+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Something from Nothing

  1. Link to Post #1
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Something from Nothing

    I thought I'd start this thread after watching a video Q & A with Richard Dawkins and Andrew Kraus, pre-eminent scholars with impecable credentials, debunking Religion, theology and to a great extent philosophy.

    here is the link:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=CXGyesfHzew





    Ever notice that whenever a scientific book writen for the layman appears it begins with a historical recounting of the main proponents of the standard model?

    They usually start with the Greeks:
    Leucippus, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Thales,
    perhaps Anaximenes, Heraclitus and Empedocles

    From there they usually jump forward about 1,500 years and take up the tale with the likes of:
    Boyle, Proust, Berthollet, Berzilius,
    spend a great deal of time with Dalton,
    then proceed with Brown, Maxwell, Svedberg, and a few others...

    Then comes the modern era:
    Einstein, Perrin, Ostwald, Mueller et al.

    Before continuing they often backtrack to point out the flaws in the early Greeks to highlight our modern logic and the success of the Standard Model.

    Then they pick up the story in the 17th century to espouse the work of Avogadro, Canizzaro, Stas, Richards and often end with Mendeleev or Rutherford or Curie.

    And that is only for the work with the understanding of the atom.

    If it is a comprehensive volume they might backtrack again and include Newton, Grimaldi, Huygens, Young, Bartholin, Fresnel, Roemer, Thales, Peregrinus, Coulomb, Faraday,Gilbert, Dufay, Franklin, Oersted, Arago, Ampere, Sturgeon, Henry, Herschel, Nobili, Meloni, Sala, Scheele, Hertz, Helmholtz, Watt, Boltzman, Thomson, Thompson, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Rayleigh (I am skipping through them now, 'cause this is getting boring) Planck and Wien. These emminent scientists are evoked in support of the dual nature of light.

    If it is a tome, others may be mentioned like Volta, Geissler, Compton, de Broglie, Fermi and many others.


    By the time the history lesson is over the average reader has been lulled into the proper state of confusion and uncertainty and belittled to the point that whatever is now proposed as yet another proof of some monumental discovery will be accepted without question.


    Well, if I have not yet bored my readers to death then let me propose a very simple point.

    The idea that something came from nothing and that there is no reason to invoke the mysterious quality we call God or Creator in order for this to be understood misses one key element: there was also no consciousness.

    Since there was no consciousness one cannot propose anything about the absolute state of nothingness. Since there is nothing, there cannot be a "thought experiment" to go back to that place and "see" it. There is no eyes to see it with. There is just NOTHING. No space, no time, no energy, no matter, no "isness".

    These scientist wish to convince us that there was something in that nothingness. What they do not understand is that what they are proposing is that in that nothingness there was their EGO, that intellectual superiority that is their birthright due to the fact that their minds encompass and ride atop other great minds from ages past. We are not privy to these thought experiments because we do not have their prestige, qualifications and tenure.

    Poor men of science. Their egos are so large they do not realize they have usurped the Creator's role. They are blind to their own arrogance. They cannot comprehend that it is from the black hole of their own minds that creation sprung into being. And that that creation is devoid of spirit and therefore dead and lifeless.

    Nothing is nothing. It cannot weigh something and from it the entire universe could not spring forth. Nothing is everything only if the Creator made it so.

    Whatdaya think? Any validity to this line of logic?
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    AutumnW (9th July 2019), donk (22nd April 2013), Fred Steeves (22nd April 2013), Hazel (22nd April 2013), Johnnycomelately (9th April 2022), northstar (22nd April 2013), petra (9th July 2019), pueblo (9th April 2022), silvanelf (6th July 2019), Timreh (22nd April 2013)

  3. Link to Post #2
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    12th April 2012
    Location
    east coast suburban sprawl
    Posts
    2,896
    Thanks
    11,666
    Thanked 16,349 times in 2,716 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Heh, I spent yesterday listening to blowhard acedemics so outa touch with reality, it was frightening. Philosophy professors with no clear understanding of free will, somehow taking it out of decisions we make...not able to think outside of an already published school of thought.

    I smell what you're cooking Ernie. I'd like to subscribe to the newsletter.

  4. Link to Post #3
    Avalon Member Tesseract's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th October 2012
    Posts
    834
    Thanks
    1,740
    Thanked 3,393 times in 744 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    I don't quite understand what your accusation is. You seem to be saying that scientists believe that there is something in the nothingness.. but are you also saying that scientists are proposing nothingness (without the something) also?

    The only certainty is uncertainty - I might be wrong but I suspect that most scientists, at least those worthy of that title, would subscribe to this aphorism.

    If there is a creator, who created the creator? How can you create without time already being present? Does change not need a deltaT? I doubt we will ever be able to answer these questions to our satisfaction.

    The contemplation of abstract concepts such as absolute nothingness is not an unhealthy exercise, for it might inspire some new insight or idea, it doesn't have to be held onto as a faith in itself.

    You also appear to think that scientists are arrogant, belittling, egotistic and incapable of consistent analysis. I think you're guilty of stereotyping and generalising, because I know scientists who are open minded and humble but who still have very capable minds.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Tesseract For This Post:

    Hazel (22nd April 2013)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Hey there Tesseract, thanks for responding.

    I believe we are all susceptible to inconsistent analysis to one degree or another due to the way we have been indoctrinated in our schools and by life in this society. This has a lot to do with not understanding that there are levels to logic just as there are levels to truth. A consistent approach to any topic must involve adhering to one level of logic.

    For instance:
    infinity minus any number, N, equals infinity (sorry, do not know how to print an infinity sign) This mathematical expression is true. But it is not true because infinity is so large that any finite number subtracted from will not change its state. Instead, it is true because if you have infinity there is nothing left to subtract from it, leaving you zero. Therefore, the expression could be more acurately written as:
    infinity minus zero equals infinity. In this case, although two different levels of logic were used, the truth just happens to be transferred regardless. Lucky for us, since that one mathematical equation is used in so many areas of science. Of course, since it is flawed logic it is also responsible for so many hidden truths that are unavailable to us, inaccessable due to the inconsistent use of logic.

    If the only certainty was uncertainty we'd be in big trouble as a species. For instance, I am very much certain I love my daughter. There is as of yet no mathematical representation of this principal in science. So just from this simple statement it is clear science is still incomplete. Yet love is one of if not the most important topics in our world.

    Did you listen to the vid? Within the first ten minutes they they talk of the nothingness that preceeded our universe. They proclaim that although there was no energy or matter, this nothing has weight. And not only did it weigh something, it had infinite weight. In other words, this nothingness contained within it everything that would ever be in the form of a certain potential somethingness. That is not nothing. That is One, the totality. Again they crossed a logical threshold inappropriately.

    If there is a Creator, is the correct question to ask who created the Creator? Would it not make sense to ask instead why we cannot allow for the Creator to have a function? Why must we erradicate the notion of a Creator? By the way, science is equally off-handed about many other topics it cannot explain or assign a mathematical expression for. Does that make them figments of our imagination? Or can it be that it is science that has somehow failed us?

    As for time, well, there is time and then there is Time. I won't go into that here, though. Science itself has no time arrow, what with virtual particles, instantaneous interactions across vast distances and other esoteric ideas involved with higher dimensions of string theory, quatum mechanics and the concept of universal membranes. I like to consider our science as rudimentary, at best, a sort of two-dimensional thinking that will one day be supplanted by a third dimension and perhaps beyond.

    The greatest scientists, I agree, are not arrogant because they understand how little we actually know.
    We use 10% of our brains and our science accounts for 4% of the observable universe. What else can a venerable scientist conclude but that we are barely scratching the surface of comprehension?
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  7. Link to Post #5
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    If a logical stance need be held, it must adhere to its own internal precepts from start to finish.

    If ETs exist then all earth history is suspect. If FE is possible then it is the future we must look to, not the past. The epochs of bygone days with or without either ETs or FE must be widely dissimilar.

    The work of men held in esteem is only useful to the extent their legacy allows those that come after to reap the fruit of their bounty. Lies , half-truths and deceit bear rotten fruit.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    AutumnW (9th July 2019), Mike (27th July 2015), onevoice (9th April 2022)

  9. Link to Post #6
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    In a similar vein...

    There is the 'infinite monkey theorem', which states that a monkey randomly typing away at a keyboard will eventually type every known book ever written, including all the works of Shakespeare.

    This theorem is patently false but the argument for it is compelling. The argument is the fact that if the monkey taps away for an infinity of time it must inevitably and 'accidentally' type every possible combination of characters.

    At first glance there seems to be no counter to this idea. Yet again it is the inappropriate traversing of the levels of logic that is the culprit in conveying nonsense. The idea that the monkey will hit every possible combination in an infinity of time misses a crucial fact. Two, in fact. One, if the monkey is typing for infinity it is not a monkey at all but the Creator - for only the Creator can type for an infinity of time (no machine could be built to last that long). And two, if the monkey types for infinity - exactly when were all these supposed works created - outside of time, in another universe perhaps - and what has that got to do with the limited universe of a monkey typing forever. In the monkey's world there is no works of man.

    If one argues that first the works were created and then the monkey was set its task. This can be accepted because of our incomplete understanding of the nature of infinity. So let's go with it. Works are complete, monkey starts typing.

    Consider the random act of hitting one key amongst the rows of keys. What are the chances that even one accidental sentence is typed out? Something like let's say, 'I love you." I'm no statistician, but if there are 100+ characters on a keyboard, the odds of randomly typing even that small sentence are very small. It would take the monkey a hundred years to accidentally get it right.

    Even if you excuse punctuation, the monkey would take a decade to hit those specific letters. But the monkey could get lucky.

    So let's consider something a little more complicated, like the Jack and Jill nursery rhyme. How long would that take? I'm guessing a very long time...

    Here's the clincher, though. Imagine how many times the monkey would get to the last line of a book and make a mistake! Countless times! More times, obviously, than there are written works. Then imagine how many times it would fail on the second last page - and so on. It is clearly evident that the possibility of recreating even one masterpiece is astronomical!

    Imagine, that you are waiting for the monkey to correctly type War and Peace. Imagine how many other works would be accidentally produced in the meantime! It would almost necessarily type out Jack and Jill a dozen times in the interim.


    You don't get something for nothing. It is not the random act that produces a masterpiece. It is the conscious effort of a conscious being, reaching deep into their souls. Even the master cannot identically reproduce a masterpiece. A monkey surely couldn't, no matter how long it pecks away at a keyboard.

    This argument is also useful to refute the idea of evolution (not natural selection, however).
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (6th July 2019), Clear Light (6th July 2019), DeDukshyn (6th July 2019), onevoice (9th April 2022), petra (9th July 2019), silvanelf (6th July 2019), Wind (7th July 2019)

  11. Link to Post #7
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    64
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    4,173
    Thanked 1,587 times in 299 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Ross Andersen conducted an interview Lawrence Krauss, here is just an interesting snippet. The question below seems to be the core issue: a 'quantum vacuum' is not comparable with the philosophical concept of 'absolute nothingness' -- emphasis mine:

    Quote Finally, on the issue of whether Albert the “moronic” philosopher has a point in criticizing Krauss’ book, Andersen points out:
    “it sounds like you’re arguing that ‘nothing’ is really a quantum vacuum, and that a quantum vacuum is unstable in such a way as to make the production of matter and space inevitable. But a quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing?“
    Maybe it was just me, but at this point in my mind’s eye I saw Krauss engaging in a more and more frantic exercise of handwaving, retracting and qualifying: “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing [so why the book’s title?]; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen. ... I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff [a nothing full of stuff? Fascinating], then I’ll go with that.”

    But, insists Andersen, “when I read the title of your book, I read it as ‘questions about origins are over.’” To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to it.”

    In all seriousness, Prof. Krauss, you ought (moral) to take your own advice and be honest with your readers. Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers, and then bitterly complain when “moronic” philosophers dare to point that out.
    https://rationallyspeaking.blogspot....cist-with.html

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (7th July 2019)

  13. Link to Post #8
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Maybe the concept of 'nothing' has to be revisited. They say, 'nature abhors a vacuum.' How about, 'reality abhors a contradiction'?

    It is absurd to think that on the one hand there are all these heavy material objects, then on the other hand insist that these massive bodies are upheld by nothing. Then, not only continue staunchly supporting such a ridiculous assumption but insist that the causes that keep all these bodies from collapsing in upon each other, since the space between is nothing, is also conveyed upon this nothing between the bodies.

    So the thinking goes that the nothing holds up all the matter, the energy, and the forces without itself having any properties. This is absurd. The standard model cannot account for 94% of the phenomena in the universe...gee, do you think that it could have something to do with this 'nothing' they say actually contains almost everything?

    Sacred geometry is about this field, the universal field, the ether, and its structure - and it has structure. That structure influences (you could say informs) the structure of the bodies and the forces of energy between and amongst. To understand the structure is to understand the function of form.

    That is indeed important information.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Jayke (7th July 2019), onevoice (9th July 2019), petra (9th July 2019), Wind (7th July 2019)

  15. Link to Post #9
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    7th July 2016
    Location
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,549
    Thanks
    5,933
    Thanked 5,372 times in 1,413 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Nothing is nothing. It cannot weigh something and from it the entire universe could not spring forth. Nothing is everything only if the Creator made it so.

    Whatdaya think? Any validity to this line of logic?
    I'll take a stab - without reading the other replies first I confess I did not watch the video, preferring instead to read Ernie's summary.

    My take on it is, at it's (most primary?) stage, everything must begin as an idea, and an idea technically isn't nothing.

    It has been said that "only life can beget life", and that seems true to me - mainly because anything otherwise would seem ridiculous.

    Usurping God's role is not possible - no one can "be god" (although we can certainly pretend!)

    I think "Consciousness" is really key here too. The first dictionary definition says "state of being awake or aware", and I consider if the "Creator" was ever NOT conscious, He could have been "sleeping". (good grief, so many quotation marks!). The way I see things, "Everything Sleeps" (if it's alive, in it's own way) so why not God. I don't think God is a robot, and so I guess He probably sleeps sometimes.

  16. Link to Post #10
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Petra.
    First off, does spirit need rest? I don't know but I think not. To weary is a self-identification issue. The body of course does get tired and needs sleep.

    Life begets life...and like begets like.

    An idea does not exist without consciousness. It is consciousness that provides the home for thoughts and ideas. Without a mind there cannot be ideas...

    Holding on to one level of logic is difficult in this world where logical postulates jump around from level to level in order to confuse and obfuscate [keep hidden].

    Not sure if you agreed or disagreed so don't know where to take this post.

    Hopefully I answered your query or statement.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    avid (9th July 2019), ulli (9th July 2019), Wind (9th July 2019)

  18. Link to Post #11
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    3,020
    Thanks
    5,475
    Thanked 13,120 times in 2,678 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Ernie,

    From what I have been watching on youtube about the universe, the whole beginning big bang theory of the universe, rejected by Einstein, gained credence with scientists when they discovered that the observable universe appears to be expanding. That led to the idea of a supposed beginning point to the expansion.

    Modern astro-physicists are extrapolating from what they can observe locally, to the entire universe.

    I feel that the closer we come to understanding the true nature of reality, the more we will realize that questions such as when and where did the universe begin are conceptually very limited and ultimately irrelevant. What science leaves out may be the most crucial question and that is they 'why' of it all. And we will likely never know. That may drive some people up the wall but will comfort others.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to AutumnW For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (10th July 2019)

  20. Link to Post #12
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Yes, part of the reason they came up with a big bang theory is because of the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

    The culprit in this case is the red shift paradigm by Edwin Hubble. Almost all observable objects in the universe, near or far, has been observed to have red shifted spectral lines - that is, the tell-tale signature of the elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, are not where they should be on the energy spectrum, instead the lines are shifted toward the red.

    This has been likened to the Doppler effect of sound waves. So blue shift = object approaching, red shift = object receding. But since sound and light are entirely different things, it still may turn out to be an incomplete theory.

    For one it seems that there is no steady range of red shift in the spectrum. It seems as though there might be levels of red shift instead, corresponding to different environments. There is also evidence that the red shift of an object can change significantly, which should not happen.

    While we're at it we could throw in that the microwave energy background may have other reasons for its marked non-homogeneity (anisotropic distribution).

    All these can have another explanation based on the concept of the ether, which has been marginalized by the big bang theory's almost unanimous acceptance in the academic world...and the corresponding space-time theory, General Relativity, by Einstein.

    To extrapolate requires fixed data points and a working model of reality. By fixed I mean completely understood with unfaltering certainty. If science can be trusted to have those then okay, the universe is as they say.

    I love the one where Nassim Haramein is being explained the expansion theory using an expanding balloon as the universe. The picture he was shown was of a mouth blowing into a balloon with all these swirling galaxies drawn on it. As the balloon expanded the galaxies got further apart. Pretty clear analogy...

    Dude asked the proffessor, uh I got just one question. Who is blowing in the balloon! haha

    Nah, on this side of the veil, we'll probably never know for sure.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    meeradas (10th July 2019)

  22. Link to Post #13
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    64
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    4,173
    Thanked 1,587 times in 299 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    The idea that something came from nothing and that there is no reason to invoke the mysterious quality we call God or Creator in order for this to be understood misses one key element: there was also no consciousness.

    Since there was no consciousness one cannot propose anything about the absolute state of nothingness. Since there is nothing, there cannot be a "thought experiment" to go back to that place and "see" it. There is no eyes to see it with. There is just NOTHING. No space, no time, no energy, no matter, no "isness".
    But this concept of "absolute nothingness" is the core assumption of the Big Bang Theory! Take a look at the bold emphasis below. In other words, their theory claims that the origin of the universe happened as a creation from nothingness.

    The other option would be the assumption, that the Big Bang is -- quote from wikipedia-- "a phase of the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang, where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe." This so-called "Big Bounce" interpretation is much more reasonable, at least IMO.

    I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm sure their claim "According to their calculations, ..." should be read as "According to their wild speculations, ..."

    Quote Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions

    There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

    Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.
    https://www.big-bang-theory.com/

  23. Link to Post #14
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Silvanelf.

    Inside a singularity is good enough for me. I can go with that. That sounds like the ether to me.

    But to consider the logic of it as science wants to understand it is conflicting and confusing at least, and probably downright wrong.

    In this case it is a matter of both proportion and perspective. Proportionally, the universe started inside the singularity so which is bigger?

    In a relative sense, the perspective here is skewed because when we now talk of a singularity we immediately think black hole and the context is automatic - black hole among many in an enormous universe.

    But we are talking about the beginning of the universe, before even, when there were no black holes or a universe. So this singularity is markedly different considering the event.

    And what has been achieved, really? The explanation merely pushes the unanswerable question further back in time. This singularity somehow birthed space, time, energy and matter? So good, but how? No answer forthcoming.

    So let's back up a bit to ask what is a singularity? This is where it gets tricky because science describes it with a lot of reference to infinity, right? Infinite pressure, temperature, and time for starters. It's as though these concepts can be meaningful.

    Yet what is infinite temperature? Or infinite time or pressure? Isn't that the most there can be? So if it is all time within a singularity or all pressure or all temperature is there any left over?

    The context is 'the first singularity when there was not yet anything in existence but soon would be'. And already there is a singularity? And it's empty? All by itself just conveniently located near to hand but merely a coincidence? And into this mighty convenient empty singularity all the contents of the universe magically appeared as a dark thick soup - cauldron full. Let's just ask the obvious, where did that empty singularity come from? Silence.

    Let's not forget the inflation period to account for the anisotropic (uneven) distribution of the cosmic microwave background signature. This is the period when space suddenly accelerated beyond the speed of light and vastly increased it's volume - then slowed back down to normal again. Very convenient that it fits the facts in retrospect, and only violates the laws of the standard model a mere one time...


    All singularities are connected because they are one. Every point in the universe is connected to every other because this universe was created in a singularity and never left! We didn't go anywhere. We are still here where we always are. Now.

    That first singularity isn't even material, it is a Magnificent and Fully Comprehensive Mind.
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 10th July 2019 at 23:59.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    silvanelf (11th July 2019)

  25. Link to Post #15
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    64
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    4,173
    Thanked 1,587 times in 299 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Inside a singularity is good enough for me. I can go with that. That sounds like the ether to me.

    But to consider the logic of it as science wants to understand it is conflicting and confusing at least, and probably downright wrong.
    Here the word 'singularity' is not used in the sense of 'space-time singularity' or black hole -- here 'singularity' is used in the sense of 'origin of the universe' or 'origin of everything':

    Quote The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.
    https://www.big-bang-theory.com/

    Hawking and other proponents of a 'Theory of Everything' (ToE) try to construct a chain of cause-and-effect relationships. Because they don't want to consider space and time as given for granted, therefore they assume that quantum fluctuations should be more fundamental than space and time. In their view space and time emerged from some kind of quantum bubble.

    But here is just the first philosophical problem: how can space and time 'emerge' from something, while time does not exist?

    There are other problems as well, for example they can't explain the existence of natural laws, they have to take them for granted.

    Quote And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions. It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...d-philosopher/

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (21st July 2019)

  27. Link to Post #16
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Silvanelf.

    Quantum fluctuations are infinitesimal, which is just another word for infinite. So again, they have crossed a logical threshold prematurely. 'Quantum fluctuations' stands in for infinity - as a mastered concept. So they believe infinity is more fundamental than the finite. And since only the finite can be seen or measured, infinity must be implied.

    So the most fundamental is merely implicated? Could we not just say, the implicate gave rise to the explicate, and be done with it? Because the rest of the complicated story is just confusing everything by actually taking a long time to say nothing.

    The problem seems to be the impossibility of reconciling infinity and the finite in any meaningful way. This is evident in so many areas of science. Derivatives and the Calculus deal with this sort of dilemma. Trigonometry illustrates the phase relationship between circle and line, which is a function of this same dilemma. And just a moment ago I ran into another one, the square root of -1, that shows the impossibility of any reconciliation.

    So there are ways to get around the problem but it has not gotten us any closer to understanding the meaning behind the problem (ie. the problem is still there).

    Maybe infinity is a dimension. And maybe manifestation takes place in successive dimensions. And maybe what we see when we look up into the night sky is a slice of that complex multi-dimensional manifestation.

    Maybe this tiny portion we mistakenly believe is all there is, is only 4% of the entire universe - but it is simply beyond our perspective to see the rest at all...
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Cara (24th July 2019)

  29. Link to Post #17
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    64
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    4,173
    Thanked 1,587 times in 299 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Quantum fluctuations are infinitesimal, which is just another word for infinite. So again, they have crossed a logical threshold prematurely. 'Quantum fluctuations' stands in for infinity - as a mastered concept. So they believe infinity is more fundamental than the finite. And since only the finite can be seen or measured, infinity must be implied.
    The notion 'Infinite' means 'very large, going beyond any limit'.
    On the other hand, 'infinitesimal' means 'very small, going to zero'.
    These concepts are very different.

    Quote In mathematics the difference between infinitesimal and infinite is that infinitesimal is (mathematics) a non-zero quantity whose magnitude is smaller than any positive number (by definition it is not a real number) while infinite is (mathematics) greater than any positive quantity or magnitude; limitless.
    https://wikidiff.com/infinitesimal/infinite


    'Quantum fluctuations' are a physical concept, they are finite and measurable -- at least in principle.

    Here is an attempt to explain 'quantum fluctuations':

    Quote Even in what we consider empty space, the fields are still there, sitting quietly in empty space, much as there’s water in the pond even if no wind or pebbles are making ripples on its surface, and there’s still air in the room even if there’s no sound.

    But here’s the thing: those fields are never entirely quiet. Quantum fields never quite maintain a constant value; their value at any point in space is always jittering around a bit. This jitter is called “quantum fluctuations”, it is a consequence of the famous “uncertainty principle” of Heisenberg.
    https://www.quora.com/What-are-quantum-fluctuations

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Cara (24th July 2019)

  31. Link to Post #18
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    Thanks Silvan Elf. And I don't want to flog a dead horse. Both infinity and infinitesimal have infinite as their root for a reason. Infinitesimal means infinitely small. How, as a quantity, is that different from infinitely large?

    Consider, the second largest thing, or the thing we call the largest finite quantity, is infinitely smaller than the largest thing we call infinity...does that make sense? From the relative position of the finite realm, 0 and infinity are the same, at least in terms of quantity. So, to say that one must take away an infinite number 'of things' in order to attain the concept of zero is equivalent to saying one must add an infinite number 'of things' in order to reach infinity.

    The reason there are quantum fluctuations is because of a concept called Planck's constant, as I am sure you know. Planck's constant postulates that there must be a smallest fundamental length, beyond which there is nothing smaller. Yet if that is so then there cannot be a smooth curve of energy states. Instead energy must come in packets called quanta. Because energy must come in packets, certain predictions can be made about this quantum state, that exists below the smallest possible length. That is where 'quantum fluctuations' come from. It is 'the thing' that fills the space below the smallest possible space. But how can anything fill a space that does not exist?

    It is this conundrum, stated in many different ways, that has stymied science since the turn of the last century.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  32. Link to Post #19
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    What if, like the concept of the one mind, there is only one thing, one energy, one time, one space, one dimension?

    What if, in that oneness, in the One Mind using the One Consciousness, all iterations unpack at once and then fold back into The Oneness again? Would we know the difference?

    What if each unpacking revealed the story of another version from another perspective of the same story. What if that story is the story of Life?

    And what if every story is reality?


    What does it take for a form of consciousness to exist?

    Is there a reason why the universal constants are exactly so, conducive to life, and not fixed in some arbitrary manner?

    Does life need stars?

    Does my reality require yours?




    Believe it or not, the questions above ask the same fundamental question:

    How can you get Something from Nothing?
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Harmony (9th April 2022)

  34. Link to Post #20
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Something from Nothing

    In the context of this thread, the point being made is the premise of the incomplete thought.

    We exist in what seems to be a fragile shell of meat and bones, composed of random elements of no particular significance.

    From this point of view, the viewpoint of the incomplete thought, which is what the life of an individual being amounts to, it seems logical to assume that the universe is composed of discrete packets of 'things'.

    And from that position it becomes self evident that life is fickle, fragile, and short. By extension, the same holds true for all phenomena, in relative terms.

    But.

    What we actually are cannot be an incomplete thought. What truly exists, exists for ever. Anything that does not fit this description is not real.

    The closest we come to describing what we actually are is the concept of the unified field. That is what we are. We are the complete thought. We are creation itself.

    The dance of life is not the the whirling dust stirred up by the action. It is not the animated molecules, not the flexing of sinew and tendon. The dance is performed beyond these random ideas. The dance is life. The rest is its expression.

    To think a thought is not the dance, it is not the act, it is merely the acted upon.

    Only the dead are incomplete. Dead thoughts, dead deeds, dead bodies. The dance animates them all for a time then moves on, and in its wake remains only death - inannimate and unreal.

    This reality as presented to us is actually the celebration of the incomplete thought. It is the cult of death.

    Inverted so, death becomes life, illogic becomes rational, fear is mistaken for love.

    We are not, the universe is not, reality isn't an incomplete thought.

    We are not the dancer but the dance.

  35. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Harmony (9th April 2022), Johnnycomelately (9th April 2022), onevoice (10th April 2022), Sue (Ayt) (9th April 2022)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts