infinite, eternal universe

larry

i find the lack of WANTING to express and explain this theory unnatural.who has been so less to back a thought/theory/idea than skarp?

i mean there has been no attempt at all to help us understand.

Jan's attempt is well put but i doubt anything will come of it. i think it is beyond, if there is,its human-intervention.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How does an arbitary entity create "stuff" when it is in a state of non-existence?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Although I haven't come up with the right words to describe how this first entity came to be in the first place. I am prepared to accept it through acceptance that the concept one must be in the state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist. I would think of the first entity as being arbitrary in size only. Such that it wouldn't matter if the first entity had a diameter of plank length, or the size of our known visible universe. The relationships between zero, one, and infinity would still remain the same.

With that out of the way - How would the first entity create stuff?

I assume you know what I'm talking about when I mention the pic with the circle. This is the first entity. Keep in mind the pic is a 2D representation, and should be thought of in 3D I.E. a sphere. One might say that this entity must move, problem is there isn't anything there to move it, and if it did move, what would it move in relation too?. The only option I could come up with that did make sense is that it moved in relation to itself (it expanded). The principle of unlikes attract, and likes repel came to mind. Heres the pic for that.
home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum_pl.jpg
This is not to say the interior of the circle is positive, and the exterior is negative, but that the concepts interior is possitive and the exterior of the concept is negative. Given that the interior of the concept is positive as the pic shows, we can expect a repel and expansion. This expansion will never slow or end. There being absolutely nothing in it's way.

The expansion brings about what I guess you could call conceptual geometric equivalence. If the initial unit expands lets say three fold from it's original geometric volume, we can expect three new entities the size of the original entity within the origanal expanding entity. Something tantamount to this.
home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum_pl1.jpg
Each new unit would have a corresponding positive and negative. These new units can and do move in relation to something else other than itself, hence they don't expand as the first unit did, but they do expand.

I will stop here for now so you can roll yer eyes.

<i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />

How does an arbitary entity create "stuff" when it is in a state of non-existence?

Although I haven't come up with the right words to describe how this first entity came to be in the first place.
____________________________________________________________________

skarp

not good enough, we've been down this road before,start thinking, so that you can come up with the RIGHT WORDS.until then, I'M WAITING as you say!!

Skarp,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Although I haven't come up with the right words to describe how this first entity came to be in the first place.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I see progress here. You have highlighted a conundrum that is rampant throughout this message board: creation "ex nihilo". But the MM clearly stipulates that <b>every</b> effect must have an antecedent, proximate cause. Hence, there can be no first entity.

You have to concede that non-existence cannot be a cause nor an effect whatsoever.

Jan.

I started typing up my answer, but I realized I don't have the time to give it justice in that finding the right words could take hours to put out the equivalent of a few sentences. That means work gets in the way of completing the task. In the mean time perhaps you can give to me the definition of Non-Existence that leads you to believe that there can be no cause or effect.
I'm assuming you have defined Non-Existence in toto. Is that correct?
Carful here - It's a slippery slope that could easily lead to reality. Something that is in short supply by what I do believe is your reckoning.

You know, Skarp, it is still your turn to deal.

I imagine that you will be wanting to play another hand of "all of my cards are wild, but yours aren't".

===

I may sit this next hand out.