Broken Circle

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I would only caution that only means there is no projected end; which physically never actually reaches eternity. So I am puzzled a bit as to why one would even want to invoke the term since it can never be reached and hence is and can never be a physical reality.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's right, eternity cannot be reached, that is it's definition - no end to time. What's the problem? Time is not a physical object and does not reach anything or have a measurable physical extent. I don't understand this requirement you have that we must somehow get to an "end" of time somewhere to prove eternity, by definition you can't. I don't even understand how you could propose the initial nonexistence of time when the very change you propose 0 = -1 + 1 cannot occur without at least the passage of an infinitisimal moment of time. No time, no change. This is basic logic and you can't sidestep it by just uttering the words. A change of state requires time, there cannot be a zero extent between your origin and what occurs "after", there is no after because time doesn't exist. And if there is no after there is no difference between the left and right hand sides of your relation. And if there is no difference there is no change of state.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I feel it is you that mix philosophy with science here. Infinity and Eternity are not physical terms.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They are descriptions of what we actually experience, they are descriptions of properties of the universe but are not themselves objects. I do not truly experience infinity or eternity but infer them from what I observe. I don't perceive any evidence of time running out nor have I seen the universe running out of galaxies.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
1 - It is only your assumption that creation ex nihilo is against the laws of nature because as of this time you have no understanding of how nature can account for it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There can be no understanding of it and that is the definition of a miracle. There can be no understanding because the creation event is the first event - remember? To explain it is to say that you know what CAUSED it, but you cannot know what caused it because it is the first cause and there are no causes before it to appeal to.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
2 - N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s)requires no miracle. As is plain to see it is within a valid mathematical proposition which is less extreme than infinity or eternity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It DOES require a miracle for the reasons I described.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
3 - For the formula to represent origin invokes no act of God, or at least no more so than infinity or eternity. [/yellow]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It requires a miracle, infinity and eternity don't. Infinity and eternity do not invoke contradictions of causality.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I do not view the universe as some infinite void being filled with energy and matter at is creaton. I see the absence of time and space as being "N" and "+/-s" as being the consequence of bifurcating "N"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The absence of time and space is NOTHING. Something coming from nothing is indeed a miracle. Where is it supposed to come from? Your equation N = -s + s could more accurately be written as = -s + s, your N is simply not there because you have defined an initial state of nothingness, the equation therefore makes no coherent sense.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
"N" is not empty space. It is the absence of space. It is what creates a finite boundry of the universe. You can't ask what lies beyond such boundry since the boundry is the end of time-space.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, I CAN ask what lies outside such a boundary because a boundary demarcates an INTERIOR and EXTERIOR otherwise the term "boundary" has no coherent meaning. You just said there was no time or space and you need space to have boundaries. With no space or time where is this universe supposed to come into existence to? Where is the time for it do so? It cannot because you got rid of the space and time. You require that which you are creating to create what you are creating, you can't do both at the same time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
No, I wouldn't say I agree in an eternal future. I believe it is possible to use the term but only recognizing that it is and can never be physical reality. It is only a term to express a time longer than is known or that would matter. If it can never be physical reality (and that is by definition) it can never describe our physical universe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Eternity is not a term to express a time longer than known, it is a term to describe the ongoing and inferred continuity of temporality. Most people I know curiously seem to be incapable of imagining time ending but seem to demand that it start from nothing. I do not need to count every digit of 0.33333... to talk sensibly of 1/3. You are making a category error here in assuming that one must experience all parts of an infinity to apprehend the infinity itself. You are demanding that we count all the integers in the number line before we can say there are an infinity of numbers. That just doesn't hold water.

also i would like to add that nothing is also infinitly small since it has no capacity for dimensionality,therefore does not exist.

the only question left is this;does "something" have the capacity to become nothing?can the universe,not necessarily completely,destroy "something" so completely as to also destroy it dimensionaly? i also think that this kind of absolute complete annihilation is also beyond,matter-anti-matter combination.

North,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>now infinite something IS because this is the only way that creation can become, because nothing is inherently infinite and therefore not capable of any becoming of any sort.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Try this. Your nothing within nothing within nothing sphere of nothing is nonsense. Wholly a fabrication. Nothing means nothing without further qualifications and in no manner suggests infinity or any other additional adjectives.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Jim,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>This stuff is all a matter of faith in one model or another and isn't that what a cult is all about? I would not elevate this drivel to the level of religion but it ain't science.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: We agree that all this is currently a matter of faith but then so has been the concept of neutrinos, etc. Virtually any science discovery has been faith based until research confirmed the faith.

Therefore I disagree that this isn't science. Science is methodology and the debate and thought process is based on scientific methodology.

Are you suggesting here to Tom that MM is not science? Or just that any discussion that disagrees with MM is not science?



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

North,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>also i would like to add that nothing is also infinitly small since it has no capacity for dimensionality,therefore does not exist.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: No "Nothing" is not infinitely small. For something to be infinitely small it must be something which has dimension. Nothing is NOthing without any further elabortion or qualification. trying to expand the definition and properties of Nothing destroys Nothing and creates circlar logic.

Your "therefore does not exist" is a case in point. You allow the words to twist your thoughts around to result in confliction. Nothingness is "Non-existance" not "Non-existant". Big difference.

"Nothingness is the absence of time space. Not the absence of "Something" in a spatial void.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>the only question left is this;does "something" have the capacity to become nothing?can the universe,not necessarily completely,destroy "something" so completely as to also destroy it dimensionaly? i also think that this kind of absolute complete annihilation is also beyond,matter-anti-matter combination.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: matter-antimatter anihilation clearly doesn't create "Nothingness". The energy produced still is something. The jprocess I suggest is not yet known but some examples possiblities would be:

N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) is Nothingness

---

&gt; Space + Time. This seems to match the view that Nothingness is absence of space-time.

The process is not like any yet known or understood by man such as chaning forms as in the matter-antimatter examle you gave.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Jeremy,

<b>That's right, eternity cannot be reached, that is it's definition - no end to time. What's the problem? Time is not a physical object and does not reach anything or have a measurable physical extent. I don't understand this requirement you have that we must somehow get to an "end" of time somewhere to prove eternity, by definition you can't. I don't even understand how you could propose the initial nonexistence of time when the very change you propose 0 = -1 + 1 cannot occur without at least the passage of an infinitisimal moment of time. No time, no change. This is basic logic and you can't sidestep it by just uttering the words. A change of state requires time, there cannot be a zero extent between your origin and what occurs "after", there is no after because time doesn't exist. And if there is no after there is no difference between the left and right hand sides of your relation. And if there is no difference there is no change of state.</b>

ANS: You really should avoid using recipocal forms of the same arguement. You cannot assert that time does not exist and yet claim time is required for an ex nihilo event.

<b>They are descriptions of what we actually experience, they are descriptions of properties of the universe but are not themselves objects. I do not truly experience infinity or eternity but infer them from what I observe. I don't perceive any evidence of time running out nor have I seen the universe running out of galaxies.</b>

ANS: Ignorance does not create nor alter reality. The fact that we do not know or understand time yet does not thereby give it any quality such as being eternal.

The fact that you do not percieve something does not mean others do not percieve it. There is infact a substantial paper I read recently, from a mainstream science source that discusses the idea of exactly what is going to happen as indeed the end of the universe unfolds, including the collapse of time.

That certainly is speculation but no more so than yours is speculation. All reasonable options are still on the table and to be asserting one over the other in absolute terms merely shows a lack of scientific candor.

<b>There can be no understanding of it and that is the definition of a miracle. There can be no understanding because the creation event is the first event - remember? To explain it is to say that you know what CAUSED it, but you cannot know what caused it because it is the first cause and there are no causes before it to appeal to.</b>

ANS: Webster: Miracle - 1. an event or action that apparently contridictes the <font color="yellow">known</font id="yellow"> scientific laws and hence thought to be due to supernatural causes, esp. to an act of God.

Your assertion that N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) requires a miracle is unfounded. There is no known law regarding natures ability to result in creation ex nihilo. Something called a law of nature (a physical principle) such as F = ma or F = G m1m2/r^2, has not been presented as a formulation against creation ex nihilo; except in its favor as in my proposal in its favor, not a law - yet.

The only violation is an ad hoc assumption, not a law defined by experience and test data. And it certainly is not viewed as being the consequence of an act of God but just the opposite showing that no God is required.

<b>It DOES require a miracle for the reasons I described.</b>

ANS: Only in your preconcieved conclusion, not in any scientific principle.

<b>It requires a miracle, infinity and eternity don't. Infinity and eternity do not invoke contradictions of causality.</b>

ANS: It does not require a miracle as shown above. Infinity and eternity are extrapolated concepts with no physical reality and of course something that is made up from whole cloth that is not real requires no miracle since it doesn't exist in reality. There is no connection between them and creation ex nihlo which is physical.

<b>The absence of time and space is NOTHING. Something coming from nothing is indeed a miracle. Where is it supposed to come from? Your equation N = -s + s could more accurately be written as = -s + s, your N is simply not there because you have defined an initial state of nothingness, the equation therefore makes no coherent sense.</b>

ANS: So according to you, algebraically we must also in the future write: 0 pounds = 10 pounds + (-10 pounds) as _____ = 10 pounds + (-10 pounds) leaving off the "0" since it results in something that doesn't exist.

I really don't think so.

Ignorance of a process does not make or require a miracle. No more than the suggestion that where neutrinos before there was any understanding of direct observation required a miracle initially.

<b>Yes, I CAN ask what lies outside such a boundary because a boundary demarcates an INTERIOR and EXTERIOR otherwise the term "boundary" has no coherent meaning. You just said there was no time or space and you need space to have boundaries. With no space or time where is this universe supposed to come into existence to? Where is the time for it do so? It cannot because you got rid of the space and time. You require that which you are creating to create what you are creating, you can't do both at the same time.</b>

ANS: I don't know if you really don't get it or you just choose to be obstinate. But it doesn't matter. The ex nihilo event resultd in the formation of time space. If you insist on "What is beyond the boundry". The answer is there is nothing (not meaning a void) but no time-space is the boundry. The only problem I see here is your inability digest the concept of no time-space.

You advance the false arguement that such a "Process" requires time and hence could not happen because time didn't exist. That almost seems logical but isn't. The answer is clear. Creation ex nihilo doesn't require time. That view is wholly consistant since the event processed through no dimension hence time is not required.

It is no more bizzar than the assertion that time is non-existant for a photon. Give me a break you can't use concepts that are readily accepted in current physical laws and turn them around and claim they prove the opposite.

<b>Eternity is not a term to express a time longer than known, it is a term to describe the ongoing and inferred continuity of temporality. Most people I know curiously seem to be incapable of imagining time ending but seem to demand that it start from nothing.</b>

ANS: I am not most people. I have no problem seeing time ending.

<b> I do not need to count every digit of 0.33333... to talk sensibly of 1/3. You are making a category error here in assuming that one must experience all parts of an infinity to apprehend the infinity itself. You are demanding that we count all the integers in the number line before we can say there are an infinity of numbers. That just doesn't hold water.</b>

ANS: Not I don't say that at all. I am very familiar with the concept of infinity. And it is nothing more than a concept and is not a physical reality, just as with "eternity".

My point is that it is inappropriate to apply those concepts to physical reality since by definiton nothing physical can ever reach such a state.

Here you make the bizzar assertion that our physical reality includes physical states that you yourself recognize that the definition prohibit as ever becoming physical. It need not hold water, just our existance.

I think your efforts to improve our concepts should begin a bit closer to home.











"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien