infinite, eternal universe

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If I had one comment about the opposing views expressed by others in this particular thread (and in the one that speaks of reality being "nothingness"), it would be "please define your terms". For example, define "nothing" and "existing". <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The definition of nothing is Existence.


I'll take it as a given from your point of view that Non-Existence is undefinable, I would concur.

We are here and we definitely Exist, I will assume your acknowledgement with this also.


And here is the reality of Non-Existence as simply as I can put it and still be in tune with the last two sentences.
home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg

Lets see if you can reason this out as I have.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />The definition of nothing is Existence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's a really unfortunate way to answer my request for clear definitions and clear descriptions of concepts. You describe something undefined ("nothing") as something else undefined ("existence"). This leaves me with no understanding at all. It certainly does not entice me to visit your web site, where I would presumably see many more non-sequiturs.

Please explain how "nothing" differs from "something" and "existence" differs from "non-existence". Maybe then you can succeed in explaining what you mean by "nothing is existence".

I understand that some people (perhaps you are one such?) use free association often in their speech patterns. It's a great shortcut when it is available, but completely lacks the power of persuasion for minds accustomed to the rigors of logic. -|Tom|-

tom, to me, an infinite macrocosm is easier to swallow than an infinite microcosm, much the same as my mind can wrap around eternity more easily than infinity. like, i can see how "something" always was but how can space continue on forever in all directions? if this weren't mind blowing enough, to think of matter being infinitely divisible...whoa!

by agnostic, of course, i'm referring to the possible existence of a creator or creators of the universe. if the universe is unfathomable to us, ultimately, then the existence of a creator is emmensely more confounding. that why i say that something that definitely exists, has a greater probability of being eternal than something that may or may not exist.

space/nothing/infinity + matter/stuff/etenity = the universe

space: the infinite backdrop of matter, containing nothing, being nothing, having no matter in and of itself.

matter: the stuff that we and everything is made of, whatever it may be and whatever size it is and if it infinitly divisible or not.

eternal: always having existed and always will exist.

the universe: everything that exists, including space. no matter if it is infinite or not, or how many gods exist, or how much of it we can conceive of or observe, whether is is eternal or not, etc. we humans are a part of this phenomena; animals, evolutionary beings, things, biological organism, just as valuable as anything else that exists.

i was a little surprised that you included mathematicians in the same "sentence" with philosophers. i was under the impression that mathematics is the basis of all science, without which we'd all be scratching our behinds and depending on the spirits to take care of things for us.ifeel that you barely tolerate philosophers probably because of the necessary extrapolation, guessing, feeling. it has it's place. it's an extremely rare scientist that doesn't philosophy or put his opinion forth as if it were a scientic fact, like the big bang, for example, or that the infinite divisibility of matter is proved by the elimination of the alternative as being "unreasonable". if scientist weren't knocking out the details and sticking to the method, we'd be oh so much more ignorant. thank you for your site and work.

The issue of infinite divisiblity seems to be in conflict with QM. In QM oneness is a basic assumption and that oneness cannot be divided- at least that is my understanding. So, what does this say about QM?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It certainly does not entice me to visit your web site, where I would presumably see many more non-sequiturs.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So what your telling me is that your effort to understand is strained by the pushing of your index finger over the left mouse key? To that I must ask myself - Why am I spinning my wheels to only get the middle finger from you? Tom - you need to at least annex to the next adjoining finger, wherein you'll find a brass ring. This will lead obdurately by your own apparent methods to your pinky, by which you can give the thumbs up to your understanding. Yes Tom - I'm asking for a hand here, lest I drop the whole thing. Perhaps you are used to people bringing you things on a silver platter, but I'll be damned if I'z a gonna wipe yer ass to complete the process.



Disclaimer - This is not an attack! I repeat - This is not an attack! It is free association in a speech pattern. I hope you can see the abject humor in this.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Please explain how "nothing" differs from "something" and "existence" differs from "non-existence". Maybe then you can succeed in explaining what you mean by "nothing is existence".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">First off - Your logic precludes the possibility of illogic playing it's role. This in itself is not logical in that logic has no meaning whatsoever in the absence of a concomitant illogic. Just as yes has no meaning in the default of no. Hence the universe consist of ones and zeros, wherein ones are the logical description (reality) of the construct illogic of zero (Non-Existence).

I can't stress enough the need for contradiction as an absolute. In keeping with this contradiction - I exist ---- because I don't exist as the absolutely necessary gainsay.

Existence differs from Non-Existence in that Existence is the logical fallout of Non-Existence, or better put .... in Non-Existence. I.E. The universe (Existence) is within the necessary contradiction (Non-Existence). The universe Exist because it does not Exist. I might say the the universe Exist because it does not Exist elswhere, but there is no elswhere - Non-Existence is not a place to hang any hat.

As far as nothing differing from something. Since Existence is the definition of Non-Existence. I can expect that something (a part of Existence)will have an underlying constituent equal to that of Non-Existence. {{Nothing}} fits this bill to a T. {{Something}} is a form of nothing. The key word being form (a closed system (shape). It is not a physical form, but a conceptual geometric one, and upholds the definition of non-Existence.

It might be further noted that Non-Existence is undefinable (fact), and also that we are here (fact). This brings to the forefront an ongoing process that is incomplete, and without reservation will never be completed. Existence is like a planned infinitely tall building in which we are on the 298298937377898294837901213281823 floor of construction, wherein there are still an infinity of floors yet to be built. In this situation - Non-Existence remains undefined with plenty of room for us to Exist as the incomplete definition of Non-Existence.

I again post up this pretty pic as an example of what I've been saying. I put no labels in it. I'll leave it to you to place them in their appropriate locations. Labels like zero, one, and infinity. Labels like Existence, Non-Existence, form, something, nothing, geometric, and concept.

All can be represented here.
home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg

<i>Originally posted by tuffy</i>
<br />tom, to me, an infinite macrocosm is easier to swallow than an infinite microcosm, much the same as my mind can wrap around eternity more easily than infinity. like, i can see how "something" always was but how can space continue on forever in all directions? if this weren't mind blowing enough, to think of matter being infinitely divisible...whoa!

by agnostic, of course, i'm referring to the possible existence of a creator or creators of the universe. if the universe is unfathomable to us, ultimately, then the existence of a creator is emmensely more confounding. that why i say that something that definitely exists, has a greater probability of being eternal than something that may or may not exist.

space/nothing/infinity + matter/stuff/etenity = the universe

space: the infinite backdrop of matter, containing nothing, being nothing, having no matter in and of itself.

matter: the stuff that we and everything is made of, whatever it may be and whatever size it is and if it infinitly divisible or not.

eternal: always having existed and always will exist.

the universe: everything that exists, including space. no matter if it is infinite or not, or how many gods exist, or how much of it we can conceive of or observe, whether is is eternal or not, etc. we humans are a part of this phenomena; animals, evolutionary beings, things, biological organism, just as valuable as anything else that exists.

i was a little surprised that you included mathematicians in the same "sentence" with philosophers. i was under the impression that mathematics is the basis of all science, without which we'd all be scratching our behinds and depending on the spirits to take care of things for us.ifeel that you barely tolerate philosophers probably because of the necessary extrapolation, guessing, feeling. it has it's place. it's an extremely rare scientist that doesn't philosophy or put his opinion forth as if it were a scientic fact, like the big bang, for example, or that the infinite divisibility of matter is proved by the elimination of the alternative as being "unreasonable". if scientist weren't knocking out the details and sticking to the method, we'd be oh so much more ignorant. thank you for your site and work.
___________________________________________________________________

tuffy

no you misunderstand,first is the imagination and/or concept then comes math to refine the theory. it is then with this refinement is brought to its truth.

math it NOT the ultimate truth, it a tool to come a more complete truth.