Creation Ex Nihilo

Well perhaps we can compare infinites, as is done in cantor's analysis of inifnites.
The set of natural numbers if for instance one infinite, while the set of real numbers is a higher infinite.

<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>

ANS: Our difference are infact minor but very important here. I agree "Infinity" is not a finite number and in that sense you are allowed to dally around with esoteric concepts but the fact reamins it is a concept and cannot be applied to physical reality.

The concept is that it is larger than any finite number. Physical reality consists of finite quantiities represented by finite numbers and the definition means exactly that that something infinite must be larger than itself. SInce "itself" is is represented by a finite number to be physical reality .

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

Time is one abstraction with which we describe physical reality.
Time is measured by change. Now we have realy no indication that after whatever finite amount of time, there is not going to be any change, so we consider time to be infinite, at least possible infinite.

I is just a little more than ludricrus to be discussing "Detecting Nothing". That arguement is a laugh. And lastly "Nothing" means "Nothing", not "Something" undetected.
______________________________________________________________________

mac

i agree it is laughable,however what i meant was this,what SEEMS as nothing actually is something with further study (chiral condensate for example)!!
______________________________________________________________________


That is what N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) means.

Clearly there is no proof of any of these theories but it does seem more logical to adapt one that at least has some evidence, which Creation ex nihilo has.

You can deny Creation ex nihilo. But you need to do better than just say they are wrong about the +/- balance in the observable universe.

What they have found supports Creation ex nihilo quite nicely, if you like it or not doesn't seem to matter.
______________________________________________________________________

mac

the balance concept is not the same as your N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) equation simply because something is on either side of the balance equation with the zero in the center.and the zero does NOT represent something physical it represents the amount of energy left over. yours however states that when a + comes in contact with -,nothing physical remains. yours is not about balance,its about annihalation.

<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 />north,

<b>no thats not true Mac since we aren't nothing we do exist so there is something wrong with the interpretation of this conclusion!! how can you not rethink your conclusions since there is a clear and absolute contridiction with your conclusion and reality.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Sorry but I do believe it is you that are missing the point.

Of course we exist but we exist as two "Sometings" that collectively = "0". Our energy and matter is + energy, the gravity our mass generates and the time we endure are - energies. The quantity of each is the same (+1)+(-1) = 0.

So not only can we come into existance from nothing but we actually exist today as a form of bifurcated "Nothing". REPEATING THIS IS NOT MAC'S THEORY. It is science as it stands today. Argueing with me will not make it go away or change.
______________________________________________________________________

mac

this makes no sense,if you can't DETECT nothing,then don't tell me it can bifurcate, come on Mac!! remember "nothing" has no energy,dimension,space,time or depth. and just because so-and-so Mathematically came up with this equation doesn't mean it makes sense! and you yourself have said that mathematics doesn't always represent reality,isn't it time to question their conclusions? i find it strange that you are going along with what they say without question and actually using this info to support your own equation!! which i also find you are actually BENDING to suit your own equation. to me this "nothing" conclusion from the "zero" balance equation is a manifestation of their imagative limits! surely its time to reject their conclusions and come up with something BETTER ourselves,is it not!! a theory which makes more sense. which collectively on this site we can and it would not be the first time that we have i'm sure.

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

...this makes no sense,if you can't DETECT nothing,then don't tell me it can bifurcate, come on Mac!! remember "nothing" has no energy,dimension,space,time or depth. and just because so-and-so Mathematically came up with this equation doesn't mean it makes sense! and you yourself have said that mathematics doesn't always represent reality,isn't it time to question their conclusions? i find it strange that you are going along with what they say without question and actually using this info to support your own equation!! which i also find you are actually BENDING to suit your own equation. to me this "nothing" conclusion from the "zero" balance equation is a manifestation of their imagative limits! surely its time to reject their conclusions and come up with something BETTER ourselves,is it not!! a theory which makes more sense. which collectively on this site we can and it would not be the first time that we have i'm sure.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There are TWO connotations of nothing -
That which does not exist (has no physical manifestation in the Universe) AND
That which is equivalent to Ø (for everything there is an equal and opposite)
You are blurring the distinction.
Nothing EXISTS - everywhere...just not all in the same place at the same time.

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Well perhaps we can compare infinites, as is done in cantor's analysis of inifnites.

The set of natural numbers if for instance one infinite, while the set of real numbers is a higher infinite.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: You are quite free to play around with numbers, rules of mathematics and esoteric concepts but you still cannot declare anything physical as having a quality of being infinite.

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