Creation Ex Nihilo

LB

About your remark on "preclude", I see now that my reaction supposed the opposite meaning of to preclude, and that we both conceive of the universe of not having any boundary. As majority of physicists also conclude.

And a philosophical comment on the Meta model. The Meta Model suggests that the most important aspect of all physical forms of existence is that it "occupies space". I think it goes deeper. In Philosophical materialism, the most important aspect of matter is that it is in motion (any form of motion, change or transformation) in time and space. There is no motion without matter and no matter without motion.
Space and time signify the "modes of existence" of matter (matter in philosophical materialism is a general form, an abstract category for all existing physical phenomena, not just mass/particles, but also energy, fields, radiation, heat, etc). Material interactions and transformations, changes and motions is what defines/creates space and time.

edit - I just saw your latest post, so ... never mind.

Hello Heusdens,

preclude -
1) To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.
2) To exclude, or prevent, from a given condition or activity.

In MM the definition of universe PRECLUDES the existance of a boundary. Even a Type C boundary.

You seem to think that I'm arguing FOR the existance of a boundary. Why? My words have been very clear from the beginning - a boundary is precluded BY DEFINITION.

LB

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Your definition is troublesome,[UnQuote]

ANS: Not nearly so much as claiming eternal existance without ever having come into existance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>in that in the broadest sense, the universe is not bounded by anything, so how can you state that it can have a boundary?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: You should take a step back from your current understandings and definitions and realise they do not provide suitable or logical answers and not rely upon such things to judge other concepts.

By what stretch of the imagination do you propose that the universe is unbounded? It must be that you stll visualize a boundry meaning that there is something beyond such a boundry. That is not the case.

"Nothingness" is the absece of time and space. A "Nothingness" boundry defines the edge of actual creation (which may be expanding). There is no beyond that edge. Please describe what you see that could possibly be beyond such a boundry? Something that requires no time nor space?

Please take care using such formal definitions, since they can invoke a lot of trouble...</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: My definition of "Nothingness" seems to clarify rather than confuse.



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

Larry Buford,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>[LB] "The word universe (as used here by most of us: 'ALL that exists') seems to preclude by definition the possibility of a Type C boundary."</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I have a couple of problems with this statement.

A proper definition it seems should be the universe includes all there is that exist to us. Your definition ommits without just cause the possibility of multiple universe, which many propose.

Multiple Universes each bounded by the "Nothingness" boundry are independant or our universe and would better be described as part of a greater Creation and not as part of a universe. A universe is inclusive of those things that exist to and in it. The above multiverse concept does not exist to or as a part of a universe but are only part of the same larger creation.




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

heusdens,

ANS: More symatics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>"Nothing" does not form a boundary.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Then please tell us how you propose to go beyond a point which has no space nor time???????

I call that a pretty definite boundry. A boundry where the question of what is beyond such boundry is meaningless. There is no beyond.


"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>
<br />huesdens,

<b>So, I hold your claim for absurd, and none of your previous links to scientific texts, provide any real foundation for such an idea. The idea is just what it is: an idea, without the existence of ANY foundation (the idea itself already claims that no foundation in physical phenomena CAN be given).</b>[/qwuote]

ANS: Pardon me for getting blunt. But having you proclaim I am being absurd and that all the links and infomation I have posted as not supporting my view is outright Bullsh_t".

I have posted numerous quotes, papers etc that show indeed that within the mainstream scientists envision space as being created by energy. Further that energy flow creates time. I have posted nothing nor claimed anything that is in opposition to MOST mainstream science.

You are stating your personal opinion (and perhaps the view of some others) but that does not make your or their views any more correct than mine or that of scientist like Stephen Hawkins.

Space s not viewed as some unbounded (infinite) "Nothing". Your asertions are absolute fabrications without any merit and I will not argue the point further. I have stated my view. You have your view and that is about as far as one can pursue the matter since veither view can be formally proven or even granted a superior logic.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As far as these articels is concerned, I don't see a direct connection to this idea of a "creation from nothing".

The mainstream scientists have consolidated on the idea that the universe is not bounded. You reflect an opposite opinion on that.

As far as mainstream theories go, take for example the Hawking-Turok idea of an instanton pea, which is a very small "particle" (some form of energy contained in a small spacetime geometry).
Whatever you may call that instanton, it is definately something maeterial, although it does not involve baryonic or leptonic particles and stuff.

Your idea goes definately further, in that you suggest that the universe could have started out from a non-existing state, in which there was neither space, time and any form of matter/energy.

I don't think that any physical theory can ever support such an idea, since physical law can not be written into "nothing".
Whatever there was that could have started the universe as we see it now, might have indeed been very small and might have contained a very little amount of energy (as for instance in the theory about inflation, the universe starts out as an inflating bubble of "false" vacuum), but at least the requirement is that it contains some form of matter/energy in space and time.

I honestly don't see how one can ever achieve anything from nothing at all, and I don't see how any scientific theory could ever support
that idea.

Apart from that, I do not oppose your statement that energy/matter "creates" space and time, since that is indeed the materialistic approach of space and time.
There is no such thing as pre-existing spacetime, a kind of void, that would or could exist, it is matter (energy) itself, that creates both space and time.
But as an addition to that, I would say that energy/matter, exists in the form of motion and change/transformation. Matter/energy can therefore not exist outside of space and time.
Matter/energy are eternal in that neither can be created or destroyed, but only transform and change.