EXISTENCE (not 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 tvanflandern</i>
<br />When you first asked the question, I didn't understand what you meant, so I looked up the definition of "condition" and decided you must have meant "something that is necessary for something else to happen", in which case existence surely is a condition.

But now you say I am "equating a state of being (a condition) with being itself". And I am back to wondering "What does Messiah mean by that?" Please elaborate the point, because nothing that makes sense is being communicated to me. I can see no obvious basis for a difference between "being" and a "state of being", and anything I might guess would be speculation. -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Assume we have 1 cc of water - and that 1 cc is an 'entity' (which it is not, but 'entities' - vs composites - are hard to determine so we'll just use it as an illustration)
The water entity - which 'exists' - may have several states of being or conditions i.e. 1) solid (ice), 2) liquid (best taken internally with Scotch and a little #1) or steam
No matter what 'condition' the entity assumes, it still 'exists'. Existence is permanent, condition (state of being) is variable.

<font size="4"><font color="red"> <b>Truly Countervalent Qualities </b></font id="red"></font id="size4">- as opposed to Matter vs Anti-Matter

Given: In order to change or be changed, something must 'exist'
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Change is a 'Function of ' existence C=f(E)

Given: Every entity is comprised of countervalent qualities - yielding a qualitative value of Ø

Assume: QUALitative countervalence is bivalent in nature - positive vs negative
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;(which is not the case, but I'm limited here, folks)

Every instance or point within the entity is a dependent point of sub-existence. If a single point were to cease to exist, the value of the entity would cease to be Ø and a law of nature would be broken. Indeed, it is this very feature which defines the entity as a singular identity, a unique unit of Zero value, an element comprised only of itself.

We are all pretty certain two things cannot simultaneously occupy the same space, BUT points within an entity are not independent 'things', they are mutually dependent instances of the SAME thing - 'SUB'existences.

Assume: Points of 'SUB'existence can combine and separate to assume different states/conditions.

This is the ORIGINAL state of an 'entity'
<font size="2"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <b><font color="white">+ QUALITIES</font id="white"></b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b><font color="black">- QUALITIES</font id="black"></b>
<b><font color="white"><u>______________</u></font id="white"></b><font size="4"><font color="red"><b><u>&nbsp;</u></b></font id="red"></font id="size4"><b><font color="black"><u>______________</u></font id="black"></b></font id="size2">
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>^</b></font id="red">
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>Nucleus</b></font id="red">

Now a change occurs. An equal proportion of <b>+ QUALITIES</b> and <font color="black"> <b>- QUALITIES</b> </font id="black"> are drawn into the nucleus (annihilating each other and thus entering the 3rd dimension - just west of the Twilight Zone). The entity assumes a different state/condition

<font size="1">This is the ALTERED state of an entity
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <b><font color="white">+ QUALITIES</font id="white"></b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b><font color="black">- QUALITIES</font id="black"></b>
<b><font color="white"><u>______________</u></font id="white"></b><b><font color="black"><u>______________</u></font id="black"></b> </font id="size1">

This is, of course, <b>ALL HOGWASH</b>. Points of existence never annihilate each other and there is no 3rd dimension because countervalent QUALitative values are not bivalent in nature.

Let's up the ante. If <font color="black"><b>BLACK</b> </font id="black">represented the qualitative value of Ø, its components would be <font color="red"><b>RED,</b></font id="red"> <font color="yellow"><b>YELLOW,</b></font id="yellow"> and <font color="blue"><b>BLUE</b></font id="blue">. The entity would be <font color="red"><b>T</b></font id="red"><font color="yellow"><b>R</b></font id="yellow"><font color="blue"><b>I</b></font id="blue">valent in nature. Any two instances could combine and only change in character instead of being annihilated. And if QUALitative values were <b>infinitely</b>-valent in nature, then all but one instance of the entity could combine without annihilation.

If change is a function of existence, then before something could cease to exist, it would lose the ability to change or be changed.

Sorry for the rambling, confusing character of this explanation. For a better view -
[url] www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/entity.htm#cvalence [/url]

JMc

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Antimatter is matter with certain 2-state properties such as charge reversed from the ordinary. However, mass for antimatter is normal. Although mathematics allows us to attach negative signs to anything, including time, mass, and numbers under a square root symbol, this does not mean that a physical counterpart must exist any more than a "square circle" must exist simply because we can say it.

Insofar as our experience of reality is any guide, no such concepts as "negative mass" and "negative energy" exist. But that doesn't keep us from using those words for some other concept if we feel like it. For example, "dark energy" is sometimes referred to as "negative energy" for no better reason than that it pushes instead of pulls, thereby opposing gravity. One problem is that "dark energy" probably doesn't exist because the concept is needed only by the Big Bang theory, which is very likely wrong. But that aside, dark energy's "pushing" energy is the same as ordinary energy in our everyday experience and cannot be called "negative" in the sense used in this discussion, where the combination of a negative and a positive would lead to non-existence. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is what I meant previously when I refered to certain theories as "Accounting Theories". They assign positive and negative labels to certain aspects of nature which are believed to be conserved for the purpose of creating a zero sum. The zero sum is then suppose to represent "nothingness". This is all just a game of mathematical semantics. If one uses an equality of positive values instead of the zero sum to represent the conservation, the whole pretext of the theory is destroyed.


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />. . . If one uses an equality of positive values instead of the zero sum to represent the conservation, the whole pretext of the theory is destroyed.

JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
APPLAUSE ! ! !
Mathematics - our most exact science - deals predominately with quantitative values. But even in mathematical equations qualitative properties must be dealt with.

Consider the simple equation: (+1)+(-1)=Ø

The quantitative value 'Ø' is absolute - neither positive or negative. But any other value such as |1| must be assigned a positive or negative quality in order to have meaning to the function. If you don't believe trying to get a quality to perform like a quantity can be a problem, solve the equation sqrt(-1).

Mathematics requires two equivalent values or sets of values be assigned opposite (positive vs negative) qualities in order to be considered countervalent. But when it comes to QUALitative values such cannot be assumed to be the case.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hardly. Creation ex nihilo is inconceivable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Inconceivable by you.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All new forms arise from previous forms, whether our eyes or instruments can detect them or not<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Prove it.



One should note that your model cannot be proven right or wrong conclusively .... ever. The same (might) be said for a model from nothing. You may be confident to the point of being positive, but it doesn't make you right.

In regards to matter antimatter annihilation - One poster had an expectation that nothing would be the product. I would go as far as to say that energy is a form of nothing. In essence - If you begin with nothing you can expect nothing in return. I.E. Matter and antimatter are forms of nothing.
The universe to me is the definition of nothing, and that definition comes in the form of individual concepts wherein the definition is an ongoing process. Such that the definition becomes more complete today than yesterday.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Creation ex nihilo is inconceivable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Inconceivable by you.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is a science MB and I was speaking in the context of physics, where miracles are forbidden as explanations. This is because, once miracles are allowed as explanations, inquiry ends because everything can be explained as simply "an act of God". So Creation ex nihilo is inconceivable without a miracle by anyone with a disciplined mind and logical thought processes. From nothing, nothing comes.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: All new forms arise from previous forms, whether our eyes or instruments can detect them or not<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Prove it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is a simple corollary of the "no creation ex nihilo" principle, which follows from the prohibition of miracles, and is affirmed by our day-to-day experience. In nature, total matter plus energy (which is just matter bits moving at high speeds that are too small to be seen) always seem to be conserved, with things never coming into or going out of existence but simply changing forms.

I recommend a reading of "Physics has its principles" for a better understanding of this perspective. It has been endorsed by a number of physicists, and is reprinted at this web site: metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One should note that your model cannot be proven right or wrong conclusively .... ever. The same (might) be said for a model from nothing. You may be confident to the point of being positive, but it doesn't make you right.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ultimately, "proof" depends on premises. Yours seem to allow miracles. Mine do not. With miracles excluded, principles such as "no creation ex nihilo" would seem to follow by logic alone.

Only two claims have been advanced to question this conclusion.
(1) There is a God, so miracles can happen. This hypothesis is untestable and is therefore outside the scope of science. The discussion of this hypothesis can continue on Message Boards where beliefs are an allowed part of one's personal tool kit, and are sometimes even considered meritorious. That is not the case on this MB.
(2) (+1)+(-1) = 0 implies that something can come from nothing. But this is playing word games because properties can take on zero values, whereas existence and entities cannot. So in the example, while the sum (a property) of two integers can be zero, the number of entities is still two and cannot be reduced. The concept of a negative entity (something less than existing) is undefined, to put it charitably.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I would go as far as to say that energy is a form of nothing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Insofar as physics can address such matters today, it appears that all energy consists of either motion or potential of real, material bodies. It has never been seen to exist apart from such bodies. Therefore, there is little to support your idea. Moreover, unless you can propose a test that would distinguish your idea from standard physics, it is also excluded from the domain of scientific hypotheses, which must be testable by definition.

Similar comments apply to the rest of your ideations. Those who allow beliefs into their thinking are not fully committed to explaining the universe with real, tangible entities, testable properties/concepts, and physical principles (arising from logic), and are always tempted to take such shortcuts as those you propose. But these do not communicate well to others who do not have a similar mindset. -|Tom|-