Broken Circle

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

20 years 10 months ago #7477 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ANS: You really should avoid using recipocal forms of the same arguement. You cannot assert that time does not exist and yet claim time is required for an ex nihilo event.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I did not assert that time doesn't exist, I asserted that it was not physical in the sense of a body or particle IN space. Time IS required for a change of state which an ex nihilo event requires.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ANS: Ignorance does not create nor alter reality. The fact that we do not know or understand time yet does not thereby give it any quality such as being eternal.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It doesn't forbid it either. If time could stop we could not observe it because we would have to wait for time to start again so we could experience things again. This is perceptually the same as having no time stoppage at all. And stop and start relative to what - super time?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The fact that you do not percieve something does not mean others do not percieve it. There is infact a substantial paper I read recently, from a mainstream science source that discusses the idea of exactly what is going to happen as indeed the end of the universe unfolds, including the collapse of time.
That certainly is speculation but no more so than yours is speculation. All reasonable options are still on the table and to be asserting one over the other in absolute terms merely shows a lack of scientific candor.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have read plenty of "end of universe" theories that involve all kinds of violation of basic reason. Usually the author is a good mathematician but really doesn't understand how much of their terminology just plain doesn't make sense. Occam's razor: time seems to be putting along quite nicely and I just need some good evidence that that is not going to be the case somewhere in the future and what it can possibly mean to say "time ends" or "time begins". It makes about as much sense as the term "space expansion".

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It DOES require a miracle for the reasons I described.

ANS: Only in your preconcieved conclusion, not in any scientific principle.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is not a scientific principle that a change of condition requires a passage of time dt to occur? It is not a scientific principle that a "cause" PRECEDES an "event" and that they cannot occur at the same instant?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ANS: It does not require a miracle as shown above. Infinity and eternity are extrapolated concepts with no physical reality and of course something that is made up from whole cloth that is not real requires no miracle since it doesn't exist in reality. There is no connection between them and creation ex nihlo which is physical.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Infinity and eternity are made up from whole cloth? So time and space do not have any reality? I agree there is no connection with creation ex nihilo which is what I have arguing I believe.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ANS: So according to you, algebraically we must also in the future write: 0 pounds = 10 pounds + (-10 pounds) as _____ = 10 pounds + (-10 pounds) leaving off the "0" since it results in something that doesn't exist.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This is the problem with mathematical analogies, you are performing an operation of a whole different kind here since the equation in the sense used here involves no temporal or existence issues, it is simply bookkeeping. If I add a 10lb weight to a scale and then remove it the 10lb didn't disappear from existence even though the scale now weighs 0lb. In your usage with space time that is not what you are claiming but that space and time actually disappear.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Yes, I CAN ask what lies outside such a boundary because a boundary demarcates an INTERIOR and EXTERIOR otherwise the term "boundary" has no coherent meaning. You just said there was no time or space and you need space to have boundaries. With no space or time where is this universe supposed to come into existence to? Where is the time for it do so? It cannot because you got rid of the space and time. You require that which you are creating to create what you are creating, you can't do both at the same time.[/b]

ANS: I don't know if you really don't get it or you just choose to be obstinate. But it doesn't matter. The ex nihilo event resultd in the formation of time space. If you insist on "What is beyond the boundry". The answer is there is nothing (not meaning a void) but no time-space is the boundry. The only problem I see here is your inability digest the concept of no time-space.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you are the one not getting it here and I am not being any more "obstinate" than you are. Look at your language, "the ex nihilo event RESULTED in the formation of..". RESULT IN means causality and causality requires a gap of time for the event. All of your language to describe this process has terms that make no sense unless you have passage of time. I do have a problem with no time-space, I see it as not being logically or philosophically understandable, if such a condition occured it could never become anything else because BECOMING requires time which does not exist by your beginning assumption.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Creation ex nihilo doesn't require time. That view is wholly consistant since the event processed through no dimension hence time is not required.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Again your language uses concepts loaded with temporality - "the event processed through". How is some creation going to "process" if there is no time for it to process in?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It is no more bizzar than the assertion that time is non-existant for a photon. Give me a break you can't use concepts that are readily accepted in current physical laws and turn them around and claim they prove the opposite.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That is an argument? I think it is quite nonsensical that time does not pass for a photon also. I am not quite sure how you think I am using accepted terms and saying they prove the opposite. I would say that the current crop of physicists and cosmologists don't seem to grasp a lot of the nonsense they say that is logically incoherent or just plain not understandable if you accept some of their statements at face value.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
My point is that it is inappropriate to apply those concepts to physical reality since by

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 10 months ago #7482 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jeremy,

quote:

ANS: You really should avoid using recipocal forms of the same arguement. You cannot assert that time does not exist and yet claim time is required for an ex nihilo event.

I did not assert that time doesn't exist, I asserted that it was not physical in the sense of a body or particle IN space. Time IS required for a change of state which an ex nihilo event requires.

This is an assumption not unlike the following:

**************************************************************************

PHYSICS FACT (From PhysicsForum Newsletter)

Virtual Particle:
A particle that exists only for an extremely brief instant in an intermediary process. Then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows an apparent violation of the conservation of energy. However, if one sees only the initial decaying particle and the final decay products, one observes that the energy is conserved.
***************************************************************
The arguement that Creation ex nihilo violates conservation is also moot since it is seen to occur in todays observtions.

Your assumption that time is required is false since Creation ex nihilo is from "Nothingness" which has no dimension. Any event therefor requires no time since there is initially no space.

quote:

ANS: Ignorance does not create nor alter reality. The fact that we do not know or understand time yet does not thereby give it any quality such as being eternal.

It doesn't forbid it either.

We agree

quote:

The fact that you do not percieve something does not mean others do not percieve it. There is infact a substantial paper I read recently, from a mainstream science source that discusses the idea of exactly what is going to happen as indeed the end of the universe unfolds, including the collapse of time.
That certainly is speculation but no more so than yours is speculation. All reasonable options are still on the table and to be asserting one over the other in absolute terms merely shows a lack of scientific candor.

I have read plenty of "end of universe" theories that involve all kinds of violation of basic reason. Usually the author is a good mathematician but really doesn't understand how much of their terminology just plain doesn't make sense. Occam's razor: time seems to be putting along quite nicely and I just need some good evidence that that is not going to be the case somewhere in the future and what it can possibly mean to say "time ends" or "time begins". It makes about as much sense as the term "space expansion".

Actually expansion of space is generally accepted. In cases of thought about such esoteric concepts frankly most anything may be real

quote:

It DOES require a miracle for the reasons I described.

ANS: Only in your preconcieved conclusion, not in any scientific principle.

It is not a scientific principle that a change of condition requires a passage of time dt to occur? It is not a scientific principle that a "cause" PRECEDES an "event" and that they cannot occur at the same instant?

Well I just hope you don't advocate Relativity since it violates virtually every "Cause" and "Affect" one can concieve of. Once again your assumption of time being reqired fails to address the "No dimension" aspects of Creation ex nihilo.

quote:

ANS: It does not require a miracle as shown above. Infinity and eternity are extrapolated concepts with no physical reality and of course something that is made up from whole cloth that is not real requires no miracle since it doesn't exist in reality. There is no connection between them and creation ex nihlo which is physical.

Infinity and eternity are made up from whole cloth? So time and space do not have any reality? I agree there is no connection with creation ex nihilo which is what I have arguing I believe.

I have lost your train of thought here. you'll have to restate you view on infinity/eternity vs time and space.

quote:

ANS: So according to you, algebraically we must also in the future write: 0 pounds = 10 pounds + (-10 pounds) as _____ = 10 pounds + (-10 pounds) leaving off the "0" since it results in something that doesn't exist.

This is the problem with mathematical analogies, you are performing an operation of a whole different kind here since the equation in the sense used here involves no temporal or existence issues, it is simply bookkeeping. If I add a 10lb weight to a scale and then remove it the 10lb didn't disappear from existence even though the scale now weighs 0lb. In your usage with space time that is not what you are claiming but that space and time actually disappear.

That exactly right. "Nothingness" is absence of time and space.

quote:

Yes, I CAN ask what lies outside such a boundary because a boundary demarcates an INTERIOR and EXTERIOR otherwise the term "boundary" has no coherent meaning.

WEBSTER:

Boundry: Any line or thing marking a limit.

Limit: The point, line or edge where something ends or must end; boundry or border beyond which something ceases to be or be possible.

I would suggest that your interpretation that a boundry ascribes a containment boundry where something is required beyond is flawed.

You just said there was no time or space and you need space to have boundaries. With no space or time where is this universe supposed to come into existence to?

Space-time is the initial Creation ex nihilo.

Where is the time for it do so? It cannot because you got rid of the space and time. You require that which you are creating to create what you are creating, you can't do both at the same time

You are tying your own hands again by claiming time is required when there is no dimension.

ANS: I don't know if you really don't get it or you just choose to be obstinate. But it doesn't matter. The ex nihilo event resultd in the formation of time space. If you insist on "What is beyond the boundry". The answer is there is nothing (not meaning a void) but no time-space is the boundry. The only problem I see here is your inability digest the concept of no time-space.

I think you are the one not getting it here and I am not being any more "obstinate" than you are. Look at your language, "the ex nihilo event RESULTED in the formation of..". RESULT IN means causality and causality requires a gap of time for the event. All of your language to des

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 10 months ago #7485 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

Greetings Mac, Happy Holidays ...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Mac] The arguement has been that we have existed for an eternity and hence were never created. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tonto to Lone Ranger - "What do you mean 'we', pale face?"

No one here is arguing that 'we' have always existed. A slip of the tongue? Perhaps you actually do have some sort of a religion thing going on in the background?

(Nah.)

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Mac] My point has been and still is that to have existed for an eternity requires that we have existed for an infinite amount of time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't get it. Since a (the?) definition of 'eternity' is 'an infinite amount of time', this point seems trivially obvious. Discounting for the 'we' ambiguity, of course. I don't think anyone is arguing for a different definition.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Mac] Since we both agree that we cannot reach infinity that clearly shows that we have not existed for an eternity, hence must have had a point of origin.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

(What IS this 'we' thing? Not the first one; the second, third and implied fourth.)

Non sequiter. Of course infinity cannot be reached from a given starting point. As soon as you specify a specific starting point you are no longer talking about time. You are talking about a time interval. Time intervals are real things that have a beginning and an end. They are finite by definition. Like you are.

A time interval with a stopping point of "never' can be conceptually infinite. But since it always has the temporary stopping point of 'now' it cannot 'really' be infinite.

Only something that has always been can ever be infinitely old. You have not always been. You are not infinitely old. Time has always been. Specific time intervals have not.

But the "stuff" that makes up the bigger "things" that makes up the still bigger "things" that ... that eventually make up the quark-pieces that form quarks, which then form protons, neutrons, etc., that make up the specific atoms that you are made of ... that "stuff" has always been. It is therefore infinitely old.

===

If a thing isn't infintely old - if it hasn't always been - then it had to have been created. At some particular time. (We seem to agree more or less up to here.) From something. (But maybe not up to here.)

===

You seem comfortable stopping at this point. We aren't, because we realize that the existence of such a creation event means that, in reality, 'something' existed before the particular creation event being examined.

Sure - it might look like there was really and truely nothing there before the creation event. But there was. We just could't see it at first. As soon as we realize this our definition of 'Universe' (ALL that exists) then automatically includes the previously unsuspected 'something' that has now been revealed.

Our inability to comprehend or even detect the next 'level" of stuff does not mean it isn't there. Logic clearly dictates that it must be there, however.

All of our experience verifies this logic, and teaches us that if we keep looking, we will eventually be able to detect that next level. Only if we believe we have finally found the "smallest possible thing" and quit looking will we stop finding that the current 'smallest possible thing' is actually made of yet smaller things.

===

We are unable to actually reach infinity by moving 'future-ward' on the time axis from a starting point. We can always add another second. Or double the amount of time since the start of the measuring interval. But that puts us no closer to infinity than where we are now.

We are also unable to reach infinity (infinitessimal size) by moving 'small-ward' on the scale axis. Each time we find a new smaller thing we know that it is not the end of the road. We can always cut this new smaller thing in half. But that puts us no closer to the real 'smallest thing' than we are now.

Might take a while to figure out how to do it at each new step. But we have all the time we need.

===

Creation events are not a problem. Dime-a-dozen, happen all the time. But not from nothing. True nothing. There has always been 'something' for each creation event to work with.

At least, according to MM. So far I've found no reason to reject it. Your very interesting and obviously heartfelt attempts to argue otherwise have helped to clarify some of the concepts surrounding infinity and actually made MM look better in this regard. IMO of course.

===

Regards,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 10 months ago #7704 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

The Current version is N--->(+s)+(-s) where "N" is "Nothingness" defined as absence of time and space and "+/-"s" are equal opposite "Somethings".

The "s"'s might be for example + = time and -s = space or they may represent + as existance in our universe and - existance in a -verse conservation resovoir.

mac

these are the two statements of yours i am refering to.explain how time and space are "equal" opposites!! time is NOT a something,it is a perception!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 10 months ago #7706 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

to all

just to round up what i have been saying.

"true nothing" is the ABSENCE of DIMENSIONALLITY and that any other "nothing" is actually SOMETHING.therefore since the UNIVERSE IS DIMENSIONAL and since NON-DIMENSION CANNOT PRODUCE DIMENSION for infinity,DIMENSION IS INFINITE!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Messiah
Offline
Premium Member

20 years 10 months ago #7491 by Messiah

Replied by Messiah on topic Reply from Jack McNally

Assume an entity called "Apple"
This entity is a sphere 10cm in diameter
One half of the sphere has the qualitative value of +1/2apple
The other half of the sphere has the qualitative value of -1/2apple
The total qualitative value represented by this entity is Ø

How can two somethings make a nothing?
If both halves of the entity occupied NO volume - two truly countervalent portions co-occupied the exact same point in space - then it would truly be 'nothing'

The sphere has a finite volume. The Universe is not finite. The ratio of the sphere to infinity is 10cm/infinity -> Ø.

Relative to the Universe - nothing exists. The volume of the apple is Ø. It does, indeed, occupy only a single point relative to infinity.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.289 seconds