This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

I was trying to establish that if we treat options regarding a quantity of truth(s), that to begin with a literal "absolute" nothingness is what we CAN accept logically in order to 'posit' a reality according to my own thinking.

That's exactly the point: "absolute" nothingness cannot be accepted; because it gets you nowhere. On the other hand, expansion is a "truth" we cannot deny. So that is the general problem we all face: no "absolute" nothingness and expansion.

When 'fixed', the speed of light stays the same. But the BB interpretation of a singularity necessitates that space (as distance) derives from zero and grows. This is contradictory.

There are some other "truths" involved here: space cannot start at zero because space is tridimensional (a volume). So to accept the BB theory, you have to admit the "start", not of a tridimensional volume, but a first dimension "entity", that gains a second dimension and "exploses", thus gaining a third dimension. And that "explosion", in three dimensions, would be the start of our tridimensional space plus time (the start of the so much talked about "singularity"; name that doesn't mean anything except: "what the hell could that be?"). If this cannot be explained simply, you cannot explain and support (too much) the BB.

On the other hand, expansion of space-time gives a big headache to "steady state" theories. Unless you accept Buddhism's successive "contraction/expansion" of the universe.

The ONLY alternative without contradiction is to assume that both time AND space change in sync with each other.

And this is exactly what is observed in gravitational "fields"(distances and time contract). In the absence of gravitational field, expansion manifest itself, at least, at light speed (the rate can be superluminal, but the speed cannot be more than light; otherwise SR is false). Light speed means: no distances and frozen time. Which is equivalent as "constant present-everywhere". If we think of it, the universe, being considered as a "unity", is always in a "present state" and doesn't change place (not involved in distances) into the "vast nothingness" (and not "void") that surrounds it. Looking at the whole picture, you get a finite volume of an "infinite" universe (surrounded by "nothing" = no frontier).

But this reduces to meaning that a 'singularity' is only an appearance in kind to the way parallel lines drawn in two dimensions meets at a 'vanishing point' as it approaches an infinite distance.

If the BB was at 10^-43 sec after time = zero(+), Planck epoch was two dimensional (note that a rotating two dimensional objet, appears and disappears successively; just like virtual particles); and parallel lines are only met in squares. There cannot be "squares" before BB because the event was "explosive"; and since there's no center in the universe, it means that the center "exploded" at the BB. Furthermore, expansion in "all direction" doesn't produce a "cube"; it produces a "sphere". Consequently, what existed at Planck epoch had to be a circle surface. This, evidently, if assuming that the BB is plausible. But this notion accepts "expansion" without any problems.

...because, as I have pointed out, you cannot even interpret a zero Kelvin temperature as ACTUALLY being measured.

You can't even ask to mesure something that doesn't exist; in this case: temperature. Zero Kelvin is an absolute absence of temperature.

this is thus no assurance that it represents a "hot" state any more than a "cold" state of origins.

"Hot" is when density of energy is sufficient; otherwise it's "relatively" hot. "Cold" is practically no density of energy (actual electromagnetic universe is at 2,7 K). Time equal zero was "cold"; 10^-43 sec later, the temperature was the most it could be, because so was the density of energy. All this because all existing actual energy was "contained" in a space-time of 10^-33 meter. There's no other way to defend the BB theory. All other interpretations cannot be logical. Not being "logical" would make them "magical".

So if you assume some point at which space 'began' at some sudden fixed constant, this would be like going form 0 to any positive distance in an INFINITESIMALLY small point in time.

Not if everything started with a rotation of a unidimensional point. We mustn't forget that our universe as been proven "Euclidian". Whatever is Euclidian has to be composed of unidimensional points.

This is WHY the "inflation model" was invented! They realized their logic was flawed unless they could create some myth of magical super acceleration

I agree with you that "inflation" was invented by assuming a magical "energy" coming out of nowhere (later attributed to the "void", which doesn't hold). But only the simplest "inflation" theory is still acceptable since the results of satellite Planck. And the simplest "inflation" is similar to what happened to the water volume when Archimedes jumped in his bathtub. There's no magic to that.

I've got to admit that my "defense" of the BB is not necessarily better than your defense of "steady state" theory; but it answers to the problem created by the "expansion" of the universe. I spent 40 years gathering real "facts" proven by science (refusing imaginary interpretations) and spent another 15 years to put it all together logically. And the answers I found to my questions of 55 years ago are satisfying. So...like James Brown would say...I feel good! :-)
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Matter tells space how to curve. Space tells matter how to move... Apart from saying "space" rather than "space-time;" Wheeler describes Einsteins theory as simply as it can be described.
I don't recall where I read it, but apparently Einstein himself appeared to have reservations after reading what Wheeler had written. He said words to the effect of... Is it matter having an effect on space-time, or is space time somehow responsible for the presence of the matter. I don't as a rule, question anything Einstein says, but as he has expressed even a slight doubt about his own theory, I feel that in this instance, it is OK for me to do so.

If a revised version of Le'Sages' version of gravity turns out to be correct, It simplifies the nature of space-time itself. Dark energy would be responsible for both the expansion of the universe and the coming together of massive bodies.

I admit to often being guilty of over-simplifying things, I have even toyed with the idea that space-time itself "is" dark energy. If you use the speed of light as a common denominator, distance can be expressed as a time and time can be expressed as a distance. If time were to expand in three temporal dimensions and you express it instead as linear distances, those distance would also be expanding in all three dimensions.

The main objection I have encountered with this way of thinking is.... If space-time is a force, Then it must have an equal and opposite force. I of course agree. My own argument is, the past is receding at the same rate and opposite direction as the future is coming into being, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Nikola Tessla said....The day science begins to study non physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. (Non Physical as In Space-time) attempting to unify gravity with the electro-magnetic forces is a pointless exercise, unless of course space-time is some bizarre, not yet understood incarnation of electromagnetism.

With the James Webb telescope due to be in service in a couple of years and the LHC beavering away at the other end of the spectrum of scale... Interesting times are just around the corner.

Just because current theory seems to be correct, science seems to have adopted an ..."If it aint broke, don't try to fix it attitude." Being a contrarian I cant help but take the... "There is always more than one way of skinning a cat," point of view.
curiosity
Member

Posts: 352
Joined: 19 Jul 2012

If you use the speed of light as a common denominator, distance can be expressed as a time and time can be expressed as a distance. If time were to expand in three temporal dimensions and you express it instead as linear distances, those distance would also be expanding in all three dimensions.

And what you are writing above is exactly right. You're describing "actual reality". When you look far in space, you see far in time.

The main objection I have encountered with this way of thinking is.... If space-time is a force, Then it must have an equal and opposite force. I of course agree.

The only "small" hic is that "forces" don't exist. There's no "magic" in the universe; only "consequence" of previous states. Expansion is not a "force"; it's energy. And energy is not a "force" it's the manifestation of "existence". Wlthout the energy of "expansion" you have no time and no space.

the past is receding at the same rate and opposite direction as the future is coming into being,

Because energy of expansion is motioning universe "foward" (in all directions). Universe started as a simple "potentiality" and aims to attain the state of "reality". Potentiality = no movement; final reality = no movement. In between the two stages = movement. It's quite simple to understand.

unless of course space-time is some bizarre, not yet understood incarnation of electromagnetism.

It's not bizarre at all; we agree on that. But electromagnetism is also a "consequence" and not a "force". Electromagnetism is a consequence of whatever happened before space-time was at 10^-15 m of diameter (around 10^-32 sec). Gamma ray (electromagnetism) starts at 10^-14 m. And whatever happened between 10^-36 sec and 10^-32 sec was a consequence of the appearance of gravity (gluon) into our "flat" universe at 10^-36 sec.
Finaly, all that we see today is transformations of parts of the initial energy that causes expansion.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 9th, 2016, 12:47 am wrote:
I was trying to establish that if we treat options regarding a quantity of truth(s), that to begin with a literal "absolute" nothingness is what we CAN accept logically in order to 'posit' a reality according to my own thinking.

That's exactly the point: "absolute" nothingness cannot be accepted; because it gets you nowhere. On the other hand, expansion is a "truth" we cannot deny. So that is the general problem we all face: no "absolute" nothingness and expansion.

This is a mistaken attitude. It has to be understood. I already discussed this in the thread I referred to. In summation, you cannot argue from ONE thing nor an INFINITY of things without co-inferring the other necessarily AND this includes NOTHING. As such all 'three' are simultaneously true. You cannot thus have an 'origin' including a singularity without addressing what, if any of these, can be 'true' independently.

ONLY an ABSOLUTE NOTHING has the property of being 'free' from the restraints of even laws as an origin. Thus only this concept can be treated as any cause without leading to "contradiction". To nothingness, contradiction is itself a limiting law and so lacks a need to 'obey'.

When 'fixed', the speed of light stays the same. But the BB interpretation of a singularity necessitates that space (as distance) derives from zero and grows. This is contradictory.

There are some other "truths" involved here: space cannot start at zero because space is tridimensional (a volume). So to accept the BB theory, you have to admit the "start", not of a tridimensional volume, but a first dimension "entity", that gains a second dimension and "exploses", thus gaining a third dimension. And that "explosion", in three dimensions, would be the start of our tridimensional space plus time (the start of the so much talked about "singularity"; name that doesn't mean anything except: "what the hell could that be?"). If this cannot be explained simply, you cannot explain and support (too much) the BB.

The BB is actually based more on precisely an 'origin' of which only nothingness in some form is implied. That is why Hoyle labeled that theory derogatorily as a "Big Bang" theory. He was implying that the theory imposes a magical point where some god merely went abracadabra, here is a seed for you. Any substance more complex than nothing itself is more problematic.

The EVIDENCE we have is THAT this 'space' DOES come from everywhere (expansion). And so regardless, we have more local reasons to believe that space and NOT matter CAN derive from nothing; that matter doesn't must imply that something about that space is where matter derives its eventual meaning from. You cannot reverse this. Matter is defined as a concept that occupies space. But the BB interpretation treats space as a byproduct of matter. ??

On the other hand, expansion of space-time gives a big headache to "steady state" theories. Unless you accept Buddhism's successive "contraction/expansion" of the universe.

No. It is essential to it. Matter is a derivative of space, not the reverse as I just mentioned above. In the illustrations earlier in this thread, I showed two 'origin' points of which the matter-only concept is at a T=0 type of origin. But it also shows how you can extrapolate a T=-0 (just an assigned singularity where not even mass exists). The T=-0 point where not even matter exists is where the BB assumed is true but pops to T=0 point with some kind of 'essence' that is not supposed to be questioned. If it doesn't occupy space, what is this 'substance' unless it is some kind of God-essence? And like the question of any gods, it begs where did THAT come from in an equally eternal way.

At least, a Steady State assumption doesn't assume this even. It treats the singularity as either a point of nothing OR an apparent kind of vanishing point as parallel lines appear to meet but can technically go on forever.

The ONLY alternative without contradiction is to assume that both time AND space change in sync with each other.

And this is exactly what is observed in gravitational "fields"(distances and time contract). In the absence of gravitational field, expansion manifest itself, at least, at light speed (the rate can be superluminal, but the speed cannot be more than light; otherwise SR is false). Light speed means: no distances and frozen time. Which is equivalent as "constant present-everywhere". If we think of it, the universe, being considered as a "unity", is always in a "present state" and doesn't change place (not involved in distances) into the "vast nothingness" (and not "void") that surrounds it. Looking at the whole picture, you get a finite volume of an "infinite" universe (surrounded by "nothing" = no frontier).

You lost me here. I argued that you cannot logically have a real point where no space exists with respect to matter as matter is dependent upon space and not the other way around. In the first image in my introduction, I showed how at the same position that the "D" block of matter occupied without space is later occupied by the "B" position in a direct relationship from "A". But when "B" gets there, its rate relative to A is slower than the original block "D". As such, that shows that to define distances with regards to matter in some 'space' is inconsistent with regards to any 'speed' because "speed" is DEFINED as a DISTANCE/TIME.

You can assume no space, but then you have no distance in the above definition and so the rate of speed is infinite at some 'origin'. You can assume matter as having space instead and thus say that it gives birth to its pure form afterwards as though it is separating from it. But then this implies that matter having space is itself a 'size' and so has distance. But then you get the opposite problem: that TIME itself is a magical 'substance' and pops into existence instantly from? If at some point X was static and then got to ANY 'speed', say Y = X + 1, this can only occur where Y is approached at all intermediate 'speeds' between X to X + 1. It needs to have some speed X + 1/2, for instance in between to get to X + 1 from an original X. If this happens, this is acceleration.

Acceleration from a literal nothing CAN still have a fixed speed of light. But it requires that for each step back in time a corresponding step in distance occurs. Then this is NOT a real acceleration but an infinitesimal approach. Thus there is no need to think of time nor space as being 'created'. Nor do we have the complexity of assuming some matter that pre-existed space. Instead, it has to be some property of space.

If you understood this meaning in your comment above, then you don't believe in the BB theory either.

But this reduces to meaning that a 'singularity' is only an appearance in kind to the way parallel lines drawn in two dimensions meets at a 'vanishing point' as it approaches an infinite distance.

If the BB was at 10^-43 sec after time = zero(+), Planck epoch was two dimensional (note that a rotating two dimensional objet, appears and disappears successively; just like virtual particles); and parallel lines are only met in squares. There cannot be "squares" before BB because the event was "explosive"; and since there's no center in the universe, it means that the center "exploded" at the BB. Furthermore, expansion in "all direction" doesn't produce a "cube"; it produces a "sphere". Consequently, what existed at Planck epoch had to be a circle surface. This, evidently, if assuming that the BB is plausible. But this notion accepts "expansion" without any problems.

It's hard to respond to this because implicit in the context is information based on assuming the BB true. A "10^-43" has to be derived by something relating to the assumption of what the Cosmic background radiation is in terms that support the Big Bang theory. "Planck" limits of size are troublesome to me logically. You can't define some atomic smallest size without CONTRADICTION given a material (oneness) origin. In contrast, since absolute nothingness CAN be contradictory, at least an origin in nothing CAN be equally nothing AND something. There is then no need to presume a material origin as this begs that from absolute 'truth' as an origin, 'truth' and 'non-truth' logically follows, something illegal. From nothing, 'non-truth' originates and derives also 'truth and non-truth'. But it is allowed to break any limits of laws that didn't initially even exist.

...because, as I have pointed out, you cannot even interpret a zero Kelvin temperature as ACTUALLY being measured.

You can't even ask to mesure something that doesn't exist; in this case: temperature. Zero Kelvin is an absolute absence of temperature.

And then the same reasoning must extend to a Big Bang model. If space, energy, and matter had a singularity (no matter how you define it), it too cannot be defined as having meaning because these are defined in terms of these qualities circularly. Then you have to treat such an origin as a mere 'approach', something that cannot ever be implied as 'true'.

this is thus no assurance that it represents a "hot" state any more than a "cold" state of origins.

"Hot" is when density of energy is sufficient; otherwise it's "relatively" hot. "Cold" is practically no density of energy (actual electromagnetic universe is at 2,7 K). Time equal zero was "cold"; 10^-43 sec later, the temperature was the most it could be, because so was the density of energy. All this because all existing actual energy was "contained" in a space-time of 10^-33 meter. There's no other way to defend the BB theory. All other interpretations cannot be logical. Not being "logical" would make them "magical".

How do you possibly reconcile your own belief that some specific unique quantity just jumped into existence with no 'force' to compel its existence without "magic"?

The "hot" interpretation implies a magical existence from nothing to a something more complex than nothing. At least a nothing has even an absence of 'heat' as with our local realization of a zero Kelvin that DOES exist but that we cannot literally experience. If a hot origin were true, why is a 0 Kelvin not magically hot too at that point that then magically pops to be something cold some 10^-(x) degrees closer to it [? 2.7 K?]? Can you not see how this absurdity should make you question how and why we don't assume that whatever lowest temperature we reach too can be treated as 'evidence' of some 'hot' real origin of 0 K as the Cosmic Background radiation was used to assume this as deriving a hot origin?

So if you assume some point at which space 'began' at some sudden fixed constant, this would be like going form 0 to any positive distance in an INFINITESIMALLY small point in time.

Not if everything started with a rotation of a unidimensional point. We mustn't forget that our universe as been proven "Euclidian". Whatever is Euclidian has to be composed of unidimensional points.

And if you've read Euclid, you'd see that his own apparent treatment of points were literally those that occupy NO space. Matter thus cannot be defined as these but can be defined in terms of points. Space is defined through Euclidean points of 'nothings'.

This is WHY the "inflation model" was invented! They realized their logic was flawed unless they could create some myth of magical super acceleration

I agree with you that "inflation" was invented by assuming a magical "energy" coming out of nowhere (later attributed to the "void", which doesn't hold). But only the simplest "inflation" theory is still acceptable since the results of satellite Planck. And the simplest "inflation" is similar to what happened to the water volume when Archimedes jumped in his bathtub. There's no magic to that.

I've got to admit that my "defense" of the BB is not necessarily better than your defense of "steady state" theory; but it answers to the problem created by the "expansion" of the universe. I spent 40 years gathering real "facts" proven by science (refusing imaginary interpretations) and spent another 15 years to put it all together logically. And the answers I found to my questions of 55 years ago are satisfying. So...like James Brown would say...I feel good! :-)

We need to revert to the Steady State KIND of model to bridge Cosmology to the Atomic physics involved without contradiction. The limiting factors are about the interpreted assumptions going into different perspectives looking to the large versus the small without appropriate consistency.

Much of this doesn't 'undo' the actual science in-between either. But it would affect HOW much of it is explained and can aid in allowing us better to advance our powers in technological advancements.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

ONLY an ABSOLUTE NOTHING has the property of being 'free' from the restraints of even laws as an origin.

Then you don't agree with the quantum dynamic that has a zero value that is not "absolute" but is zero +?

Any substance more complex than nothing itself is more problematic.

Nothing translated in French is : Rien; Nothingness translated in French is : Néant. Furthermore, "Néant" is not "Rien". There's distinction between the two. I don't know how to make that distinction in English; I'm sorry. But it would be something like: Nothing (Rien) has the potentiality of being "something". On the contrary, "Nothingness" would be the negation of itself; so no potentiality at all. So the Universe can start at a "nothing" stage; but cannot at a "nothingness" one.

The EVIDENCE we have is THAT this 'space' DOES come from everywhere (expansion)

Sorry; I got it wrong then. I thought that space expanded everywhere; not "came from everywhere".

And so regardless, we have more local reasons to believe that space and NOT matter CAN derive from nothing

I agree since it's exactly what I'm saying. Space is only a result of "motion"; matter is a form of energy.

Matter is defined as a concept that occupies space.

Exactly.

But the BB interpretation treats space as a byproduct of matter.

I don't agree; BB interpretation treats space as deriving from "nothing". The stage of LeMaître "Big initial atom" is far long dismissed (at least for me who is not a scientist; for all scientists I'm nor sure).

If it doesn't occupy space, what is this 'substance' unless it is some kind of God-essence?

God forbid! Does a two dimensional particle occupy "space" (volume)? I don't think it can.

where did THAT come from in an equally eternal way

I don't know about "eternal way"; but could "two dimension" come from "one dimension"?

It treats the singularity as either a point of nothing OR an apparent kind of vanishing point as parallel lines appear to meet but can technically go on forever.

A point of nothing is possible; but if you mean a point of nothingness, that's impossible. On the other hand, if you have parallel lines "appear" to meet but, in reality, don't, you have a "flat universe" at the beginning. Since our universe is Euclidian, it would be surprising that two parallel lines would "meet". So you have flat space without matter (or gravity) present.

It needs to have some speed X + 1/2, for instance in between to get to X + 1 from an original X. If this happens, this is acceleration.

Static potentiality changing to a probability is "acceleration"; no question about that. Further more, moving probabilities getting to the state of "possibilities" is an added "acceleration". May I had that to pass from possibilities to actual "reality" needs all the speed possible, which would be the last acceleration possible?

But it requires that for each step back in time a corresponding step in distance occurs.Then this is NOT a real acceleration but an infinitesimal approach.

What if the motion accelerating is a rotation?

Thus there is no need to think of time nor space as being 'created'.

There's no need for "steady state" theory; but there's one for the BB theory. So a potentiality point starts to rotate (at quantum energy 0+). Which point augments exponentially (because of the rotation motion), giving it centrifugal effect (that also augments exponentially), which obliges it to duplicate continuously producing a bi-dimensional surface that augments in size relatively to the centrifugal effect. Until the centripetal effect (that appeared later than centrifugal) cannot hold everything together anymore. The surface then rips and all the energy accumulated while rotating is expelled (exploses) giving a depth to the previous surface. Space is now "created". I have no problem, now, to accept the BB theory.

It's hard to respond to this because implicit in the context is information based on assuming the BB true.

Nor exactly; it's rather based on wondering if it can be possible.

In contrast, since absolute nothingness CAN be contradictory, at least an origin in nothing CAN be equally nothing AND something.

In fact, "nothing" is "something"; only "nothingness" is a negation of itself.

Then you have to treat such an origin as a mere 'approach', something that cannot ever be implied as 'true'.

My mind doesn't want to know the "truth"; it wants to understand what "is" presently observable. To do this, it has to find a logical explication base on facts observed. "Truth" is not of my resort; maybe God, who knows? :-)

How do you possibly reconcile your own belief that some specific unique quantity just jumped into existence with no 'force' to compel its existence without "magic"?

When I described the effect of rotation producing a rip, one part was "expelled" out of Planck epoch (producing "volume"), while the other one stayed there and keep on rotating until it was time (or rather had the size 10^-33 m) to "jump" (manifest itself) into our universe. You'll find the whole description and explication at the bottom of this page:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29040
Entitled "How the universe was born". I assure you, there's no "magic" involved, not even "forces"; only "effects".

of a zero Kelvin that DOES exist but that we cannot literally experience.

Zero kelvin is "nothingness". It cannot exist. It's a negation of temperature. You cannot even transfer it in centigrade or Fahrenheit to give it "meaning".

And if you've read Euclid, you'd see that his own apparent treatment of points were literally those that occupy NO space.

Exactly

Space is defined through Euclidean points of 'nothings'.

At least defined as unidimensional point; which is the kind of "nothing" I don't stop talking about.

Much of this doesn't 'undo' the actual science in-between either. But it would affect HOW much of it is explained and can aid in allowing us better to advance our powers in technological advancements.

I agree completely to this statement. Thank you.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 9th, 2016, 5:49 pm wrote:
ONLY an ABSOLUTE NOTHING has the property of being 'free' from the restraints of even laws as an origin.

Then you don't agree with the quantum dynamic that has a zero value that is not "absolute" but is zero +?

I'm not sure what "quantum dynamic that has a zero...zero+" refers to personally. If you are assuming my own preference to distinguish a +0 versus -0, these are just my own uses to describe to different parts of literal space and time, not to the logical absolute nothingness. A 'logical absolute nothingness' by me is reference to totality without bias to our specific world (our physical universe) uniquely. But it does share the same kind of -0 point in that it doesn't even have space, time, or even "laws" themselves. The point I'm making is that you can't beg that such an absolute nothingness has some obedient 'mind' that requires it to obey to some specific law, even logical. At that state, it can be contradictory. This includes being able to be BOTH consistent and inconsistent.

The 'consistent' assumption you default to assume as a 'law' is that you assume if an absolute nothingness should be 'true', it would remain absolute nothing. However, even that is a restraint that is irrelevant. It may stay the same but it has no reason not to be also different simultaneously. This means that it CAN be in violation of our normal local logic because as an origin, it hasn't even a mind to BE or not BE in conflict of itself.

But because WE are alive, this at least assures that to this absolute, it does at least have some PART of itself that has laws. What you can think of is to how many realities are NOT true of which this is infinite. So as long as even consistency originated without a 'cause', it is justly unreal with respect to some part of that absolute. This doesn't break any 'law'. It just SEPARATES itself to distinct worlds that provide for each of the infinity of imagined non-existing things.

So I'm first arguing a conditional possibility: IF there IS any origin to our particular universe, it CAN derive from nothing and ONLY nothing because no other 'count' of laws permits how such laws are themselves derived. In other words, in the context of parsimony (Occam's razor), the least possibility is nothingness that derives reality in increasing complexity.

The alternative condition is that: IF there IS NO origin to our particular universe, it cannot be assumed to be anything BUT infinite without leading to contradiction. AND "non-contradiction" MUST be a law along with "consistency" (identity) and "exclusive truth-values" as a guiding principle. These laws though are never perfectly applicable as they still LEAD to contradictions and inconsistency. As such, the 'force' of our local universe with respect to totality is to take each reality that 'disobeys' by conflict (contradiction) and resolve it in some way. So we HAVE our 'initial force', "contradiction" itself.

Any substance more complex than nothing itself is more problematic.

Nothing translated in French is : Rien; Nothingness translated in French is : Néant. Furthermore, "Néant" is not "Rien". There's distinction between the two. I don't know how to make that distinction in English; I'm sorry. But it would be something like: Nothing (Rien) has the potentiality of being "something". On the contrary, "Nothingness" would be the negation of itself; so no potentiality at all. So the Universe can start at a "nothing" stage; but cannot at a "nothingness" one.

It might make sense if you consider the absolute nothingness as totality and the "nothing" is the stage of the apparent 'singularity'. But the question then is to how you go from even A "nothing" to a sudden particular UNIQUE but COMPLEX reality that is implicit in the Big Bang. How do you go from even some nothing to a complex story about light, energy, matter, directions/dimensions, etc without treating this as a "god did it" kind of LEAP? Any story then should be equally valid. I disagree. The simplest one is to assume nothing IF we demand the apparent point of a singularity implies a point of ORIGIN!

Assuming nothing or the BB version still has the FACT that space as some factor comes from some 'other' nothingness. But the BB version assumes a preference for "matter", "energy", and other distinct ideas to be coexisting as some MOTLEY of realities just mixed all together being BOTH a ONE thing and and INFINITY but never a Nothing. This makes our universe 'specially privileged', something that is more complex than assuming that matter, energy, and all the other factors are secondarily derived from space itself.

The EVIDENCE we have is THAT this 'space' DOES come from everywhere (expansion)

Sorry; I got it wrong then. I thought that space expanded everywhere; not "came from everywhere".

I'm not sure of your own distinction. To the Big Bang version, it treats matter as like random accessible memory in computers that have some predefined structure (the memory units themselves) but define distances from one memory space to another as 'software' formulations. So memory units pre-exist by some machine creator. The data these hold are then defined as 'matter' and the spaces are merely illusive software devices that connect the memory units. And this is where all the trouble lies. If our local reality is the machine but our very LAWS external to memory units define points as 'somethings' (a value zero in a memory space), then it raises the problem that an infinity of software programs can exist to do the same thing. If you are a 'something' IN the program, you could NOT possibly determine what those memory units ARE. Nor can you be certain that any machine language you might reverse engineer are not themselves like a Java Virtual machine, again an infinitely optional set of software.

Thus we need to simplify this by trying to image an origin WITHOUT anything at all. I do so in light of a Euclidean approach. That an 'abstract' point of nothing leads to other abstract points of the same that the DEFINE what simple realities are. A 'line' for instance is the state of two 'nothings' and at minimal designate the 'first' something. And such is 'manifest' in how we interpret this as real later on as a more complex higher-order software program.

And so regardless, we have more local reasons to believe that space and NOT matter CAN derive from nothing

I agree since it's exactly what I'm saying. Space is only a result of "motion"; matter is a form of energy.[/quote]
But while you 'allow' this, you still treat matter as being something more complex in existence that is a priori extant to that space. If space can derive from nothing, why assume that matter can pre-date space? It makes matter a kind of magical specific reality that isn't reducible.

You mention later that you treat some point as 'spinning'. This is also something I happen to agree to in my own interpretation. But I disagree to your 'story' because it implies other laws as making up this nothing point that needs to be rationalized. For instance, when you think of the 'speed' of that spinning particle, what is it that makes it 'spin' if there is nothing else to pre-exist to contrast it with? What is it 'spinning' in relation to? What could its possible 'speed' be?

If you begin with space, the way I do it is to assume only that to 2 x nothing is = 1 x nothing. Two points can only be 'true' if some logical 'law' initially assigns some part of totality to be consistent. As soon as such a possibility exists, it simply makes anything following it to try to 'remain' consistent. But if twice nothing is somehow a means to 'remain' consistent, it breaks it own rule for both remaining as is AND yet being somehow NOT because it is also twice itself. Thus, the contradiction demands reparation to make it consistent again. It can do this by making distinct separation again. That is, what is 'true' of one point to be two makes two distinct 'subworlds' that each have distinct 'copies' of each other that ALSO collectively exist. This is a kind of 'set theoretical' formulation.

For instance, set theory defines the class ∅ as the empty set. This is then equivalent to {}.
Then a 'zero' may be defined as {∅, {}}. It assumes that to each set, there is always another ∅ that exists. If you define 'construction' rules, like that to any set, each can be a set of sets, then the above makes sense too. A 'One' can be defined as {∅, {∅, {}} }. This is just a simplified example. I just use the idea of points of nothing in the same form. As you can see, as long as the empty set is defined, it assures one thing, namely the set it is exists. Then when zero is defined, the 'nothing' of that point proves that at least two things exist and forcefully constructs all numbers to infinity this way.

I do a similar thing but need other definitions to do this. The point is that you CAN define reality from nothingness. As long as one simply 'law', consistency, becomes one of the infinite possible non-existing things in absolute nothingness, it splits into distinct classes where absolute nothingness has distinct parts that DO have 'worlds' that have some order. And for EACH rule, because they always CONTRADICT at some point, this IS the 'force' of reality that permits all possibilities, including our particular world.

If a rule like
(1) Things must remain the same without a cause to force it to be different. Law of consistent identity. [reminds you of Newton's first law?],

(2)Taking some nothing,

(3)The law (2) breaks its own meaning if it is bound by rule (1) because it is distinct as a 'law'. So if (2) true, then (2) is not true by (1) as well.

Therefore
(4) Things must overcome broken laws by finding some way that it CAN be 'true'. Law of non-contradiction. So a 'new' place (world) must exist to supply this possible 'truth' that fits with all these rules,

(5) A new place for another law of (1) to exist, then (2), then (3), until another (4), repeat infinitely.

While this is just an example, these above simple rules base each new one on the previous ones and ALL latter ones must continue to make all others before it 'true'.

Matter is defined as a concept that occupies space.

Exactly.

So how do you think you can have matter first that is more complex than space and needs space to occupy it? This is like saying "I live at 98 Some Street, New York, NY" before "I" exists, "living" exists, or the address as some 'place' exists. You need the prior complex parts to exist before you can assert the meaning of that sentence 'true'.

But the BB interpretation treats space as a byproduct of matter.

I don't agree; BB interpretation treats space as deriving from "nothing". The stage of LeMaître "Big initial atom" is far long dismissed (at least for me who is not a scientist; for all scientists I'm nor sure).

No, it defaults the complexity of matter to exist at least WITH the extended co-existing space as 'growing'. I assume less that this. YOU CAN derive mass through space.

For instance, to my own theory, spaces are initially defined in the process of reasoning above that defines "dimensions" (steps 4 and 5 for instance). Then each 'new' dimension adds more complexity. For a fourth dimension, both time and expansion follow as one and the same. This occurs at EACH point and since it cannot derive volume directly expanding in volume, it segregates into an infinite set of worlds such that it permits 'expansion' in terms of 'moving lines'. That is, for each direction in a spherical expansion, for every point to exist, it consistently 'fits' only when it separately only allows one 'part' of that factor to exist per point and in every possible combinations.

Thus you have points everywhere that 'transfer' information of space itself at some constant rate. Mass can then be later defined where such lines contradict each other's capacity to continue as they are. For instance of all possible ways to lines can legitimately cross (since they actually lack substantial information of width), there is one unique way the contradict: a head on collision. This contradiction leads to 'curved' lines....and THIS is what originates matter and energy later.

If it doesn't occupy space, what is this 'substance' unless it is some kind of God-essence?

God forbid! Does a two dimensional particle occupy "space" (volume)? I don't think it can.

As you should by now see, it DEFINES space one additional point at a time. As long as a rule of consistency exists, then nothing as some point obeys this by 'copying' itself in place (or time) and this then breaks the rule that it is both one point and two points contradictorily. Can you see how this continues to act to resolve itself in a way that constructs reality?

where did THAT come from in an equally eternal way

I don't know about "eternal way"; but could "two dimension" come from "one dimension"?

Simple answer, "yes". As long as one point the a second exists to define a line, it 'copies' this creation continuously (a ray). But it is also true that if one point is no different to be 'original' then the other, this contradiction assures a line 'true' from that in the opposite direction. Then when any one point on the line is BOTH something trying to continue in both directions, it too conflicts by making some point on it try to be more than it is. That contradiction is resolved by finding some other "new" dimension (place) that then can be defined with more depth (I won't go into that here.)

This is already a lot here. But I'm not intending to posit here but to simply present at least a rationale that YOU CAN actually derive reality from nothingness without the garbage associated with the confusing complex problems associated with the Big Bang model. You just need to derive matter as a secondary state upon nothing. And this IS a form of "Steady State" because it treats each point in space as having the property of expansion, not simply some single special point. If space only derived from one point, then the model I showed even in the OP is not able to explain HOW space can come from a single point but then jump to an infinity of them between each 'matter'. And considering if this nothing is not a 'something' then it begs something more complex that requires each piece of matter to define itself with respect to each and every point in its own defining structure. That is WAY too complex.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

If you are assuming my own preference to distinguish a +0 versus -0,

You cannot have -0 since 0 k is an "absolute".

It may stay the same but it has no reason not to be also different simultaneously.

Sorry. Only Harry Potter can make black be white simultaneously.

it hasn't even a mind to BE or not BE in conflict of itself.

It doesn't need a "mind"; the choice presents itself naturally.

But because WE are alive, this at least assures that to this absolute, it does at least have some PART of itself that has laws.

More rightly, it says that "nothingness" cannot be and that its definition is exact: it's a negation of itself.

What you can think of is to how many realities are NOT true of which this is infinite.

Right; because there's only one final "reality" inside all the initial "probabilities".

IF there IS any origin to our particular universe, it CAN derive from nothing and ONLY nothing because no other 'count' of laws permits how such laws are themselves derived.

Once it starts to leave the state of "nothing", there's only one law that manifests itself: "adapt to survive" all the "probabilities" that have to be experienced, in order to eliminate whatever is not a "possibility". After that is done, it has to start over again with the "same law" in order to define the only "reality" that is hiding in all those possibilities. Evolution is rater simple to understand.

So as long as even consistency originated without a 'cause', it is justly unreal with respect to some part of that absolute.

The absolute is out of the picture. That "question" was answered as soon as the "potentiality" manifested itself. You cannot come back to it. From now on, there's nothing that will happen without a "cause"; everything will be "consequences".

In other words, in the context of parsimony (Occam's razor), the least possibility is nothingness that derives reality in increasing complexity.

Not "nothingness" but "nothing". Nothingness is now irrelevant; it never could be, by definition, anyway. As for the increasing complexity, you're right; it's called "entropy".

The alternative condition is that: IF there IS NO origin to our particular universe, it cannot be assumed to be anything BUT infinite without leading to contradiction.

To eliminate that "contradiction" (which doesn't exists) you have to ask yourself: "What is the universe?"

The universe is "all that exists". And that "all that exists" is in expansion; which means that space-time is "produced" constantly by the "movement" of expansion. Producing space-time augments the "volume" of space-time; but since this "volume" is surrounded by "what doesn't exists", it's "infinite" but has a "finite" volume. There's no contradiction at all.

As such, the 'force' of our local universe with respect to totality

Forger that word "force". A force is magical; it doesn't exists. Only "effects" exist and they manifest no "action"; there's passive; they don't have energy to "manifest" or "distribute". And those "effects" are all "consequences". Nothing else.

How do you go from even some nothing to a complex story about light, energy, matter, directions/dimensions, etc without treating this as a "god did it" kind of LEAP

Sorry to say; but "god" is another word you have to eliminate from your vocabulary; it has the same "source" as the previous word "force". Gog, in order to "create" the universe, has to be stationed "outside the universe. And we just saw that an "outside of universe" cannot exists since the universe is all that exists. So that eliminates god "the facto". So we don't have to talk about "nothingness", "force" nor "god" anymore.

IF we demand the apparent point of a singularity implies a point of ORIGIN!

I already proved to you that the singularity IS NOT the point of origin; it's only the state of "volume" attained by our universe at 10^-43 sec after time = zero.

But the BB version assumes a preference for "matter", "energy", and other distinct ideas to be coexisting as some MOTLEY of realities just mixed all together being BOTH a ONE thing and and INFINITY but never a Nothing.

Geez! You must love eating salad! :-) Now, today, different types of "energy" coexist in the universe; but at the origin, there was just one type of energy existing: kinetic energy. Whatever you find today is the result of transformations of portions of that initial kinetic energy. Mount your scenario of the history of the universe on that simple base and you will succeed in producing all that you can observe around you, today. I cannot be more specific. Sorry.

This makes our universe 'specially privileged',

I disagree; our universe is the only "way" it can be. Every other possibility, up to this point, has not been "viable" and was discarded and recycled. You can see that in all decaying particles.

To the Big Bang version, it treats matter as like random accessible memory

You're getting me wrong. I don't defend whatever interpretation of the BB theory circulates everywhere. I defend the notion that our universe had a "beginning" and I explain how I see it to be "logical". Whatever another person says, it irrelevant to me. I'm constantly living with what I think; not what other people think. :-)

Right now we are exchanging what we think; but I'm not telling you what to think; I'm just defining what I think doesn't fit, from my point of view, in what you're saying. Nothing else.

If a rule like
(1) Things must remain the same without a cause to force it to be different. Law of consistent identity. [reminds you of Newton's first law?],

It reminds me of "god".

As I told you before; in my mind, there's only one law : adapt to reach "viability" in your environment. And that's what our universe did since its beginning.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 10th, 2016, 12:00 pm wrote:
If you are assuming my own preference to distinguish a +0 versus -0,

You cannot have -0 since 0 k is an "absolute".

This must have gone right over your head. I said that I labeled two zeros for the illustration above because where the assumed beginning in the Big Bang version is actually like treating the 4 degree Kelvin measure of the background radiation as though it WERE the 'zero'. I'm saying that where I later illustrate the "-0" is to indicate the ACTUAL singularity that we infer by convergence. The Big Bang treats matter as all there was in the beginning which is begging. It is even worse logic than to assume space itself from nothing because it magically creates a FIXED QUANTITY of some substance. It also LACKS space and yet it contradicts this by mass being also defined as that which occupies space. If there is no space, there can be no 'matter' either. Matter is dependent on space to exist .....Space is NOT dependent on matter to exist.

It may stay the same but it has no reason not to be also different simultaneously.

Sorry. Only Harry Potter can make black be white simultaneously.

I wrote a lot and so prefer that you mention what context such statements are about. (like replacing the "It" with "[Absolute Nothingness] may stay the same...." Otherwise readers cannot figure out what I'm referencing and I may be able to interpret your own possible misinterpretations.)

I refer to the nature of an absolute nothing WITHOUT time. So our 'exist' language is hard to assert when we are bound to terms as such even when discussing these ideas prior to all these factors. The 'contradiction' of an absolute nothing is the ONLY one viable as a rational "origin", conditional upon time, space, and matter, etc, to have come from some 'origin'.

The Big Bang version IS one that treats space, time, etc, as having an origin AT the singularity. It is NOT like the Steady State version that treats that singularity as a mere illusion of perspective. Thus the logic I am presenting HAS to at least extend to a Big Bang type of interpretation and if you find it difficult, then you should abandon the interpretation of that theory. What I'm arguing (for the "absolute nothing" concept) is a meta-logical/meta-physical 'origin' of absolutely ALL of totality beyond merely our particular universe. The class term, "totality" is the reference for an absolute nothingness, NOT our particular universe. BUT if you adapt the Big Bang assumptions, then the singularity IS a paradox just in the very way you claim is odd for an absolute nothingness. If you assume that point as a REAL point, then you believe that matter POPS into existence and why the name, "Big Bang". Space itself though already doesn't have this burden. Being a kind of 'nothing', it is flexible in the same way I point out about that which has no 'laws' prior to becoming. Matter though IS breaking a 'law' if you allow it to POP into existence because unlike a 'nothing' or "nothingness", matter is a concept greater than nothing by an infinite amount.

it hasn't even a mind to BE or not BE in conflict of itself.

It doesn't need a "mind"; the choice presents itself naturally.

BUT matter popping into existence DOES have this problem unless it derives FROM nothing ....OR...it is an eternal part of reality, thus, a 'steady state' factor of eternal existence.

But because WE are alive, this at least assures that to this absolute, it does at least have some PART of itself that has laws.

More rightly, it says that "nothingness" cannot be and that its definition is exact: it's a negation of itself.

IF there is absolutely ONE thing, there is NO NEGATION either. In other words, if all of reality were perfectly ONE thing (a 'finite' concept), it is NO DIFFERENT than an absolutely NON-thing (absolutely nothing).

I'll split this up for simplicity. You seem to require a digression on number and is more suited to the thread I began distinctly about the number of things. I began this one to show HOW the present concepts of expansion of space is contradictory under a Big Bang type assumption and not so with the Steady State version. If you default to believe that nothingness is non-real, then how do you prefer the Big Bang explanation that DOES pop all things from such a state? If my meta-logical argument of an absolute nothingness is troubling you, then a singularity of a fixed origin that derives all matter is more magical than to except a universe that is eternal.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Andrex » December 10th, 2016, 12:00 pm wrote:
IF there IS any origin to our particular universe, it CAN derive from nothing and ONLY nothing because no other 'count' of laws permits how such laws are themselves derived.

Once it starts to leave the state of "nothing", there's only one law that manifests itself: "adapt to survive" all the "probabilities" that have to be experienced, in order to eliminate whatever is not a "possibility". After that is done, it has to start over again with the "same law" in order to define the only "reality" that is hiding in all those possibilities. Evolution is rater simple to understand.

I don't know what you are thinking here. (?)

If you understand what is called "material implication" in logic, it asserts that for any given concept, there is always some prior one that implies that. In other words, 'causation' is infinite. You may be thinking that given any origin, if it should lead to any point of nothing in some future, this itself justifies a time/place where things can 're-evolve' out of nothing repeatedly. I don't disagree with this and used it illustratively to show how a set of universes linked one after the other is no different than treating these a coinciding (parallel). But this is a different digression. The Big Bang model though demands a SINGLE origin of space, matter, and time. But then it raises the question how space itself can be treated as 'non-existent' without matter to define it superficially?

So as long as even consistency originated without a 'cause', it is justly unreal with respect to some part of that absolute.

The absolute is out of the picture. That "question" was answered as soon as the "potentiality" manifested itself. You cannot come back to it. From now on, there's nothing that will happen without a "cause"; everything will be "consequences".

No, the 'absolute' is needed for a meta-logical/meta-physical justification of totality. I only raised this at all to relate what I extensively argue elsewhere. If you want to treat the singularity as a 'local' nothing, for fear of confusing issues here, you still require explaining how matter can derive uniquely at one moment and time in our universe and then just let things be from there. The state of being 'consistent' should require that whatever derived matter, energy and space, must maintain its 'inertia' of existence in the same way it came into this universe (as in fixed 'laws'). To say that it 'evolved' from X requires showing HOW. But we are BOUND to the 'laws' of physics and so cannot use our present 'laws' to assume that these had something different in the past. This is a religious kind of thinking because unlike biological evolution, we cannot actually go TO the singularity to prove nor disprove this. So we have to give charity to the assumptions that things were also constant through TIME with regards to physical reality itself.

In other words, in the context of parsimony (Occam's razor), the least possibility is nothingness that derives reality in increasing complexity.

Not "nothingness" but "nothing". Nothingness is now irrelevant; it never could be, by definition, anyway. As for the increasing complexity, you're right; it's called "entropy".

"Nothingness" is the descriptive term I use for any nothing when NOT placed with the added term, "absolute". You are just begging me to say "nothing" for your own favor since you interpret this to mean an absolute. "Nothingness" is the state or states of absent KINDS of nothings, like a real vacuum versus space itself that at least has 'volume'. "Nothing" is 'singular', "nothings" are the collective infinity of these, "nothingness" is the QUALITY of all kinds of these terms as "uniqueness" is to mean identical to "oneness".

What you are also asserting on this is that an ABSOLUTE state of ONENESS (uniqueness) to a finite quantity of matter popped into being AND that it is of a PERFECT state of order that THEN allows entropy to tear it apart. This is a belief that we are somehow 'special'. It treats it as one might assert that we humans come in the 'image' of an original creator. That is, it assumes because WE are made of matter, that matter had to have been specially privileged to be what the singularity held as an 'origin'.

In another thread elsewhere, someone mentioned how they figured God, if it existed, had to be evil. I raised the argument of an absolute nothingness in contrast to an absolute somethingness in comparison and agreement to that point.

In the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions, their "God" is considered "good" and precisely where the English word derived from similarly. They believed that this entity had to have been perfectly 'good' but this leads to the contradiction that all evil must have evolved from it. This is similar to the assumption that "Matter" was there at some 'beginning' and was ALL that "mattered". Then "nothing" is treated as the "evil" that comes FROM this or is somehow magically distinct as many think the Devil is.

I'm using this example to show how the logical error of assuming a 'something' lacks justification because for it to be CONSISTENT, all of an ABSOLUTE STATE of ONENESS by some origin as "matter" is assumed without contrast to the space it occupies is assumed by the BB model. An 'absolute' of nothingness though is more rational in just the same way one might think of a valid nature of 'god' to have BEGUN "EVIL" because than all that follows of its 'goodness' later is at least only an IMPROVEMENT from such an origin.

Maybe this explanation helps you to understand that the BB model supports an origin AND that it had only that which mattered as matter is to us a 'good' thing. In contrast, a SS model reverses this by assuming NOTHING as some origin to which matter derives from it AND that we do not NEED an 'origin' [even if this too CAN be 'true' of some metaphysical concept of totality as a whole].
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

BUT matter popping into existence DOES have this problem unless it derives FROM nothing…

You and I understand that matter cannot pop up into existence; so why are we still talking about it? I don’t understand.

IF there is absolutely ONE thing, there is NO NEGATION either. In other words, if all of reality were perfectly ONE thing (a 'finite' concept), it is NO DIFFERENT than an absolutely NON-thing (absolutely nothing).

Absolutely ONE thing is the last stage that will exist BECAUSE there’s no absolute “nothingness”. This last assessment is possible because we DO exist.

If you default to believe that nothingness is non-real,

Normally this phrase means that I would believe that nothingness is real; which I don’t.

then how do you prefer the Big Bang explanation that DOES pop all things from such a state?

It doesn’t POP UP all things from that state; only ONE thing "pops up" which is “movement”. The rests that "comes to be" are “consequences”.

then a singularity of a fixed origin that derives all matter is more magical than to except a universe that is eternal.

There’s no “singularity” of a fixed origin; even the singularity has an origin.

“Once it starts to leave the state of "nothing", there's only one law that manifests itself: "adapt to survive" all the "probabilities" that have to be experienced, in order to eliminate whatever is not a "possibility". After that is done, it has to start over again with the "same law" in order to define the only "reality" that is hiding in all those possibilities. Evolution is rater simple to understand.

I don't know what you are thinking here. (?)”

Because you don’t “see” or at least “consider” that our universe is going through a “process” which is “evolution” and an evolution “process” starts at a “potentiality state”, follows with a “probability state” that moves, afterword, to a “possibility state” to finally attain a “reality state”. "Potentiality state" has no “movement” involved; which means no space and no time. The final “reality state” has no flowing of time (it's ever present) and no distances (here is everywhere).

In other words, 'causation' is infinite.

Except when the result is “movement” when you get to its “cause” which is "non movement”, you cannot go further back. Sorry. "Dynamic" cannot produce "static" naturally (in a natural way).

The Big Bang model though demands a SINGLE origin of space, matter, and time.

We agree. And that origin is a state of “non movement”.
Now; how can "non movement" acquire "movement"?
It's rather simple. Note that "time" is not involved here; which means that "since we do exist", "nothingness" was eliminated right at the beginning as "impossible" (otherwise we couldn't exist today) Eliminating "nothingness" gave automatically a "potentiality" to the actual "nothing" of the origin. Giving a potentiality is giving a 0+ energy; which is enough to start "movement". (0+) is the smallest value given to zero in quantum dynamic. You cannot go lower. It also means that "absolute zero" (0k) cannot "be".

But then it raises the question how space itself can be treated as 'non-existent' without matter to define it superficially?

Space is nothing more than “movement”; erase all movement and space disappears; Space existence is directly linked to “expansion”. Without this “movement” space cannot exist since “movement” produces distances and time. Space is not defined by matter; it's define by "energy". Distance is define by matter.

If you want to treat the singularity as a 'local' nothing, for fear of confusing issues here,

I’m not the one that say “singularity” is a “local nothing”; you are. I’ve been saying, since the start that the singularity is “something” that was produced at 10^-43 sec after BB.

"Nothingness" is the descriptive term I use for any nothing when NOT placed with the added term, "absolute". You are just begging me to say "nothing" for your own favor since you interpret this to mean an absolute.

I’m not sure we understand each other; I don't have to beg. To me, “nothingness” is “absolute” and cannot “come to be” because its definition is “a negation of itself”. On the other hand, “nothing” is not equivalent, since “nothing”, in its own definition, has the potentiality of being “something”.

I'm using this example to show how the logical error

God is not a “logical error”; it’s “illogic”. For a parallel: “logical error” underline “logical truth” (just as “nothing” underline “something); “illogic” means “absence of “logical truth or false” (just like “nothingness” means absence of “nothing” or “something”).
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 11th, 2016, 11:29 am wrote:
BUT matter popping into existence DOES have this problem unless it derives FROM nothing…

You and I understand that matter cannot pop up into existence; so why are we still talking about it? I don’t understand.

Then you cannot logically support the Big Bang. In fact, with your certainty on this, you'd HAVE to accept a Steady State version which asserts what IS in existence is 'steady' (constant as a state through ALL time).

IF there is absolutely ONE thing, there is NO NEGATION either. In other words, if all of reality were perfectly ONE thing (a 'finite' concept), it is NO DIFFERENT than an absolutely NON-thing (absolutely nothing).

Absolutely ONE thing is the last stage that will exist BECAUSE there’s no absolute “nothingness”. This last assessment is possible because we DO exist.

The 'last'! I already treat what exists as that which follows non-existence. Once existence occurs, absolute nothingness ceases to be true ONLY by perspective. Because nothing lacks even time, we can return to it too and those 'nothings' then are non-contradictory ones BASED on an absolute nothing. Only if there never was an absolute nothingness, then everything in totality is absolutely 'true' in what follows because if you BEGIN with an absolute something, it leads to contradiction that cannot be reconciled with 'truth'.

If you ever followed the metalogic that leads to Godel's Incompleteness theorem, this theorem implies that given any CONSISTENT system of logic (or mathematical logic), it can never be 'complete', meaning that there will always be some 'truths' which could never be proven 'true' from within it AND you cannot use the very system of logic you are using to prove it. This extends to the laws of physics as well.

If you default to believe that nothingness is non-real,

Normally this phrase means that I would believe that nothingness is real; which I don’t.

But then you have to be able to prove this. You cannot even prove this to yourself unless you can be sure you lived forever in the past as to the future. That is, you ACTUALLY have a more rational inference that your conscious state BEGAN from such a nothing. So it is only your bias of living that prevents you from recognizing HOW you 'became'. This is like a 'singularity' relative to your life. But then do you still believe that your 'solipsistic' defaulted reality means that everything only 'matters' by assuming you ARE all there is? You certainly can't prove you die either because at such a state, the very definition of it too prevents you from asserting this afterthefact. But is this enough for you to still insist that all things in reality everywhere only exists because YOU require direct evidence of this? You CAN infer rationally that there was a point of which you may not have existed (a nothing) and with absolution (because you cannot provide evidence even to yourself that some part of you existed beforehand).

So you'd have to at least either accept an absolute nothingness OR default to not even presume your 'beginnings' are the actual beginnings but just a "LOCAL" perspective. You are welcome to trust that there is no actual nothingness, but then have to abandon the Big Bang interpretation of a singularity where everything began from a time and space of real zero. This then is the Steady State theory because it BY DEFINITION assumes an infinite singularity that is just a "LOCAL" appearance of one, just as you only 'appear' to be born from nothing.

then how do you prefer the Big Bang explanation that DOES pop all things from such a state?

It doesn’t POP UP all things from that state; only ONE thing "pops up" which is “movement”. The rests that follows are “consequences”.

Distinction without a difference. "movement" implies time. But if time had its own 'zero' with space NOT being 'zero', or whatever matter is supposed to be there, then a 'distance/time' is VARIABLE. Thus the speed of light itself would be something that changes too.

Regardless, you end up having either an acceleration from an apparent singularity that never actually IS zero if you attempt to remove ANY paradoxes OR you'd still have to treat that apparent 'point' as just a goalpost where time, space, and matter existed eternally. But are the identically LOGICAL same thing.

For example, if you could walk to the edge of the universe at any 'time' in any interpretation, would you ever be able to touch that 'wall'? The answer should be NO because if you did reach out to touch it, your part of being IN the universe would only extend the distance to that wall permanently out of reach. This is true of a 'point' where some potential nothing could be, as a singularity is. Because if time never existed BEYOND that point, you could never meaningfully approach it. ONLY if time persisted beyond that point, would that point be 'real' (tangible). If no time, no existence. (ex- OUT, -is or Is, for a plural set of 'I's, and -(s)tense 'stance' or 'tense')

then a singularity of a fixed origin that derives all matter is more magical than to except a universe that is eternal.

There’s no “singularity” of a fixed origin; even the singularity has an origin.

Then you have to revert to the Steady state rationale. The major reason the supporters of the Big Bang theory think that its version is 'true' is NOT because of this but to whether the past at that 'time' was HOTTER versus being COLDER. The 'proof' to them was the Cosmic background radiation of which I already explained could NOT even be measured 'cold' because of what both you AND I agree to: that Absolute Zero Kelvin could not be measurable. But the Big Bang supporters falsely treated their 'story' of a 4 Kelvin temperature as justifying a hot one arrogantly ignoring that some temperature at least greater than 0 Kelvin HAS to be a measure in our 'background' regardless. This 'guess' of 4 Kelvin was not the only one either. It just happen to be a 'convenient' one of many predictions. You predict the odds of somebody winning the lotto in next number of draws and you'd be correct to guess that 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 weeks are relatively 'safe' guesses. What are the odds that if you guessed 4 weeks and this turns out to be true? Does this make the ones guessing exactly '4' the REAL prophets of the truth? Does it assure that all others who either didn't guess or guessed wrong were sufficiently invalid prophets?

“Once it starts to leave the state of "nothing", there's only one law that manifests itself: "adapt to survive" all the "probabilities" that have to be experienced, in order to eliminate whatever is not a "possibility". After that is done, it has to start over again with the "same law" in order to define the only "reality" that is hiding in all those possibilities. Evolution is rater simple to understand.

I don't know what you are thinking here. (?)”

Because you don’t “see” or at least “consider” that our universe is going through a “process” which is “evolution” and all evolution “process” starts at a “potentiality state”, follows with a “probability state” that moves, afterword, to a “possibility state” to finally attain a “reality state”. "Potentiality state" has no “movement” involved; which means no space and no time. The final “reality state” has no flowing of time (it's ever present) and no distances (here is everywhere).

This is logical crap that is 'borrowing' the popularity of evolution in biology inappropriately. An 'evolution' can be 'true'. But it goes from simplest to more complex. You are assuming all reality was like a 'solid' that disintegrates in time, a state of original 'order' that DEVOLVES, not EVOLVES! There's a difference. You treat 'space' as an ABSOLUTE in 'size' such that there is some kind of literal 'wall' you can touch, that is a CLOSED system that enables entropy ONLY to apply. Evolution is non-entropy in that it derives more order by its tendency to make it persist in an UNPREDICTABLE environment that is "OPEN".

I don't follow your use of "potentiality/probability state" arguments. It doesn't matter anyways. You need to justify how you think that the Universe had some 'oneness' which can be both absolute AND still mean anything different than an absolute nothingness. If all there was to one's perception of light was 'black' everywhere, this 'state' is no different than being 'blind'. You can try to define the blind person's 'sight' by contrasting this imagined idea to other sighted people who could compare this with other 'colors'. But as far as the blind person 'sees', there is no difference to assert they 'see black' (a something) versus 'see nothing' (a nothing proper).

In other words, 'causation' is infinite.

Except when the result is “movement” when you get to its “cause” which is "non movement”, you cannot go further back. Sorry. "Dynamic" cannot produce "static" naturally (in a natural way).

You're arguing in circles. You earlier admitted that a nothingness cannot 'exist' by definition because it requires persistence through time to mean anything. Yet if what is 'dynamic' came from what is 'static', this too is just another way of asserting that 'static' reality 'exists' in the same conflict you hold against nothing.

The Big Bang model though demands a SINGLE origin of space, matter, and time.

We agree. And that origin is a state of “non movement”.
We don't because you want your cake and eat it too here. What is 'non-movement' if you don't presume THAT which already exists that CAN move? Your belief is that matter pre-exists these things but then feign from defining its 'state' when it cannot be defined without space nor time. If they identically coexist, then there is no REAL singularity, only an illusion of one. (See the 'wall' argument I just discussed above again.)

But then it raises the question how space itself can be treated as 'non-existent' without matter to define it superficially?

Space is nothing more than “movement”; erase all movement and space disappears; Space existence is directly linked to “expansion”. Without this “movement” space cannot exist since “movement” produces distances and time. Space is not defined by matter; it's define by "energy". Distance is define by matter.

Again, you are just arguing a Steady State interpretation. I hold that ALL points in and OF space is at one constant 'speed' (light speed) but only differs from matter or energy forms by the WAY they are transferring this information. [Spins and/or Linear] Regardless, the Steady State types interpret space as the source of energy/matter by default too. And this is EVERYWHERE rather than at some single point in space and time.

If you want to treat the singularity as a 'local' nothing, for fear of confusing issues here,

I’m not the one that say “singularity” is a “local nothing”; you are. I’ve been saying, since the start that the singularity is “something” that was produced at 10^-43 sec after BB.
Please humor me and tell me HOW you get this apparent precise number? I assure you its based on initially ASSUMING the BB, not prior to such an assumption. As such, you're specifying some fixed quantity of angels that can stand on the head of a pin without establishing THAT angels even exist first. You can't expect me to trust an ad hoc argument as 'support'. That's like attempting to read me some verse in the bible to prove that God wrote it and thus exists.

"Nothingness" is the descriptive term I use for any nothing when NOT placed with the added term, "absolute". You are just begging me to say "nothing" for your own favor since you interpret this to mean an absolute.

I’m not sure we understand each other; I don't have to beg. To me, “nothingness” is “absolute” and cannot “come to be” because its definition is “a negation of itself”. On the other hand, “nothing” is not equivalent, since “nothing”, in its own definition, has the potentiality of being “something”.

It's only a 'negation' if 'negation exists' at that point and why I insist on using the word 'absolute' in context. But do you think that something 'uniqueness' means the same as 'absolute uniqueness'? Note how 'unique' is just an original word for 'somethingness' or "the state of at least one", a class name description. An "absolute uniqueness" would be identical to the "absolute nothingness" for the explanation I just gave above of the blind man's sense of 'color'. Does he see "blackness" or is he "nothingness"?

I'm using this example to show how the logical error

God is not a “logical error”; it’s “illogic”. For a parallel: “logical error” underline “logical truth” (just as “nothing” underline “something); “illogic” means “absence of “logical truth or false” (just like “nothingness” means absence of “nothing” or “something”).

I already recognize varieties in negatives. You're saying that I can't use the word "nothingness" to imply its state of reality because it lacks 'existing' in virtue of our limits in language. Technically you can say that nothing is short for "not even ONE thing" and so "nothingness" is the "state of not even one thing existing". An "absolute nothingness" is then "the strict origin of ANY one thing as an origin".

One thing about absolutes though is that any NOTHING is just the same where any ONE thing can NEVER be absolute. If at some point I have no money in my pocket, when this is 'true' I really did have absolutely no money there even if I can't prove it later. You'd just rightly trust that it is possible and way more probable than any other claim.

If, on the other hand, I said I had a billion dollars in my pocket, you'd rightfully question me as whether this could even be possible let alone an absolute one. What's more believable? Can you demonstrate how you could put even a billion dollars in one single pocket let alone all the stars and galaxies with time and space collectively? OR would you question me if I said that I had absolutely nothing there at some point? Even a billion angels could fit in my pocket if it is not true anyways. But you wouldn't think I was nuts for saying that I lack even ONE angel there with even better credulity.

You might even postulate that angels DID exist at some time but 'evolved' to become what we are today. And that's 'safe' to state given I can't prove you wrong. But then let's say you postulated that if angels DID exist, they might not be seen but their angel dust should have left magical crumbs in space and if we looked and found evidence of a background radiation representing these crumbs, this would be sufficient to make non-angel theorists be definitively proven wrong for not having an explanation for those crumbs!
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

f, on the other hand, I said I had a billion dollars in my pocket, you'd rightfully question me as whether this could even be possible let alone an absolute one.

Our problem here is not if your pocket can hold a billion dollars; it's that when I see that billion dollars (universe), you say you always had that billion dollars in your pocket; and I say you economized it over the years.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 11th, 2016, 3:54 pm wrote:
f, on the other hand, I said I had a billion dollars in my pocket, you'd rightfully question me as whether this could even be possible let alone an absolute one.

Our problem here is not if your pocket can hold a billion dollars; it's that when I see that billion dollars (universe), you say you always had that billion dollars in your pocket; and I say you economized it over the years.

No, I'm saying its easier to trust one who asserts they had an 'absolutely' empty pocket then one who asserts an 'absolutely' uniquely novel one, like a billion dollars. I could say I had a billion anything, like angels, for instance. It just seems rather odd that one should expect me to assume a 'something' AS AN ORIGIN rather than a nothing.

Material implication is,

Given P,
then there it is true that (If Q, then P).

But Q is arbitrary if it is anything unique OTHER THAN nothing itself. You expect to begin with empty pockets before you fill them. So the universe would be oddly 'special' had it begun with 1/10^47 with 80.3947329 billion particles uniquely (I'm making up these for the point). "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" used this point by having the powerful supercomputer compute the answer as "42". It seems unusually special without something even more fundamental.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

It just seems rather odd that one should expect me to assume a 'something' AS AN ORIGIN rather than a nothing.

That's what happens when you base "gradually" evolving opinion on a "steady state". You have to re-state constantly the "steadiness". I'm joking; of course. The question is: How much am I really joking. That's exactly what I'm asking myself right now. :-)

So; why not "nothing" being the origin of evolution (more complex changings), instead of "everything" being the "origin" of a "steady state" (which the contrary is observed, meaning "transformations")?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 12th, 2016, 12:47 pm wrote:
It just seems rather odd that one should expect me to assume a 'something' AS AN ORIGIN rather than a nothing.

That's what happens when you base "gradually" evolving opinion on a "steady state". You have to re-state constantly the "steadiness". I'm joking; of course. The question is: How much am I really joking. That's exactly what I'm asking myself right now. :-)

So; why not "nothing" being the origin of evolution (more complex changings), instead of "everything" being the "origin" of a "steady state" (which the contrary is observed, meaning "transformations")?

The LAWS of chemistry and physics were the SAME before biological evolution as after. That's the difference. The Big Bang is a theory that treats physics itself as being 'different' at its origin. But if this were the case, you can make up any story to 'fit' with this the way one specifies their 'histories' of their gods origin stories in a literal sense.

The 'metaphysic/metalogical' arguments can allow this, but not physics proper. That is, you can argue what may speculatively be some 'origin' that lacked a different state of physics, like a 'god' or some heaven or even a Matrix. But this is an EXTENSION that can only fit into science proper if you have one that you hold all factors consistent once a contingent world exists.

The Big Bang treats the singularity as a REAL 'origin'. And it is politically a favorable one only for the sake of religious biases. It leads to more contradictions genetically otherwise. It biases US as 'favored' in totality where a 'steady state' version doesn't.

On topic specifically, I showed certain contradictions above that you had not even tried to notice or just cannot follow. When we begin with 'matter' as all there was at some origin, it does the same as our ancients did with air and even water: they treat these as mysterious entities or 'spirits' that are tabooed to discuss. We politically denied the use of 'zero' for this same reason for a long time. And now, we are again at another kind of confusion about whether a 'nothing' is a something or not. To you, it is 'ineffable'. So you accept beginning ONLY with matter. That anyone can speak of 1/(positive integer) size of Universe with a (positive integer) number of matter and energy, etc, this treats the origin itself as just being the 'evolved' new religious "Spirit of God".

An origin CAN be real. But it is NOT what our observations actually assert when we understand what 'nothing' is.

While I can understand your own doubt on understanding some metalogical/metaphysical origin, do you NOT see the paradoxes I presented earlier for accepting the models we have? If we can't speak of anything of an 'absolute zero' for temperature OR an 'absolute zero' for time and space, how can you jump to accepting an 'absolute ONE', the state of having a real FINITE quantity of 'matter' that is absolutely UNIQUE (ONE of a kind)?
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

The Big Bang is a theory that treats physics itself as being 'different' at its origin

Sorry; but it's not the "laws" of physics that made the Big bang; it's the BB that made the law of physics. So the actual laws we "hold" are "interpretations" of what we understand of the BB. As you say, it doesn't "fit"; so before disregarding the whole thing, we must reconsider our "interpretations" of it.

First thing to understand is "there're no law" that can apply to the evolution of the universe. There can be only "consequences" which are not at all "interactions between particles" either. All interactions are between the "object" and the "surrounding energetic environment"; not other "particles". The BB was a "consequence" of energy, and everything that followed was "interactions" with that "universal energy". This is not "metaphysical"; it's strictly physical. So God, or whatever, has nothing to do with it. Personnaly, I can't keep up using my "head" if God doesn't stop "interfering"; ans so can't anybody else.

The Big Bang treats the singularity as a REAL 'origin'

And the "steady state" treats it as a "non-real" origin. So what? That is the question to debate; not an "assessment".

And it is politically a favorable one, only for the sake of religious biases.

I'm going to "argue" religion just this once: Religion came to people after they "realized" that there where "mysteries" in nature. Which means: a long time AFTER BB. Even more than that "simple" definition, religions appeared because they had "answers" to those "mysteries". Then it is most probable that religions are "remembrances" of former "science" partly forgotten; because the basics of ALL religions are "scientifically" observed. If religion "biased" something, it made us "believe" in "magical forces" coming out of nowhere. If we get rid of that, BB is purely "logical".

it does the same as our ancients did with air and even water: they treat these as mysterious entities or 'spirits' that are tabooed to discuss.

And there is the "supremacy" of our actual "intellect" compared to our ancestors intellect. We are convinced that our ancestors started running around, in the plain, like crazy because they saw lightning and eared thunder. Even a cow, doesn't start running that way when it sees and ears it. It settles down and wait it to pass. So does the pygmies I met in Africa; and they don't have religion. Primitives are more "pragmatic" than we are generally. But when we look at them, we project on them our own convictions. Most of our opinions, we dreamed them.

So you accept beginning ONLY with matter.

It's evident that you don't read what I write or you quit thinking while reading it. I don't say that everything began with "matter"; science says this. I say that everything began with energy which is not "matter" mind you. Matter is energy; but energy is not matter. Just like ice is water but water is not ice. So just try to let go that idea of yours that everything began with "matter"; it's impossible.

do you NOT see the paradoxes I presented earlier for accepting the models we have?

I can't because I eliminated those paradoxes a long time ago. Newton's idea are more than 300 years old; it's about time we let them go. Einstein ideas are 100 years old; it's about time we understand them. As a matter of fact, Einstein himself didn't understand completely all the implications of his idea. So it's not yet the time to dismiss them before understanding them ourselves.

how can you jump to accepting an 'absolute ONE', the state of having a real FINITE quantity of 'matter' that is absolutely UNIQUE (ONE of a kind)?

"Real finite quantity of MATTER" again. I think that is your "basic" belief and that you cannot get rid of it. It would explain your acceptance of a "steady state" universe. I agree.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 13th, 2016, 11:17 am wrote:Sorry; but it's not the "laws" of physics that made the Big bang; it's the BB that made the law of physics. So the actual laws we "hold" are "interpretations" of what we understand of the BB. As you say, it doesn't "fit"; so before disregarding the whole thing, we must reconsider our "interpretations" of it.

First thing to understand is "there're no law" that can apply to the evolution of the universe. There can be only "consequences" which are not at all "interactions between particles" either. All interactions are between the "object" and the "surrounding energetic environment"; not other "particles". The BB was a "consequence" of energy, and everything that followed was "interactions" with that "universal energy". This is not "metaphysical"; it's strictly physical. So God, or whatever, has nothing to do with it. Personnaly, I can't keep up using my "head" if God doesn't stop "interfering"; ans so can't anybody else.

You're not making any sense. The BB takes the non-Perfect Cosmological assumption meaning they don't treat reality to have had the same reality at its origins. It contradicts itself even on this basis. IF our Universe began with a BB interpretation, it is based on that SINGULARITY. IF it further assumes 'evolution' of physics because they believe things looked different in the past, then how do are they so faithful that the singularity itself is NOT a mere illusion? How do they USE our capacity to observe WITH what we use locally of OUR physics to interpret THAT (a) a singularity in time, space, energy, matter exists? AND then, conveniently leave a gap where some miracle occurs to the point where matter (or energy) coexists?

Note that matter AND energy are co-existing factors. Energy means NOTHING without mass to define it as in

E = mc²

How do you define "energy" without mass as a factor?

The Big Bang treats the singularity as a REAL 'origin'

And the "steady state" treats it as a "non-real" origin. So what? That is the question to debate; not an "assessment".

WHEN you begin with a state of ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOTHING, it implies a SOMETHING which itself has a 'cause'. This goes back infinitely. But the BB assumes a beginning to our contingent universe and then SKIPS how they can connect the dots where it assumes Energy (of all forms including mass) exists in a fixed quantity. It also treats SPACE as a nothing yet 'expands' as though artificial data linking structures that require a matrix of complex linking data to describe how each other matter links to each other. It would have to be infinitely supplemented.

For instance, I gave an example of RAM memory before. If matter or energy or whatever 'thingness' you want to imagine greater than nothing exists, you can imagine it in a random access memory "structure" that then locates and defines the location of each and every particle with respect to each and every particle as in:

Particle 1: Given some x, y, an z axis to this, particle 2 will be defined as (2.5, 3.49, 59.95) elementary matter units from it; particle 3 will be ....
.... particle ∞ + 35 = (5902833, 034935.3200935, 20393), etc.

I'm certain from your attitude that you won't be able to follow. But this points out how if you treat nothing as unreal, you have to reference distances, speeds, etc, as just still some superficial data points that formulate how to get to each and every point. This is way more complex than to have reality based on nothing.

The point is that space is a something and a form of 'nothing' too. You cannot explain this paradox without circular reasoning when you BEGIN by assuming a 'consistent' one to one solution. You have to begin with NO assumptions, a nothing, because while it still leads to a 'something', this is NOT contradictory where no laws exists until a law of 'contradiction' exists. Laws too have to come from somewhere.

The only OTHER alternative is to assume an infinity of time, space, and matter/energy.

And it is politically a favorable one, only for the sake of religious biases.

I'm going to "argue" religion just this once: Religion came to people after they "realized" that there where "mysteries" in nature. Which means: a long time AFTER BB. Even more than that "simple" definition, religions appeared because they had "answers" to those "mysteries". Then it is most probable that religions are "remembrances" of former "science" partly forgotten; because the basics of ALL religions are "scientifically" observed. If religion "biased" something, it made us "believe" in "magical forces" coming out of nowhere. If we get rid of that, BB is purely "logical".

I've proposed a secular causation of religion too. But what does this have to do with anything other than that you think it is okay to deem what is UNKNOWN and UNIQUELY biased to our human concerns as justified to postulate a position THAT the Big Bang occurred even without evidence of the Singularity to BE real. Why posit Big Bang at all? Why exclude the Steady State version of that singularity to be a mere appearance? Why posit a story of strangeness upon only ONE mere belief that the Cosmic Background is heat from a hot origin where all things in reality were crammed into an infinite tiny space with an abrupt start that pops a complex odd mixture of weirdness with such absurd details using numbers as though we had a PRECISE image of reality FROM a different physics that we can magically infer correctly still from our different perspective, .... !

So you accept beginning ONLY with matter.

It's evident that you don't read what I write or you quit thinking while reading it. I don't say that everything began with "matter"; science says this. I say that everything began with energy which is not "matter" mind you. Matter is energy; but energy is not matter. Just like ice is water but water is not ice. So just try to let go that idea of yours that everything began with "matter"; it's impossible.
And here's your biggest blunder yet. Energy is a derived number to relate how masses change from some state of consistent movement. Energy without a material description lacks more sense if you cannot use mass to define it.

do you NOT see the paradoxes I presented earlier for accepting the models we have?

I can't because I eliminated those paradoxes a long time ago. Newton's idea are more than 300 years old; it's about time we let them go. Einstein ideas are 100 years old; it's about time we understand them. As a matter of fact, Einstein himself didn't understand completely all the implications of his idea. So it's not yet the time to dismiss them before understanding them ourselves.

how can you jump to accepting an 'absolute ONE', the state of having a real FINITE quantity of 'matter' that is absolutely UNIQUE (ONE of a kind)?

"Real finite quantity of MATTER" again. I think that is your "basic" belief and that you cannot get rid of it. It would explain your acceptance of a "steady state" universe. I agree.

You clearly ARE a paradox if you insist wisdom to know that Nothingness itself is not real. If you die, can you prove you are dead? OR, do you suppose you never die? Then reverse that: You must be God yourself considering you must never have 'begun' or to assert that you know without INDUCING some past before you of others.

Do you KNOW how we infer that there is an absolute zero Kelvin? I ask you this because I doubt you do and it would be interesting to see how you can accept an inference that we could never achieve zero Kelvin even though we can see a linear convergence point of -273 degrees Celsius? Should I not think you nuts by your own standard in not noticing the contradiction you hold in an ABSENCE of perspective? Can you not see that the "absolute zero Kelvin" is both a nothing AND a something simultaneously?
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

You're not making any sense. The BB takes the non-Perfect Cosmological assumption meaning they don't treat reality to have had the same reality at its origins.

I don't quite get the sense that you have here.

IF our Universe began with a BB interpretation, it is based on that SINGULARITY.

And if it did, you're right. But...it didn't...like I keep repeating you.

because they believe things looked different in the past,

The fact is: I, myself, looked different in the past and I guess I'm part of the universe.

then how do are they so faithful that the singularity itself is NOT a mere illusion?

I'm convince that I was not an illusion when I looked different.

AND then, conveniently leave a gap where some miracle occurs to the point where matter (or energy) coexists?

Where's the gap???

How do you define "energy" without mass as a factor?

E = mc² Is a "motion" equation. It says that kinetic energy = mass (at rest) multiplied by light speed square. So the "overall equation is not "at rest" at all. Eisntein said that there was only two energies in the universe: kinetic and mass energy. I say there's only one kind of energy; because mass energy is kinetic energy that "changed" its aim; kinetic (energy) shoots everywhere, mass (energy) shoots at a single point.

WHEN you begin with a state of ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOTHING, it implies a SOMETHING which itself has a 'cause'.

And the "cause" is because "nothingness" cannot be. It's a negation of itself; while, "nothing" has a potentiality of being "something" observable by simply "moving"

I'm certain from your attitude that you won't be able to follow.

You're right there.

The point is that space is a something and a form of 'nothing' too.

I don't observe that. What I see is space is something and matter is another thing. Further more I observe that matter can occupy space; and I'm conscient that matter doesn't "replace" the space it occupies. If I take out the matter, the space is still there; unless you think it was eliminated. So space is not a form of "nothing". These are "facts". There's no paradox involved.

Laws too have to come from somewhere.

Laws come from your brain; nowhere else. They are suppose to help you understand. The more laws you accept the more your liberty of "solving" diminishes.

The only OTHER alternative is to assume an infinity of time, space, and matter/energy.

Probably because of the "false" laws you accept.

Why posit Big Bang at all?

It's maths: 1 comes before 2 which comes before 3 which comes before "many-many".

Why exclude the Steady State version of that singularity to be a mere appearance?

In fact it's not even an "appearance"; you're right. We can observe "changes".

the Cosmic Background is heat from a hot origin where all things in reality were crammed into an infinite tiny space

Which tells you that the origin had a denser energy density than today and that's what caused the heat. The description you're using is one of an alchemist who, at the time, didn't have anything else to compare than different temperatures. We have better things of comparison today.

Energy is a derived number to relate how masses change from some state of consistent movement.

Energy is a number that is given to a moving mass??? So movement creates energy? What then creates "movement" tell me?

Energy without a material description lacks more sense if you cannot use mass to define it.

Is that so? It's the "description" that creates the "object". So if you don't get a description, the object doesn't exist. Let's say you live in Australia and I tell you that there's a bridge that exist in front of Quebec in Canada. That bridge won't exist before I describe it to you?

If you die, can you prove you are dead? OR, do you suppose you never die?

It depends of what we're talking about.

Then reverse that: You must be God yourself considering you must never have 'begun'

Then I'd have to say that I'm in a "steady state".

Can you not see that the "absolute zero Kelvin" is both a nothing AND a something simultaneously?

One thing is sure; it's not a temperature. And it was a perfect exemple of what is an "absence of"; which should permit you to understand the notion "negation of".
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 13th, 2016, 3:37 pm wrote:
You're not making any sense. The BB takes the non-Perfect Cosmological assumption meaning they don't treat reality to have had the same reality at its origins.

I don't quite get the sense that you have here.

The Cosmological Principle (without time) assumes that everything should look the same from any place in the Universe EXCEPT in a different 'time'. So they assume that if you go back 13 billion years, for instance, that you'd see a different kind of Universe in the BB model. You'd see that the Universe was only 1 billion years old.

This is absurd for exactly what I asked you before about going to the 'edge' of the Universe and trying to 'touch' its wall where it ends. The instant ANY expansion occurs, if in a BB version, space would go from 0 to infinity without time. So how could you even go back in time to some point where time itself didn't begin? You're bound to time and why I can't ask you what you were doing in 1777 A.D. . NOT being alive, you are not privileged to make sense of NOT being alive. But as soon as you are, you INDUCE a past. The same should go for that 'singularity' to be UNBIASED.

IF our Universe began with a BB interpretation, it is based on that SINGULARITY.

And if it did, you're right. But...it didn't...like I keep repeating you.

And I'm TELLING you that the Big Bang theory is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT UPON THAT SINGULARITY! Any other theory rests on a Steady State form because they DON'T assume either an origin or not, but can only assume that things of the past must be judged by our PRESENT capacity to observe LOCALLY. So you cannot assume some place that had plasma at 56.9439 degrees Kelvin 0.399580349000 seconds AFTER the Big Bang. A "Kelvin" nor "size" nor "the speed of light" can be logically more nor less true if you assume a time and place that is DIFFERENT from OUR local physics. To assert such is to make up myths by picking which standards you want and allowing others standards to be 'flexible'. It's infinitely unpredictable.

because they believe things looked different in the past,

The fact is: I, myself, looked different in the past and I guess I'm part of the universe.

You are misinterpreting 'evolution of physics'. Biological evolution relies on the SAME IDENTICAL PHYSICAL LAWS we have now. The BB is assuming a weird place and time that had no galaxies (though this is what we see all around us locally), no time (though we are trapped in it), and even ACCEPT a 'collapse' in the laws so opt to JUMP forward a tad.

then how do are they so faithful that the singularity itself is NOT a mere illusion?

I'm convince that I was not an illusion when I looked different.
And in 1777? What did you 'look' like then? What did you 'feel' like? Physics and chemistry still hold true from all you know. What has this phony comparison to biological changes have to do with how all protons, neutrons, electrons, etc, etc, manage to all fit on the head of a pin? Can you do this trick now? Can you REPEAT it when you do?

AND then, conveniently leave a gap where some miracle occurs to the point where matter (or energy) coexists?

Where's the gap???

Assumes a singularity of no time nor space contrary to your delusion that the theory doesn't; places a non-fitting gap that has no link (unlike a biological ones of fossil evidence) from something PRIOR to that singularity BUT assumes it 'true' anyways.

How do you define "energy" without mass as a factor?

E = mc² Is a "motion" equation. It says that kinetic energy = mass (at rest) multiplied by light speed square. So the "overall equation is not "at rest" at all. Eisntein said that there was only two energies in the universe: kinetic and mass energy. I say there's only one kind of energy; because mass energy is kinetic energy that "changed" its aim; kinetic (energy) shoots everywhere, mass (energy) shoots at a single point.

No, all energy Kinetic AND Potential is in that equation. The "kinetic and potentials" are relative energies, within the system and still use masses. That energy is the measure of a non-vector absolute.

I already argue that out of space (as a nothing) movement is possible without mass; but while this can later 'cause' energy, it is NOT until it is RESISTED by mass. You cannot hold a Steady State theory fundamental by conveniently adapting Big Bang to suit your interpretation. Note that only to 1968 had the Big Bang been deemed 'valid'. Before then, the Steady State held reign and all but a few tidbits of ALL that history is burned to a few insulting paragraphs anywhere.

WHEN you begin with a state of ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOTHING, it implies a SOMETHING which itself has a 'cause'.

And the "cause" is because "nothingness" cannot be. It's a negation of itself; while, "nothing" has a potentiality of being "something" observable by simply "moving"

You are thick sculled. I hear you saying that because we cannot see the other side of the moon, that we can be sure that it doesn't exist because sight by definition is what we require to define what light does. How egocentric!

Negation is a 'law' that at least requires TWO realities to contrast. So you can't even have a 'singularity' as ONE origin because it needs a 'cause' by our standards. Thus you either have to accept an infinite universe by default OR, if you accept ANY kind of origin, it MUST be from nothing.

Or try explaining how big your were one billion years ago. 10 feet tall? -38943 feet tall? If you are asserting nothing has no rationale, then go back to the Roman numerals. Why deal with false realities you are certain do not exist when it can do better with what you really have?

I'm certain from your attitude that you won't be able to follow.

You're right there.

Then there's NOTHING more to say to you.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

The Cosmological Principle (without time) assumes that everything should look the same from any place in the Universe EXCEPT in a different 'time'.

Where ever you're looking in the universe, you're looking at a different time than yours. What do you mean?

So they assume that if you go back 13 billion years, for instance, that you'd see a different kind of Universe in the BB model.

They don't "assume"; they do see a different universe. Plank satellite takes "photographs" (captures photons) not "interpretations".

I asked you before about going to the 'edge' of the Universe and trying to 'touch' its wall where it ends.

What's on the other side of the wall (if there's a wall; naturally)? As for a "steady state" what's on the other side of "infinity"?

So how could you even go back in time to some point where time itself didn't begin?

There's something illogical in that phrase??? Time began with the first "movement"; no movement = no time. No movement = no distances. In the "state" of "no movement", you get your "nothing"; but you don't get "nothingness". Nothingness is not a "state"; it's an "absence of state". Sorry.

And I'm TELLING you that the Big Bang theory is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT UPON THAT SINGULARITY!

I agree with you about the "actual official" theory; but because scientists don't scrutinize their "beliefs",
doesn't eliminate the notion that the universe had a beginning.

things of the past must be judged by our PRESENT capacity to observe LOCALLY.

And locally, everything has a beginning.

You are misinterpreting 'evolution of physics'.

What's the difference between the "evolution process" of physics and the "evolution process" of a potato?

Biological evolution relies on the SAME IDENTICAL PHYSICAL LAWS we have now.

Erase the laws from your mind and look what happens; scrutinize the "motion" involved. Stop believing what others say and check for yourself if they're right.

And in 1777? What did you 'look' like then? What did you 'feel' like? Physics and chemistry still hold true from all you know.

Exactly; and in 1777 my own physical "beginning" hadn't been yet; the rest of me, I don't know really. But since "death" in not the end of "life", since life transfers from one another, I can't say; and it leaves the question "opened".

What has this phony comparison to biological changes have to do with how all protons, neutrons, electrons, etc, etc, manage to all fit on the head of a pin? Can you do this trick now? Can you REPEAT it when you do?

I don't have to do it or repeat it; every head of pins are made of electron, protons and neutrons.

Assumes a singularity of no time nor space

Why would I assume that? A singularity has size (volume/space) and a date (time).

a non-fitting gap that has no link ...from something PRIOR to that singularity

Prior to three dimensions (volume) is two dimensions (surface) and prior to that is the "unidimensional point".

Now if I assume that everything I think is wrong, believe me if you can, but then...YOU ARE RIGHT!!!
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Sorry I missed the last part of your post

No, all energy Kinetic AND Potential is in that equation.

Where's the "potential energy" in the equation?

The "kinetic and potentials" are relative energies, within the system and still use masses. That energy is the measure of a non-vector absolute.

"Masses", "vector" and "absolute" are words imprinted by others in your mind that you can't get rid of. You can't seem to be able to think using your own notions. I can't understand why.

movement is possible without mass; but while this can later 'cause' energy, it is NOT until it is RESISTED by mass.

Not only is it movement that "creates" energy, but now, you have to apply "mass resistance" to create energy. You're a lot better in a "steady state". I agree.

Note that only to 1968 had the Big Bang been deemed 'valid'

Note that I was born in 43 and started questioning it at 12 years old (in 55); so it became valid after I've been questioning it for 13 years; and I never stopped until 10 years ago because then I started to understand how it had happened.

Before then, the Steady State held reign and all but a few tidbits of ALL that history is burned to a few insulting paragraphs anywhere.

Hubble's observations must have been quite "insulting" really. But they are not "insults"; they are "facts". Furthermore, Einstein had to cheat and manipulate his equation to make it "steady". So...

You are thick sculled.

I agree; our question is "which one has the thickest? :-)

Negation is a 'law' that at least requires TWO realities to contrast. So you can't even have a 'singularity' as ONE origin because it needs a 'cause' by our standards.

You're right; and the "original" two subjects used in the contrast, by the universe, was "to be" (potentially) or "not to be" (absolutely)? In other words: "nothing" or "nothingness"?

Thus you either have to accept an infinite universe by default OR, if you accept ANY kind of origin, it MUST be from nothing.

We agree; it's from "nothing".

Or try explaining how big your were one billion years ago.

I wasn't there yet; because we are not in a "steady state".

It reminds me of a discussion I had with a "preacher" that affirmed the universe was "created" 6 thousand years ago. I asked him how he could explain the carcasses of big reptiles that where found all around the world. He said that Noah had put them in his arch. I objected that there wasn't enough place. He said:

"If you had use your head one minute, you would have guessed he brought only eggs reptiles in the arch. I couldn't find anymore objections :-(; and I really didn't feel like it. :-)

Then there's NOTHING more to say to you.

That's exactly what I told him. It was nice exchanging anyway (with both).
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex, I have nothing more to discuss with you here. You're appearing to harass, not debate nor discuss. I think you need a digression in logic, ...if you're even being sincere.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

There is no reason to your last post since we both already had said that the discussion was over. Funny reaction.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Previous