Nothing and The Creation

[MigL]

Fundamental laws are always present, 'reality', however, may not exist between observations.
Google search for 'no local reality' vs 'non locality'.

On 1/20/2024 at 8:24 AM, Ant Sinclair said:

If there was as I mentioned earlier no Atoms, Particles, Electromagnetic Fields, Absolute Zero K, Zero Energy, what would remain

Absolute zero is not achievable, as there is always energy of the underlying fields present.
IOW, nothing cannot exist, nor can it have ever existed, and your basic premise is flawed, unless you can provide a mechanism for achieving 'nothing'.

Words have different meanings to different people whether North American English speakers, Iraqi people, or their ancestral Sumarians.
Physics tend to use math to avoid the nonsensical use of Sumerian words by people who don't know what they are talking about.

[Ant Sinclair]

exchemist, I disagree the laws of nature are man-made but have been found by man and as you say this argument can't be swayed one way or the other yet. "Just is" isn't a scientific statement but you are correct there are no observations to prove what I've speculated, this is something I shall continue to work on, hopefully working through equations and formulas should give insights into these speculations and I can find the answer to what I seek.

The big question for me is how the laws of nature which are in the realm of the mental/conscious could possibly create the material, it's said pulsars can directly create matter from light and also light is information as are equations, my answer may come from thought experiments thinking on such things.

San Miguel go to your refrigerator and get yourself another bottle, after a little more intoxication you may come back with words worth reading.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

exchemist, I disagree the laws of nature are man-made but have been found by man and as you say this argument can't be swayed one way or the other yet. "Just is" isn't a scientific statement but you are correct there are no observations to prove what I've speculated, this is something I shall continue to work on, hopefully working through equations and formulas should give insights into these speculations and I can find the answer to what I seek.

The big question for me is how the laws of nature which are in the realm of the mental/conscious could possibly create the material, it's said pulsars can directly create matter from light and also light is information as are equations, my answer may come from thought experiments thinking on such things.

San Miguel go to your refrigerator and get yourself another bottle, after a little more intoxication you may come back with words worth reading.

Maybe you should read about Maimonides before we explore 'the enlightenment'. 

[Phi for All]

16 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

exchemist, I disagree the laws of nature are man-made but have been found by man

Found them, made them up, discovered how they behave, IT'S ALL THE SAME! Stop playing semantics.

[exchemist]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

Fundamental laws are always present, 'reality', however, may not exist between observations.
Google search for 'no local reality' vs 'non locality'.

Absolute zero is not achievable, as there is always energy of the underlying fields present.
IOW, nothing cannot exist, nor can it have ever existed, and your basic premise is flawed, unless you can provide a mechanism for achieving 'nothing'.

Words have different meanings to different people whether North American English speakers, Iraqi people, or their ancestral Sumarians.
Physics tend to use math to avoid the nonsensical use of Sumerian words by people who don't know what they are talking about.

This is a misconception. Zero point energy does not contribute to temperature.

[Trurl]

Scientifically we cannot describe “nothing.”

But what if nothing described something that didn’t exist yet?

Take your own life before your cells existed.  A few seconds earlier it wouldn’t be you it would be a different person. So you are nothing because you didn’t exist and under different conditions may not have existed.

So before you existed you viewed of the universe was nothing.

Would it be the same for the universe?

[Ant Sinclair]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

,

Your words have no value so why bother typing them?

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Your words have no value so why bother typing them?

It was assumed you wanted a conversation, not a pulpit to preach from. Enjoy yourself.

[Ken Fabian]

If you sift through every religious origin of universe story, (with imperfect translation), you might find some that appear to share things in common with modern cosmology. That is not the same as them having actual understanding, superior insight or prescience.

It seems to me more like evidence of the capabilities of human brains to dream and imagine such a wide variety of things that aren't real that occasionally they can imagine something that turns out close to right. Without the observational evidence preferably with supporting measurement it seems like there is no way to know whether you have imagined something correctly or not. Observation and accurate measurements puts boundaries on imagination in the pursuit of understanding - and excludes imaginary forces and explanations where there is no observation or evidence.

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

Scientifically we cannot describe “nothing.”

Why not? Here is the description: "Nothing." What is unscientific about it?

[Gees]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe you should read about Maimonides before we explore 'the enlightenment'. 

Dimreepr;

It doesn't happen often that you help me, but the information about Maimonides was very helpful and informative. Thank you.

Gee

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Found them, made them up, discovered how they behave, IT'S ALL THE SAME! Stop playing semantics.

It is NOT all the same. I have wondered for a long time what the "Phi" in your name stands for as it is very clear you are no philosopher, so the "Phi" can not be short for philosophy. Will you tell me what it stands for?

Gee

32 minutes ago, Genady said:

Why not? Here is the description: "Nothing." What is unscientific about it?

I am going to guess that a few hundred years ago, if a person turned a cup of water upside-down, let it drain, then turned it back upright, it would be assumed to be empty. So nothing would be in it. Right? But science knows that is not true, as there is, at least, air in it.

But I suspect that Trurl was actually thinking of philosophy, rather than science. Isn't it philosophy that says one can not prove a negative? Does that mean that we can not describe a negative? Hmm. I seriously doubt that "nothing" existed before the Universe.

Gee

[Genady]

26 minutes ago, Gees said:

I am going to guess that a few hundred years ago, if a person turned a cup of water upside-down, let it drain, then turned it back upright, it would be assumed to be empty. So nothing would be in it. Right? But science knows that is not true, as there is, at least, air in it.

But I suspect that Trurl was actually thinking of philosophy, rather than science. Isn't it philosophy that says one can not prove a negative? Does that mean that we can not describe a negative? Hmm. I seriously doubt that "nothing" existed before the Universe.

This comment has nothing answering my question.

[Gees]

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

This comment has nothing answering my question.

This was your response and question:

Quote

Why not? Here is the description: "Nothing." What is unscientific about it?

It looks like you made an assertion -- and did not give a description. In order for it to be scientific, it would have to be tested or at least observed. Yes? So did you observe "nothing" or did you test "nothing"?

Gee

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Gees said:

Yes?

No. A description does not need to be tested or observed.

A hypothesis or a prediction does.

(I don't make any claims about existence of nothing, either before or after the universe.)

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, Gees said:

it is very clear you are no philosopher, so the "Phi" can not be short for philosophy. Will you tell me what it stands for?

I do love the sort of mental tickle it brings when arrogant condescending (that means talking down to people, btw) asshats so brazenly and proudly reveal their ignorance for all to see. 

It’s not short for anything. It’s the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet used in numerous ways across mathematics and science. 

I’m sorry about your cancer fight. It’s a damned shame it’s not made you any more tolerable nor any less insufferable. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

It is NOT all the same.

In this context, IT IS. We made up the laws, gave them names and descriptions, based on the way we observed the universe behaving. We didn't invent them, they were there already, but we made up a way to describe them so others could understand and the information could be passed down to future generations. Show me how this is wrong. 

[Gees]

On 1/18/2024 at 6:37 PM, Ant Sinclair said:

I was recently scrolling down a group's posts who's page name was Intelligent Design, one member of the group had posted telling "Atheists: Life Created itself from Nothing", to which I replied "Do others believe it is impossible for nothing to exist?". The OP replied "I agree, there is no "nothing". I suppose the word Nothing could be highly debatable in itself,  but let's presume Nothing means No Energy, Absolute Zero, absence of Atoms, Particles or Electromagnetic Fields, what remains?

These are questions that have been around forever and so far have no resolution. I agree that there is no "nothing", but when we agree to that, it opens the door to the "God" concept or to intelligent design, as it is clear that there is some organized growth in life and in the Universe. So I propose that we accept that there is something that is unknown to us -- that is immaterial -- but seems to have properties. What if we look at this backward and examine what properties would have to be present in order for the Universe to evolve?

On 1/18/2024 at 6:37 PM, Ant Sinclair said:

I read quite a while ago of the Chaldean account of creation in the Chaldean Chronicles, of how the Invisible Spirit at some "time" became aware/sentient, but where was the Invisible Spirit before it became aware/Sentient?

Some "time"? Time did not exist before matter and the Universe existed. You are talking about the "Invisible Spirit" as if it were some thing, or individual, or self -- this is where people come up with "God" ideas. I think it is a mistake to immediately interpret an anthropomorphized being; I prefer looking at properties. 

On 1/18/2024 at 6:37 PM, Ant Sinclair said:

The OP quoted at me the following when I told him I was endeavouring to find out what happened at the very beginning when "nothing" became "something";

"That beginning is already there

As Vedas say "that which exists can never cease to exist. That which does not exist can never begin to exist "

So there was never nothing; there was always something.

On 1/18/2024 at 6:37 PM, Ant Sinclair said:

I agree there has to be "something" and it is impossible for "something" never to have existed, but, I also believe "nothing" has existed. Something came from Nothing, but how?

Most people think that the "nothing" is related to consciousness, whether you call that consciousness "God" or not, but there is a problem with this. The conscious rational aspect of mind does not work outside of time, so it could not have been here before the Universe was here.

Let's look at this backward. Let's reverse engineer the start of the Universe. 😁

There was no time -- so no rational mind.

There was something that makes us think of "God" -- spirit?

There was something that both the Laws of Physics and math are based on -- balance?

There was something that had power -- a force?

There was something that was self-balancing and could seek it's own level, much like water.

There was something that can cause matter to form.

There was something that caused things to bond together or create a oneness.

All of the above are properties of emotion. Science has decided that emotion is nothing.

Gee

1 hour ago, Genady said:

No. A description does not need to be tested or observed.

You do realize that you are posting in the religion forum and that your above comment could be used to validate the "God" idea, because it does not need to be tested or observed?

1 hour ago, Genady said:

A hypothesis or a prediction does.

(I don't make any claims about existence of nothing, either before or after the universe.)

And how do you make a hypothesis or prediction if you do not "observe" what you are talking about? This is the reason why science does not really study consciousness; they study the brain, and generally ignore emotion.

Gee

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, Gees said:

You do realize that you are posting in the religion forum and that your above comment could be used to validate the "God" idea, because it does not need to be tested or observed?

This is baloney. I can describe, e.g., a mermaid, without testing, observing, or believing in it.

[Gees]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I do love the sort of mental tickle it brings when arrogant condescending (that means talking down to people, btw) asshats so brazenly and proudly reveal their ignorance for all to see. 

I bet you do. It makes you feel like you are not the only one. ☺️

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’s not short for anything. It’s the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet used in numerous ways across mathematics and science. 

I know little about science and less about math, so I did not know that. It is why I asked. Thank you for the information. You won't mind if I don't give you an up vote as you usually get them from people who are entertained by your abuse of members. I see you already have two, so I figure I don't owe you any more.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’m sorry about your cancer fight. It’s a damned shame it’s not made you any more tolerable nor any less insufferable. 

The only thing you might be sorry about is that I might die and you will have one less person to abuse.

Gee

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

In this context, IT IS. We made up the laws, gave them names and descriptions, based on the way we observed the universe behaving. We didn't invent them, they were there already, but we made up a way to describe them so others could understand and the information could be passed down to future generations. Show me how this is wrong. 

It is not wrong. It is just very limited. Arguing that you named and described laws of the Universe -- after the Universe came to be -- does nothing to add to this thread.

Gee

[swansont]

On 2/7/2025 at 11:34 AM, Ant Sinclair said:

Phi for All, I agree with the Hindu texts in that there as always been something, that something was empty of anything material and so the only thing(s) that could have existed at first were the theoreticals that became laws of nature including equations etc.

How those laws/equations created what followed the emptiness is my final need to know in science. I have a start on this enigma but the "keystone" eludes me so far.

You originally posted this in religion. Is this a discussion of religion, or science?

[Gees]

22 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is baloney. I can describe, e.g., a mermaid, without testing, observing, or believing in it.

You are right! There is nothing unscientific about that. Why are you arguing about this? It's kind of silly.

Gee

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, Gees said:

You are right! There is nothing unscientific about that. Why are you arguing about this? It's kind of silly.

Gee

It takes two to tango.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

… I might die and you will have one less person…

One fewer 

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I know little about science and less about math

Thank you for confirming the obvious 

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

I bet you do. It makes you feel like you are not the only one. ☺️

I bet you don't understand the irony here; imagine if your maimonides, you devoutly spend every waking moment, reading and learning and collating all that knowledge into a meaningful way to be a grown up and then some kid just spouts the latest troupe from the playground, to make himself look big in front of his mates; that kids going to get a thick ear and the rest of the lesson sat in the corner, with a certain hat on.

IOW, grow up... 🙄

[Ant Sinclair]

I posted an article in Science News a few days ago that shows a recently released image from the Hubble Space Telescope of the Bullseye galaxy. This seems a trifle too coincidental regarding a thread I started back in 2016(Could this be our part of the multiverse) considering the distance away that has been calculated for it of 567mly and the distance I calculated to the centre of the Rings in that thread of 565mly.
I closed that thread as I was unhappy with how it was being received by members of staff here on SF and so never gave further information on those Rings. Below is a short explanation of those Rings and the 6 other pairs I wrote to a friend a few years after I closed the thread. So not only is there similarity between the distance and also the number of rings.
This post may appear to diverge away from my op on this thread but in fact it does not, it follows the light to matter, light is information and equations are information. 

From skyandtelescope.org;
The ring galaxy, nicknamed “Bullseye,” is located 567 million light-years away in the constellation Pisces. It is 250,000 light-years wide, about 2½ times the span of the Milky Way. Bullseye surprised scientists with its many star-filled rings, as previously observed collisional ring galaxies feature a maximum of two or three rings. The Yale-led team found eight rings in Hubble data and a ninth ring in data from the Keck Observatory in Hawai‘i; they also used data from the Dragonfly Telephoto Array, which is designed to image objects with extremely faint surface brightness. The images appear in the February 10th Astrophysical Journal Letters.

 

At the centre of our multiverse are 9 pairs of rings made of a “magnetic” material, they are currently 565 million light years away from us and we're are moving further away from the centre every second. The saying "the earth is the centre of the universe(multiverse)" wasn't quite true but that the earth was at the centre 565 million years ago.
Each pair of rings are in proportion to Pi and the √Pi, the largest pair are 3.14159km diameter and 1.7724km, the rings decrease in size by a 1000 fold for each of the following pairs ie the next pair are 3.14159m and 1.7724m, the next pair are 3.14159mm and 1.7724mm, the next pair are 3.14159micrometres and 1.7724micrometres and so on down to the 9th smallest pair.
The larger of each pair of rings spin forward creating a wave and the smaller of the pair spins sideways, as the smaller ring spins sideways it creates a wave that collides with the forward wave created by the larger ring creating a spiral wave, this is Phi, the spiral of Life.
There was no Big-Bang, it was a Big Switching On.
Tesla gave us much information with his 3, 6 and 9, these expand as follows;
3, 3^2 and 3^3 ie 3, 9 and 27, 6, 6^2 and 6^3 ie 6, 36 and 216(216 being half of the divine 432), 9, 9^2 and 9^3 ie 9, 81 and 729, these are the 8 Scalar Waves that create our magnetic ship(our multiverse and life creating/supporting apparatus).
The 9, 81 and 729 are Octagonal Centered numbers and the fractal of our multiverse.
The 6, 36 and 216 are the Phi properties of our multiverse.
The 3 and 27 are "magical" and hard to put into words.
When Caltech recorded it's"first gravitational wave" they placed a marker at around 1.3million metres wavelength, divide this into the speed of light gives a frequency of 216Hz, one of the 9 expanded Tesla numbers, "if only you knew the magnificence of 3 6 and 9 you would hold the key to the universe".
These rings were placed in the primordial soup, and when they were switched on created the frequency Max Planck spoke of "the vibration that allowed atoms to combine", At-Um = Gate-Design, when the ancients chanted Um(not Aum) they simply were chanting "design" ie the Creators Design.
The Mantra the "Green Tara" is as follows;
Um Ta Re = Design Star Re
Tu Ta Re = Priest Star Re
Tu Re = Priest Re
Su O I-A = Red Ring Eye-Heavenly

Edited Sunday at 12:44 PM by Ant Sinclair