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 Mac</i>
That is it seems to me to declare that the universe is all there is which includes other possible universes, is a bit of blurring of the lines. That is why I have adopted the Universe to define each universe in a stand alone fashion, meaning that which is physical to observers of such a universe.

Another universe, should they exist would not be physical to us until and unless there is a collision of such universes such that their domains overlap. In that case there would be common objects to both universes which each would include as being part of their own but would not include the entireity of each other.

In that manner other universes are part of a common and larger Creation. So my Creation is your Universe and my universe is your sub-universe.

Do I understand that you consider sub-universes to be independant enities? I do. If so then we should actually be close to agreement on a lot of things that we have appeared to not agree on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It appears to me that (unless I am wrong about the initial assumption/definition of what a unikverse in fact is) each unikverse is totally seperate and independend of each other.
There is no space and time between thenm, else they would in fact be the same unikverse.

So, I don't see how they could collide.

And alternatively, I don't see how one can claim that there is an upper bound to these amount of unikverses, since their existences are in fact totally independend, there is no physical relation between them possible.
And since you assume the fact there that each unikverses came out from "nothing", I don't see a boundary either that could bound the number of those unikverses.
They are not "created" at the same time or before or after each other, but seperate from any temporal determination, and also there is no spatial determination between these unikverses.

What places a limit on the amount of unikverses then? Nothing!
It means it can not be limited down to any finite number, and there is no way of ever counting them.

And I am sorry to inform you then, there you have this ugly infinity ([}]) again! It just won't go away, whetever we try to think of to get rid of it!

We better live with that fact then....

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Mac]
I would agree with that but let me add that personally I feel it is the MM definition that seems to cause the greater problem ... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Right - it's still that creation thing for you, isn't it? (The secular one, of course, not the religious one.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> ... and perhaps Tom might consider making a change.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
IF you ever get around to reading and understanding the first few chapters of Dr. Van Flandern's book you will understand why many of us find this hope to be amusing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That is it seems to me to declare that the universe is all there is which includes other possible universes, is a bit of blurring of the lines. That is why I have adopted the Universe to define each universe in a stand alone fashion, meaning that which is physical to observers of such a universe.

Another universe, should they exist would not be physical to us until and unless there is a collision of such universes such that their domains overlap. In that case there would be common objects to both universes which each would include as being part of their own but would not include the entireity of each other.

In that manner other universes are part of a common and larger Creation. So my Creation is your Universe and my universe is your sub-universe.

Do I understand that you consider sub-universes to be independant enities? I do. If so then we should actually be close to agreement on a lot of things that we have appeared to not agree on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No.

As near as as I can tell there are no sub universes. MM predicts that, as we move up and down the scale dimension, we will see essentially the same configurations of form. IOW, if we move up in scale by 1,842 orders of magnitude (just to pick a specific example) and look around we would see mostly empty space with clumps of "stuff" off in the distance.

In MM, the universe is very fractal.

I suppose that one could say that these self-similar regions up and down the scale dimension are sort of like sub-universes. And, to push this supposition to or even beyond reasonable limits, I suppose it is possible that these larger and smaller "versions" of "our sub universe" might have larger and smaller versions of stars, planets and atoms. And therefore larger and smaller versions of plants, animals and people (intellegent - er, self-aware - animals).

And since there are an unbounded number of these larger and smaller "versions" of "our sub universe" it is even possible that there are several of them where larger and smaller versions of you and I have this same discussion.

But I don't think this is what you mean by "multiple universes". And of course it requires accepting MM's five dimensions that are infinite in both directions.

So, no.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[LB]
That does not mean that the REAL universe must be the way MM say it is, any more than it must be the way the UNIKEF Model says it is. or BB, or Quantum Rediculousness, or ...
[Mac]
Again I find we are in agreement. I very quickly tend to discount posters views that become entrenched in "I am right and you are wrong" absolute type statements. There currently is no such clarity or evidence to prove any of these concepts, UniKEF included.

One can favor one view and should be able to give their reasons for doing so but one cannot declare theirs is correct and others are wrong. (Unless one violates some known and accepted principle of physics on the whole).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think we do agree for the most part on these points. No theory or model can ever be proven to be correct. They can only be proven to be wrong. (Historical note - that (falsifying a model) sounds easy, but just try to do it in practice. SR/BB/QM - need I say more?)


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[LB]
Another suggestion - call it the "UNIKEF universe", or maybe the "UU". I'll bet that if you think it about for a little while you can come up with a really cool qualifier. Perhaps something that hints at a deeper meaning to those in-the-know.
[Mac]
For the moment to satisfy your need to differentiate between MM's Sub-Universe and my Universe I will refer to it as a UniKverse.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is for your benefit, not mine. I can go back to read-only mode re your posts at any time and amuse myself by watching you blow on that windmill. If YOU don't see the benefit to YOU, don't waste your time.

You have a larger version of the problem that Dr. Van Flandern has - how to get people to listen to you and discuss/think-about your ideas.

A few posts back you noted that UNIKEF only has one equation based on one postulate. And makes no predictions.

MM on the other hand has many equations and makes many predictions.

Predictions in general fall into one of three categories:
1) Supported by experiment and/or observation
2) Neither supported nor contradicted by experiment and/or observation
1) Contradicted by experiment and/or observation

A lot of MM's predictions are category 1. The rest are presently category 2.

None of them is a category 3 as of ... NOW!

The point of this is - in order to get people to listen to you and think about your ideas you have to have something interesting to get their attention. One postulate, one equation and no predictions aint gonna cut it. A very good book and many years of thoughtful discussion on USENET is just barely adequate to get started.

It takes years to assimilate a model/theory that is complete enough to have any chance of being useful in the real world. I need a strong incentive to even consider climbing such a learning curve.

Dr. Van Flandern has presented such an incentive.

You have not.

===

Even though MM makes hundreds of accurate predictions Dr. Van Flandern is only a little more successful to date than you are in the arena of ideas. But his model has attracted other minds because it works so very well to explain the things we see. Some of these people are working to help him fill in blank spots and refine details. And others are talking about his model.

===

Unless several of MM's category 2 predictions fall into category 3 at some point in the future, it is just a matter of time before MM becomes the front runner in the eyes of the mainstream. Absent something something better comming along, of course.

Hmmm. It might even reach the point where entrenched special interests will jump through a silly series of hoops just to keep it alive. (But not while Dr. Van Flandern is still around to keep them honest.)


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Mac]
Questions:

Do you agree that UniKverses are independant enities that are not physically connected?

Are you familiar with and understand the "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" Domain concepts of UniKEF and how they apply to the issue of possible multiKverses?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Answers:
Sure. That's how you defined them.
No. (See my discussion above about incentives to climb the UNIKEF learning curve.)

R

Mac,

Looks to me like being explicit about your definition of universe, and using a different word for it, is already paying off.

Good luck.

LB

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>You say here in fact that you assume that the multiplicity of unikverses has to proceed from the definate to the indefinate, from a finite multitude to an infinite multitude.
In that way, they can not become infinite. But what if they already are? And why do you assume that can not be the case?
Because of the mathematical habbit to start from finite to the infinite? But why would that be compulsory for the universe itself to proceed that way?
Why should the number of unikverse be countable anyway? Is there some process that has to administrate that number and account for it?
Maybe for universal taxpayment? lol
An infinitude of unikverses is not susceptible of being counted. When one tries to count them, all one can count up to is a definite, finite number, without ever having counted them all. There is no finite number that places an upper bound to the number of unikverses.</b>\<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Sorry. But what dos it take to get you to realize that this has nothing to do with counting or progression. An instantaneous event can no more be infinite than one of evolution.

Saying we don't have to count because it just is, is no anwer what-so-ever. Once your declare something infinite you must justify it. The definition of infinity that causes this to be impossible can be reduced to this (paraphrased) "Infinite is larger than any finite quanity."

Anything physical is composed of finite components. There is no need to start counting, if it is claimed to be infinite you have already granted it the impossible, that is that it is larger than itself.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

heusdens,


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That is it seems to me to declare that the universe is all there is which includes other possible universes, is a bit of blurring of the lines. That is why I have adopted the Universe to define each universe in a stand alone fashion, meaning that which is physical to observers of such a universe.

Another universe, should they exist would not be physical to us until and unless there is a collision of such universes such that their domains overlap. In that case there would be common objects to both universes which each would include as being part of their own but would not include the entireity of each other.

In that manner other universes are part of a common and larger Creation. So my Creation is your Universe and my universe is your sub-universe.

Do I understand that you consider sub-universes to be independant enities? I do. If so then we should actually be close to agreement on a lot of things that we have appeared to not agree on.

---

[n]It appears to me that (unless I am wrong about the initial assumption/definition of what a unikverse in fact is) each unikverse is totally seperate and independend of each other.
There is no space and time between thenm, else they would in fact be the same unikverse.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Are you familiar with the GUT Theory? If so look at how he shows multiverses. They are all in contact But if you then stop and realize that spheres packed in a volume still has voids between there surfaces you must ask yourself "What is this void". If "Nothingness" is the absence of time and space then spherical uniKverss would need to be in contact over the entire surface.

Since that is impossible it suggests that what constitutes "Nothingness" to an observer of a uniKverse must also be "Something" in the creation. This leads to the concept of the "Quanitative" Domain or boundry where time and space have deminished to zero for an observer via a process simular to "tired light". That is our natural physics has established a limit of existance in terms of distance.

Our uniKverse becomes finite, bounded and limited. That in terms of physics is the only thing that we can address. But we also should care about and understand that from our perspective we are bounded by "Nothingness", that is an absence of time and space which by jphysics means there simply is no "Beyond" but that in reality in terms of "Creation" there may infact and must be if there is to be multiverses, more of the same in the overall creation. In that manner the boundry where there is no beyond actually moves as you move and new objects come into existance and others cease to exist along this boundry as a function of vector of motion.

So in a sense the arguement in terms of OUR physics is resolved. We are part of a finite uniKverse , having a boundry where by jphysics there is no beyond; while still recogizing that in the overall "Creation" there may be other things.

That is why multiverses may collide and why boundries without time and space do not cause them to be in direct contact as shown in GUT.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>And since you assume the fact there that each unikverses came out from "nothing", I don't see a boundary either that could bound the number of those unikverses.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: This is going to cause you a problem but it shouldn't. There would seem to be no known limiting factor to the number of uniKverses other than it cannot be infinite. So on the one hand it appears we cannot set a number limit and you would like to say that means infinite. But it doesn't since infinite also means the number has to exceed the actual quantity that exist.

This issue actually comes down to a concept that is flawed hence cannot be applied to reality. The fact that such a limit is not known or can be asserted does not mean that such a limit is non-existant. It is just that the definition of the term infinite is not aplicable to physical things.

<b>They are not "created" at the same time or before or after each other, but seperate from any temporal determination, and also there is no spatial determination between these unikverses.
[/b][/qute]

ANS: Not so. There is infact what I have doubed "Geo-Creative" references. That is a correlation of all things to the overall Creation.




"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>

ANS: Sorry. But what dos it take to get you to realize that this has nothing to do with counting or progression. An instantaneous event can no more be infinite than one of evolution.

Saying we don't have to count because it just is, is no anwer what-so-ever. Once your declare something infinite you must justify it. The definition of infinity that causes this to be impossible can be reduced to this (paraphrased) "Infinite is larger than any finite quanity."

Anything physical is composed of finite components. There is no need to start counting, if it is claimed to be infinite you have already granted it the impossible, that is that it is larger than itself.

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

I don't see here any good argument against the possibility of an unbounded (not limited by any finite number) of unikverses.
The argument that "because it ain't finite" just won't do.
In fact we are obliged to accept the possibility, since there can (by definition) not be anyhing that could ceil the number down to any finite quantity. Why should it be bounded by a finite number?
Must it be smaller then 100? 200? 2 trillions? 10 to-the-power 10 to-the-power 10 to-the-power 100 trillion?
If you can't come up with an argument that it MUST be smaller then any finite number, whatever big that number is, then there is no valid argument why it should be smaller then a define finite number.
Anfd a finite number is exactly characterised by that feature: it can be said to be smaller then another finite number. If that happens not to be the case, or if that can not be proven, then by definition one can not exclude the possibility of infinity.
Unless you provide me that finite boundary and a valid argumentation why that boundary can not be exceeded, I see no reason why it should be called a finite number. And just and precisley because as you assume, it is bounded by "nothing", it means there is no determination for how large that number can be, and no boundary thus can be given.

It seems to me that in the same way as you accuse me of excluding the possibility of a begin of time / creation ex nihilo, you now yourself exclude a perfactly valid possibility.