Creation ex nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But if space were "grid-like," so that adjacent cells had no overlap, then motion in any desired direction would not be possible, unless one took a zigzag path from grid-point to grid-point!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You don't have to zigzag. You don't have to pass through all the cells.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What if a collision occurs through the intervention of other matter in the middle of the minimum possible time unit? How can the new condition of matter at the end of such a time unit be dependent upon conditions which occur during an unresolvably small time unit?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There is no middle of a time unit. A time unit is basically a still picture. Many time units in succession gives the impression of movement. Think of the world as an animated cartoon.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The infinitely divisible paradox is easily resolvable by one-to-one correspondences, the standard way of dealing with infinities.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, because it's not possible to complete an infinity of distances. An infinity of distances means that there is no end to them so you will never finish the race. Integers has nothing to do with it and you still haven't showed any such one-to-one correspondence. Please show it, don't just talk about it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The whole point of the exercise is that these things do apply to reality through one-to-one correspondences. So there is no problem at all with sets being infinite or eternal in reality even though all forms have finite extend and duration. You are confusing the two. All integers are finite, yet the set of all integers is infinite. The same is true of ticks on a conceptual clock.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Once again, integers are not real. The distances that you have to pass to get from one position to the next are. Can you really not see the difference?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But you have claimed that you can have a first step with nothing before that, which is what most of us consider “something from nothing”. You just choose to say it’s not a miracle; yet it fulfills the standard definition of miracle for me and most folks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You keep saying something "from" nothing. But the first state didn't come "from" anything it all. It didn't "come". It was there, that's it. The problem is that you're unable to lose the concept of nothingness from your mind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Despite a lot of word salad, you have still failed to communicate another possibility. So it remains a valid dichotomy in my mind.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I guess that's a failure for me as a communicator, but I don't think I can take the whole blaim for that failure. I've tried my best.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To fix that, you need to address the origin of your first state. You can’t say that “it just is” and “that’s not a miracle” because those two premises are mutually contradictory. Your first state came from nothing (non-existence), even if you insist on denying that for no logical reason I can fathom.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It has no origin. If it did, it wouldn't be the first state. There's nothing miraculous about the first state actually being the first state. Once again, you have to rid your mind of the concept of nothingness completely. You still think of it as a state of some kind even though you say you don't. The fact that you insist on using the term "come from" when you talk of the first state proves this.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And “First Cause” is a synonym for God.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Then use the term "first state" instead.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree we are going in circles. There is no point in being repetitious. Beliefs are hard to shake, especially after one has invested heavily in one. Some people even lack the ability to unlearn something learned wrongly. Apparently, we will have to agree to disagree about who has the belief and who has the valid counterargument.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I guess you're right.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But this is change of location without motion because there are no transition states. So it is just as if everything in one state ceased to exist, then everything was recreated from nothing in a new state after an arbitrarily long interval. What relevant difference is there between my description of two consecutive states and yours?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
My description doesn't use the concept of nothingness. Since nothingness is non-existent it's totally irrelevant to use it in the description of events. It's nothing. Why even mention it at all? It adds nothing to my description because it is nothing. You're description is basically equivalent to mine, but the problems you're describing is not problems at all because they are related to something that doesn't exist. I use the exact same description as you do except that I remove all the parts that relate to something non-existent.

Think of it this way: You have two items and there is nothing in between them. That means they are right next to each other. If I say "the two items are right next to each other" and you say "the two items are right next to each other, and there is nothing in between them", the two statements are the same. Your extra statement doesn't actually add anything to the description. The same thing applies to the different states. Since nothingness doesn't exist, all the problems you mention in relation to it are also non-existent.

Plus you keep mentioning intervals between states. There is no interval between states as I've already mentioned.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The set of all integers is a complete infinity. Anything we can put in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of all integers is also a complete infinity. These are concepts, not material things; so they are not subject to the limitation that all forms must be finite.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The distances you have to pass to get from one position to the next are real, not just concepts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But now you deny that integers exist. The next natural step to maintain your comfort level is to deny that I exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This has nothing to do with comfort. I'm trying to work out a picture of the universe that makes sense to me, just like you do. You're not a threat of any kind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You didn’t grant me an eternity to complete the task, as you promised!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So you do admit that you didn't complete the one-to-one correspondence? If so, stop saying that you did.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">”Unbounded” is part of the definition of infinite. We would have made more progress if you used standard definitions for your words, or stated the definitions you intended to use.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, as I see it, a lot of the discussion is about what the concept of infinity actually means. To me, the only definition that makes sense is that of "unboundedness". In other words, only potential infinities makes sense.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree alot of what he is saying has a certain fascination. As does Fopp's argument. Actually, Fopp's argument sounds quite intuitive to me. Sort of Meta-Meta. I guess one man's "mainstream" is another man's "meta". There seems to be alot of that going around in the internet age.

By the way, Larry, I don't quite get your use of the term <b>trolling</b>. I looked it up: www.m-w.com/dictionary/trolling but it was not clear to me which definition your using. My guess would be 1, or 2b under intransitive verb.

rd

[rderosa] " ... I don't quite get your use of the term trolling. My guess would be 1, or 2b under intransitive verb."

Pretty close. The definition that relates to fishing is also part of it.

===
transitive verb
3d to search in or at &lt;trolls flea markets for bargains&gt;

intransitive verb
1 to move around : RAMBLE
2a to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat
2b SEARCH, LOOK &lt;trolling for sponsors&gt;
===

In the context of Internet message boards it refers to someone that enters a discussion with posts that are heavy on jargon and light on substance. They seem less interested in teaching/learning and more interested in stirring up debate, preferably heated (at least in most cases).

They are fishing for an argument.

The subject of such heated discussions often ends up being the IQ and/or parental background of the troller, but this seems to be what they were after. Sometimes they work in small groups. I think they get extra credit if they can trigger a flame war.

One of the big giveaway clues that someone is trolling is how they respond when you ask them to define a term or explain a concept that they have used. If they are serious, they answer the question. If they are trolling they evade. Occasionally a troll will actually offer a definition, but it will be phrased so that it depends on another word or concept that has yet to be defined.

Some of them are pretty intellegent. They use it in counter productive ways, but they can be entertaining and even educational if you approach them in the right frame of mind.

Getting back to the subject of the thread. That of something from nothing. As if to say that something removes itself from the bonds to some dichotomized place, divorced from it's mate, with no communication for all time, but what if they are still together, living happily ever after?

(See what I mean?)

Editted by Mark.

Skarp did you mean: Why don't we just be friendly and discuss the beginning of creation without heated debates and punctuation attenuated verbal assault. I am sure a good night's sleep and some thought by everyone can show tomorrow to be a day of logical discussion, a day of calm, cool collective thought where civilized people can play nicely together.

No more talk aimed at each other please. We are scientists, not fools.

MV