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 Mac</i>
<br />north,

<b>infinity is NOT based on observation or math,it is to me based on SUBSTANCE and the INABILITY of "nothing" to produce SUBSTANCE.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: I agree but that is pure suposition and a lack of knowledge not observation, data or actual knowledge.

So it is a view based on negatives.
______________________________________________________________________

mac

now your getting silly!!

right!
The universe is in constant change and motion at all levels of physical reality.
How could that change and motion originate from a state of motionlesness and changelesness, if time is said to have begun?
nb. strictly speaking the issue is not about the begin of time itself, but the begin of change and motion. Time can be said to have existed before, for an eternity even, but the universe was then in a changless and motionless state, and all of a sudden "begun" to change. But how could that have happened?

heusdens & north,

I don't believe in time either. But that is another issue. And as far as calling me being silly I could certainly counter with a like comment regarding in the belief of Infinity as a physical reality but like I said I have no intention of debating these issues once again.

You both are more than welcome to whatever suits your fancy.


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

Time is not a physical entity, and your position that all physical events or constituents of the universe are finite things, taking place in a finite spatiotemporal domain, even thought that argument in itself is correct, is irrelevant to the time issue.
That physical events did have a begin in time and will have an end in time, does not mean that therefore there must have been a time in which no physical event took place, or that such will be the case in the future, since all physical events are effects by prior causes, and don't start in or from nothing or dissolve into nothing.

The same contradiction is part of an infinite line: every line segment as part of the infinite line has a begin and an end, but this does not mean that the line itself has a begin or end.

Mac,

The relation N = (+s)-(+s) does not depend on a time variable "t". How do you justify your beginning/end of time argument?

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Could you explain the theory behind your UniKEF as per intersolar realities? would there be river like realities out there?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: As I indicated earlier I'm really not interested in debating this issue. But you have asked a question and therefor I will give you my answer.

1 - I hold there must have been a creation (meaning only coming into existnce, an enception or beginning).

2 - I have not said there must be an end although I do believe there will be and there are several papers proposing different endings based on different geometries of space - flat, +curve or -curve, etc.


The reason for my position in #1 above is several fold.

a - It is logically inconsistant to claim something exists without ever having come into existance.

b - Invoking eternal existance does mean that if I start from the present "Now" and count backward we must have already accumulated an infinite number of physical time intervals. It is simply known fact that the physical cannot ever become infinite. Infinity is merely a mathematical concept and is devoid any properties in reality.

c - While we certainly do not know the "How" the formula N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) appears to be a valid view mathematically. That is unlike the "Eternal" existance view this at least seem mathematically viable. It remains for us to try and understand that process.

d - The following links refer to the fact that within our ability to observer a calculation of net energy in the universe is "Zero". That tends to validate the idea that not only did we come into existance ex nihilo but that we continue to exist as "Nothing" bifurcated into two opposite "Somethings".

So right or wrong my view is also within the mainstream, that is I am not out on a limb all by myself.

Having said all this I am pragmatic enough to realize none of this is proof but comparing the odds my conclusion favors Creation ex nihilo.

www.people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/thermo.html#light

xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-...004/0004134.pdf

physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1



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