Creation Ex Nihilo

north,

mac

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>i don't accept singularities either but osmosis creation ex nihilo? and awayyyyy we go!! okay, explain that one!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Hawkins, Guth and Vilenkin have all advanced various forms of Creation ex nihilo. None agree 100% with the other. Likewise I'm sure my view is slightly different.

I don't see it as being necessary that Creation ex nihilo came from a singularity but a type of rip, line or 2d area may have opened the process.



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

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Some think Tom is tilting at windmills, but I think you are attacking the business side of a jet engine with toothpicks.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Nothing personal but your opinion doesn't carry much clout with me.[]



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

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>As I said, gravity does not have the same units as mass or energy, so it cannot cancel them. This is literally an apples and oranges problem, meaning a "mixed units" problem.

Surely you are not a stranger to the importance of physical units?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: No I am very familiar that units must cancel. The problem here is that nobody has asctribed units yet for the baisc energies of the universe. Gravity is a phenomena of energy absorbtion, its units are created in response to the absorbtion of the energy. The energy being sucked up is the same as the energy being created and hence those energies have the same units. Convertig gravity units into negative energy units has not been done but clearly can be done.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>But energy is not a bullet. It is an arbitrary property of a bullet. Measures of properties cannot be equated to, or cancel, physical objects.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Congratulations. You just made my point above. In this case the bullet is gravity and you can't subtract a bullet, you can subtract only its energy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>You missed the point of my example. What you suggest is physically impossible. P and N are intrinsically positive counts of entities. The sum of two positive counts cannot be zero.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: We are not discussing "Counts" of items. Call "A" +s and "B" -s,
such that A + B = 2 items. We are discussing the combined energy of (+s) + (-s) which does not equal 2 it equals "0".


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The only way you can get a negative here is by switching from physical entities to one of their properties. But the count of physical entities itself is intrinsically positive and cannot be canceled. So you cannot get any entity from nothing, and cannot change any entity into nothing. You can only change its properties; for example, its form.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: We clearly disagree here. If their properties cancel each other then your "2" suddenly becomes "0", without question. Your 2 enities become non-existant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Things exist. There are two ways to get to this state: (1) creation ex nihilo, which requires a miracle because logic precludes it;</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Your postion is based on a false assumption reagarding logic. One development in recent years is to realize that a "Nothingness" state can have no pre-existing rules or lasws of physics. Simply put absence of any laws indicates anything goes and if anything goes then everything is possible and hence coming ito existance is assured not a miracle.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> or (2) non-creation, ever, meaning always existing components. That requires no miracle. By the laws of logic, which exclude literal miracles, the latter must be accepted over the former.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: This does not follow due to the failure of the assumption used in #1.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>To clarify definitions, a "miracle" is a physical effect without a physical cause. Creation ex nihilo is a miracle by definition, because if there were a physical cause, the effect would not be "from nothing". </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Your definitions appear dated. Creation is not considered a miracle, it is considered indicated and assured from the assumptions regarding "Nothing".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Eternal existence requires no miracle because every effect still has a preceding cause.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I would agree Eternal existance without ever coming into existance is not a miracle. It is simply impossible.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Please allow a correction of definitions. The laws of physics (example: the law of gravity) are developed from experiments and observations, and are subject to change as knowledge advances. The principles of physics, by contrast, are derived from logic alone and are therefore not subject to change.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: This simply is an invalid statement. It is presumptious to declare that logic based on limited knowledge will not change based on new knowledge. You assumption here states that we should never have given in to the idea that the sun wasn't the center of the universe around which everything revolves. The logic of the day was based on false understandings or lack of informtion. OUr logic today suffers from the same problem although it has become more advanced. This is a false conclusion based on a flawed assummption.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>My book "Dark Matter…" explains why the uncertainty principle and other unphysical aspects of quantum mechanics are bad interpretations of experiments. There are alternate interpretations that make better physical sense. It would be a shame if your beliefs were influenced by such mysticism. But one of our goals here at Meta Research is to get the mysticism back out of science.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I concur here. My ideas are independant but do parallel many of the current theories. Infact it closely parallels MM at least with respect to gravity. but your "Eternal, Infinity and Scales" conclusions are not so positive.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Now I see your interest in (+s) + (–s) = 0: "s" stands for "stinger". But even there, stinger in plus stinger out is not equivalent to nothing. -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Ouch.[]


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

rousejohnny,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>As for God, even he started with a void.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: This makes the unprovable and illogical conclusion that a God exists. While "Nothingness" indeed is "Something" it is non-existance. So I'll change "N" from "Nothingness" to "Non-Existance" in my formula.[]

"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>
ANS: I would agree Eternal existance without ever coming into existance is not a miracle. It is simply impossible.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is just a matter of opinion, but you never proved this "impossibility".

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Simply put absence of any laws indicates anything goes and if anything goes then everything is possible and hence coming ito existance is assured not a miracle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


How can you accept such a view? I'd like to amend the above to: The absence of any construct regarding forms and substance implies that <i>nothing</i> goes, and if <i>nothing</i> goes, then <i>nothing</i> is possible and hence coming into existence is an impossibility.


You fail to clarify how any set of physical laws can be induced if no construct exists that could possibly generate these laws. The lack of a fundamental construct in which substance is embedded does not sustain existence in any shape or form. It appears that your nothingness is simply not really nothing in an MM framework.