Do You Really Exist?

[MacM]

Gravage,

Ok,follow the link:

http://www.armageddononline.org/for...read.php?t=1760

OK, I followed the link. What I see is a web site with a MSB and a few citizens with questional knowledge discussing the subject and some quoting text book descriptions of thermodynamic laws or their ideas.

I don't see any technical papers. What is there is laws as they are currently accepted. "Energy can not be created nor destroyed". Unfortunately that law is based on ignorance.

That is not meant to be an attack but only means it is based on our lack of knowledge of how

N--------->(+s)+(-s) works.

The fact that it does work is evidenced by the fact we are here, therefore there was an enception or point of creation, and that calculations of the observable universe agrees that on the whole our existance equals "ZERO NET ENERGY".

Unless you propose that we exist without ever having come into existance :bugeye:

That is what "Eternal Existance" means when you finally look at it. "We exist without ever having come into existance". That to me is simply to bizzar to even consider. It is no answer at all. It is double talk without any foundation to avoid looking for or finding an answer.

 

[Gravage]

Gravage,



OK, I followed the link. What I see is a web site with a MSB and a few citizens with questional knowledge discussing the subject and some quoting text book descriptions of thermodynamic laws or their ideas.

I don't see any technical papers. What is there is laws as they are currently accepted. "Energy can not be created nor destroyed". Unfortunately that law is based on ignorance.

That is not meant to be an attack but only means it is based on our lack of knowledge of how

N--------->(+s)+(-s) works.

The fact that it does work is evidenced by the fact we are here, therefore there was an enception or point of creation, and that calculations of the observable universe agrees that on the whole our existance equals "ZERO NET ENERGY".

Unless you propose that we exist without ever having come into existance :bugeye:

That is what "Eternal Existance" means when you finally look at it. "We exist without ever having come into existance". That to me is simply to bizzar to even consider. It is no answer at all. It is double talk without any foundation to avoid looking for or finding an answer.

Man,I agree but the problem with us,philosophers,astronomers and astrophysicists is that energy is defined differently with any each of us,at least I think so.What I meant to say everyone has different philosophy of life and death.

 

[MacM]

Gravage,

On that note we can agree.

 

[1Dude]

N--------->(+s)+(-s)

Can anyone please explain to us mere mortals how this formula can really and actually account for the existence of any physical thing in this universe? How does this really explain the appearance of any physical reality from absolute nothingness?

If this theory is true I guess I would expect to see real physical things just "virtually popping" into existence randomly all over the universe and on this planet right in front of my very eyes. After all, this process supposedly coughed up the entire universe in an instant. How hard could it be to cough up, say, a tiny boulder the size of a house? So far, I have not been a witness to such an event. I would probably also expect to see real physical objects just "virtually popping" out of existence all the time as well. So far, I have not been a witness to that either. Couldn't this universe just pop out of existence right now? This would not seem to me to be a theory that agrees with the existing hard sciences. This seems to me to be about as close to the description of a “miracle” as I have ever seen in the field of science.

As an additional note: the distance, jump, or gap (trying to come up with good word) between Absolute Nothingness and the existence of any real physical thing no matter how small, in my opinion, is infinity. Only something infinite, again, in my opinion, could bridge that gap.

Just My Thoughts!

 

[MacM]

1Dude,

N--------->(+s)+(-s)

Can anyone please explain to us mere mortals how this formula can really and actually account for the existence of any physical thing in this universe? How does this really explain the appearance of any physical reality from absolute nothingness?

Unfortunately I would have to say nobody has any idea - yet. That is mathematically it works and says creation and existance can be "Nothing" in a bifurcated state. It describes Prof Tryon's findings that the universe exists with a "Net Zero Energy Blance". How did it happen, that is another matter. Dunno. :bugeye:

If this theory is true I guess I would expect to see real physical things just "virtually popping" into existence randomly all over the universe and on this planet right in front of my very eyes. After all, this process supposedly coughed up the entire universe in an instant. How hard could it be to cough up, say, a boulder the size of a house? So far, I have not been a witness to such an event. I would probably also expect to see real physical objects just "virtually popping" out of existence all the time as well. So far, I have not been a witness to that either.

Ahhh, but you presume two much. Can you see energy? No. Energy condenses into mass but only after cooling or somehow being compressed, such as pressure from a Big Bang.

Further, while I do not see it as the +/- in the equation, the fact is things are poping into and out of existance all the time. We have not seen them yet but we have detected them indirectly. They are called "virtual particles".

Couldn't this universe just pop out of existence right now? This would not seem to me to be a theory that agrees with the existing hard sciences. This seems to me to be about as close to the description of a “miracle” as I have ever seen in the field of science.

Ignorance does not create a miracle. Just because we don't understand the process doesn't make the process a miracle. This seems to take us back to the days that worms in the rain barrel were considered miracles.

As an additional note: the distance, jump, or gap (trying to come up with good word) between Absolute Nothingness and the existence of any real physical thing no matter how small, in my opinion, is infinity. Only something infinite, again, in my opinion, could bridge that gap.

I fail to make your connection to infinity. Infinity is problematic in that it is purely a mathematical concept and cannot be applied to any physical reality.

Just My Thoughts!

Your thoughts are understandable but you must also compare those thoughts and the concept to the alternative. There really appears to be none. If you claim energy cannot be created nor destroyed (the conventional wisdom) what you are saying is we cannot exist since we were never created. It hardly holds any water to claim scientifically that "Something" can't come from "Nothing" and then turn around and claim God did it. That is not being logical or scientific it is simply holding to a preconcieved and unspportable idea.

 

[SLWK]

Isn't it the case that physicists have not been able to reconcile the general theory of relativity with quantum physics? And thus the point is that nobody yet truly knows how it all works.

Also, I thought at a quantum level, something can be created out of nothing.

 

[MacM]

SLWK,

Also, I thought at a quantum level, something can be created out of nothing.

You are correct on all counts. It happens all the time in the quantum world and N-------->(+s)+(-s) merely means it happened at least once in the macro world. Not a major step of faith or miracle at all.

There is just arguement that what happens in the quantum world isn't actually "Nothing" however but simply unobserved "Something", so it isn't a slam dunk for the theory.

 

[1Dude]

MacM

Thank you for your comments! I will be considering them further!

Here is one more thought. Still stuck in my own mind but trying to understand!

This formula describes, in my opinion, an “unstable” condition of physical reality. But the known physical universe is “stable”. If this formula really is accurate and is a description of this physical universe then I might just expect to find that Something or Someone outside the physical universe would be needed to account for the stability we actually do see. Something or Someone would have to hold the universe in a condition of existence. Without such an additional “force”, this physical existence just like “virtual particles” would fluctuate into non-existence in an instant. The universe would disappear just as “easily” as it appeared.

Thanks MacM

 

[MacM]

1Dude,

Your response is most appropriate. It would appear that it could be possible that another Big Bang or inversion (+s)+(-s)------->N would be possible; however, I don't think it is likely, I think the probabilities are such that it is an extremely rare if not one time event.

But assuming "Eternity", even the slightest odds would predict eventually such events would occur.

 

[Jenyar]

But assuming "Eternity", even the slightest odds would predict eventually such events would occur.

Unless it's asymptotic. Such a possibility also exists. Is there a theory that says all possibilities, no matter how remote, must be exhausted given infinite time? From what pool are these possibilities drawn, and what happens if (when?) the "possibility that all possibilities can be exhausted" is drawn?

 

[Raithere]

If this formula really is accurate and is a description of this physical universe then I might just expect to find that Something or Someone outside the physical universe would be needed to account for the stability we actually do see.

What would account for the stability of that Something or Someone? Once again, we're stuck with either an infinite recession or an arbitrarily assigned property (in this case, that of stability).

Unless it's asymptotic. Such a possibility also exists. Is there a theory that says all possibilities, no matter how remote, must be exhausted given infinite time?

Not directly, no. Probability is a function of the conditions per trial. Thus if the conditions are a bag with 34 white marbles and 1 black marble but only one trial will be run, time is not a factor. Typically though, one of the conditions of a quantum event is a function of time.

From what pool are these possibilities drawn, and what happens if (when?) the "possibility that all possibilities can be exhausted" is drawn?

Wow... good question. I believe the answer is this (please someone correct me if I am wrong): The size of the pool is not arbitrary but depends upon the conditions for the event. If we're drawing from a bag of 35! marbles then the size of the pool is 35. If we're drawing from a bag of 50, then it's 50!. One of these conditions might indeed be a function of time as in, for instance, the decay of an atom. In this case the probability within an infinite time would be 100%..

~Raithere

 

[MacM]

Raithere,

Good post.

 

[Raithere]

Good post.

Except I said, "a bag of 35! marbles then the size of the pool is 35." That's a really BIG bag of marbles. It would be 35 mables and the pool is 35!.

But thanks.



~Raithere

 

[Jenyar]

If the possibility that "all possibilities can be exhausted" cannot be met, then it's not a possibility and the pool is not infinite... and if the possibility can be met, then the pool is also not infinite. Or am I missing something?

That would mean all possibilities aren't possible, or available, or something to the effect that the probability can never be 100%. The mere existence of "probability" within an arbitrary pool suggests that there are conditions that will never be met (maybe because that's the condition under which they exist) Could it be that "stability" 1Dude mentioned?

 

[1Dude]

Can I get comments from everyone on this gentlemen's thoughts? Thank You!
1Dude


Is there any need for a first cause? by Nathaniel Branden:

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a casual explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a casual explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go

 

[MacM]

1Dude,

Fair. I concur with the parallel of claiming a God and that God requires no cause and that one can just as well eliminate God and claim existance requires no cause without the injection of a meaningless God.

However, I think he veers or course when he concludes "Nothingness" cannot and has not ever existed and that the universe has been eternal.

To have been eternal means one would have to divide existance into time intervals and to have accumulated an "Infinite" number of time intervals. Since time intervals are physical measurements (physical enitities) they can never become or be infinite since by definition "Infinity" is larger than any physical quanity or number.

Hence the universe and existance must have come from "Nothing" at some point in time, without cause, and without a God that contributes nothing (as he has pointed out) to the solution. THAT DOES NOT EXCLUDE A GOD BUT ONLY SHOWS THAT INCLUSION OF A GOD DOES NOT ADVANCE THE ULTIMATE ANSWER. GOD IS SIMPLY SUPURFLOUS, NOT AN ANSWER TO ANYTHING.

While it is not conclusive in of itself it is more logical to assume our presumption in physics that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change forms" is in error.

While I do not see "Virtual Particles" as being "Something from Nothing", the fact that they come ito existance and go out of existance all the time, is suggestive that we may be off target.

Assuming that "Nothingness" can be defined as "Absence of Time-Space" consider the following:

N---------->(+s)+(-s)

Whre "N" is "Nothingness" and +/- s are the existance of equal but opposite values of "Something" , existance may be no more than bifurcated "Nothing".

To make the point more clear assign a series of theoretical values to the formula:

0---------->(+1)+(-1), 0----------->(+1,195)+(-1,195)

This allows for creation "Ex Nihilo" and existance without mathematically violating any conservation laws. It seems to me, even though we have no understanding of such process it is far more logical and acceptable than any of the alternatives.

Indeed in 1976 Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York, did a calculation of the observable universe and found that there is "NO NET ENERGY" in the universe. That is to conclude that collectively our existance equals "Nothing".

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html

This to me pretty much confirms the concept.

 

[1Dude]

MacM

I respectfully submit the following statement written by J.P. Moreland for your consideration.

J.P. Moreland writes:

Isaac Asimov asserts that just as 0=+1+(-1), so nothingness may have spawned equal-sized globs of positive and negative energy. Davies makes a similar statement: “There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative.”

In order to see what is wrong with these statements, we need to investigate two issues: identity and prediction, and the ontological status of nonbeing. First, let us consider identity and prediction by looking at two sentences.

1. Socrates is the teacher of Plato.
2. Socrates is white.

Sentence 1 expresses an “is” of identity. Socrates is identical to the teacher of Plato. Identity is a relation which is reflexive (A is identical to itself), symmetrical (if A is identical to B, then B is identical to A), and transitive (if A is identical to B, and B is identical to C, then A is identical to C). If A and B are identical, then whatever is true of A is true of B and vice versa.

Sentence 2 expresses an “is” of predication. Socrates is not identical to whiteness. Whiteness is a property which Socrates has. Whiteness is predicated of Socrates. Predication is a different relation than identity. For example, predication is not transitive. If Socrates is white, and white is a color, then it does not follow that Socrates is a color.

One important feature of predication is relevant to our discussion. A cannot be predicated of B if B does not exist, except, perhaps, in thought only. Socrates could not really be white if Socrates did not exist. Predication is a relationship that a property has to a substance (or event or bare particular) which obtains only when the property and the substance really exist.

Next, let us consider the ontological status of nonbeing. Nonbeing (i.e., nothingness) does not exist. Nonbeing is not some shadowy mode of reality. Nonbeing has no properties and causes nothing; in short, it is a pure lack of existence. When someone says that something comes from nothing, this cannot mean that nonbeing was the efficient or material cause of that something. Nonbeing is not some shadowy stuff from which something is made.

This is sometimes put by saying that negative properties do not exist. There is a difference between negation (the simple denial of existence) and the positive assertion of the existence of nonbeing. An apple has a number of properties: redness, roundness, sweetness. When we deny that a apple has squareness we are denying the existence of a property in the apple. We are not asserting that, in addition to redness, the apple has the negative property of not-squareness.

We are now in a position to expose the problems inherent in the statements by Asimov and Davies. Suppose we have a container with ten protons and ten electrons. The total charge of the container is zero. The positive charge of each proton is a property predicated of that proton. The same is true of the negative charge of the electron (unless negative here is taken as some sort of privation). If one separated the protons from the electrons and put them into two different containers, one would have a positively-charged container and a negatively-charged container. But the positive and negative charges would not come from nothingness. It is simply that the total charge of the original container was zero because the positive charge was equal to the negative charge.

If a state of zero energy is conceived of as a state of affairs where the total amounts of positive and negative energy are equal, then when the positive and negative energy becomes separated, this is not a case of something coming from nothing. It is merely a case of separation.

If a state of zero energy is conceived of as nothingness, then it does not exist. Nothingness has no nature and thus it has no exigency or internal striving toward the production of any state of affairs, much less one where positive and negative energy is balanced. Nothingness might just as well have produced ten unicorns and five pens. Nothingness is not an entity which has an equal amount of positive and negative properties which comprise the stuff for the production of a specific state of affairs. Nothingness has no properties whatever, and it is not identical to an existent state of affairs where the positive and negative charge, or the positive and negative energy is equal. The latter contains some sort of stuff (protons and electrons or energy); the former contains nothing.

It is then, a mistake to use language like that of Asimov and Davies. Such talk seems to say that nonbeing is identical to an existent sate of affairs with positive and negative properties. But nonthingness is just that, and nothingness has no nature, causal powers, or tendencies toward anything whatsoever.

 

[MacM]

1Dude,

Posted by MacM:
Indeed in 1976 Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York, did a calculation of the observable universe and found that there is "NO NET ENERGY" in the universe. That is to conclude that collectively our existance equals "Nothing".

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html

I stand by the above. Your essay is, in my opinion, a lot of double talk trying to get around an obvious reality. We currently exist as bifurcated nothing. Now to claim to know that the "0" in 0--->(+1)+(-1) isn't "Nothing" but is really "Something" is to claim to much.

I have defined "Nothing" as absence of time-space. If that "Nothing' isn't in reality "Nothing" then please describe for us what it is. Then we can talk.


.

 

[Arkon]

If that is the case, I exist, and everything that has happened since Labor Day weekend 1991, including me writing this post now, is merely a figment of my disturbed subconscious. This post does not exist, neither do Pentium processors, AIM, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the second Gulf War, Dubya as president, Hugh Grant and Divine Brown, Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (only the last makes me a little sniffly...the rest I can't even explain). I exist, but no one I've encountered since fall 1991 does. I suppose that would include my boyfriend, but since he's gorgeous, smart, sweet, funny as hell and really talented, it only stands to reason that he would have to be a figment of my imagination.

I heard of this a while back from my brother, its called Solipsism and it is the person thinks that he is the only thing in existence and everything else is a figment of his imagination, then again another person could come up and say the same thing. It would be an endless and pointless argument to argue about existence since each one of us thinks that we exist in our own little world and everything else could just be a lie.

 

[1Dude]

MacM: I have defined "Nothing" as absence of time-space.

If there is no time then there is no change.
Do you disagree with this?