Do You Really Exist?
- Thread starter 1Dude
- Start date
Q25,
ANS: There is a problem with this line of thought. You are making absolute statements and claim things as fact when you should be a bit more flexiable and simply state we do not know how something could come from nothing.
My personal view is N------------->(+s)+(-s) where "N" is "Nothingness" described as absence of time-space. " +/- s " are equal but opposite "Somethings". This expression would mean that we exist as a birufcation of "Nothing" and mathematically it violates no known physics. Do we understand how it works, no, at least not yet.
Is this far fetched. Hardly. Edward P. Tryon,, Professor of Physics of the City University of New York, calculated that the net balance of energy in the observable universe is ZERO.
That would mean we exist as a bifurcation of "Nothing", so why would it be unreasonable to conclude that we came into existance from "Nothing"?
ANS: Same problem here. To claim the universe (or anything) has always existed (being eternal) and had no begining is in my opinion flawed logic that feels good since it on the surface removes the question (BUT DOES NOT ANSWER IT).
To be eternal and have no beginning means it must have had an infinite duration. Time while not physical in the sense that one can touch it, is broken down into "Time Intervals". We count such intervals and say there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, etc. That leads us to days, years, centuries, etc.
But to reach eternal we must accumulate an infinite quantity of any time interval. Nothing counted can be or become infinite. To hold the status of being infinite requires by definition it has existed longer than any finite number of time intervals. That is it must have existed longer than time itself. That is to claim something physical must become larger than itself, which is ludricrus.
Not to mention that two minutes of actual thought takes away that comfort of claiming "No Begining". Please explain how somethings exists if it "Never" came into existance" i.e. - had no begining?
Statements like "Energy cannot be created not destroyed" are simply to arrogant. They over reach our knowledge and try to make laws out of mere ideas. This one based on our "lack of knowledge", not knowledge itself.
ANS: There is a problem with this line of thought. You are making absolute statements and claim things as fact when you should be a bit more flexiable and simply state we do not know how something could come from nothing.
My personal view is N------------->(+s)+(-s) where "N" is "Nothingness" described as absence of time-space. " +/- s " are equal but opposite "Somethings". This expression would mean that we exist as a birufcation of "Nothing" and mathematically it violates no known physics. Do we understand how it works, no, at least not yet.
Is this far fetched. Hardly. Edward P. Tryon,, Professor of Physics of the City University of New York, calculated that the net balance of energy in the observable universe is ZERO.
That would mean we exist as a bifurcation of "Nothing", so why would it be unreasonable to conclude that we came into existance from "Nothing"?
ANS: Same problem here. To claim the universe (or anything) has always existed (being eternal) and had no begining is in my opinion flawed logic that feels good since it on the surface removes the question (BUT DOES NOT ANSWER IT).
To be eternal and have no beginning means it must have had an infinite duration. Time while not physical in the sense that one can touch it, is broken down into "Time Intervals". We count such intervals and say there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, etc. That leads us to days, years, centuries, etc.
But to reach eternal we must accumulate an infinite quantity of any time interval. Nothing counted can be or become infinite. To hold the status of being infinite requires by definition it has existed longer than any finite number of time intervals. That is it must have existed longer than time itself. That is to claim something physical must become larger than itself, which is ludricrus.
Not to mention that two minutes of actual thought takes away that comfort of claiming "No Begining". Please explain how somethings exists if it "Never" came into existance" i.e. - had no begining?
Statements like "Energy cannot be created not destroyed" are simply to arrogant. They over reach our knowledge and try to make laws out of mere ideas. This one based on our "lack of knowledge", not knowledge itself.
Last edited:
Since you’re being a bit picky, I’ll return the favor…MacM said:
“That might mean we exist as a bifurcation of “Nothing”. You’re still assuming properties for ‘Nothing’. Why only a bifurcation, for instance, why not an infinite number?We also need to further analyze what you mean be nothing. The +s/-s zero sum hypothesis you present seems related to virtual particles and ZPE but theoretically these phenomena require space/time, which is ‘something’ not nothing.
Where did you get this idea from?
If time is infinite, that is the Universe has been around for an infinite amount of time, then it is larger than any sum of finite amounts.
You’ve already dropped the notion of causality in regards to something from nothing, why hold on to it now? But as to some of the theorizing in the above posts it has been proposed that time does not have a definable edge, that the terms ‘before’, ‘after’, ‘beginning’, and ‘end’ are as meaningless as the question, “What is North of the North Pole?”
We already addressed the notion that it may be incorrect. But it is just as reasonable to assume it is true as it is to assume it is false. In fact, I would tend to weigh the positive assumption as more reasonable since we have at least some supporting evidence. I would definitely say that it’s more that a ‘mere idea’. It may be incorrect but we have discovered nothing to indicate that so far.
~Raithere
I think that’s just the common perception of it because it’s easy to conceive. I believe it was Hawking that proposed that the ‘Big Bang’ might have occurred everywhere rather than being an explosion of the kind we’re familiar with. Technically, if we keep in mind that energy is quantized it must take on some sort of digital or stepped curve rather than an analogue form.Greco said:
But I imagine that the overall form of the periodic cycle (if there is one) is largely dependent upon the physics of the Universe we are describing. I don’t think ours really comes out sinusoidal. At the very beginning there was a sharp increase in size and it then quickly flattened out, or perhaps not depending upon how great the continued acceleration is… perhaps it’s simply spiking off towards infinity at an ever increasing rate.
~Raithere
Raithere,
ANS: I don't see where you say it is being picky. One either came into existance or has always existed. I can't imagine the latter.
ANS: I agree, infact I originally formulated the expression as N--->(+1)+(-1). But in other discussions your point came up "Why not (+5)+(-5), etc. that is why it is now (+s)+(-s) in that each "Something" can be any number of somethings as long as they balance in the end.
ANS: I gave the definition for nothing as "Absence of Time-Space". That may not be correct but then it is up to others to improve upon the definition. I agree "matter and anti-matter" are not +/- components, ZPE or virtual particles are such material. They are both (+).
ANS: Better yet give us an example where "Infinitity" has a quantitative number. Or do you disagree with the definition of infinity as being larger than any finite number.?
ANS: Precisely. What that translates to is it has existed in time for longer than there has been time, since it requires an infinite number of time intervals to be eternal. Something cannot exist for longer than it has existed. Infinity isn't defined as being larger than any number we have ever written. It is defined as larger than any possible finite number. Infinity therefore is prohibited from being applied to any physical reality. It is merely a mathematical tool - a concept.
ANS: I don't accept that but it doesn't matter. If time is an undefinable enity then so is eternity and we are no longer dealing with physical realities but philosphy.
ANS: I suggest the issue being discussed is very strong evidence that it is wrong and it is bolstered by mathematical evidence both in my formulation and the calculations of Professor Tryon.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html
ANS: I don't see where you say it is being picky. One either came into existance or has always existed. I can't imagine the latter.
ANS: I agree, infact I originally formulated the expression as N--->(+1)+(-1). But in other discussions your point came up "Why not (+5)+(-5), etc. that is why it is now (+s)+(-s) in that each "Something" can be any number of somethings as long as they balance in the end.
ANS: I gave the definition for nothing as "Absence of Time-Space". That may not be correct but then it is up to others to improve upon the definition. I agree "matter and anti-matter" are not +/- components, ZPE or virtual particles are such material. They are both (+).
ANS: Better yet give us an example where "Infinitity" has a quantitative number. Or do you disagree with the definition of infinity as being larger than any finite number.?
ANS: Precisely. What that translates to is it has existed in time for longer than there has been time, since it requires an infinite number of time intervals to be eternal. Something cannot exist for longer than it has existed. Infinity isn't defined as being larger than any number we have ever written. It is defined as larger than any possible finite number. Infinity therefore is prohibited from being applied to any physical reality. It is merely a mathematical tool - a concept.
ANS: I don't accept that but it doesn't matter. If time is an undefinable enity then so is eternity and we are no longer dealing with physical realities but philosphy.
ANS: I suggest the issue being discussed is very strong evidence that it is wrong and it is bolstered by mathematical evidence both in my formulation and the calculations of Professor Tryon.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html
Last edited:
Only in that we were speaking in rather general terms about various hypothesis not really committing to absolutes. Don't worry about it.MacM said:
Dualities are notoriously fragile and typically dependant upon presupposition and categorical error, I don't usually trust them. Taking into account certain aspects of quantum indeterminacy I think you'd be hard pressed to make such an assertion. An electron does not exist in the same state as we think of a rock or a person as existing.
But we don't know if they balance in the end, which was the point of addressing several different hypotheses. What would be your definition of -s though? What is anti-existence and where is it?
It's not just larger, it's unbound.
How do you know how long time has been around? This requires that that ST began with the "Big Bang" but this assumption is not included in all of the hypotheses we are dealing with. An alternative is that ST did not begin at all, that it is indeed infinite. The "Big Bang" is then only the occurrence of energy within an eternal ST.
Unfortunately, you cannot escape infinity that easily. Your rule is arbitrary as far as I can tell.
Ah, but that's the fun of cosmology; physics and philosophy collide, it's unavoidable. From what we do know we can form various hypotheses that have far reaching philosophical ramifications. Indeed we are forced into philosophical arguments and conclusions before we can even attempt to conceive what it is we're dealing with.
What does quantum uncertainty tell you about epistemology? Do you prefer the carrier wave theory that tells us that time is illusory and the Universe is a unified object or do you prefer the Copenhagen interpretation that states that nothing actually exists until it is observed? If the latter how do you get around the obvious paradox that the observer must exist before he can exist?
The theory presupposes the existence of the laws of conservation and the fundamental forces, as 1Dude said this is not absolute nothingness. Further, Tryon's values are questionable. There is now evidence that the Universe contains more mass than originally supposed and there is also evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. These have drastic consequences for the zero sum theory.
~Raithere
I thought about this for a while but no, not really. You did an excellent job of summarizing what I wanted you to consider but it's still based upon some very fundamental assumptions and the thing is we just don't know. To pull it back to your topic heading, can we really define what existence is? The closer we look the more uncertain it seems to be.1Dude said:
~Raithere
Raithere,
ANS: True we don't know they balance in the end but we do know they appear to balance withing the observable univefrse. So it is a matter of guilty until proven innocent. Until it is shown otherwise we can only rely upon what is observable. It isn't a matter of existance and anti-existence. It is a matter of +'s and -'s in existance vs "Nothingness".
ANS: "Unbound" it is. But being unbound makes it larger than any bound (finite) number. Your answer is a dodge, not an answer.
ANS: I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of choice. You put the issue beyond science and make it philosophical. Science cannot resolve philospohy but it can suggest flaw is such thought and science would suggest that TS are physical and hence must conform to scientific principles\
ANS: Unfortunately it is not my rule. It is a simple established fact. Infinity is relagated to mathematics and not physical realities. This is easy. I suggest you give us an example of something being larger than itself.
ANS: I am inclined to view philosophy as being thoughts before science. There may be issues that science hasn'tresolved but scientific principles and logic may still be applied to them. Declaring time and existance as eternal is just such a case.
The latter sounds more like it belongs in philosophy as in the age old question "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make noise". I don't find anything of value is such question.
ANS: No consequence for "Net Zero" what-so-ever the ongoing creation remains balanced. The creation is N---->(+s)+(-s).
ANS: True we don't know they balance in the end but we do know they appear to balance withing the observable univefrse. So it is a matter of guilty until proven innocent. Until it is shown otherwise we can only rely upon what is observable. It isn't a matter of existance and anti-existence. It is a matter of +'s and -'s in existance vs "Nothingness".
ANS: "Unbound" it is. But being unbound makes it larger than any bound (finite) number. Your answer is a dodge, not an answer.
ANS: I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of choice. You put the issue beyond science and make it philosophical. Science cannot resolve philospohy but it can suggest flaw is such thought and science would suggest that TS are physical and hence must conform to scientific principles\
ANS: Unfortunately it is not my rule. It is a simple established fact. Infinity is relagated to mathematics and not physical realities. This is easy. I suggest you give us an example of something being larger than itself.
ANS: I am inclined to view philosophy as being thoughts before science. There may be issues that science hasn'tresolved but scientific principles and logic may still be applied to them. Declaring time and existance as eternal is just such a case.
The latter sounds more like it belongs in philosophy as in the age old question "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make noise". I don't find anything of value is such question.
ANS: No consequence for "Net Zero" what-so-ever the ongoing creation remains balanced. The creation is N---->(+s)+(-s).
"One of the most surprising recent results from observational cosmology is the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If gravity were the only force acting to alter the expansion rate, then the universe would be expected to be decelerating or, in the extreme case of a universe with essentially zero mass, expanding at a constant rate. Acceleration implies that the cosmological constant postulated and then discarded by Einstein is in fact not zero."MacM said:
http://www.physicstoday.com/pt/vol-53/iss-12/p68.html
Why are you avoiding an explanation? If -s is not antimatter and -s is not anti-existence what is -s? Whatever it is you are arguing here it's not Tyron's theory, which was the formation of the Universe from a vacuum fluctuation (matter/antimatter) in preexisting empty space. Even that has largely been given up for the "No Boundary" or "Quantum Tunneling" hypotheses.
It's not a dodge, it's a clarification. Just saying it's larger doesn't suffice, for any number there exists a larger number. Infinity is altogether different it's not just larger it's unbound.
You're welcome to disagree but it doesn't change the fact that you're already discussing philosophy. You're speculating upon the nature of nothing. Unless you have an empirical measurement of nothingness you'd like to share you're in the realm of philosophy.
Where did you get this definition of infinity as something that's larger than itself? That's not what it means.
Then you'll need to leave all cosmological hypotheses aside until we are able to verify the origin of the Universe empirically. You can't arbitrarily state that one is valid and another isn't.
Don't worry about the latter question, worry about the former one. You cannot escape the philosophical nature of these problems.
Again, I must request that you define -s. At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.
~Raithere
Raithere,
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacM
True we don't know they balance in the end but we do know they appear to balance withing the observable univefrse. So it is a matter of guilty until proven innocent. Until it is shown otherwise we can only rely upon what is observable.
"One of the most surprising recent results from observational cosmology is the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If gravity were the only force acting to alter the expansion rate, then the universe would be expected to be decelerating or, in the extreme case of a universe with essentially zero mass, expanding at a constant rate. Acceleration implies that the cosmological constant postulated and then discarded by Einstein is in fact not zero."
http://www.physicstoday.com/pt/vol-53/iss-12/p68.html
ANS: I'll not discuss it here but it is funny you posted this. I happen to have an explanation for this and the simple fact is the cause of gravity also causes the expansion of the universe. See topic "UniKEF Analysis" under the Math and Physics. Page 24, 13 MArch at 10:35AM.
Quote:
It isn't a matter of existance and anti-existence. It is a matter of +'s and -'s in existance vs "Nothingness".
Why are you avoiding an explanation? If -s is not antimatter and -s is not anti-existence what is -s? Whatever it is you are arguing here it's not Tyron's theory, which was the formation of the Universe from a vacuum fluctuation (matter/antimatter) in preexisting empty space. Even that has largely been given up for the "No Boundary" or "Quantum Tunneling" hypotheses.
ANS: LOL. The following is an extract from the 5th paragraph of the paper I cited about Tryon's "Net Zero Universe" calculation.
Tryon theorized that the total energy of the universe is zero. He said that the positive energy of everything that exists is balanced by negative gravitational energy.
Now just where do you see matter and anti-matter as the basis of Tryons claims? The paper gives a lot greater detail on what is + and what is -. It has nothing to do with matter and anti-matter. You can't just go around making up your own version of somebody else's paper.
Quote:
"Unbound" it is. But being unbound makes it larger than any bound (finite) number. Your answer is a dodge, not an answer.
It's not a dodge, it's a clarification. Just saying it's larger doesn't suffice, for any number there exists a larger number. Infinity is altogether different it's not just larger it's unbound.
ANS: I certainly agree that infinity is also defined as being "Unbound" But that is moot to the issue and definition with respect that it is larger than any finite number. Your claiming that part of definitions of infinity gains you nothing in that respect. Infinity is defined as being larger than any finite number.
Quote:
I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of choice. You put the issue beyond science and make it philosophical.
You're welcome to disagree but it doesn't change the fact that you're already discussing philosophy. You're speculating upon the nature of nothing. Unless you have an empirical measurement of nothingness you'd like to share you're in the realm of philosophy.
ANS: The issue of "Nothingness" may not be mainstream but Tryon's work is not philopsophy. Your response attempts to avoid answering the point being made. I prefer to meet such issue head on.
Quote:
Unfortunately it is not my rule. It is a simple established fact. Infinity is relagated to mathematics and not physical realities. This is easy. I suggest you give us an example of something being larger than itself.
Where did you get this definition of infinity as something that's larger than itself? That's not what it means.
ANS: Well maybe we should start with this from Mathematics, University of Toronto. I really don't understand why you would attempt to argue anythingelse.
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infnotnumber.html
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/existence.html
Numbers are used to measure and/or count physical things. Therefore nothing physical can be infinite.
Quote:
I am inclined to view philosophy as being thoughts before science. There may be issues that science hasn'tresolved but scientific principles and logic may still be applied to them. Declaring time and existance as eternal is just such a case.
Then you'll need to leave all cosmological hypotheses aside until we are able to verify the origin of the Universe empirically. You can't arbitrarily state that one is valid and another isn't.
ANS: One cannot prove that there is or is not a God but we already know that "Eternity" and "Infinitity" are not physical attributes, that is "Exist" in physical reality. Cosmology may be very nebulus but unless you are prepared to argue against all science which is based on mathematics you must accept that nothing physical can be infinite. Because infinity is larger than any finite number.
Quote:
The latter sounds more like it belongs in philosophy as in the age old question
Don't worry about the latter question, worry about the former one. You cannot escape the philosophical nature of these problems.
ANS: Perhaps some questions like the one I asked above but not this one. The fact that Infinity is merely a mathematical concept and does not exist in physical reality is accepted world wide.
Quote:
No consequence for "Net Zero" what-so-ever the ongoing creation remains balanced. The creation is N---->(+s)+(-s).
Again, I must request that you define -s. At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.
ANS: Sorry you seem to have trouble conceptualizing. I can only suggest you actually read and understand Tryon's paper. Since it is 7 pages I have no intention of repeating it here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacM
True we don't know they balance in the end but we do know they appear to balance withing the observable univefrse. So it is a matter of guilty until proven innocent. Until it is shown otherwise we can only rely upon what is observable.
"One of the most surprising recent results from observational cosmology is the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If gravity were the only force acting to alter the expansion rate, then the universe would be expected to be decelerating or, in the extreme case of a universe with essentially zero mass, expanding at a constant rate. Acceleration implies that the cosmological constant postulated and then discarded by Einstein is in fact not zero."
http://www.physicstoday.com/pt/vol-53/iss-12/p68.html
ANS: I'll not discuss it here but it is funny you posted this. I happen to have an explanation for this and the simple fact is the cause of gravity also causes the expansion of the universe. See topic "UniKEF Analysis" under the Math and Physics. Page 24, 13 MArch at 10:35AM.
Quote:
It isn't a matter of existance and anti-existence. It is a matter of +'s and -'s in existance vs "Nothingness".
Why are you avoiding an explanation? If -s is not antimatter and -s is not anti-existence what is -s? Whatever it is you are arguing here it's not Tyron's theory, which was the formation of the Universe from a vacuum fluctuation (matter/antimatter) in preexisting empty space. Even that has largely been given up for the "No Boundary" or "Quantum Tunneling" hypotheses.
ANS: LOL. The following is an extract from the 5th paragraph of the paper I cited about Tryon's "Net Zero Universe" calculation.
Tryon theorized that the total energy of the universe is zero. He said that the positive energy of everything that exists is balanced by negative gravitational energy.
Now just where do you see matter and anti-matter as the basis of Tryons claims? The paper gives a lot greater detail on what is + and what is -. It has nothing to do with matter and anti-matter. You can't just go around making up your own version of somebody else's paper.
Quote:
"Unbound" it is. But being unbound makes it larger than any bound (finite) number. Your answer is a dodge, not an answer.
It's not a dodge, it's a clarification. Just saying it's larger doesn't suffice, for any number there exists a larger number. Infinity is altogether different it's not just larger it's unbound.
ANS: I certainly agree that infinity is also defined as being "Unbound" But that is moot to the issue and definition with respect that it is larger than any finite number. Your claiming that part of definitions of infinity gains you nothing in that respect. Infinity is defined as being larger than any finite number.
Quote:
I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of choice. You put the issue beyond science and make it philosophical.
You're welcome to disagree but it doesn't change the fact that you're already discussing philosophy. You're speculating upon the nature of nothing. Unless you have an empirical measurement of nothingness you'd like to share you're in the realm of philosophy.
ANS: The issue of "Nothingness" may not be mainstream but Tryon's work is not philopsophy. Your response attempts to avoid answering the point being made. I prefer to meet such issue head on.
Quote:
Unfortunately it is not my rule. It is a simple established fact. Infinity is relagated to mathematics and not physical realities. This is easy. I suggest you give us an example of something being larger than itself.
Where did you get this definition of infinity as something that's larger than itself? That's not what it means.
ANS: Well maybe we should start with this from Mathematics, University of Toronto. I really don't understand why you would attempt to argue anythingelse.
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infnotnumber.html
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/existence.html
Numbers are used to measure and/or count physical things. Therefore nothing physical can be infinite.
Quote:
I am inclined to view philosophy as being thoughts before science. There may be issues that science hasn'tresolved but scientific principles and logic may still be applied to them. Declaring time and existance as eternal is just such a case.
Then you'll need to leave all cosmological hypotheses aside until we are able to verify the origin of the Universe empirically. You can't arbitrarily state that one is valid and another isn't.
ANS: One cannot prove that there is or is not a God but we already know that "Eternity" and "Infinitity" are not physical attributes, that is "Exist" in physical reality. Cosmology may be very nebulus but unless you are prepared to argue against all science which is based on mathematics you must accept that nothing physical can be infinite. Because infinity is larger than any finite number.
Quote:
The latter sounds more like it belongs in philosophy as in the age old question
Don't worry about the latter question, worry about the former one. You cannot escape the philosophical nature of these problems.
ANS: Perhaps some questions like the one I asked above but not this one. The fact that Infinity is merely a mathematical concept and does not exist in physical reality is accepted world wide.
Quote:
No consequence for "Net Zero" what-so-ever the ongoing creation remains balanced. The creation is N---->(+s)+(-s).
Again, I must request that you define -s. At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.
ANS: Sorry you seem to have trouble conceptualizing. I can only suggest you actually read and understand Tryon's paper. Since it is 7 pages I have no intention of repeating it here.
Last edited:
Looks interesting, I'll give it a deeper look when I have more time. How does it relate to the theory that virtual particles are responsible for both gravity and accelerating expansion?MacM said:
I wasn't trying to rewrite Tyron, I was trying to understand what you were saying. You could have the whole discussion a lot simpler by simply stating that –s was gravity or, if you have an alternative, whatever is the source of gravity.
I am familiar with several theories of origin deriving from quantum effects, including Tyron’s. Although to be honest, I didn’t recall his name immediately. Tyron's hypothesis was that the Universe originated as a quantum fluctuation, the energy is ‘borrowed’ from ZPE and is balanced by gravity. The thing is that in order to occur as he described this fluctuation would have occurred within preexisting space-time. Such fluctuations create pairs of particles, one matter the other antimatter.
Since Tyron there have been several alternate versions of the original concept which provide for origin from zero state quantum fields but even these presuppose the existence of quantum fields.
" In 1973 physicist Edward Tryon made a startling proposal in a two-page paper titled "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" (Nature, Vol. 246, pp. 396-97). He suggested that a vacuum fluctuation may have triggered the big bang! As he put it, "Our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time." This implies that space and time existed before the bang. Other physicists have since proposed slightly different ways a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time could create a runaway universe, though how something could fluctuate without space and time is unclear. Of course our universe could not emerge from absolutely nothing. There would have to be quantum fields to fluctuate, leaving unanswered the ultimate question of where quantum fields and their laws came from, or why there is something rather than nothing."
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2843/n3_v22/20615406/p4/article.jhtml?term=
As I said above, Tyron’s ‘nothing’ is not absolutely nothing. This is getting silly. I'm not attempting to avoid the theory of origin from a quantum fluctuation; I accept it as a possible solution. I did, in fact, refer to quantum fluctuations in my first post in this thread. My point here stands; all cosmological theories of origin presuppose certain conditions or constraints that are not empirically derived. They are logical (read philosophical) premises. If you wish to perceive them as scientific hypotheses, so be it, at this point it’s a matter of semantics; I see no actual difference.
That's funny, but I couldn't find a single reference in either of those articles or in the links from them that I followed any reference to infinity 'being larger than itself', they discuss the 'existence' of infinity "within the context of any number system". Further, if you bothered following the links from the pages you sited you would have come across this:
"1. In the context of a number system, in which "infinity" would mean something one can treat like a number.
In this context, infinity does not exist.
2. In the context of a topological space, in which "infinity" would mean something that certain sequences of numbers converge to.
In this context, infinity does exist.
3. In the context of measureing sizes of sets, in which "infinity" means a measurement of the size of an infinite set.
In this context, such "infinity" concepts do exist but there are more than one of them, since not all infinite sets have the same size. So there does not exist any one single "infinity" concept; instead, there exists a whole collection of things called "infinite cardinal numbers". "
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html
Clearly, whether infinity 'exists' even in mathematics is dependent upon the context within which we are considering it.
Finally, mathematics is a formal system, a symbolic language we use to model reality, it is not reality itself. It is also incomplete and therefore contains questions that cannot be resolved within the system.
Physical things are not absolutely defined, not on a quantum level. You cannot count an electron or a photon the way you count apples. Its energy level may be quantized but its structure and behavior is not. The interrelationships definitely are not, unless you’d like to take a poke at super symmetry, quantum entanglement, and indeterminacy too.
But we’re not taking purely about things that exist within the Universe we’re talking about the nature of reality itself. We’re considering the boundaries of existence and if there are boundaries at all. It’s okay to presume there are boundaries, but it remains a presumption. And I believe that no matter which route you take you wind up with certain infinites in the equation. For instance, if the Universe collapses we must face the infinites involved in a singularity. Even if we look at origin from a zero state hypothesis we are assuming the preexistence of quantum fields and I believe time as well.
Science is not based upon mathematics, science is based upon empirical evidence. Science uses mathematics to model that evidence into a larger explicatory theory.
So what?
Really? Why don’t we “Ask an MIT Cosmologist”?
"We don't actually know what the shape of the universe is, but there are three shapes, the Robertson-Walker models, that scientists usually consider to be serious possibilities (though other more complicated shapes such as a doughnut shape are possible). They are:
1. positively curved and finite (curved like a ball and does not go on forever)
2. negatively curved and infinite (curved like a saddle and goes on forever in all directions)
3. flat and infinite (flat like a table and goes on forever in all directions)"
http://arcturus.mit.edu/ask/universe.html#q3
http://arcturus.mit.edu/ask/universe.html
Or perhaps you'd prefer someone more notable... Hawking and Penrose developed the no boundary proposal, in part, to deal with some of the problematic infinities in previous cosmologies:
"We have no reason to believe the universe is asymptotically Euclidean, or anti de Sitter. Even if it were, we are not concerned about measurements at infinity, but in a finite region in the interior. For such measurements, there will be a contribution from metrics that are compact, without boundary. The action of a compact metric is given by integrating the Lagrangian. Thus its contribution to the path integral is well defined. By contrast, the action of a non-compact or singular metric involves a surface term at infinity, or at the singularity. One can add an arbitrary quantity to this surface term. It therefore seems more natural to adopt what Jim Hartle and I called the no boundary proposal. The quantum state of the universe is defined by a Euclidean path integral over compact metrics. In other words, the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary."
I’ve no trouble conceptualizing at all, I was just trying to understand what you were saying with your “N-> (+s) + (-s)” hypothesis. I have some problems with your definition of N in the context of Tryon and I’m not sure that the definition of gravity as -s makes sense either but perhaps you have something else in mind. If so, I’ll ask you again to explain what -s is because thus far you haven’t.
~Raithere
Raithere,
quote]Looks interesting, I'll give it a deeper look when I have more time. How does it relate to the theory that virtual particles are responsible for both gravity and accelerating expansion?[/quote]
It is a long thread with a lot of hot air and meaningless objections and name calling. But if you do decide to have a look let me direct you to page 24, 3/13 at 11:27AM where I have posted a series of summary attachments for the gravity concept.
UniKEF is not based on Prof. Tryon's work and isn't about virtual particles but an actual "Nothingness" (being absence of time-space) bifurcating into +/-s. The actual existance of such a field is not yet known but by merely assuming it the entire spectrum of grvity comes into alignment from inverse square, MOND and accelerating expansion of the universe.
ANS: Those are my words to reduce the fact to somethin less than several pages. The following are titles from those links and from the 2nd link the first few lines.
More Information on Why "Infinity" Does Not Exist in the Context of Any Number System.
What Does "Existence" Mean in Mathematics?
Understanding what existence means in mathematics is the key to understanding what it means for concepts like "infinity" or "imaginary
numbers" to exist--something that puzzles a lot of people when they first encounter these weird ideas!
Mathematical objects do not exist in the same sense that a physical object exists; nobody has ever bumped their elbow on a number, for instance.
Instead, mathematical objects are abstract concepts (often abstracted from a real world situation, by isolating just the part of the situation that is relevant for a particular discussion).
When we ask whether or not a mathematical object exists, we must have in mind an appropriate context: a particular, precisely defined collection of concepts. Then we ask, "among these concepts, is there one which matches the object we are looking for?" If so, we say that the object exists; if not, it doesn't exist.
It would seem impossible to claim that physical objects can exist in an infinite quantity or size since "Infinity" is not within any number system and anything physical can be counted and/or measured. If it were infinite hence it is not physical since it can't be measured, weighed or counted.
We agree.
I best not go there it is beyond my area.
I have no credentials to justify my opinion but I personally do not believe in "Singularities", primarily because they result in infinities. I believe there are natural boundries which such mathematical theories circumvent. That is in all likelyhood the 1E-35 planck length prohibits a singularity.
I believe time is an illusion of change induced by energy and not a 4th dimension or tangiable enity in-of-itself. That is energy flow creates space (unbound energy) mass is bound energy, the flow of such energy produces gravity (and expansion) as well as the state changes that we mark as an instant in time. If there were no changes then time would cease to exist.
That would be ideal, however, my complaint with current sttus of science is that they tend to try and predict or create reality via pure mathematics. To wit "String Theory".
If you agree that infinity is larger than any finite number, then explain how something jphysical canbe or become infinite, since it is measurable. That is has a finite dimension.
I should have qualified my statement with a "generally". There are those that would indeed argue for infinity in the physical realm but I am convienced they are mistaken. But that is only my ojpinion.
Actually from what I've seen most "infinite" universes merely are based on curved space and coming back to where you started,etc., which to me are not infinite at all but are finite loops.
PERFECT! We are in complete agreement. I have claimed that the universe is finite but has no boundry in the general meaning of the term. I see the universe as having a limit but there is no beyond it consists of no time-space.
I think we have come much closer to agreement in our overall thinking. I want to emphasize that UniKEF is not based on Tryon and virtual particles. As I have stated both matter and anti-matter are +'s. Mine is slightly different than Tryon in that I define "Nothingness" as the absence of time space. Tryon as you say is working from "Net Zero" and quantum fluctation which involves time-space.
quote]Looks interesting, I'll give it a deeper look when I have more time. How does it relate to the theory that virtual particles are responsible for both gravity and accelerating expansion?[/quote]
It is a long thread with a lot of hot air and meaningless objections and name calling. But if you do decide to have a look let me direct you to page 24, 3/13 at 11:27AM where I have posted a series of summary attachments for the gravity concept.
UniKEF is not based on Prof. Tryon's work and isn't about virtual particles but an actual "Nothingness" (being absence of time-space) bifurcating into +/-s. The actual existance of such a field is not yet known but by merely assuming it the entire spectrum of grvity comes into alignment from inverse square, MOND and accelerating expansion of the universe.
ANS: Those are my words to reduce the fact to somethin less than several pages. The following are titles from those links and from the 2nd link the first few lines.
More Information on Why "Infinity" Does Not Exist in the Context of Any Number System.
What Does "Existence" Mean in Mathematics?
Understanding what existence means in mathematics is the key to understanding what it means for concepts like "infinity" or "imaginary
numbers" to exist--something that puzzles a lot of people when they first encounter these weird ideas!
Mathematical objects do not exist in the same sense that a physical object exists; nobody has ever bumped their elbow on a number, for instance.
Instead, mathematical objects are abstract concepts (often abstracted from a real world situation, by isolating just the part of the situation that is relevant for a particular discussion).
When we ask whether or not a mathematical object exists, we must have in mind an appropriate context: a particular, precisely defined collection of concepts. Then we ask, "among these concepts, is there one which matches the object we are looking for?" If so, we say that the object exists; if not, it doesn't exist.
It would seem impossible to claim that physical objects can exist in an infinite quantity or size since "Infinity" is not within any number system and anything physical can be counted and/or measured. If it were infinite hence it is not physical since it can't be measured, weighed or counted.
We agree.
I best not go there it is beyond my area.
I have no credentials to justify my opinion but I personally do not believe in "Singularities", primarily because they result in infinities. I believe there are natural boundries which such mathematical theories circumvent. That is in all likelyhood the 1E-35 planck length prohibits a singularity.
I believe time is an illusion of change induced by energy and not a 4th dimension or tangiable enity in-of-itself. That is energy flow creates space (unbound energy) mass is bound energy, the flow of such energy produces gravity (and expansion) as well as the state changes that we mark as an instant in time. If there were no changes then time would cease to exist.
That would be ideal, however, my complaint with current sttus of science is that they tend to try and predict or create reality via pure mathematics. To wit "String Theory".
If you agree that infinity is larger than any finite number, then explain how something jphysical canbe or become infinite, since it is measurable. That is has a finite dimension.
I should have qualified my statement with a "generally". There are those that would indeed argue for infinity in the physical realm but I am convienced they are mistaken. But that is only my ojpinion.
Actually from what I've seen most "infinite" universes merely are based on curved space and coming back to where you started,etc., which to me are not infinite at all but are finite loops.
PERFECT! We are in complete agreement. I have claimed that the universe is finite but has no boundry in the general meaning of the term. I see the universe as having a limit but there is no beyond it consists of no time-space.
I think we have come much closer to agreement in our overall thinking. I want to emphasize that UniKEF is not based on Tryon and virtual particles. As I have stated both matter and anti-matter are +'s. Mine is slightly different than Tryon in that I define "Nothingness" as the absence of time space. Tryon as you say is working from "Net Zero" and quantum fluctation which involves time-space.
I'm still not following on what -s is actually supposed to be but the gravity/expansion concept sounds very much like the highly speculative* hypothesis that gravity is pressure caused by the interaction of the 'vacuum field' with matter.MacM said:
*I'm being kind here, Puthoff seems to be a bit of a crackpot and I haven't been able to find much more on the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong but I'm not putting any money on it until I see some real science get behind it.
I would agree that no material object can be infinite... or at least there is no such object within our reality but that does not preclude the Universe itself from being infinite. That's like saying the box can be no bigger than that which is inside of it.
Those were your words, not mine. We're closer to agreeing but not quite there.
Well, at some point UniKEF is going to have to deal with it. It is specifically at the quantum level that gravity causes so many problems (particularly if you don't like infinities) and why we get bizarre results like the 11 dimensional space of string theory (essentially an effort to unify gravity with the other forces).
We run into trouble long before we ever get to the scale of a Planck length or a naked singularity. Time, space, and general relativity all break down at the event horizon.
This just seems like another way of looking at General Relativity only Einstein used matter in his description instead of energy.
Those are the theorists and any decent theorist knows that it don't mean jack until the evidence is in. I believe Hawking's statement went something like, "If I could prove it I'd win the Nobel Prize".
Define physical, because I personally wouldn't term the Universe itself as physical. It contains space, time, matter, energy, and force which are physical but the Universe is that which 'contains' existence.
I have no problem with you personally disagreeing or point to others who disagree, but from my reading infinity is still a major player in the areas of physics and cosmology. It can't simply be dismissed.
That would indeed be a finite universe and it is a popular one as per Hawking but it's is certainly not the only serious theory out there.
Well, I don't think Hawking is conclusive but he does do a good job. His take on the matter is that questions regarding before, after, or beyond the Universe are nonsensical, that the Universe is finite but unbound due to uncertainties at the quantum level.
I agree, but I still want to know what -s is.
~Raithere
Raithere,
Yea, me too. . I have been around long enough to know that no theory is "THE" answer. There is always something new learned that changes things but it is a matter of continuous upgrade.
However, it does seem to me that a theory that predicts, and mathematically is supported, the entire range of observed gravity from inverse square, MOND regime, and accelerated expansion, as one simple process vs Dark Matter, MOND, and Dark Energy or three regimes being driven by three different hypothetical processes, has to be the superior of theories.
Neither Newton, nor GR yield such all inclusive results. I am not into the quantum area and it will be interesting to see if it will continue to fit. It does infact "Suggest" the Strong Nuclear Force may be just an enhanced form of gravity at the local level due to high spin of the nuclides.
That would be (4) regimes under one concept at least. Or until the next discovery that blows it all out of the water.
Yea, me too.
. I have been around long enough to know that no theory is "THE" answer. There is always something new learned that changes things but it is a matter of continuous upgrade.However, it does seem to me that a theory that predicts, and mathematically is supported, the entire range of observed gravity from inverse square, MOND regime, and accelerated expansion, as one simple process vs Dark Matter, MOND, and Dark Energy or three regimes being driven by three different hypothetical processes, has to be the superior of theories.
Neither Newton, nor GR yield such all inclusive results. I am not into the quantum area and it will be interesting to see if it will continue to fit. It does infact "Suggest" the Strong Nuclear Force may be just an enhanced form of gravity at the local level due to high spin of the nuclides.
That would be (4) regimes under one concept at least. Or until the next discovery that blows it all out of the water.
It's not. At this point we have the fundamental forces (EM, Strong, Weak) which are unified under quantum theory and then we have gravity. Only gravity refuses to merge successfully in 'normal' space without generating some nasty infinities (actually an infinite number of infinitiesMacM said:
). Thus we have the 11 dimensional string theories which attempt to explain quantum gravity. The problem is that no one has been able to prove quantum gravity at this point. Without verification it remains speculative and I have to say the same about UniKEF. It's fine to speculate about unknown forces that resolve various problems but just playing around with the numbers doesn't really mean anything in itself.~Raithere
Raithere,
I agree, noting however, that Newton and MOND are mere numbers also and DON't cover the three ranges. Where QM has not been successful with gravity, Newton, GR., etc have only been quasi successful.
Newton infact is based on an "assumed" local property of matter. So in that regard I have to say UniKEF Gravity is competitive at least, if not indeed better because it covers the full range.
I agree, noting however, that Newton and MOND are mere numbers also and DON't cover the three ranges. Where QM has not been successful with gravity, Newton, GR., etc have only been quasi successful.
Newton infact is based on an "assumed" local property of matter. So in that regard I have to say UniKEF Gravity is competitive at least, if not indeed better because it covers the full range.