Broken Circle

Tom,

Let me start by suggesting you ask yourself why the little math exercise was posted. Do you really think I put it there to get help with my homework? Or was there a purpose for it?

Actually JoeW did a better job with it than I probably would have. Thanks JoeW.

Yes, it is reality. "Singularity" has a definition, and based on that definition and derived mathematical properties therefrom, we can draw the conclusions I listed.[unquote]

Ans: I agree there should probably be a different definition. But your definition is hypothetical. It is not reality in any sense of the word. It is a mathematical extrapolation not unlike infinity.

A more physical reality definition might be "Finite Quantum Dimensional Point (FQDP)". That way one can have "NOTHINGNESS" without having "INFINITY". I'll elaborate a bit more in my response to Patrick.

Patrick,

Here is where we disagree. I believe you may be correct and that n should never be divided by "0" because "0" doesn't physically exist.
The problem is you equate "0" with "NOTHINGNESS". Since physical "0" doesn't exist you never get infinity as a result of n/<>0 would be the correct view.

However, I find it is not the same thing as "Nothing". Since "0" is not nothing then it is wrong to call "Nothing" "0". That is to say "0" is never = to "Nothing" in reality, therefore "Nothing" in physical reality does not = "0" either. But "NOTHINGNESS" can and does exist in reality. I'm sure you will have to read this a few times over.

More on this in my response to LB below.

LB,

Let me start by qualifying my response. I do not state that this IS the case but only that I view it as a possibiity for the case.

1 - I do not believe that there is any proof that "NOTHINGNESS" cannot or doesnot exist. This is a seperate issue from the integer "0" just as reality and "Infinity" are seperate issues.

2 - One view of the Universe is the Big Bang, where existance began from a singularity. Taking the above meaning for singularity instead of the scientific one accepted by TOM. And lets use <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> for "Nothing" instead of "0". <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>

---

>(+n)+(-n) is coming into existance from nothing. Where <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> is FQDP form of a singularity. Consider for only a moment that what we are saying is that:

1 - External energy (Pressure from gravity etc) is (-)

2 - Internal energy (meaning E = mc^2 energy of existance) is (+).

So when +=>- then BANG from the <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> singularity with excess energy comes mass into existance.

OR a Black Hole adds (-) energy to a point to compress mass, energy and dimension back to <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> when -=>+ energy. (+n)+(-n)

---

><img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> or NOTHINGNESS.

NOTHINGNESS IS A STATE just like Something (existance) is a state. It is totally transparent to us. Nothingness (<img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>) is another state of physical reality.

Not to unlike the Strong Nuclear Force that kicks in at 1E-15m. Nothingness kicks in at around 1E-43m or below planck length.

Creating and destroying energy may infact be a natural function of the universe and it may be as simple as squeezing it out of existance into <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>.

More importantly 'NOTHINGNESS' doesn't require a "First cause". Simply bifurcate "Nothing" and you have "Something".

Patrick,

If you want to call "Nothingness", "Essence of Existance" who am I to say you are wrong. But frankly I would be surprised if you were right. I sure don't know how to describe Nothingness but I think science has already named it the Chiral Condensate. That is my guess.

And it is the CC where all the secrets of today lie. It I am sure will be found to be linked to Particle Entanglement (MY guess is 1.2E21 miles per sec (c^4, not actually instantaneous, to electron orbit jumping, teleportation, the ILLUSION of v = c is constant to an observer at any relative velocity because light is a phenomena associated with an energy "Quantum" property and the observers relative velocity is +/- energy relative to the source., etc, etc.

Opps, I almost forgot one other important thing that the CC can explain. UniKEF and gravity as an energy absorbtion phenomena and the accelerating expansion of the universe..

I would accept the statement that the state of "Nothingness" is a part of the universe but not that it is "Something". This become a play on words and I think we have to keep "Nothing" as "Nothing" and not attempt to make "Nothing" into "Something".

Please don't spank. I haven't been spanked since....oh well.

Patrick,

Here is where I think the problem lies. The CC or the <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> "Nothingness" state is no longer part of our universe. Our universe stops where our physics stops at the planck length.

What you are now starting to try and unravel is beyond our existance which is the secret of creation. Here the same cycle will start all over again. But I think we can at least draw a line and state that OUR universe came into existance from nothing.

If we will ever be able to define, describe or detail how "Nothing" works is highly doubtful.

This issue seems to come down to something like definition of colors.

White is a mixture of ALL colors. We call black a color but in actuallity it is "NO" colors. You are now trying to call <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> "Something" and in reality it is "Nothing". What science has labled the CC is <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> and what they are finding is that "Something" is coming from <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> but that doesn't make <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> "Something". Bifurcating <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> into +/- pairs becomes "Something" but it still came from "Nothing".

Lets take a hypothetical case. We are going to assume that existance is anything over "0F" in a bucket of water(Universe). We cool a ball bearing to -60F and another equal size and density ball bearing to +60F. You dunk them into the bucket and they all equalize at 0F. They no longer exist. They cancelled, conservation is maintained. They are not stored as +/-F's they vanish and do not exist in the bucket of reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Patrick,

Here is where I think the problem lies. The CC or the <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> "Nothingness" state is no longer part of our universe. Our universe stops where our physics stops at the planck length.

What you are now starting to try and unravel is beyond our existance which is the secret of creation. Here the same cycle will start all over again. But I think we can at least draw a line and state that OUR universe came into existance from nothing.

If we will ever be able to define, describe or detail how "Nothing" works is highly doubtful.

This issue seems to come down to something like definition of colors.

White is a mixture of ALL colors. We call black a color but in actuallity it is "NO" colors. You are now trying to call <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> "Something" and in reality it is "Nothing". What science has labled the CC is <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> and what they are finding is that "Something" is coming from <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> but that doesn't make <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> "Something". Bifurcating <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> into +/- pairs becomes "Something" but it still came from "Nothing".

Lets take a hypothetical case. We are going to assume that existance is anything over "0F" in a bucket of water(Universe). We cool a ball bearing to -60F and another equal size and density ball bearing to +60F. You dunk them into the bucket and they all equalize at 0F. They no longer exist. They cancelled, conservation is maintained. They are not stored as +/-F's they vanish and do not exist in the bucket of reality.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, good post. I don't think you should call<img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> a singularity though because that term is already taken to mean something else entirely different than your definition.

123...,

Thanks. I agree but I need a term that fits the definition.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[TVF]So all engineers are metaphysicians? I don't think so.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not understant you statement. Engineers are pragmatists and make things that work and are far from infinite. The pyramids were built long before calculus was invented. Yes, an engineer who hopes of making an antigravity machine based on a theory postulating gravitons is a metaphysician, as much as an alchemist hoping of converting lead into gold based on a theory of chemistry where elements could change form by using appropriate catalysts.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[TVF] Chapter one of Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets begins a 5-chapter exposition of the Meta Model by showing how we do away with all postulates. This was done because experience (mine and everyone's) shows that any postulate made about the universe soon leads deductively to a contradiction with observations. That is why all inductive cosmologies so far have failed.

Chapter 20 of the same book goes into "truth and reality", and shows how we break the circularity intrinsic to starting with no postulates.

I didn't "invent" any of this. Reasoning, observation, and experiment without an overlay of postulates drives one uniquely along a particular path. I just followed the path.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your statement above displays a highly esoteric view of science and philosophy of. Your claim that:

"This was done because experience (mine and everyone's) shows that any postulate made about the universe soon leads deductively to a contradiction with observations. "

Isn't the eternality and infinitness of the universe in the MM a postulate? If it's not a postulate then what is it? Obviously, you are stating here what I have been trying to tell you all along. i.e. the fact that sooner or later the MM will lead to contradictions. The existence of infinite sets is the "mother of all postulates" TVF.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I realize the approach I described is both audacious (by suggesting deductive reasoning without postulates) and at the same time semantic (by "assuming nothing" except the rules for logic and math, which can all be regarded as a postulates unless one is careful with definitions)

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You must be the first to judge of your own statements for logical inconsistency. The existence of infinite sets postulated in the MM is the mother of all postulates and several axioms must be introduced to prevent severe logical contradictions arising from such use. Such two axioms are that of Foundation and Choice. Furthermore, Logic is based on postulates and this is not a matter of definitions used.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

But the model that pops out keeps paying dividends by already having explanations for new observations built into the model, while other cosmologies must resort to ad hoc helper hypotheses. Why sell a stock that is still increasing in value? -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You are not proving anything by this statement. An inconsistent model can be as good as an incomplete model, a fact proved already in formal logic. It is a matter of choice but mathematicians prefer the later and dislike the former. But please answer the following, because I think you are playing word games:

1. Isn't the infinitness of the universe in the MM postulated, yes or no?
2. Isn't the graviton existence postulated in the MM, yes or no?

If you answer No to (1) or (2) above then please provide experimental or observational evidence. If you answer Yes to (1) or (2) or both then your are a metaphysician. Note that there is nothing wrong in being a metaphysician. The wrong comes by not admitting it and playing word games.

Are you a metaphysician Dr. Van Flandern?

P.S. I'll give you a good reason for selling a stock that's going up: an imminent catastrophic failure or what's known as a crash.