EXISTENCE (not creation) Ex Nihilo

More
20 years 8 months ago #8415 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Messiah,

In addition to logic however, is the correlation to the study by Prof Tryon and his finding that the net energy of the universe is "zero". The formulation seems to substantiate that finding.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

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

More
20 years 8 months ago #8519 by Skarp
Replied by Skarp on topic Reply from jim jim
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is a science MB and I was speaking in the context of physics, where miracles are forbidden as explanations. This is because, once miracles are allowed as explanations, inquiry ends because everything can be explained as simply "an act of God". So Creation ex nihilo is inconceivable without a miracle by anyone with a disciplined mind and logical thought processes. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Who's offering up miracles? I'm not. Your model is inconceivable by it's very nature. The idea of infinite scale is untenable, and tantamount to a belief. In short you are saying God made it that way.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">From nothing, nothing comes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is what I'd like to get across.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Insofar as physics can address such matters today, it appears that all energy consists of either motion or potential of real, material bodies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I would contend that these physical material bodies you speak of are not physical at all, but conceptual entities that act act in accordance with physical laws. In other words - All entities are made of nothing. They constitute conceptual geometric representations of an undefined nothing.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Only two claims have been advanced to question this conclusion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Now you have three. ;-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Contradiction leads to understanding
Yes and no are contradictions as an example, and in another example - Existence requires Non-Existence to proffer meaning. Thus - I exist because I don't Exist as the logical fallout where illogic plays it's role. Hence zero and one are bosom buddies in as far as any entity is concerned. One being the conceptual quantity, and nothing being the contradiction it is made of.

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

More
20 years 8 months ago #8416 by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<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">This is a science MB and I was speaking in the context of physics, where miracles are forbidden as explanations. This is because, once miracles are allowed as explanations, inquiry ends because everything can be explained as simply "an act of God". So Creation ex nihilo is inconceivable without a miracle by anyone with a disciplined mind and logical thought processes. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Who's offering up miracles? I'm not. Your model is inconceivable by it's very nature. The idea of infinite scale is untenable, and tantamount to a belief. In short you are saying God made it that way.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: its not a belief it is a theory. and god reference is not relevent.
_____________________________________________________________________
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">From nothing, nothing comes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is what I'd like to get across.
____________________________________________________________________

ANS: talk about implying a god,from nothing-comes nothing,whatever!!
______________________________________________________________________
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Insofar as physics can address such matters today, it appears that all energy consists of either motion or potential of real, material bodies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
_____________________________________________________________________
I would contend that these physical material bodies you speak of are not physical at all, but conceptual entities that act act in accordance with physical laws. In other words - All entities are made of nothing. They constitute conceptual geometric representations of an undefined nothing.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: so how does nothing have a geometry at all?
_____________________________________________________________________

Only two claims have been advanced to question this conclusion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Now you have three. ;-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Contradiction leads to understanding
Yes and no are contradictions as an example, and in another example - Existence requires Non-Existence to proffer meaning. Thus - I exist because I don't Exist as the logical fallout where illogic plays it's role. Hence zero and one are bosom buddies in as far as any entity is concerned. One being the conceptual quantity, and nothing being the contradiction it is made of.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: but it is not a COMPLETE understanding of all things obviously. whether we found "meaning" to this or that is irrelevant to the universe it does not care.how we go about giving "meaning" is up to us, the universe does not care.long before we could contemplate "existence" we were, the universe exists, like it or not.

i find your contention,from nothing-comes nothing absurd to say the least,so do tell us what your definition of "nothing" is.

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

More
20 years 8 months ago #8417 by Patrick
Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P
Just wanted to chime in here and let everyone know that I had/have nothing to do with this. I beleive "someone" has decided to take all the stuff we have discussed here on this board in the past and create their very own "Unique" hypothesis.

Patrick[:)]

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

More
20 years 8 months ago #8418 by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from


[yellow]<b>ANS: Here is where you and I have a disagreement. N----&gt;(+s)+(-s) is a statement of a natural occurance, which makes sense if you simply conclude we do not yet understand it. It is not and does not infer miracles. It is mathematically indicated as a natural process not an act of Gods, etc. We need only to try and understand how bifurcating "Nothing" can result in +/- "Somethings".</b>/yellow]
____________________________________________________________________

mac

your equation is not a natural occurance,in your words from before and i quote " nothing is nothing is nothing". but you have chosen to ingnore your OWN conclusions.

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

More
20 years 8 months ago #8419 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>nothing is nothing is nothing". but you have chosen to ingnore your OWN conclusions.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow"><b>ANS: I don't know who you are quoting but it certainly isn't me. I have never made that statement and you are not representing my conclusions at all.</b></font id="yellow">


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

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

Time to create page: 0.238 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum