THoR

How was the Universe created? When did it begin? Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so historically it has been presumed by default that the physical presence of the cosmos began with an instance of 'creation'. The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material manifestation of the cosmos. Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either version of creation would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning. Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy by declaring that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course when the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded, so can others - without limit. The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect - the product of creation. Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is simply and conclusively contrary to logic. Common Sense

http://sifter.org/~aglisi/Physics/GSQFT.html http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000542E5-F21A-1422-AE7883414B7F0000 Too long to post here

I presume the response answered that satisfactorily OK You can do ANYTHING you want with notation/encoding...even the impossible (eg. sqrt -1). In reality, you can have a changeless existence, but not an existenceless change. Given a finite number of moving particles (or galaxies) randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite period and within a finite distance. Once all collisions have occurred, all particles will eventually reach the boundary of the initial volume and be moving away from each other. It is small wonder the bodies within the infinitesimal portion of the Universe we can detect with our technology seem to be moving away from each other. The default assumption seems to be this is due to a 'ballooning' of the Universe from a point of singularity, but the above scenario explains the phenomenon equally as well. To annihilate is to cause something to cease to be, not just transform it. A photon has no measureable volume - that doesn't mean it has no volume. If a photon is an "existence" and has no volume, that means it and space (space is NOT 'nothing') both occupy the same location at the same time - two things CANNOT co-occupy the same location at the same time. Actually a photon may be an effect - not an existence. This would allow it to have a location with no XYZ volume...much like the quasi-existence posed by the points of contact between two objects. There is a defined TWO DIMENSIONAL area (a subset of 3 dimensional reality) of contact in which one side of the area has the properties of one object, the other side has the proerties of the other object and there is NO DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES. I find the prospect fascinating metaphysically

Define physical presence? Seems like a no-brainer, but it would mean to occupy a volume within the Universe. Do bosons mate? Can a sparticle spin in BOTH directions at the same time? Do they all stay in the same dimension? Quantum physics would be a LOT more believable if particle physicists didn't come up with 'theoretical components' on the fly in order to bolster the sagging credibility of their standard model. If you're going to believe the rantings a scientific icon with lots of letters after his name, try Einstein - whose general relativity seems to throw a 'curve' at the 'Standard Model'. Indeed, what qp's discern as distinct particles may in fact be facets of the same entity. OK, what is your question.

Exist: to have physical presence in the Universe.

Time is nothing more nor less than change. Change is a function of existence; hence TIME is a function of existence - existence is NOT a function of time. Not only has the Universe always existed, it ain't gonna pop out of existence in the future. Stranger still - though the state of being changes, everything which exists has always existed.

Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/99^999,999,999,999,999 . As the denominator of a fraction increases, its value decreases. Though infinity is undefined and cannot be represented by a value, it is obvious that if the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator may be, the ratio of any finite quantitative value compared to infinity is Ø. Using any given point in space as an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of polar coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, every point in the cosmos is its center. If every quality has a reciprocal (opposite equivalent), then from the point of view of an infinite Universe, all quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values vanish to 'Nothing'.

That is the difference between "state of being" and being, itself. "Being" is a yes or no proposition (anything >Ø is 'yes'), but condition can have infinite shades of difference. Too late, the old "mind" atrophied decades ago...but thanks for the thought. OK, I'll bite... Yeah, it's only 750 miles from here (Deep South Texas, the southern part - just south of Combes, TX - population 751). In Texas, that's just around the corner.

EXIST: To have physical presence in the Universe

I agree that observations lag reality to some extent and as far as 3rd party 'beings' are concerned, I can see your point; however, there is YOUR 1st party 'being' - the experience of which is instantaneous and very much observed. Do "things" not act and react? Is space not a "thing" i.e. does - thingness=mass

As far as I can determine, 'being' is neither an unobserved nor hypothetical state. It is the ultimate reality. I must be misunderstanding your meaning here...of course I can also get lost in a walk in closet

Semantically, 'Nothing' has two connotations : 'Nothing(L)' (in logical terms) is the null set - represented by the symbol 'Ø'. 'Nothing(A)' (in the abstract) is 'that which does not exist'. But, 'that which does not exist' does not exist. It is not the empty set. It is not a set at all. It has no properties or attributes. To consider 'Nothing(A)' would be not to consider. To perceive 'Nothing(A)' would be not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing(A)' would be not to understand. Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. 'Nothing' - in the abstract context - is undefined, it does not exist, it is a fiction which has no physical manifestation in the Universe. Within the realm of logic 'Nothing' isn't 'non-existence', it is the existence of the null set - the value of 'Ø' Plez explain unobserved, hypothetical states

Nah - better to use a candle. In space, the wind wouldn't blow it out.

Wouldn't it 'Red Shift' into radio wavelength?

That comment I made about 'creation' holds for this scenario, also. It ain't logical. Within every existence there is a volume. A volume contains an INFINITE number of points. Each of those points may be considered a subquality - the nature of which contributes to the reaction of the whole; hence there are an INFINITE number of decisions made by the moments or parts within the whole to determine the outcome of any reaction. Infinite choice is randomness. The actual point in question is "How many Universes do we have?" The answer depends on semantics. I prefer to define Universe as all which exists - there is nothing more or else. It may also (erroneously in my estimation) be defined as any set - ie. a subset such as the 'known' universe. This is sloppy definition. Words MEAN things and should have the same encription for everyone.

Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so it is presumed by default that the physical presence of the cosmos began with an instance of 'creation'. But is the phenomenon of being the result of a process. Is it the product of cause and effect? The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material manifestation of the cosmos. Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either version of creation would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning. Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy by declaring that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course when the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded, so can others - without limit. The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect - the product of creation. Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is simply and conclusively contrary to logic. Theory of Reciprocity