Logical Hierarchies

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>what is mathematical does not necessarily equate with the universe,i understand having an open mind but there are times in which flexibility of mind can be stretched in the wrong direction,can it not?not everything is possible.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: That is my line. I use it when debating Relativity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>like i say,"nothing" when looked into deeper always becomes something.its just a matter of detection.is not "chiral condensate" a good example?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: We agree this MAY be an example of a false "Nothing". But that certainly is not proof that "Nothing" is always something. There simply and can be no such proof. Think about it.

Also it is entirely possible that the chiral condensate IS the "s" in the UniKEF formulation which is N---&gt;(+s)+(-s) or creation ex nihilo.

I think it is far to soon to rule that out also.


"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 north</i>
<br />mac,messiah

i to found the site fascinating,i do however disagree with equating zero with nothing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Glad you enjoyed the site.

There are two connotations to 'Nothing' - one is abstract and the other is logical.

In the abstract, 'Nothing' is that which does not exist. But 'that which does not exist', doesn't exist. It is a fiction. A word must define, and in the abstract, assigning a word to the idea is an attempt to define the undefined. In the abstract, 'nothing' would lack everything - including a definition. To consider 'Nothing' would be not to consider. To perceive 'Nothing' would be not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' would be not to understand. Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. In the abstract, 'Nothing' is undefined and has no physical manifestation in the Universe.

The only definition of 'Nothing' which applies to logic and reality is the empty set - symbolized by the value 'Ø'.

One of the items in this discussion was wether or not it can be proven that one of the possible alternatives (begin/end; no begin/end;begin/no end;no begin/no end) applies without doubt for the real world.
And wether on of the alternatives, if there is no objective evidence from which to select one of these candidates, should be a default position.

It can be show trivial that, when starting from the assumption that the universe has no begin and no end, that there is no direct evidence for that. No observation can yield infinite measures, so the provability of that by direct means is out of the question.
This directly involves also that the opposite positions (a universe having a begin or an end) is also without direct proof. That is to say, that all direct evidence that could trace back the existence of the universe back to some point back in time, does not and can not contain any convincing proof that such a point in time, was a definite begin of the universe.

So, how to handle this issue then, and how to conclude what position would be the most likely candidate? Or can it be stated that no such proof can exist, leaving the question open?

The mentioned issue about the applicability of the second law, had already put forward a number of arguments as why one can not conclude immediately that this would mean the universe would run out of useable energy. The 2nd law is confined to a finite system, which has a thermodynamic boundary with the rest of the universe, through which there is no heat transfer. Test systems are smaller then earth, and we can not simply apply those results to the whole universe. Least thing we can say is that the universe doesn't have a boundary (there is no "outside") so that makes it rather difficult to talk about a closed system. Another dilemma would be that we would conclude then from the 2nd law the very opposite as what the application of the 1st law to the universe in total (conservation of mass/energy) would make us conclude.

From direct observational evidence and application of known physical laws, a distinction between these models therefore is near impossible.
However in the philosophical sense, and also as a possible physical explenation, I see no points in a support for a model with either a begin or an end. What physical circumstances could ever explain a begin in or from nothing or an end into nothing?
In the tautological sense, nothing does not exist, so how could it ever form an explenation or foundation of any physical reality?

On philosophical grounds therefore the only holdable position would be a universe without begin or end.
Hegel text: Being and Nothing.
Incomprehensibility of the Beginning