Creation ex nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />I vaguely remember participating in an exceedingly long forum discussion on this topic an eternity ago. Perhaps it could be dredged up from the archives for our newer inquisiters to peruse and save Tom the effort of having to explain these difficult concepts <i>ad infinitum</i>.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I appreciate the idea. The "archives" are always there. Anyone who wishes to see older discussions need only go the the "topics overview" page (e.g., "Big Bang and Alternatives") and change the viewing window from "last 30 days" (or whatever it is now) to "all topics".

We've had a lot of discussions over the last five years. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For those interested there were two topics, <i>Broken Circle</i> and <i>EXISTENCE (not creation) Ex Nihilo</i>, in the <b>Meta Science </b>Forum.

JR

<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 />Explain to us how it is that any particle no matter what size, that is completely surrounded by an infinity of other particles, can move without an infinity of other particales getting in the way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You didn't say that was what bothered you. But that answer is easy too.

In a universe for which space, time, and scale are infinite, things in general are always the same on average. So no matter what is happening locally (perhaps a supernova), the universe as a whole is not evolving or changing anytime, anyplace, or on any scale. Forms come and go, but substance is eternal. Speeds change, but motion is eternal. Scales change, but mass is eternal.

So the answer to your dilemma is simple. Just as mass is very unevenly distributed on this scale, so that we have many huge masses separated by vast apparent vacuums so that they can move about easily, the same is true on all scales all the way up or down. So every point is occupied on some scale, but not necessarily on a scale big enough to be detectable at our scale. Those micro-masses merely provide us with a sense of existence to space; whereas if the micro-masses were not there, space would not exist. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />A countable infinity, divided by a countable infinity is a constant. ... Dividing by zero is indeterminate ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You might want to brush up on the meaning of "indeterminate" in this kind of math context. The two statements just quoted are incorrect. Any infinity divided by any infinity is indeterminate. And of all divisions by zero, only 0/0 is indeterminate. -|Tom|-

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

[] Sorry about that, I wrote indeterminate for undefined. The first part is correct though. 3 6 9 12 . . . / 1 2 3 4 . . . is 3. Dividing countable infinities gives a constant, dividing uncountable infinities are indeterminate. Again though, indeterminate here should be read as ambiguous.

Why I think that this is of great interest, is that Cantor himself looked at the idea of mass monads of aleph null, and ether monads of aleph one. Faster than light gravitons; anyone for the idea of aleph two? [8D]

(edited) [] Aleph two completes the sylogism. An electron is a countable infinite set, the ether, an uncountable infinite set. The continuum an aleph two set.

This would mean that the universe can do the Banach Tarski tennis ball trick [8D] Now, that is a wild idea[][][8D]

Banoch Tarski:- a guy walks into your pub, he picks up a pool ball and says that he's going to make two balls. He twists and shakes it and then puts two balls onto the table. You pick them up and notice that together they weigh what the original ball did. With a sarcastic sneer, you say, "that's not the Banoch Tarsky trick. All you've done is to jiggle the mass of the object apart into a new ball."

The guy smiles and proceeds to make one of the balls bigger. I can make this as big as the universe if you like he says, with an inscrutable smile.

Of course the matter in the pool ball is finite but it does have infinite qualities. If this guy is lord over aleph two, then he could put two identical balls onto the table. If he's merely the lord of aleph one, then the balls will have half the mass of the original[][8D]

In either case I'd buy the guy a pint [] He'd just split it in two and give me it back [][8D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><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 />Explain to us how it is that any particle no matter what size, that is completely surrounded by an infinity of other particles, can move without an infinity of other particales getting in the way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In a universe for which space, time, and scale are infinite, things in general are always the same on average.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maybe you also need to give definitions before or during a post, because the post before, you said that there is no absolute space, but here in this post in the sentence above, space seems to be ok. Which is it? Do we have space in your model, or do we not have space? I know that space is not allowed in your model, and this is a reminder to you just in case you forgot.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So no matter what is happening locally (perhaps a supernova), the universe as a whole is not evolving or changing anytime, anyplace, or on any scale. Forms come and go, but substance is eternal. Speeds change, but motion is eternal. Scales change, but mass is eternal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> The only thing in the above that addresses the possibility of motion is the statement that (motion is eternal). Somehow for me that isn't cutting it. You're still stuck in concrete, and I'm still waiting for my bottle of rum.[]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So the answer to your dilemma is simple. Just as mass is very unevenly distributed on this scale, so that we have many huge masses separated by vast apparent vacuums so that they can move about easily, the same is true on all scales all the way up or down.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Apparent vacuums? Lets call a spade a spade here. There is no vacuum in your model, not even an apparent one. The {quote} space in your model is teaming with particles of every size imaginable. It is complete i.e. there is no space. It is such a composition, that if one particle moved, an infinity of particles would have to move with it in the direction of motion, but thats a moot point, because it isn't possible.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So every point is occupied on some scale, but not necessarily on a scale big enough to be detectable at our scale. Those micro-masses merely provide us with a sense of existence to space; whereas if the micro-masses were not there, space would not exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Scales? Fact is there is only one scale in your model. It is the smallest scale called the infinitely small scale. I'm assuming that your infinity of scales is complete i.e. there are no other scales in the making. i.e. the universe has always been here. This is to say that there is a fundamental particle that is infinitely small. There is no process by which new particles are being made of smaller and smaller sizes. The fudamental particle exist in your model. If you have made anything here in your model. It is nothing at all, because a path followed down the scales to the infinitely small scale leads you there.

This is all problematical to say the least.

[Skarp] "Maybe you also need to give definitions before or during a post, ... "

All of the words we use have been explicitly defined, either in standard dictionaries or here at this site. If you have a question about a specific word or concept then you should ask about it. We will either point you to the definition/explanation or repeat it.

Note that if it appears you are going to ask for definitions of everything, we will give you some references to read and ask you to come back later with a shorter list.

[Skarp] " ... because the post before, you said that there is no absolute space, but here in this post in the sentence above, space seems to be ok."

It appears that you think that the words "space" and "absolute space" have the same definition. You recently told us that you use the same word to mean several different things depending on how you feel. Are you now telling us that you also use several different words to mean one thing, depending on how you feel?

Remember my suggestion above about using pre and post word qualifiers to distinguish related concepts? I wasn't telling you about that technique just to exercise my fingers. Real experts actually do things like that. It is very helpful if your goal is to communicate an idea to another mind. But it takes effort and thought, so trolls usually avoid it.

[Skarp] "There is no vacuum in your model, not even an apparent one."

How many definitions do you use for the word vacuum? Since we don't know what YOU mean by the word vacuum this time, how are we to know if you are right or wrong?

We know what <u>we</u> mean. And you know what <u>we</u> mean. Unless you haven't bothered to dig a little to find out. But, that's what trolls do so I wouldn't be surprized.

===

You know, Skarp, I would actually like to understand what you are trying to say. A few of your ideas sound like they have the potential to mesh in a synergistic way with some MM concepts. But as long as you refuse to tell us what you really mean, and change the (secret) meaning of words just because you feel like it, we can only wonder.