God and Nothing seems to be equivalent

[Cyperium]

Well you used the word nothing to define God, and a dead person, so the word nothing is used when something is out of our lowest measurement.

I didn't define God as nothing, I said that they seem to be equivalent, the way i think they seem equivalent were posted in the OP and I've also given further arguments of the way they seem to be equivalent. Should God exist then of course the existence vs. non-existence properties of the two concepts are irrelevant as Gods existence is assumed by the comparison.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If they were given energy by the EM fields then they wouldn't need to annihilate in order to conserve energy as it would be a transformation rather than something coming to existence. All articles I've read talks about the particles being allowed to briefly exist.

Fields such as EM fields vibrate and virtual particles pop off of them. It is an objective feautre of reality and any opinions based on arguments about *needing* to conserve energy in some way are utterly irrelevant.

Yes, virtual particles do briefly exist and then cancel each other out.

What does it mean to be 'spawned' anyway, it seems like you use that word to describe that it was created using existing energy of the EM fields when it's really just a rewording of "coming to existence" if you ask me.

Spawned means "caused by". For example, a virtual photon is cause by an EM field jiggling around. The phrase "coming into existence" doesn't imply an origin and would therefore be an inaccurate phrase to use. I don't like to use the word "created" because humans tend to interpret the "creator" as being a sapient life form rather than a non-sapient entity.

I should also say that "virtual" does not mean that the particles doesn't actually exist just because they can't be observed, it is possible to boost the particles apart in order for them to avoid annihilation and thus be real particles (as quoted below).

Yes I know. If they can be separated then the positive energy particle goes on as a real particle and the negative energy particle floats around until it hits something with positive energy and then subtracts from it. That is the theory of how black holes evaporate consequently.

Our consciousness wasn't. You can take the letters of a word and randomize it but it's only when they make up the word that it is the word. Are you saying that you would exist without your mind?

You are correct that people's consciousness doesn't exist before some point in the womb and after they die; however, that is a very different assertion than what you originally made. Consciousness is cause by the brain in humans. That brain was different configurations of matter and energy before you had one and will be different configurations of matter and energy after you die.

The latter part can't be proven or disproven so why make a claim about it?

As a generic concept it cannot, but as a human claim it can. All human claims of 'God' that I am aware of come assertions about what 'God' does/did (i.e. how it interacts/interacted with reality). The moment that any of those assertions are found to be false is the moment the claim falls apart.

 

[Cyperium]

Fields such as EM fields vibrate and virtual particles pop off of them. It is an objective feautre of reality and any opinions based on arguments about *needing* to conserve energy in some way are utterly irrelevant.

Yes, virtual particles do briefly exist and then cancel each other out.

Yes, they are said to jump in and out of existence. When they aren't existing, that is the nothing I'm talking about.

Spawned means "caused by". For example, a virtual photon is cause by an EM field jiggling around. The phrase "coming into existence" doesn't imply an origin and would therefore be an inaccurate phrase to use. I don't like to use the word "created" because humans tend to interpret the "creator" as being a sapient life form rather than a non-sapient entity.

Coming into existence means that it was "out of existence" and hence what we call 'nothing'. They are also said to go "out of existence" which is the same as saying that they become nothing or become non-existant.

Yes I know. If they can be separated then the positive energy particle goes on as a real particle and the negative energy particle floats around until it hits something with positive energy and then subtracts from it. That is the theory of how black holes evaporate consequently.

Yes, if we go outside of topic, why does only the negative mass particle fall into the black hole? I've been wondering that for a while and the sources I've read don't seem to say anything about the process which guarantees that it's always the antiparticle that falls in. They do say that it's always the anti-particle so that mass is subtracted from the black hole.

You are correct that people's consciousness doesn't exist before some point in the womb and after they die; however, that is a very different assertion than what you originally made. Consciousness is cause by the brain in humans. That brain was different configurations of matter and energy before you had one and will be different configurations of matter and energy after you die.

I thought I made perfectly clear that I meant the mind and not the body, when the brain is "reconfigured" in a way that the mind just doesn't exist there anymore, then that is when a person becomes 'nothing' in my view. Also in what respect is a body 'your' body without your mind?

As a generic concept it cannot, but as a human claim it can. All human claims of 'God' that I am aware of come assertions about what 'God' does/did (i.e. how it interacts/interacted with reality). The moment that any of those assertions are found to be false is the moment the claim falls apart.

This thread doesn't necessarily imply a particular God, rather I have found some striking similarities (in my view at least) to the properties commonly associated with a God (such as omnipresence), and Nothing. Nothing is of course "omni" not present ;D but still acts as if it is omnipresent whenever something is "spawned" into existence.

I'm also curious to what you have to say about my third argument;

3) If nothing were to produce something, then it will inevitably be the truth, as nothing has no diversity and can be seen as perfectly pure.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes, they are said to jump in and out of existence. When they aren't existing, that is the nothing I'm talking about.

Nothing is the absence of everything and anything. When virtual particles cancel, they don't cause or achieve an absence of everything and anything. They simply cancel. I think you are trying to redefine the word "nothing" as being an empty quantity. Specifically in this case, a positive quantity + an equal negative quantity = an empty quantity (which you are calling nothing).

Coming into existence means that it was "out of existence" and hence what we call 'nothing'. They are also said to go "out of existence" which is the same as saying that they become nothing or become non-existant.

Nothing of complete absence of everything and anything. It's not objectively real. There is no entity you can point to and say "look, it's an absence of everything and anything". When a virtual particle pair popps off of a field, what effectively is happening is that a 0 quantity (ex. a 0 quantity photon from an EM field) is being represented as a pair of quantities that together equal 0. It's a physical manifestation of the equality 1 + -1 = 0.

Yes, if we go outside of topic, why does only the negative mass particle fall into the black hole? I've been wondering that for a while and the sources I've read don't seem to say anything about the process which guarantees that it's always the antiparticle that falls in. They do say that it's always the anti-particle so that mass is subtracted from the black hole.

I am not sure it's always the anti-particle. The only thing that is guaranteed is it's the negative energy particle (those are two distinct concepts). Beyond that, as to why it's always the anti-particle appears on the inside of the event horizon, it's "how the math works out" (at least according to some book I read a while back); however, I suspect that it means that negative energy is more attracted to gravitational force than positive energy.

I thought I made perfectly clear that I meant the mind and not the body, when the brain is "reconfigured" in a way that the mind just doesn't exist there anymore, then that is when a person becomes 'nothing' in my view. Also in what respect is a body 'your' body without your mind?

Do you think your meaning was perfectly clear given everyone's responses? So a person becomes "nothing in your view" when their mind is gone. See how fast we've gone from objective terminology to subjective terminlogy? If you are going to make objective assertions about 'God' and 'Nothing' then you have to use the objective.

This thread doesn't necessarily imply a particular God, rather I have found some striking similarities (in my view at least) to the properties commonly associated with a God (such as omnipresence), and Nothing. Nothing is of course "omni" not present ;D but still acts as if it is omnipresent whenever something is "spawned" into existence.

Zero quantity particle pair potential exists everywhere in space-time because fields permeate it like a thick fog, so that potential exists everywhere in our universe. Fields are omni-present with respect to our universe. Space-time is omni-present with respect to our universe. Note that I say respect to our universe because there are quite a few models of reality that show there to be an "outside" of our universe.

What isn't clear is why you think omni-present physical / potential physical phenomena are somehow special when thinking about how people often assign omnipresence to their view of "God". Do you think that "God" is like a potential zero quantity particle pair, waiting for some magical field to cleave that potential into a positive energy "God" and negative energy "God"?

I'm also curious to what you have to say about my third argument;

3) If nothing were to produce something, then it will inevitably be the truth, as nothing has no diversity and can be seen as perfectly pure.

I would say drop your use and redefinition of the word nothing because it's horrible to see it slaughtered like this :3. I would also say drop your use of the word truth as well. Truth is when a notion in your mind matches objective reality. It's a state where a brains representation of something corresponds to what actually is. The way you use the word truth isn't really valid for what it means.

Beyond that, I'll leave you with this to chew on because I think it could be a thought that might be up your alley. A popular inflationary theory models our universe as frozen supersymmetric stuff. Picture a vast and neverending landscape of stuff. It's identical everywhere you look. Go up you get more of the same, break it up and you get more of the same, it is pure equality. Water is kind of like that, it's uniform and symmetrical (although not supersymmetrical). If you freeze water then that's when it gets definitive crystaline structure and becomes non-symmetrical. Moving back to our neverending landscape of sypersymmetrical stuff, there are fields that permeate the stuff and can interact with it. The interaction is the equivalent of freezing it. Suddenly it gains structure. That perfect symmetry it had is now broken and our universe would be a frozen chunk of that stuff.

 

[Cyperium]

Nothing is the absence of everything and anything. When virtual particles cancel, they don't cause or achieve an absence of everything and anything. They simply cancel. I think you are trying to redefine the word "nothing" as being an empty quantity. Specifically in this case, a positive quantity + an equal negative quantity = an empty quantity (which you are calling nothing).




Nothing of complete absence of everything and anything. It's not objectively real. There is no entity you can point to and say "look, it's an absence of everything and anything". When a virtual particle pair popps off of a field, what effectively is happening is that a 0 quantity (ex. a 0 quantity photon from an EM field) is being represented as a pair of quantities that together equal 0. It's a physical manifestation of the equality 1 + -1 = 0.



I am not sure it's always the anti-particle. The only thing that is guaranteed is it's the negative energy particle (those are two distinct concepts). Beyond that, as to why it's always the anti-particle appears on the inside of the event horizon, it's "how the math works out" (at least according to some book I read a while back); however, I suspect that it means that negative energy is more attracted to gravitational force than positive energy.



Do you think your meaning was perfectly clear given everyone's responses? So a person becomes "nothing in your view" when their mind is gone. See how fast we've gone from objective terminology to subjective terminlogy? If you are going to make objective assertions about 'God' and 'Nothing' then you have to use the objective.



Zero quantity particle pair potential exists everywhere in space-time because fields permeate it like a thick fog, so that potential exists everywhere in our universe. Fields are omni-present with respect to our universe. Space-time is omni-present with respect to our universe. Note that I say respect to our universe because there are quite a few models of reality that show there to be an "outside" of our universe.

What isn't clear is why you think omni-present physical / potential physical phenomena are somehow special when thinking about how people often assign omnipresence to their view of "God". Do you think that "God" is like a potential zero quantity particle pair, waiting for some magical field to cleave that potential into a positive energy "God" and negative energy "God"?



I would say drop your use and redefinition of the word nothing because it's horrible to see it slaughtered like this :3. I would also say drop your use of the word truth as well. Truth is when a notion in your mind matches objective reality. It's a state where a brains representation of something corresponds to what actually is. The way you use the word truth isn't really valid for what it means.

Beyond that, I'll leave you with this to chew on because I think it could be a thought that might be up your alley. A popular inflationary theory models our universe as frozen supersymmetric stuff. Picture a vast and neverending landscape of stuff. It's identical everywhere you look. Go up you get more of the same, break it up and you get more of the same, it is pure equality. Water is kind of like that, it's uniform and symmetrical (although not supersymmetrical). If you freeze water then that's when it gets definitive crystaline structure and becomes non-symmetrical. Moving back to our neverending landscape of sypersymmetrical stuff, there are fields that permeate the stuff and can interact with it. The interaction is the equivalent of freezing it. Suddenly it gains structure. That perfect symmetry it had is now broken and our universe would be a frozen chunk of that stuff.

The session timed out when I tried to post and I couldn't get my post back, I sincerily HATE when that happens. I had written a lengthy reply to all of your arguments, you will have to do with the short version:

You seem to imply that particles and anti-particles are quantity and anti-quantity, so that there is no quantity of particles in reality. This is not true, there is a quantity and anti-quantity of the conserved charges but not of the particles themselves. This can be clearly seen with the W particle which is it's own antiparticle and thus not a pair of particles but a single particle where the conserved charges are zero, the particle itself can obviously exist though. As such the particlepairs do make up two particles, where the conserved charges are 0 together but still two existences.



When I say that somebody doesn't exist after they die, I obviously don't mean that their body would suddenly vanish when they die. I have no reason to think that people would interpret it as such either. Because of this I just can't be fooled to think that people didn't understand what I meant, even if judging from their replies they thought I meant that peoples bodies vanished when they died, but this is probably just because they find it a easier approach to make my idea invalid instead of trying to see what I mean. Kind of "you spelled that wrong so I won't answer", such approaches are very childish if you ask me.

I don't concern myself with objective vs subjective in my comparisons, nothing is neither of them, but is still applicable subjectively as the meaning 'to not exist' and therefor can be analogue to the God concept of giving and taking back your soul (if the soul in this regard is the mind) so that the notion of nothing is still God and the notion of the soul is the mind, as such the mind was nothing before you were born, and is nothing after you die.



I couldn't find any documentation that it is the "field" that creates the particles, or cleave them into pairs. Because of this reason I won't argue either for it or against it. The only thing that I'm actually concerned about are that a particle can come to exist. The method upon which a particle can come to exist is of less concern to me as long as it didn't exist before.



I don't think I have slaughtered the word 'nothing', is it a bad explanation that nothing is non-existence?

With truth I mean uncorrupted, something will remain true to it's origin as long as it isn't corrupted along the way. A message from one person to another person can get corrupted along the way and therefor not be true to the original anymore. Physically a lightbeam can travel from a source and be corrupted by the medium (gasses and particles) so that the source is distorted and therefor the image isn't completely true to the source anymore. As such something that comes from 'nothing' must be entirely true as there isn't anything that could corrupt it as nothing is a perfectly pure state.



I read some more about Hawking radiation and it seems that the intense gravitational field gives rise to particle - anti-particle production, since the source of this production is the black hole I guess that the black hole determines the orientation of the particles so that only the negative mass particle falls in.


One thing that always strikes me with theories of the origin of the universe is why the singularity or perfect state would be disturbed at a certain time if it is eternal, shouldn't it have been disturbed some time infinitely in the past if so? As such I think that we need either a cyclic universe, or a universe that is just a part of some infinitely large area where universes can inflate. I don't know that much about supersymmetry, I've heard the concept before but I don't know what to make of it. What causes the fields in a supersymmetry theory, or is it static?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The session timed out when I tried to post and I couldn't get my post back, I sincerily HATE when that happens. I had written a lengthy reply to all of your arguments, you will have to do with the short version:

I hate losing long responses too. I've been bitten by that quite a few times.

You seem to imply that particles and anti-particles are quantity and anti-quantity, so that there is no quantity of particles in reality. This is not true, there is a quantity and anti-quantity of the conserved charges but not of the particles themselves. This can be clearly seen with the W particle which is it's own antiparticle and thus not a pair of particles but a single particle where the conserved charges are zero, the particle itself can obviously exist though. As such the particlepairs do make up two particles, where the conserved charges are 0 together but still two existences.

Your thinking along the right lines and it's not quite correct. A good anology is that the positive energy particle is like a one dollar bill. It's a genuine one dollar bill in all respects. The negative energy particle is like a bill for one dollar. It's a genuine bill in all respects. Both the dollar and bill are entangled (meaning they share the same state). Even though the dollar and bill exist at different locations in space-time, their shared state binds them to an identity of 1 + -1 = 0. An EM field, for example, has lots of dollar potential and it can represent a zero quantity of dollars as both a dollar and a bill for a dollar.

When I say that somebody doesn't exist after they die, I obviously don't mean that their body would suddenly vanish when they die. I have no reason to think that people would interpret it as such either. Because of this I just can't be fooled to think that people didn't understand what I meant, even if judging from their replies they thought I meant that peoples bodies vanished when they died, but this is probably just because they find it a easier approach to make my idea invalid instead of trying to see what I mean. Kind of "you spelled that wrong so I won't answer", such approaches are very childish if you ask me.

When you are not explicit about what you mean, you leave things open to interpretation. As you are no doubt aware, the core rule of quantum mechanics is that "what is not forbidden will happen". If you don't forbid mis-interpretation of what you state and instead rely on people to "see what you mean" then you are basically enforcing misinterpretaiton. I find that it's a very bad practice especially in the context of a religion subforum.

I don't concern myself with objective vs subjective in my comparisons, nothing is neither of them, but is still applicable subjectively as the meaning 'to not exist' and therefor can be analogue to the God concept of giving and taking back your soul (if the soul in this regard is the mind) so that the notion of nothing is still God and the notion of the soul is the mind, as such the mind was nothing before you were born, and is nothing after you die.

That's the beauty of the subjective. It means whatever you like at any given moment and can change the very next moment to suit your needs. Unfortunately if you want to make any kind of assertion of how reality is or might be then you have to focus on the objective or you will never be able to approach any kind of factual basis to build on. I definitely find your paragraph that I quoted above to be very subjective. I can certainly see your thought process in relative and subjective meaning; however, I don't see any objective validity to it. Just because we can string thoughts together in any way we choose, doesn't mean that thoughts have any kind of validity.

I couldn't find any documentation that it is the "field" that creates the particles, or cleave them into pairs. Because of this reason I won't argue either for it or against it. The only thing that I'm actually concerned about are that a particle can come to exist. The method upon which a particle can come to exist is of less concern to me as long as it didn't exist before.

Here is a starter on virtual particles coming from fields:

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

It seems as "how" a particle comes to exist is in fact important to you because you are relying on *nothing* as being the source of it... when in fact it is *something* (fields). If you are saying it doesn't matter then a key part of your assertions would be disappearing.

I don't think I have slaughtered the word 'nothing', is it a bad explanation that nothing is non-existence?

Absolutely. A complete absence of anything / everything is not only not a source for non-existence... it's not even a real entity.

With truth I mean uncorrupted, something will remain true to it's origin as long as it isn't corrupted along the way. A message from one person to another person can get corrupted along the way and therefor not be true to the original anymore. Physically a lightbeam can travel from a source and be corrupted by the medium (gasses and particles) so that the source is distorted and therefor the image isn't completely true to the source anymore. As such something that comes from 'nothing' must be entirely true as there isn't anything that could corrupt it as nothing is a perfectly pure state.

I see, then you are definitely asserting the word 'true' as absolute / objective using a while using relative / subjective definitions (imo, a bad combination). Why not just use the word uncorrupted? It's accurate for what you are trying to say. Consequently, virtual particles are not *something* coming from *nothing*. They are units of positive and negative energy *something* coming from fields *something*.

I read some more about Hawking radiation and it seems that the intense gravitational field gives rise to particle - anti-particle production, since the source of this production is the black hole I guess that the black hole determines the orientation of the particles so that only the negative mass particle falls in.

That might be the case.

One thing that always strikes me with theories of the origin of the universe is why the singularity or perfect state would be disturbed at a certain time if it is eternal, shouldn't it have been disturbed some time infinitely in the past if so?

One thing to keep in mind is that time *probably* does not exist for that aspect of reality (assuming the theory is correct); however, other and not well understood mechanisms for change do exist. Our concept of eternal (which is time-based) wouldn't necessarily apply. As to why that supersymmetrical stuff would be distrubed, in that model there are fields (they are called Higgs fields) that roam around in the stuff and naturally fluctuate. That fluctuation has the effect of freezing the stuff.

As such I think that we need either a cyclic universe, or a universe that is just a part of some infinitely large area where universes can inflate. I don't know that much about supersymmetry, I've heard the concept before but I don't know what to make of it. What causes the fields in a supersymmetry theory, or is it static?

The theory to my knowledge doesn't state anything concerning the origin (or lack of) for the Higgs fields. It may simply just be.

 

[SciWriter]

I have to go with Crunchy and some others. There is something precisely because nothing cannot be; yet, since there's literally nothing to make anything of, all must balance to near nothing. Why have I retreated to a near nothing? Because it is about as close to zero as one can get, and may even balance to it, if it could, but nothing is not allowed in the quantum realm—too definite; the near nothing is the quantum fluctuation/tunneling, whatever you want to call it, and that seems to be the one and only forever something, the positive/negative pairs forthcoming of it. No choice, no option, and, of course, no Gods required.

 

[Pineal]

I have to go with Crunchy and some others. There is something precisely because nothing cannot be

How do we know there had to be something? Maybe there wasn't something. Maybe in the future there will not be something. Note: one does not need to say some nothingness will be - which raises all sort of linguistic paradoxes, which should not confused with ontological ones, or be used to some how justify a claim that there has to be something.

 

[SciWriter]

How do we know there had to be something? Maybe there wasn't something. Maybe in the future there will not be something. Note: one does not need to say some nothingness will be - which raises all sort of linguistic paradoxes, which should not confused with ontological ones, or be used to some how justify a claim that there has to be something.

There has to be something not only because there surely is but also because if there had been a total lack of anything then it would still be the case, as it has no properties and is simply not there. The quantum jitterbugging is very close to nothing, but that capability is a something. Nothing never sleeps; it is always up to something. Nonexistence seems to be perfectly unstable, and so are most simple things, if not inert, ever reacting, combining and/or going through phase changes. Nothing cannot be; so, something must, which is the TOE, but I'll agree that something can't have sources of forever somethings beneath, an infinite regress.

 

[Pineal]

There has to be something not only because there surely is but also because if there had been a total lack of anything then it would still be the case, as it has no properties and is simply not there.

This is one of those things that sounds logical and engages our common sense and a dash of the current scientific paradigms but might be made a mockery of in coming research.

As have other things that seemed to make sense both given the current science and common sense.

The quantum jitterbugging is very close to nothing, but that capability is a something. Nothing never sleeps; it is always up to something. Nonexistence seems to be perfectly unstable, and so are most simple things, if not inert, ever reacting, combining and/or going through phase changes. Nothing cannot be; so, something must, which is the TOE, but I'll agree that something can't have sources of forever somethings beneath, an infinite regress.

And then it is mighty strange that there always was something and why hasn't the 2nd law run it down yet?

 

[SciWriter]

This is one of those things that sounds logical and engages our common sense and a dash of the current scientific paradigms but might be made a mockery of in coming research.

As have other things that seemed to make sense both given the current science and common sense.

And then it is mighty strange that there always was something and why hasn't the 2nd law run it down yet?

Yes, a total nothing can't cut it and neither can total solidity, so I guess something is what's in-between.

Universes do run down. If we wait long enough—and we have forever—a low probability event will come to pass eventually and another Big Bang will happen. Probably always has, always will. Nothing, everything, eternity, and infinity seem to be all of a package, all having to go together. There can be no limits to the All of Totality. If there were limits, then it wouldn't be the All.

Nothing is not the same as a God, for a God has mind. Nothing is quite the exact opposite of God. But, of course, nothing seems to have trouble maintaining itself and it would take a God for it to do so. But, no dice, for a God cannot be fundamental since a God is complex. We can look to the future for higher beings, but they won't be found as the original source in the past.

 

[SciWriter]

Endless Stars​

A recent estimate suggests that there are 300 sextillion stars, but that is just around the portion of our universe that we can know, and surely there may be more, including those of other arenas beyond our one cosmos. Why so many? Surely there was no thinking decider to account for them all, for thinking cannot be fundamental.

The Earth’s day-star had set, the dusk through the gloaming into twilight putting it to rest. Even if one had never seen the night sky, one could infer the existence of many distant suns shining far away as stars in the black velvet. They shine each second with the power of a thousand atomic bombs yet endure for tens of billions of years.

There was no moon and we were well away from the Chicago city lights and so we could see thousands of the glittering jewels of various colors. If these gems had been diamonds on our carpet, we would have been rich. Arcturus was orange, Betelgeuse red, and Sirius blue, with a green companion. We could also deduce the planets of those solar systems. Such can things be foretold from existence itself.

A misty wide and white highway crossing the night sky was our own Milky Way galaxy, seen edge on, and we could also see the Andromeda galaxy, through our binoculars. It was no great shakes to intuit many more such conglomerations. It turns out that in every dark patch sky no larger than a grain of sand that there are over 10,000 galaxies. The universe is surely much larger than it needs to be, or perhaps is is a necessity.

If this universe is here at this time in this place as from an inflating bang, then surely there could be more, somewheres, making for the extrapolation of an endless Cosmos of cosmotic arenas. There is really much more out there than there needed to be.

So it is that we surmise, reason, interpret, gather, understand, presume, and assume that there are countless numbers of stars and planets out there, as well as endless numbers of separated universes. What the heck is going on? Why so many? They re perhaps even near infinite, whatever that means. Why is it so overdone?

Well, infinite largeness is so vast because the infinitesimal is so small, but that’s not the direct reason, but more like a reason to a reason, which is that Totality would not be as such if it were limited in extent—and from that line of thought we also know that it cannot be limited by duration. Eternity must ever accord with infinity.

Yet, there is nothing and nowhere for this everything to have come from, so now we understand that nothing and everything must unite and also complete the package begun by the figuring in of infinity and eternity. It is the ultimate reckoning. Everything happens everywhere forever, of nothing, or at least near to it, by the quantum fluctuations that existence demands, for a lack of anything is impossible, making something not an option at all.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Yes, a total nothing can't cut it and neither can total solidity, so I guess something is what's in-between.

Universes do run down. If we wait long enough—and we have forever—a low probability event will come to pass eventually and another Big Bang will happen. Probably always has, always will. Nothing, everything, eternity, and infinity seem to be all of a package, all having to go together. There can be no limits to the All of Totality. If there were limits, then it wouldn't be the All.

Nothing is not the same as a God, for a God has mind. Nothing is quite the exact opposite of God. But, of course, nothing seems to have trouble maintaining itself and it would take a God for it to do so. But, no dice, for a God cannot be fundamental since a God is complex. We can look to the future for higher beings, but they won't be found as the original source in the past.

There is no evidence that Universes run down. The evidence seems to be that they run faster, and faster.

 

[Cyperium]

I hate losing long responses too. I've been bitten by that quite a few times.



Your thinking along the right lines and it's not quite correct. A good anology is that the positive energy particle is like a one dollar bill. It's a genuine one dollar bill in all respects. The negative energy particle is like a bill for one dollar. It's a genuine bill in all respects. Both the dollar and bill are entangled (meaning they share the same state). Even though the dollar and bill exist at different locations in space-time, their shared state binds them to an identity of 1 + -1 = 0. An EM field, for example, has lots of dollar potential and it can represent a zero quantity of dollars as both a dollar and a bill for a dollar.

I know that the total energy is zero in the universe, which would say that the universe is really nothing at all, but like the spontanious creation of particles does have existence. That the total energy of the two is zero doesn't imply that they in fact doesn't exist no matter how entangled they may be.

When you are not explicit about what you mean, you leave things open to interpretation. As you are no doubt aware, the core rule of quantum mechanics is that "what is not forbidden will happen". If you don't forbid mis-interpretation of what you state and instead rely on people to "see what you mean" then you are basically enforcing misinterpretaiton. I find that it's a very bad practice especially in the context of a religion subforum.

There was no suspicion on my side that it could be misinterpreted, from everyday life we can easily see that people don't just disappear when they die. I had no reason to think that others would believe that. Some things have to be taken for granted and it's easy to see that they were just trying to avoid the subject by making it a non-issue. I think that they choose to interpret it that way even though they understood what I meant.

Honestly, did you really think that I meant that the bodies of people became nothing? Why would anyone think that? I'm not enforcing misinterpretation, if anything I am enforcing correct interpretation, cause when faced with two alternatives and the other alternative is completely ridiculous then they should be able to choose the correct one.

That's the beauty of the subjective. It means whatever you like at any given moment and can change the very next moment to suit your needs. Unfortunately if you want to make any kind of assertion of how reality is or might be then you have to focus on the objective or you will never be able to approach any kind of factual basis to build on. I definitely find your paragraph that I quoted above to be very subjective. I can certainly see your thought process in relative and subjective meaning; however, I don't see any objective validity to it. Just because we can string thoughts together in any way we choose, doesn't mean that thoughts have any kind of validity.

That we have a mind can't be objectively confirmed, that doesn't mean that I should disregard it either, the comparisons of the mind and nothing doesn't rely on objectivity.

Here is a starter on virtual particles coming from fields:

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

It seems as "how" a particle comes to exist is in fact important to you because you are relying on *nothing* as being the source of it... when in fact it is *something* (fields). If you are saying it doesn't matter then a key part of your assertions would be disappearing.

I read your link and it doesn't say that the fields produce the particles or cleave the potential. It does say that the field can be seen as consisting of photons, and that the virtual particles can be seen as a exchange between those photons. However, I doubt that it covers all creations of virtual particles and I think that it is a special case. Instead all of the sources I have say that the creation of virtual particles is spontanious. Also, many sources say that the empty space isn't actually 'nothing', and that this is simply because of the virtual particles, giving even more credit that they actually do come from nothing. Take a look at this link for example:

Creation Ex Nihilo - Without God

I can give out many sources where the particles is said to spontaniously come into existence. I don't see how your link describes the creation of the particles by the fields.

Absolutely. A complete absence of anything / everything is not only not a source for non-existence... it's not even a real entity.

I never said it was a real entity, it is non-existent. If something doesn't exist then it can be said to not exist, hence be nothing. Like our mind is without the support of the brain.

I see, then you are definitely asserting the word 'true' as absolute / objective using a while using relative / subjective definitions (imo, a bad combination). Why not just use the word uncorrupted? It's accurate for what you are trying to say. Consequently, virtual particles are not *something* coming from *nothing*. They are units of positive and negative energy *something* coming from fields *something*.

Why not use Truth? It is also accurate for what I'm saying. I'm not convinced that they come from fields.

One thing to keep in mind is that time *probably* does not exist for that aspect of reality (assuming the theory is correct); however, other and not well understood mechanisms for change do exist. Our concept of eternal (which is time-based) wouldn't necessarily apply. As to why that supersymmetrical stuff would be distrubed, in that model there are fields (they are called Higgs fields) that roam around in the stuff and naturally fluctuate. That fluctuation has the effect of freezing the stuff.



The theory to my knowledge doesn't state anything concerning the origin (or lack of) for the Higgs fields. It may simply just be.

Yes, but you say that the fields changes the symmetry so that it can be equivalent to 'freezing', if the fields are always there then how could that change happen at any point? Or was there never any symmetry?

 

[Big Chiller]

I know that the total energy is zero in the universe, which would say that the universe is really nothing at all, but like the spontanious creation of particles does have existence. That the total energy of the two is zero doesn't imply that they in fact doesn't exist no matter how entangled they may be.

I don't think that the total energy of the universe is zero which is based on all negative energy and positive energy and mass being part of the positive energy AFAIK, means the universe is 'really nothing at all'. I think it only means the universe (or the part of the universe including the "visible" universe) came from nothing and can also "become" nothing.

 

[SciWriter]

There is no evidence that Universes run down. The evidence seems to be that they run faster, and faster.

Unless the red shift is actually from photon decay, then the universe is expanding and dispersing.

Here's my story about it:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2692067&postcount=1377

 

[Arioch]

I will say that god and the FSM are equivalent.

 

[SciWriter]

I will say that god and the FSM are equivalent.

Never eat pasta and anti-pasta at the same time—one will explode from both ends at once.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I know that the total energy is zero in the universe, which would say that the universe is really nothing at all, but like the spontanious creation of particles does have existence. That the total energy of the two is zero doesn't imply that they in fact doesn't exist no matter how entangled they may be.

The total energy of the universe is not zero (I am not even sure where you picked that up from). You keep getting hung up on the existence and non-existence of virtual particles as entities that are utterly seperate from everything without realizing they have a very definitive origin. I'll try a different way of explaining things. Let's go back to photons for a moment. What exactly are they? They are fluctuations in an EM field. Virtual photons are fluctuations in an EM field as well (just very short lived fluctuations). Whether an EM field is still, has persistent fluctuations, or temporary fluctuations, it is still an EM field that exists. You are focusing on temporary fluctuations and declaring them *nothing* when the EM field is still despite the fact that the EM field clearly exists.

There was no suspicion on my side that it could be misinterpreted, from everyday life we can easily see that people don't just disappear when they die. I had no reason to think that others would believe that. Some things have to be taken for granted and it's easy to see that they were just trying to avoid the subject by making it a non-issue. I think that they choose to interpret it that way even though they understood what I meant.

Honestly, did you really think that I meant that the bodies of people became nothing? Why would anyone think that? I'm not enforcing misinterpretation, if anything I am enforcing correct interpretation, cause when faced with two alternatives and the other alternative is completely ridiculous then they should be able to choose the correct one.

What you are not taking into account is history and trends. A lot of what you post is often considered "fringe" by many people on the forums, and because of this there is an expectation of the ridiculous interpretations being the intended ones. Putting that aside, when people are routinely not interpreting you the way you want (which is evident in this thread and in others), you are clearly not enforcing correct interpretation. You do have the option to do that however and it's not very hard. Using clear, concise, and objective words and phrases would be a good start.

That we have a mind can't be objectively confirmed, that doesn't mean that I should disregard it either, the comparisons of the mind and nothing doesn't rely on objectivity.

You're joking right? Having a mind is rather self evident.

I read your link and it doesn't say that the fields produce the particles or cleave the potential. It does say that the field can be seen as consisting of photons, and that the virtual particles can be seen as a exchange between those photons. However, I doubt that it covers all creations of virtual particles and I think that it is a special case. Instead all of the sources I have say that the creation of virtual particles is spontanious.

The link does say it. It explains what particles are (field fluctuations). Virtual particles are still particles. This next article is a laymans explanation that only focuses on what virtual particles are:

http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Hopefully this will help you understand correctly.

Also, many sources say that the empty space isn't actually 'nothing', and that this is simply because of the virtual particles, giving even more credit that they actually do come from nothing. Take a look at this link for example:

Creation Ex Nihilo - Without God

Let's say there was a cross section of space-time that was absent of virtual particles. Would that make that cross section of 4 dimension nothing all of a sudden? At best, it might make it empty.

I can give out many sources where the particles is said to spontaniously come into existence. I don't see how your link describes the creation of the particles by the fields.

Once you fully understand that particles are in fact field fluctuations then it will make more sense to you. A spontaenous field fluctuation and a non-spontaneous one are still fluctuations of a field.

I never said it was a real entity, it is non-existent. If something doesn't exist then it can be said to not exist, hence be nothing. Like our mind is without the support of the brain.

Non-existent = Something specific is not there.
Nothing = Anything and everything is not there.

Why not use Truth? It is also accurate for what I'm saying. I'm not convinced that they come from fields.

Well because it's not accurate. Truth has a very specific meaning when used in objective statements. Hopefully, the second link I provided better explains that virtual particles are spawned by fields.

Yes, but you say that the fields changes the symmetry so that it can be equivalent to 'freezing', if the fields are always there then how could that change happen at any point? Or was there never any symmetry?

My interpretation of it is that there are far less fields then there is stuff and that the fields are not guaranteed to interact with the stuff at any given time. I suspect that the frozen stuff also melts and eventually returns to supersymmetry.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I will say that god and the FSM are equivalent.

The FSM has a better smile.