infinite, eternal universe

<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">It certainly does not entice me to visit your web site, where I would presumably see many more non-sequiturs.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So what your telling me is that your effort to understand is strained by the pushing of your index finger over the left mouse key? To that I must ask myself - Why am I spinning my wheels to only get the middle finger from you? Tom - you need to at least annex to the next adjoining finger, wherein you'll find a brass ring. This will lead obdurately by your own apparent methods to your pinky, by which you can give the thumbs up to your understanding. Yes Tom - I'm asking for a hand here, lest I drop the whole thing. Perhaps you are used to people bringing you things on a silver platter, but I'll be damned if I'z a gonna wipe yer ass to complete the process.



Disclaimer - This is not an attack! I repeat - This is not an attack! It is free association in a speech pattern. I hope you can see the abject humor in this.

Please explain how "nothing" differs from "something" and "existence" differs from "non-existence". Maybe then you can succeed in explaining what you mean by "nothing is existence".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">First off - Your logic precludes the possibility of illogic playing it's role. This in itself is not logical in that logic has no meaning whatsoever in the absence of a concomitant illogic. Just as yes has no meaning in the default of no. Hence the universe consist of ones and zeros, wherein ones are the logical description (reality) of the construct illogic of zero (Non-Existence).

I can't stress enough the need for contradiction as an absolute. In keeping with this contradiction - I exist ---- because I don't exist as the absolutely necessary gainsay.

Existence differs from Non-Existence in that Existence is the logical fallout of Non-Existence, or better put .... in Non-Existence. I.E. The universe (Existence) is within the necessary contradiction (Non-Existence). The universe Exist because it does not Exist. I might say the the universe Exist because it does not Exist elswhere, but there is no elswhere - Non-Existence is not a place to hang any hat.

As far as nothing differing from something. Since Existence is the definition of Non-Existence. I can expect that something (a part of Existence)will have an underlying constituent equal to that of Non-Existence. {{Nothing}} fits this bill to a T. {{Something}} is a form of nothing. The key word being form (a closed system (shape). It is not a physical form, but a conceptual geometric one, and upholds the definition of non-Existence.

It might be further noted that Non-Existence is undefinable (fact), and also that we are here (fact). This brings to the forefront an ongoing process that is incomplete, and without reservation will never be completed. Existence is like a planned infinitely tall building in which we are on the 298298937377898294837901213281823 floor of construction, wherein there are still an infinity of floors yet to be built.

I again post up this pretty pic as an example of what I've been saying. I put no labels in it. I'll leave it to you to place them in their appropriate locations. Labels like zero, one, and infinity. Labels like Existence, Non-Existence, form, something, nothing, geometric, and concept.

All can be represented here.
home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
_____________________________________________________________________

Skarp

the problem with this picture(and i have seen it)is that it is not complex enough.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the problem with this picture(and i have seen it)is that it is not complex enough.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's not meant to be complex, but as simple as it can get. Were you looking for an explaination that is beyond comprehension? Was I to draw every single fundamental entity of Existence within a five inch square on your monitor - Give or take a few bazillion? One will suffice if one is common to all that Exist.

<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">the problem with this picture(and i have seen it)is that it is not complex enough.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's not meant to be complex, but as simple as it can get.
______________________________________________________________________

ANS: it is too simple,the circle is fine but there is no breaking out point from the circle. that is a contradiction from your stance from the logical to the illogical,since the circle has no break out point from being either logical or illogical.it is illogical to start with or it is logical,but this picture allows no flexibility from either one to the other.
____________________________________________________________________
Were you looking for an explaination that is beyond comprehension?
____________________________________________________________________

ANS:no,however talk to me.
____________________________________________________________________

Was I to draw every single fundamental entity of Existence within a five inch square on your monitor - Give or take a few bazillion? One will suffice if one is common to all that Exist.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: it is not common!!

_____________________________________________________________________








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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tuffy</i>
<br />to me, an infinite macrocosm is easier to swallow than an infinite microcosm<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Whatever it is that breaks the symmetry of scale in both directions for you does not exist for me. If you concentrate on why you feel this way, can you verbalize it? Why is assembling things into ever-larger structures an easier concept than breaking things into ever-smaller structures?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">like, i can see how "something" always was but how can space continue on forever in all directions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can it <i>not</i> continue forever in all directions? To my mind, visualizing an end to space is impossible, leading me to conclude there can be no such end.

Although I cannot visualize a physical infinity, I can deal with the simplest meaning of the word: "unbounded". That much makes good sense to me because surely space must be unbounded. What manner of boundry could it possibly have?

I am saying something much stronger than simply that I cannot imagine a boundary to space. The problem is not with limits to my imagination. Rather, my mind concludes that such a boundary is impossible because a boundary divides two entities, one of which must be space and the other non-space by meaning of the words "a boundary to space". But a place that exists but has no space is a contradiction to the meaning of existence in my vocabulary: "occupies space".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">space: the infinite backdrop of matter, containing nothing, being nothing, having no matter in and of itself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This reveals pne very basic difference in our definitions that explains why we sometimes reach different conclusions about nature. To me, space only exists because it is filled with something material and tangible, even if on a scale too small for our instruments to detect. I cannot visualize truly empty space. Such a thing would not have existence, and therefore could not be perceived or measured.

I agree with your other definitions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i was a little surprised that you included mathematicians in the same "sentence" with philosophers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I was not meaning to say anything derogatory about either group. What they have in common is that they consider a superset of things that are physically possible. For example, mathematics does not hesitate to consider truly infinite speeds or forces; whereas physics allows such things only as approximations to reality, in which all physical entities and their physical properties (as opposed to conceptual properties such as slopes) are necessarily finite.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i was under the impression that mathematics is the basis of all science<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All fields tend to exaggerate their own importance. For me, mathematics is one of many tools to help understand nature. But it does not respect constraints. This is where those who let mathematics lead their thinking instead of following it can go badly astray. Physical reality has its principles such as "no creation <i>ex nihilo</i>", "the finite cannot become infinite", "every effect must have an antecedent, proximate cause", etc. These principles arise from logic alone and are vital to understanding nature, but have no counterparts in equations. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The issue of infinite divisiblity seems to be in conflict with QM. In QM oneness is a basic assumption and that oneness cannot be divided- at least that is my understanding. So, what does this say about QM?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">QM has a preferred-but-not-compelling physical interpretation, just as relativity does. Chapter 5 of <i>Dark Matter...</i> explains the differences in physical interpretation of the same experimental evidence between QM and MM. -|Tom|-

<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 />I hope you can see the abject humor in this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, cute. No offense was taken. But I was also not inspired to lift a finger. []

Too many people want attention to their ideas. The "ad" for their paper or web site consists of their own words in places such as this Message Board. Your words are your ad. They do not convey understanding or even curiosity to me. I therefore assume that reading more of your words would be a similar frustrating experience. See specifics below. And I don't have the luxury of indulging everyone who would like to have my feedback.

What would be interesting is to see you make a comparison between your ideas and Meta Model ideas about similar topics such as the nature of existence. And because this Message Board is mainly about MM ideas, making such a comparison would at least make your points relevant and interesting to many readers here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your logic precludes the possibility of illogic playing it's role.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your very first sentence of substance makes no sense to me. Because all ordered thought processes are constrained by the rules of logic, illogic has no role to play in them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This in itself is not logical in that logic has no meaning whatsoever in the absence of a concomitant illogic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Do you enjoy making internally contradictory statements? We all (I assumed) strive for the goal of a total absence of illogic.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I can't stress enough the need for contradiction as an absolute.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Anyone who admits contradictions into a model is making such a fundamental violation of ordered thought processes as to be the equivalent of "anything is possible" or "the Will of God is the only explanation needed". I do not wish to attempt communications of substance with any person who advocates such thoughts. We might discuss the ground rules for evaluating knowledge, but not the knowledge itself. There would be no point in that because we could never agree about anything of importance when we start with mutually exclusive premises.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Existence differs from Non-Existence in that Existence is the logical fallout of Non-Existence, or better put .... in Non-Existence. I.E. The universe (Existence) is within the necessary contradiction (Non-Existence). The universe Exist because it does not Exist. I might say the the universe Exist because it does not Exist elswhere, but there is no elswhere - Non-Existence is not a place to hang any hat.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is a case in point. I cannot make any sense out of any of these sentences. We have a total failure to communicate. -|Tom|-