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 rousejohnny</i>
I do not have prohibitions about "no time", since time is merely the measurement of change. In a homogenious state such as the beginning "nothing" I propose there would be no motion, thermodynamics or any other process by which time could be measured, not until the split.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Instead of a world without time, you better state that this is a world without change. Time is not change, because to measure time, one needs something different as time to measure it.
In the absense of change, it would not be without time, but alternatively we would arrive at pure time, time without any foreign admixtures.
The world would exist then in a motionless cna changeless state, and would continue to do that for an eternity.

But how then could the world all at a sudden come out of this motionless and changeless state, especially since it would have been in such a state for an eternity.
How can motion or change arrive from total motionlesness and changeleness?

Isn't this just equal to saying that "therefore" the world neded some kick from outside, which is just the idea of a creator?

Since we can not solve this problem, and there is no way in which a state in which there is no change whatsoever can all at a sudden become in motion and in change, the requirement is that the world has been in motion and change at all time, without a begin.

Mac,

There is one more rror in your logic. You state that since everything that exists, has become existent, so must the universe.
That is the tricky and feeble part of your logic.
If we would give an example where this logic fails, it would clarify it perhaps.
A footbal team exists of members. All the members must have a parent. But this does require the footbal team to have a parent.

The universe can have been in existence always, while everything that exists in the universe, has a finite history and finite spatial extend.
It is an infinite made up of only finite parts.

JAn,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Suppose we did have a finite quantity of forms in the universe. Would you be able to live with the notion that space-time may be infinite? </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: It is a matter of definitions with me. Infinite is defined as being larger than any finite number however large. That means any thing infinite must be larger than itself. That is nonsense. It doesn't say it is larger than we can imagine or can ever achieve or "Appears" unbounded" it claims it is larger than itself. That makes it inapplicable to physical reality but only useful as a mathematical concept or tool.


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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by heusdens</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 rousejohnny</i>
I do not have prohibitions about "no time", since time is merely the measurement of change. In a homogenious state such as the beginning "nothing" I propose there would be no motion, thermodynamics or any other process by which time could be measured, not until the split.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Instead of a world without time, you better state that this is a world without change. Time is not change, because to measure time, one needs something different as time to measure it.
In the absense of change, it would not be without time, but alternatively we would arrive at pure time, time without any foreign admixtures.
The world would exist then in a motionless cna changeless state, and would continue to do that for an eternity.

But how then could the world all at a sudden come out of this motionless and changeless state, especially since it would have been in such a state for an eternity.
How can motion or change arrive from total motionlesness and changeleness?

Isn't this just equal to saying that "therefore" the world neded some kick from outside, which is just the idea of a creator?

Since we can not solve this problem, and there is no way in which a state in which there is no change whatsoever can all at a sudden become in motion and in change, the requirement is that the world has been in motion and change at all time, without a begin.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is Beta Decay or some exotic form of it. Some scientist have suggested that beta decay of a neutron is its attempt to reach its lowest energy level or simple, the neutron is lazy. I am not sure that this is the reason, but all the same, neutrons do split through the process we call beta-decay in to a proton and electron, also there is the virtual particle scenario, which I am less versed. My premise is that this is what happened. Once the split takes place into postive and negatively charged energy, then we have something to work with, namely electromagnetism =&gt; spin and neutrons (thus nuclear forces) =&gt; mass =&gt; gravity.

So first, there is deduction to the only nothing possible (Tom's elysium) and secondly, induction of the only way that "nothing" could become something.

As for your "pure time" argument, I have no problem with it.

rousejohnny,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I do have strong prohibitions about the absents of Space, there could be no chance for creation (with or without God) if there were no place in which to do it. If one is to hold the philosophical position that we do indeed exist, I see no rational way around the premise that space itself must have always existed.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Based on your view I see your problem and it would not be possible. However, consider for a moment the fact that the thought is that energy "Creates" space. Condensed or bound energy is matter.

Gravity of mass is the absorbtion of space creating time. That is we have a flowing process which recycles energy but due to entropy will one day cease to flow. Gravity falls apart, their is no time and with no energy there will be no space.


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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />rousejohnny,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I do have strong prohibitions about the absents of Space, there could be no chance for creation (with or without God) if there were no place in which to do it. If one is to hold the philosophical position that we do indeed exist, I see no rational way around the premise that space itself must have always existed.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Based on your view I see your problem and it would not be possible. However, consider for a moment the fact that the thought is that energy "Creates" space. Condensed or bound energy is matter.

Gravity of mass is the absorbtion of space creating time. That is we have a flowing process which recycles energy but due to entropy will one day cease to flow. Gravity falls apart, their is no time and with no energy there will be no space.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I see your digression, but the energy is not going anywhere. The entropy may cause it to lose its charge (ability to interact) but the energy will still be there, and thus the space will be there. The problem I see with your (and ohter's) argument is that gravity and time are considered negative energy as oppossed to be the result of the dynamics of energy or space. The energy (space) has always been there and always will.