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 rousejohnny</i>
<br />Mac said:

I.e. all sorts of material existence forms like fields and vacuum or whatever is there and can there
be that has the properties of change and/or motion in space and time, and which can be verified
to exist in an objective way, does not qualify as "nothing".


Response.

How could you verify any property of change and/or motion of homogenous energy with a neutral charge? There would be no motion and no change. You could define no coordinate and no dynamic would be possible. Without any dynamic there would be no time. This is the simplest form of nothing that is possible through deduction and rationality. If you can define some process in which there can be further deduction, please let me know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If there is no change of state, motion or transformation, then that is not something, and can not be called "energy" either.

Fields in physical reality though do have observable properties (else, how could we detect them and know they exist?)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />[Mac] "Lets firt be sure we both accept our Websters definition of boundry, which in part states is 'A limit beyond which something does not exist'."

Every real thing has this sort of boundary. Call this a Type A boundary. Other real things can exist outside of this boundary. Yawn.

I'd like to see each of you (or anyone else, for that matter) expound on the other type of boundary (Type , where there is a limit 'beyond which NO-thing exists'. Not even conceptual things ...

Or, maybe we need a Type C boundary. Type B boundaries can have conceptual "things" outside of them. Type C boundaries can't.

===

The word universe (as used here by most of us: 'ALL that exists') seems to preclude <b>by definition</b> the possibility of a Type C boundary. If anything exists on the other side of a candidate boundary, that boundary is automatically of Type A or B.

(Other definitions of universe are possible, but not desirable here. If you want to use one of them, please be explicit.)

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

Your definition is troublesome, in that in the broadest sense, the universe is not bounded by anything, so how can you state that it can have a boundary?

All concrete existence forms have boundaries. But that is a boundary between one thing and something else. But all existence forms together don't have a boundary, since there is not something else with which it can have a boundary.

Please take cae using such formal definitions, since they can invoke a lot of trouble...

[heusdens] "Your definition is troublesome, in that in the broadest sense, the universe is not bounded by anything, so how can you state that it can have a boundary?"

[LB] "The word universe (as used here by most of us: 'ALL that exists') seems to <b>preclude</b> by definition the possibility of a Type C boundary."

(Emphasis added)


???,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />[heusdens] "Your definition is troublesome, in that in the broadest sense, the universe is not bounded by anything, so how can you state that it can have a boundary?"

[LB] "The word universe (as used here by most of us: 'ALL that exists') seems to <b>preclude</b> by definition the possibility of a Type C boundary."

(Emphasis added)


???,
LB


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

The problem we have here is purely linguistic.

If you say that the universe has a boundary, then the question is: by what is it bounded?

We could just answer then: the universe is bounded by nothing.
Which can be expressed also as: the universe is not bounded by anything.

Which is the same as saying: the universe is not bounded, it has no boundary.


"Nothing" does not form a boundary.

Heusdens said:

If there is no change of state, motion or transformation, then that is not something, and can not be called "energy" either.

Fields in physical reality though do have observable properties (else, how could we detect them and know they exist?)

Response:

What would we have then if E=MC squared principle were used deductively to change all matter into energy and the charges were to cancel out to equal 0. This would by your own words above not be something but rather "nothing". This is the only nothing that is possible. It is not detectable, but quantitatively deducible (is that a word?).

Mac,

So if I understand it correctly, you believe that if we reverse all causes and effects that have taken place on arbitrary forms and entities in the universe at this moment, we must reach a definite event before which all conceivable forms did not exist?

Then, by taking an inception event, how could this event have discriminated a significantly different configuration of nothingness from which the universe was born. How could this event have been managed by forms that did not exist? What changed the equilibrium of nothingness to the universe as we know it? You have to admit, these are tough questions.


Anyway, whether time had a beginning or not, we probably agree that certain convictions, which may or may not be logically defined, cannot be resolved by rhetoric. []