b>existence</b>. But since he cannot fathom existence without creation this distinction is lost to him.

JR