Creation Ex Nihilo

larry buford,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>It seems clear that you are not talking about a Type A boundary (the kind of boundary in the Webster definition you quoted earlier).

It is less clear, but likely, that you are also not talking about a Type B boundary. Most likely you are talking about a Type C boundary. Can you confirm?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I have not been, and are not really concerned currently, about what definition one wants to label my boundry. I think that merely tends to tie ones hands in trying to find a proper resolution of the contridictions of the issue.

===

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>FYI, the definition of "universe" that Dr Van Flandern uses (and that I have adopted) precludes (does not allow) any boundary, not even a Type C boundary, to exist.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I am very aware of that and it is one of the few issue that I disagree on regarding MM but on this one I particularily opppose in the strongest possible way.

It not only fails logic but disregards the "Net Zero" finding for +/- energy in the universe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Again, if you want to use some other definition of the word "universe" in this message board you should be explicit about it. Otherwise we are likely to (continue to) have a communicating problem.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: My boundry is "Nothingness" is the absence of time and space. What lable would you choose to put on it and what arguement do you have against it?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Suggestion - call the universe in your UNIKEF theory a "C-bounded universe". While you are here. On your site you can call it anything you like, of course.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Thanks for the suggestion but in all seriousness I have not been talking UniKEF here in of or by itself. While I agree with much of it and have adapted those views the only thing stated here that is strictly UniKEF is my definition of "Nothingness" and the formalization of the view into a mathematical formula.

If you fell that definition is covered as your class "C" boundry that is fine with me. I am more interested in your work around to show that such a boundry does not exist. And while at it I would also like your view of the "Net Zero" existance and how that does or does not support the basic idea of a "Nothingness" origin.

Thanks.

Regards,



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

heusdesns,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Finite does not imply having a boundary. It is sure that spacetime as far as it can be masured, contains finite values ONLY, there is no difference of opinion there.
The difference is about wether or not it contains a boundary.

My position - and that of a majority of the science community - is that spacetime contains no boundary and no edges. Hence there are no "sepcial points" in spacetime that could signify a "begin" or "end" of any sort.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: Not being derogatory but your assumption that your view is majority mainstream seems to mean you missed the turnip truck.[]

Secondly it is just as irrational to suggest something that is unbounded is also finite. You have something missing or in error here in your concepts of the meaning of unbounded and finite.


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

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>There is no boundary between "extistence" and "inexistence" or between "being" and "nothing". See my linguistic remark. If something is bounded by nothing, this just
means and is exavtly equal to saying that it has no boundary.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Put as simply as I can make it:

THIS IS FALSE. IT IS SYMANTICS AND CIRCULAR REASONING.

Rather than making statements of this sort, suppose that you explain in words how a finite universe formed by having a surface or boundry defined as the absence of time and space would not be bounded.

"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>
To me to suggest that someting has never come into existance requires that it does not exist.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Even though this is not the way in which we deal with "coming into existence" , in weird way you can say that the universe never "came into existence" (since the universe existed at "all time") and that the universe therefore, does not exist.
The point is that anything that exist, must have some form of interaction with something else, so that such existence can be stated on an objective basis.
For the universe, since it already includes all existence, it can be said therefore that it's existecne is not objectively based, since there is nothing outside of it, with which it can interact.

Despite that, everything in the universe, does exist, since there is a lot of matter we know abut, that can interact.

But apart from this viewpoint, in the ordinary sense "beginning to exist" just means a transformation. Did for instacne the sun "began" to exist? Yes, for sure, but it did not start from nothing, it was just a qualitative transition from the pre-existing gaseous mass, that had enough gravity to contract, untill nuclear processes could start.

Begin in this sense, is always a relative begin. A begin in or from nothing, is not a begin, since nothing does not contain existence.

And as a philosphical side note, perhaps examine this text of Hegel about Being and Nothing, and the Incomprehensibility of the Beginning.

Being
Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

In short:
Hegel argues that the absolute seperatedness of Being and Nothing is an unprofound form of thinking (sophistry), and that Being and Nothing instead should be considered in their (dialectical) unity, which is becoming. Further, it is argued that it is impossible for the world or anything to begin, since that would mean a begin in or from nothing. But nothing is not a begin.
There is nothing against becoming-to-be or ceasing-to-be as moments of becoming, and not based on the assumed absolute speratedness of Being and Nothing, but in their unity of Becoming.

larry buford,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>You seem to think that I'm arguing FOR the existance of a boundary. Why? My words have been very clear from the beginning - a boundary is precluded BY DEFINITION.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: So yours is a universe constructed as you say it is by "Proclamation"? That is really all you are saying. You are not addressing the meat and potatoes of answering how the absence of time and space does not form a boundry where there is no beyond.

Nor have you addressed the issue of the "Net Zero" existance finding.

I would think before making such proclamations you should be able to suitably address those issues.

If you are saying that this is the MM view and it is not changable under any circumstances and others should come here to learn (but not discuss) your faith based concept then so be it. I will not continue the discussion. It does seem to me that an airing of many views is constructive. Argueing over such views is not. Particularily when people being to call others absurd ect.


"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: Not being derogatory but your assumption that your view is majority mainstream seems to mean you missed the turnip truck.[]

Secondly it is just as irrational to suggest something that is unbounded is also finite. You have something missing or in error here in your concepts of the meaning of unbounded and finite.

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

Seems you been hit by that truck []

As a matter of fact, I already explained about the infinite (unbounded) line example (a line without a begin and end), which is composed of ONLY finite values.

Must I repeat that again and again?


And btw. it is not irrational to think that the infinite which is composed of finites only contains a contradiction, but it is irrational to think that the infinite can be conceived without contradiction.