Physics versus Mathematics and Logic.

I think what it boils down to is that INFINITY = The boundary of our mathematics and/or language. The human brain isn't constructed to handle the concept, and infinity itself is of no use to us in any of our calculations or considerations. Even if we can cancel infinity out, we then can't be sure our equations are modelling reality (c.f. my comments re -1 = 0 above). Infinity is neither a constant, nor a variable, and can only be employed as a limit in say, calculus or topology, and even here, it doesn't tell us anything beyond that the number set, or series is really limitless.

Topology isn't a quantitative field of study; it can describe the "qualities" of objects, e.g. connectedness, holes etc. But it can be useful when applied to theories of space and cosmology. Riemannian space is a concept of topology, i.e. that space consists of the three dimensions we appear capable of perceiving, plus a fourth dimension which allows curvature of the "normal" three into all sorts of exotic shapes. The popular model is of a closed hypersphere (the three normals wrapped completely in on themselves), which would indeed allow you to eventually travel back to your starting point. This fourth dimension has also been used as a get-out for describing gravitational effects, i.e. that bodies "warp" space around them. The recurring theme is that this is simply a mathematical model - it mimics what might be happening in the Universe, but doesn't necessarily reflect it (The meta-model of gravitation dispenses with Riemannian space).

Let me throw a concept at you. How can you prove that nothing actually did, does, or ever will exist? As our "understanding" shuffles forward, we are discovering ever more exotic and to some extent, indescribable particles. What we once thought of as "space", or "perfect vacuum" would now appear to harbour energy and virtual particles we weren't heretofore aware of. At what point can we stop and say we have located "nothing"? Perhaps what we conceive as "nothing" is a seething froth of energy too exotic for our current understanding or instrumentation. On this basis, nothing would not exist.

Atko, thank you very much for all the great information.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Riemannian space is a concept of topology, i.e. that space consists of the three dimensions we appear capable of perceiving, plus a fourth dimension which allows curvature of the "normal" three into all sorts of exotic shapes. The popular model is of a closed hypersphere (the three normals wrapped completely in on themselves), which would indeed allow you to eventually travel back to your starting point. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Everything would appear infinite yet would just be retracing the same space, like a rat on a treadmill. Do you support this idea?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Let me throw a concept at you. How can you prove that nothing actually did, does, or ever will exist?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I guess first I would have to prove "somthing" exists. Don't get confused by defenitions. In the context of the theory, "NOTHING" isn't none existant. The premise being that "NOTHING" is exactly what you explained it as;
"Perhaps what we conceive as "nothing" is a seething froth of energy too exotic for our current understanding or instrumentation. On this basis, nothing would not exist."
Your statement is 100% in sync with my theory of what I am referring to as "NOTHING".
Exploding outward into infinity, no. Imploding inward to infinity, no. My belief is just as you discribed it above, the entity that I refer to as "NOTHING" is the smallest and most powerful entity conceivable, it is the origin of everything, and will continually explode and implode upon itself. The entity "NOTHING" found that it could creat "something"(perhaps 0^0), from that point it continued creating until "everything" it had created exploded outward. Since infinity is unobtainable, at some point the explosive energy will deminish and everything will start to implode back upon itself into "a seething froth of energy" until it reaches the point of explosion which continues the cycle. Is this similar to your Riemannian space concept?
I can comprehend how a process can be infinite but I can't comprehend infinity by itself.(ie. any number +1 is the process) Can infinity existant only as a by product or can it exist by itself?
"NOTHING" isn't non-existant, I too agree with you that there is no such thing as a non-exsistant entity.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If it's on a numerical basis, then it's meaningless. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
How is it meaningless from a numerical basis? Is it because as you stated that it violates the rules of arithmetic? What basis is used for ruling out the use of a beginning? Is it the premise that if there is no end then there could not have been a beginning, no end because you can add 1 to any number?

I appologize for not being able to articulate it better.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Everything would appear infinite yet would just be retracing the same space, like a rat on a treadmill. Do you support this idea? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I entertain it, but wouldn't say I actively support it. I'm always wary of ideas that try to wrap the Universe into neat packages. You still end up with questions of what's "outside" the hypersphere, which then leads to a lot of speculation based on a single guess.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My belief is just as you discribed it above, the entity that I refer to as "NOTHING" is the smallest and most powerful entity conceivable <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think the key words here are "belief" and "entity" - it's what you believe (and good luck to you, by the way), and I get the impression you associate some sort of self-determination about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>, it is the origin of everything, and will continually explode and implode upon itself. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is where we part. I don't believe in the Big Bang, or an oscillating Universe. Your idea seems to be a variant of this, with "NOTHING" as some sort of hybrid primordial atom. Neither do you offer any evidence to support your idea. Any hypothesis needs to be based on some assumptions, but it helps if there is the odd fact thrown in. Thus far you've suggested a few ideas, but nothing (as far as I can make out!) beyond philosophical speculation.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How is it meaningless from a numerical basis? Is it because as you stated that it violates the rules of arithmetic? What basis is used for ruling out the use of a beginning? Is it the premise that if there is no end then there could not have been a beginning, no end because you can add 1 to any number? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My comment here was if you were simply applying the numerical concept of infinity to your theory, then infinity has no meaning - within the language of arithmetic, it doesn't exist. It really means "limitless", which in turn, really means "we don't know how big". I don't suppose you can rule out a beginning or an end, but then, what came before the beginning? Is this the previous big crunch? Even the Big Bang theory seems to allow that the Big Bang itself may have just been a punctuation mark in the story of the cosmos. Everything in our experience tells us that things have a beginning and an end (dogs, cars, stars, TV programs, dinners, etc), so we try to map this mindset onto our understanding of the Universe (original BB concept), but is this maybe just the last shred of our pre-Copernican mindset - okay, maybe we're not the centre of the Universe, but we can still impose our values on it?

Patrick - I really need to take a rest now - you've worn me out! But when you produce a formal statement of your theory, with some (dare I say it) numbers and supporting observations or evidence, I'll give it another go.

Good Luck!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Patrick - I really need to take a rest now - you've worn me out! <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Thank you very much for your input, I value your opinion tremendously! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Patrick,

Please articulate your hypothesis coherently. I can't see why, on a cartesian plane, nothing (let's call it the "zero" [x] axis) is different from the "everything" (call it the [y] axis).

Both trend towards infinity on an infinite and an infinitisemal scale.

To address the original proposition of this particular forum, may we assume that that process is merely a function of entity. "Time" is a limitation (imperfect/susceptible to change), whereas "entity" is limitless (ie. perfect/immutable/unchangeable) in it's relation to other entities (being limitless and unchangeable in thier constitution, based in the infinity of macroscopic and microscopic scale).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
To address the original proposition of this particular forum, may we assume that that process is merely a function of entity.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Or just the other way around, entity is a function of process. Just ask yourself, what is a river?
"Entities" are formed whenever there's considerable difference in timing of some of parameteres of a process. But who's parameterizing, anyway?