In life these days it seems I could endlessly search to try and find people like you who have taken the time to posit on the universe and beyond, and are prepared to present away from endless amounts of -isms and jargon and just present a much more personal 'meism' if you will.
Yes, for sweeping generalizations without specifics goes nowhere in a hurry. Physicists like Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger work for what is and what is known, such as quantum mechanics, which surely works. That’s where I come from, too, so there’s really no personal wishes involved.
I see in this suggestion philosophical crossroads where you have turned one way and I am not so sure I would do likewise, but I am prepared to analyse and digest this on its merits.
Well, I turned to the only two possible ways that the substance of stuff could be, knowing that one of them had to be correct.
I can see in answering this post I am coming dangerously close to revealing my own theory, which I couldn't do on this forum, too public. Though I am willing to dance around the ideas a little
OK, but it leaks out, and that’s what we’re here for.
“
Originally Posted by SciWriter
Yes, we would have to arrive at the conclusion that the basic something is ever made of nothing, a distribution of it, such as we see with the quantum fluctuations going in and out of existence, and which is why there is positive and negative polarity of charge, along with matter and antimatter, and the balancing of the positive kinetic energy of stuff with the negative potential energy of gravity.
”
-flowing along with this-
“
And, of course, that there is literally nothing to make stuff of, ‘nothing’ being the eternal basis, the prime mover also qualifies as infinite, positrons, electron, and photons ever popping out, with some of them remaining rather enduring and leading to more complexity. Curiously, it is all because ‘nothing’, being the simplest state, cannot be or stay as such. The vacuum fluctuates, yet there is no true vacuum that can form as a stable state, being the lack of anything, which ever would have been the state, if it could have been.
”
I can agree that stuff is made of mostly nothing;
Some say all is so-called empty space mostly, but they forget that fluctuation is everywhere, again showing that ‘nothing’ cannot be. Furthermore, fields from the particle spigots are everywhere around the particles and way, way beyond, so, again, that space is not empty at all. We might say that it is less dense, which is fine, for the actual mass-energy concentrated in a small region, like as the analogy of it being only second base in a baseball stadium, goes a long way, it having an effect much more that its size would dictate.
I do not say I can accept that nothing is definitely the eternal basis, though of course it is interesting to hear your theories. I am more inclined towards infinity of matter up and down without and within is more likely.
One would have to say how the stuff got there.
“
It is also that cause-and-effect cannot go on forever beneath, in an infinite regress, and so it has to be replaced by an equation: the zero balance of opposites.
”
But just because an atom quark or smaller are moved, it doesn't necessarily hold that these forces are projected down into the innards. Maybe these forces only project outwards to protect interiors. Or Arenas much smaller within these structures it may be possible are impervious to outside movement and reaction because of inherent stabilising forces built into the evolution of infinity? Maybe a positive force pressure has developed to allow function to continue further down the scale?
They would still have cause and effect, even if only stabilizing, but it is still stuff, and no effect could settle in if it took forever for the downward chain to have cause. Stuff still has to be accounted for, as we can’t use magic to have defined stuff never having been defined.
“
The only other possibility remaining, then, is that the original stuff has been around forever, but that is rejected since the stuff would then have had definition without ever having been defined in the first place, for that place never was.
”
I think infinity is literally infinite. I do not see an end or beginning, or any decoherence of this assertion. For me non-infinity is impossible.
Yes, there has to be infinity and eternity for Totality. It wouldn’t be the all at all if something were before it or outside it. So, the prime mover must have these qualities.
A composite complex Being is ruled out, too, since it would be dependent on its parts, which would have been there even a long time before, so, the Being could not have been fundamental as the first, planning and creating everything else.
“
So, of the two choices, both of which are eternal states that prohibit any creation of the basis (and a Creator), we know for sure that one must be correct, no matter how unintuitive each seems at first glance.
”
But a specific creator isn't the limit to a possible creational force? No home base is needed if a naturally occuring start point can occur within the system. And anyway. The system isn't limited, there is a without, always. [I/]
The only naturally occurring starting point is the lack of anything, not something already there, yet, this ‘nothing’ is so unstable that it can’t exist even for an instant, and never could, and never will be able to.
It could be in the same way life exists itself. There was an inception of life. So another inception is possible?
Inception of life is ever possible, even such as alien beings and life forms way beyond our own, but they can’t be fundamental and first, as they were much later inceptions of what was. For, example, we took four billion years to evolve, and that was even with luck, so, we were relatively speedy.
“
To me, of the two possibilities, it seems that the ‘why’ would be that ‘nothing’ cannot be, for we also note that the simpler and simple states are prone to be ever more reactive, plus that this is a complete solution, whereas “stuff having been forever” seems to have an incompleteness about it, as noted.
”
This doesn't seem personally conclusive for you?
Only the second part, which is why I go for the first.
Systems of change would be a prerequisite of energy dissipating through infinity, up or down (you get the meaning); sorry have to stop there . . .
Yes, if all had been inert, nothing would have happened. Looks like simple stuff has to readily combine and/or go through phase changes, just as we see.
“
It is also that, since this formation of oppositely balanced has been happening forever (and ever will), that one could even nearly say that stuff was around forever, too, in general; however it wasn’t the same exact stuff, so, not quite.
”
Same stuff, different form/energy spectrum/distribution.
Infinity for me is the only ending. Mathematics tends to fall to it in the end.
We could still admit this as a third possibility, but incomplete solutions are not really solutions. Even, so, though, what all three have in common that the basis, whether nothing or actual stuff, was eternal and infinite, and that any creation of this basis never happened at all, which is a sure thing for humankind to note, someday, when more are able to. We’ll have to look for even more evidence of a balance of opposites to further decide upon ‘nothing’, which would even be a further shock to many, beyond that of no creation.
“
This knowing of why anything exists allows us to better comprehend the cosmos, for it then explains, or leads to, somehow, as to why their is a balance of oppositeness of charge and matter/antimatter from pair production, which may even be the root of energy conservation, and that time, the 4th dimension, may be related to charge, for it seems that it would have to be charge that nullifies all of existence in the overview, although this can’t happen in actuality. Motion, not stillness, seems to be the natural norm. The great question of "Why is there something instead of nothing?" was stated backward.
”
For me it is more "How can something be made of nothing?"
I know, for either way seems impossible, and that makes it hard to choose either one. It’s just that something has to give, for there’s nothing to construct it of.
For me it is all evolution, whether there is a creational force or not. It equates to the same thing.
Eternity is long enough and infinity is wide enough for everything to go through all of its paces time and time again. And so here we are in one of those more productive parentheses of forever and everywhere.
“
It also explains why the cosmos is so vast, for not only is space infinite (with the ever present quantities of volume and QM jitterbugging), but that its complement, the Planck size and within has to be so infinitely (infinitesimal) tiny. Our finiteness exists at the mid-point in-between. Infinite largeness and infinite smallness are really the same vacant ends of nothing, one dispersing to zero and one contracting to zero. Total solidity is just as impossible as total nothing, and, so here we are, perched in-between.
”
This seems very subjective. Have you ever delved deeper into possible modes, organisations of infinity?
Infinity. Different assertions of what it could be. You seem uneasy with the idea that infinity is true. I like to embrace it as I can see no other way. Around this I build my theory.
Infinity and eternity must always be so. You can count on them, in whatever way.
The Why of existence, too, comes out of all three propositions: it has to be. All we need to do now is some more localization, by noting more of the mechanics of the How.
Why two and only two stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton(+) (and their antiparticles)? Just two, for neutrons decay in about 12 minutes or so. Why only two ways to make them stable?
Why only one stable energy particle, the photon (neutral charge)?
It is that this is the only way the cosmos can be?
Why only one specific speed of light and no other? It is the one and only dimensional equivalent between distance and time, a ratio.
Why 3 dimensions of space? We have three dimensions because the singularity of nothingness demands existential closure, which demands compositional parity of positive and negative, which demands cubic space. Our universe’s dimensionality is as inevitable as its existence. The three dimensions of space are compositional, and thus the nullification of existence at totality must be carried out by the fourth, charge, which must be an aspect of time, as well as motion is, too.
Our existence in the finite realm must occur at the mid-point of infinite largeness and infinite smallness (infinitesimal), both of which are the same vacant truths, of zero, the first dispersing away into nothing and the second shrinking away to nothing. It is no wonder that scientists have trouble reconciling the large versus the small.
1 + (-1) = 0
Largest * smallest = 1 (finite unity)
Conservation laws: because all must sum to zero.
Reality: as real as real can be; a balance of opposites.
The ground state: necessarily causeless.
Beyond the ground state: cause and effect; determinism.
Implications of infinity and eternity: everything, in all forms, again and again, even more instances of us somewhere, sometime. No first anything. No first matter from light; no first light from matter. No first star, which, by the way, requires some amount of higher atomic matter for ignition, yet this is only produced by stars. No first anything, no last anything. This is the third revelation to mankind, beyond the eternal.infinite and of ‘nothing’, the seemingly strange properties of forever systems being able to be their own precursors, like some kind of mobius strip; yet, this makes them complete, and completeness is what we like, for they contain their own history and future, everywhere and always.
Now the “ism’s” of imagination’s claims, right and left, as mere pronouncements and proclamations to be endlessly repeated as made-up, ungrounded wishes pale in comparison to actually getting down to the nitty gritty, which few will do, anyway, as emotions get in the way, blocking even the thinking of going down that path.
