Creation Ex Nihilo

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The universe is just a theoretical construction. That would mean that instead of the universe as having "come from nothing" we could better say that the universe is still "nothing", that is in the absolute sense, it doesn't even exist.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Now we are starting to get somewhere. This strangely enough is very close to reality. Much more than the eternal existance. In one sense in a very limited way one could say "Nothing" existed eternally. My objection is that "Nothing" is the absence of time and our definitions just don't quite fit the comcepts being considered. We need slightly different definitions.

Since as I have said "Eternal" currently implies the accumulation of an infinite number of finite time intervals; which is impossible. The problem really seems to come down to the lack of a word that properly describes "Nothingness" wherein eternity and time become linked.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>2. Instead of the point of view in which Being and Nothing are absolutely sperated, we should recognize that Being and Nothing are connected, and form a unity of opposites. Their collective unity is Becoming. Everything is an intermediate form between Nothing and Being.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: This is rather good. In fact in UniKEF (which is nothing more than me having written down my views) I link the concepts of infinity and zero as being one in the same via a form of moebius.

Take a strip of paper 1 inch wide by i.e. 36 inches long. Lay it flat horizontally in front of you. Mark the left end "Infinity" and mark the right end "Zero". Now pick up the strip and bring the ends together so as to form a circular band. Twist one end 180 degrees and glue them together.

You will now see that you have "Infinity" on one surface and exactly opposite that you have "Zero". (Notice I didn't say other surface).

If you trace around this paper loop you will find that it has only "One" surface and "One" edge. While it is not so obvious giving it some thought you will realize that this is a very strange geometry indeed.

One surface, one edge! Now that you can see that they are on the same surface at the same ordinate but are 180 degrees out of phase.

It is a way of saying they are linked and are the same thing but opposites. One is the + and one is the - of our existance connected in a never ending loop that recycles.



"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"><b>Posted - 09 Jan 2004 : 08:36:06

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rousejohnny
I do not have prohibitions about "no time", since time is merely the measurement of change. In a homogenious state such as the beginning "nothing" I propose there would be no motion, thermodynamics or any other process by which time could be measured, not until the split.

---

Instead of a world without time, you better state that this is a world without change. Time is not change, because to measure time, one needs something different as time to measure it.
In the absense of change, it would not be without time, but alternatively we would arrive at pure time, time without any foreign admixtures.
The world would exist then in a motionless cna changeless state, and would continue to do that for an eternity.

But how then could the world all at a sudden come out of this motionless and changeless state, especially since it would have been in such a state for an eternity.
How can motion or change arrive from total motionlesness and changeleness?

Isn't this just equal to saying that "therefore" the world neded some kick from outside, which is just the idea of a creator?

Since we can not solve this problem, and there is no way in which a state in which there is no change whatsoever can all at a sudden become in motion and in change, the requirement is that the world has been in motion and change at all time, without a begin. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Rather than reply in an itemized way I will just summarize. You can (and obviously do) hold this view. But to do so differs from the mainstream scientific view. I don't opt that view just because it is the current front runner but because it (for me) has greater meaning and provides the flow through loop required to complete the process.

Without it we are left with more unanswered questions than we do with it.


"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">
ANS: It is a matter of definitions with me. Infinite is defined as being larger than any finite number however large.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Fine so far.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
That means any thing infinite must be larger than itself. That is nonsense.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is a definitional error. The number line is NOT a number, it contains numbers but is not a number itself. A bucket contains water, it is not water itself. To make the self reference that you are doing the two things must be of the same type, they are not. Even ignoring that issue you defined infinity to be GREATER THAN any finite number and then said it must be greater than itself. It cannot be so because you already defined it not to be so. If you have made it at least equal to a finite number I would like to know what that number is.

<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: It is a matter of definitions with me. Infinite is defined as being larger than any finite number however large. That means any thing infinite must be larger than itself. That is nonsense. It doesn't say it is larger than we can imagine or can ever achieve or "Appears" unbounded" it claims it is larger than itself. That makes it inapplicable to physical reality but only useful as a mathematical concept or tool.

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

Physical reality = Observed reality. Now, as we have stated again and again, an ifinite value or amount, we will never be able to observe.
We only deal with the infinite in a way in which it is impossible to detect or impose a limitation on a phenomena. Such a phenomena then becomes endless in our understanding of it, which means infinite.
But this understanding never implies that it becomes "observed reality". Infinity indeed contains within itself a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. Terms as "greater as" which are applicable for all finite numbers, are inadequate to express something about an infnite, since our understanding should already include the fact that such is not applicable to the infinite, since only finite numbers have a definite value, and which can be interrelated amongst one another in terms of "greater then, equal as, or smaller then". The infinite by nature has already surpassed this, and we are only able to state that the infinite is greater then any finite number.
That understanding is already part of the infinite, it already contains aspects which make it rather different then finite numbers, and can not be hold against it.
To require the infinite to behave like the finite, to conceive of the infinite without contradiction, is to reject infinity in total. A proper understanding of the infinnite should however encompass such contradictions which are naturally part of our understanding of the infinite.

The finite starts from a definite number and the set of all finite numbers contains all numbers that can be arrived at by succesive addition. I.e. this means that if X is a member of the set of finite numbers, then also X+1 is member of that set.
Now the set itself is infinite. We can proof that, because if the amount of numbers in the set of finite numbers, would be a finite number itself, for instance the number N, we can then proof that the actual number must be greater, since N+1 is also member of the set of finite numbers. This means, that the number wich is the amount of members of the set of finite numbers, can not be an element of that set of finite numbers. We can only claim that the infinite is greater then any finite number, and we should not apply "greater then" or "equal to" or "smaller then" for comparing infinity against itself.

Just to clear our understanding of the infinite once more.

Jermey,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>This is a definitional error. The number line is NOT a number, it contains numbers but is not a number itself. A bucket contains water, it is not water itself. To make the self reference that you are doing the two things must be of the same type, they are not. Even ignoring that issue you defined infinity to be GREATER THAN any finite number and then said it must be greater than itself. It cannot be so because you already defined it not to be so. If you have made it at least equal to a finite number I would like to know what that number is.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Our difference are infact minor but very important here. I agree "Infinity" is not a finite number and in that sense you are allowed to dally around with esoteric concepts but the fact reamins it is a concept and cannot be applied to physical reality.

The concept is that it is larger than any finite number. Physical reality consists of finite quantiities represented by finite numbers and the definition means exactly that that something infinite must be larger than itself. SInce "itself" is is represented by a finite number to be physical reality .

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