Broken Circle

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 5 months ago #5978 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Call it a miracle if you want but it could actually be how Nature really works. What if the state of "nothing" is a condition for something to come into existence? Once there is something, the condition of "nothing" can no longer be achieved, so it becomes an irreversible process.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You are saying that somehow SOMETHING appears from NOTHING and then can't go back to NOTHING. So the universe appears at a specific moment and then lasts to INFINITY because it cannot go back to NOTHING by your own claim. So why does eternity work in your INFINITE temporality and not Tom's? How does SOMETHING just somehow appear from NOTHING? That's a miracle 123.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Just look at every physical processes around you- they are all irreversible. Once something has changed forms in the universe, the universe can't go back to the same form. " All the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back
together again" - remember that old saying? Well, that is a key
to understanding how something can come from nothing but the reverse isn't true.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Your argument doesn't hold water at all scales. In the micro-universe atomic particles are constantly coming apart and reforming the same structures. Gravity collects matter that has dispersed at larger scales. You cannot point to entropy at one scale and assume it predominates for the complete system.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The problem I have with this idea is the that of continuity- how can something that goes out of existence remember who, what and where it was to retain continuity when it comes back into existence?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Exactly, and that is one of my objections to the scenario also.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 5 months ago #5519 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Call it a miracle if you want but it could actually be how Nature really works. What if the state of "nothing" is a condition for something to come into existence? Once there is something, the condition of "nothing" can no longer be achieved, so it becomes an irreversible process.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You are saying that somehow SOMETHING appears from NOTHING and then can't go back to NOTHING. So the universe appears at a specific moment and then lasts to INFINITY because it cannot go back to NOTHING by your own claim. So why does eternity work in your INFINITE temporality and not Tom's? How does SOMETHING just somehow appear from NOTHING? That's a miracle 123.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well, under this view, time would begin at the point when nothing became something. Since time had a beginning- a 0 point- we are not at infinity right now and we will never get to infinity. When I add time to this "timeline", it has meaning since I am performing a straightforward addition of finite numbers. If time has always existed, it would be like we are adding to a set that is already infinite in size every moment that passes from now. That in my view makes no sense- you can't add to something that is by definition the largest possible.

As for "something from nothing", I don't see how that is any more/less "miraculous" than if "something" had always existed "without cause". And in fact, that could be really how the universe works. If you have nothing, something has to come into existence- that could be a fundamental property of our universe.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 5 months ago #5525 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Well, under this view, time would begin at the point when nothing became something. Since time had a beginning- a 0 point- we are not at infinity right now and we will never get to infinity. When I add time to this "timeline", it has meaning since I am performing a straightforward addition of finite numbers. If time has always existed, it would be like we are adding to a set that is already infinite in size every moment that passes from now. That in my view makes no sense- you can't add to something that is by definition the largest possible.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You stated that the universe comes into existence and does not reverse this state, that automatically demands infinite temporal extent into the future otherwise at some point the universe would nonexist again. You can't skate out of infinity by picking a specific start point. Your position allows that at any point after 0 another point farther along can be reached. The sequence is unending and therefore infinite. Once you allow it for forward movement in time you cannot logically exclude it in the backward direction. Tom has already made this point so I guess I will have no effect on the matter either.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As for "something from nothing", I don't see how that is any more/less "miraculous" than if "something" had always existed "without cause".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It is considerably more miraculous as you have demonstrated. Somehow a state of NOTHING changes state and produces matter from NOWHERE. That requires an explanation. A lack of original cause requires no explanation.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And in fact, that could be really how the universe works. If you have nothing, something has to come into existence- that could be a fundamental property of our universe.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It might be, but it is not logically necessary. I therefore choose the option that does not require explanation of origin.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #5671 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jeremy,

One can see why you might prefer to not address the issue. But I suggest yur answer is not an answer but an attempt to make the question vanish. That is not science, it is defeatest.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 5 months ago #5979 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Well, under this view, time would begin at the point when nothing became something. Since time had a beginning- a 0 point- we are not at infinity right now and we will never get to infinity. When I add time to this "timeline", it has meaning since I am performing a straightforward addition of finite numbers. If time has always existed, it would be like we are adding to a set that is already infinite in size every moment that passes from now. That in my view makes no sense- you can't add to something that is by definition the largest possible.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You stated that the universe comes into existence and does not reverse this state, that automatically demands infinite temporal extent into the future otherwise at some point the universe would nonexist again. You can't skate out of infinity by picking a specific start point. Your position allows that at any point after 0 another point farther along can be reached. The sequence is unending and therefore infinite. Once you allow it for forward movement in time you cannot logically exclude it in the backward direction. Tom has already made this point so I guess I will have no effect on the matter either.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As for "something from nothing", I don't see how that is any more/less "miraculous" than if "something" had always existed "without cause".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It is considerably more miraculous as you have demonstrated. Somehow a state of NOTHING changes state and produces matter from NOWHERE. That requires an explanation. A lack of original cause requires no explanation.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And in fact, that could be really how the universe works. If you have nothing, something has to come into existence- that could be a fundamental property of our universe.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It might be, but it is not logically necessary. I therefore choose the option that does not require explanation of origin.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Why can't I define the number line as something that starts at a specific number? Besides, I've said before that I have no problem in never ending operations on finite numbers. Only the operations on infinities. Infinity + - / * anything for me is a self contradictory operation.

If we made a set of numbers to describe the time of the universe, the difference between the two is clearly seen. If something came from nothing, this set has a first element- 0, but no last element. We can locate our point on this line - it is just the growing endpoint.

In an eternal universe however, we have no starting point. So, if we wanted to describe time for this model, we would have to work with infinities. Time here would be <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> + - * /, etc. You are basically extending an infinite set- that makes no sense to me. Imagine if you were to start at negative infinity on the number line- you would never ever get out of negative infinity by adding according to infinity math.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 5 months ago #5527 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

Here's a good table for basic operations on infinities:

mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55764.html

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.198 seconds