“the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.” –Nathaniel Branden

The misconception of time has misled us into thinking there has to be something that created existence. Time is our creation. It’s a way for us to make sense of motion from our perception. What actually exists is matter and energy that are in motion. What truly exists has always existed and will always exist. A supernatural god does not exist for this simple reason, existence doesnt require a creator.

“the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.” –Nathaniel Branden

The misconception of time has misled us into thinking there has to be something that created existence. Time is our creation. It’s a way for us to make sense of motion from our perception. What actually exists is matter and energy that are in motion. What truly exists has always existed and will always exist. A supernatural god does not exist for this simple reason, existence doesnt require a creator.

I concur with no God but find fault with your eternal existance theory.

To have existed eternally means you must have accumulated an infinite number of time intervals (regardless of the units of time measure you choose to use).

By definition "Infinity" is larger than any number, hence you cannot have accumulated any number of time intervals so as to have reached infinity or eternity.

The solution is coming into existance, without any creation occuring. This seems paradoxial at first; however, it can be rationalized.

If "N" is Nothingness and "s" is Something then the expression:

N -----------> (+s) + (-s) states that Nothingness can become +/- Somethings where the net affect can be viewed as 0 = (+1) + (-1).

That is we must assume that our existance is merely bifurcated Nothingness. In which case there is no creation but a change of form from nothing to something that collectively still equals Nothing.

This has actually been partof a scientific paper by Dr Tyron, a physicist:

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

The net energy of the observable universe calculates to "Zero".!

I don't agree, time doesn't apply to existence because time presupposes existence. Re-read the quote from my first post.

There are two options: nothingness and existence. They are separate and distinct, one cannot become the other. If one exists it exists eternally.

I don't agree, time doesn't apply to existence because time presupposes existence. Re-read the quote from my first post.

There are two options: nothingness and existence. They are separate and distinct, one cannot become the other. If one exists it exists eternally.

This of course is shear supposition. You should not only address the implications of my formula but the calculations that our current existance is comprised of NO net energy.

I know you have not had time to read Prof Tyron's work yet. You should do that before pronouncing the view invalid. It appears to be a reality and therefore must be confronted, accepted or falsified by means other than rhetoric.

I don't agree that there is a physical universe, it's created by the observer. Zoom enough into matter and you'll find nothing, because the universe consists of nothing (ie. Mind) Consciousness is the creator of the universe, it recreates itself differently in each moment. The creation is continous. If the effect is present, the cause is present.

MacM, I read the link you provided. If 2.0 x 10^53 kg is the mass of the universe how do you know the total energy 0?

MacM, I read the link you provided. If 2.0 x 10^53 kg is the mass of the universe how do you know the total energy 0?

You obviously haven't read the full works or didn't understand what you read.

Mass is only one form of energy, there is radiant energy of stars etc, gravity and time all involved.

Gravity is part of the cycle of flowing energy which constitutes time. That part of energy in mass form is balanced by kenetic energy and is absorbed as gravity by mass, etc,

I certainly cannot reduce several chapters of lengthy mathematics to a post here to explain it all but it is all in his presentation.

I suggest you finish reading or re-read his work.

MacM, I read the link you provided. If 2.0 x 10^53 kg is the mass of the universe how do you know the total energy 0?
what Id like to know is HOW does he calculate the mass of the universe in the first place??

quote from the same site
According to Tryon's theory if a mass (M) were to fall to the edge of universe from an infinite distance away, the gravitational potential energy lost by the mass will equal its mass energy. /quote

so theres an edge at the end of the universe now?
reminds me of a flat earth belief people used to have at one time.

scorpious, read the footnote on that page and it says how he knows theres no edges but just for the sake of the equation hes able to derive one of the variables using it, nevertheless i still disagree with the entire argument.

The universe doesn't require a beginning. If there was a time when no universe existed, time wouldn't exist (because time presupposes existence). Therefore the universe is eternal. I still haven't had anyone refute my argument.

MacM- you say nothing can be infinite, but infinity is a measurment of time, and that doesn't apply to the universe.

The universe doesn't require a beginning. If there was a time when no universe existed, time wouldn't exist (because time presupposes existence). Therefore the universe is eternal. I still haven't had anyone refute my argument.

Well now you have. I refute your arguement.

Eternity translates into infinite time. You cannot argue eternity in absence of time. Timelessness does to equate to eternity. Your mixing of the meanings of terms to suit your arguement has you claiming an infinite accumulation of nothing? Nothing and eternity are clearly different consequences.

MacM- you say nothing can be infinite, but infinity is a measurment of time, and that doesn't apply to the universe.

Whaaaa? Nothing, including time can become infinite. Time is measured in intervals. Eternity would be the accumulation of an infinite number of time intervals.

By definition infinity is greater than any countable number. By definition nothing physical can become infinite. Nothing physical can ever become larger than itself.

Infinity is substantially restricted to mathematical applications to set limits in calculus, etc, not as some definition of anything physical.

What on earth do you mean time doesn't apply to the universe? That makes no sense.

We do have some elements of agreement here. Before our existance as a universe there was Nothing, including "No" time. Hence our existance as coming from (or comprised of) Nothing is unavoidably inherent.

As my formula indicates however, our existance from Nothing is not creation ex nihilo because nothing has been created. It still all equals "Zero".

Our existance is simply bifurcated nothingness. Not an easy thing to visulaize but give it some thought. It seems the best, if not only, alternative to miracles or Gods, which I refuse to even consider.

what Id like to know is HOW does he calculate the mass of the universe in the first place??

quote from the same site
According to Tryon's theory if a mass (M) were to fall to the edge of universe from an infinite distance away, the gravitational potential energy lost by the mass will equal its mass energy. /quote

so theres an edge at the end of the universe now?
reminds me of a flat earth belief people used to have at one time.

You need to understand the differance in the uses of the term infinity. Infinity is a mathematical concept and has no physical reality.

To state falling an infnite distance, is a mathematical construct for calculation purposes, it doesn't actually state or mean a physically infinite size to the universe. Nothing physical can become infinite.

Hence therefore the universe being physical must be finite. You take that to mean an edge which certainly confuses the uninitiated. You must understand that being finite (having a bounding limit) doesn't mean an "Edge" in the normal sense.

This is not an egg shell limit of which the question of "What is beyond the shell?" applies. The limit becomes the absence of time-space. Nothing (not meaning a void) can exist without time-space. There is no dimension for anything to exist beyond in.

Why do you believe the universe has always existed?

The universe doesn't require a beginning. If there was a time when no universe existed, time wouldn't exist (because time presupposes existence). Therefore the universe is eternal. I still haven't had anyone refute my argument.

What happens to time at the speed of light according to General Relativity? Start from there.

Then consider a definition of time. Examine every assumption for validity.

Once you start critically examing what we think we know, then real questions will appear.

Well now you have. I refute your arguement.


Whaaaa? Nothing, including time can become infinite. Time is measured in intervals. Eternity would be the accumulation of an infinite number of time intervals.

By definition infinity is greater than any countable number. By definition nothing physical can become infinite. Nothing physical can ever become larger than itself.

Infinity is substantially restricted to mathematical applications to set limits in calculus, etc, not as some definition of anything physical.



I disagree. Or rather, I would introduce an alternative view of what "infinity" means. The definition you use, which is the conventional one, involves something greater than any countable number. The assumption in this, I believe, is that infinity is a quantity. However, I think a more fruitful way is to look at it in the opposite direction, so to speak. In-finity literally means "without finiteness or end." Rather than saying this means "really lots of something beyond count," we might look at it as "undivided." In other words, "without divisions and and in that sense without end." Wholeness. One.

Time shouldn't be considered a noun. It should be considered a verb. "To time," i.e., to create intervals. As living and subjective beings, our very existence is indexed to intervalizing what I suppose is an otherwise undivided wholeness. Of course, we are not alone in that. There is cultural time, sure, but also psychological time, biological time, even cycles on a physics level that are a kind of "timing." If we try to think "around" that - to peer into the interval between designated events (and all events are designated as such) without creating more intervals - that is where we might find infinity, i.e. undivided wholeness - both in space and in what we have been calling "time."

The word "eternal" comes to mind. Not in the sense of "zillions of years," but rather the absence of years. The absence of centuries. The absence of minutes, seconds, nanoseconds. Just the pure wholeness that may be the flipside of the divided world that we dwell on. Well, I think we have one foot in each realm :-)

Naturally, this "eternal" view of the cosmos can alter our views of what birth and death mean, as well as so-called "afterlife" (which becomes meaningless if we think, instead, in terms of re-joining the eternal that has no before or after), along with the reasons for our life experience.

I disagree. Or rather, I would introduce an alternative view of what "infinity" means. The definition you use, which is the conventional one, involves something greater than any countable number. The assumption in this, I believe, is that infinity is a quantity. However, I think a more fruitful way is to look at it in the opposite direction, so to speak. In-finity literally means "without finiteness or end." Rather than saying this means "really lots of something beyond count," we might look at it as "undivided." In other words, "without divisions and and in that sense without end." Wholeness. One.

I have seen and even Webster applies both definitions. I have no objection with either.

Naturally, this "eternal" view of the cosmos can alter our views of what birth and death mean, as well as so-called "afterlife" (which becomes meaningless if we think, instead, in terms of re-joining the eternal that has no before or after), along with the reasons for our life experience.

I much prefer the watching and counting of time intervals to becoming eternal:D

After reading the replies to this thread, only one thing is clear!!! None of you know anything about the Universe (so it is called) Time, Nature, Life are only words created by man to try an explain what he thinks he knows about creation but knows nothing at all. Even if there is a Living creator, something still created HIM. The only thing we truly know is that we are here and the events that happen in this world and especially on this planet has sustained our existence. ;)

After reading the replies to this thread, only one thing is clear!!! None of you know anything about the Universe (so it is called) Time, Nature, Life are only words created by man to try an explain what he thinks he knows about creation but knows nothing at all. Even if there is a Living creator, something still created HIM. The only thing we truly know is that we are here and the events that happen in this world and especially on this planet has sustained our existence. ;)

Your post didn't show that you very much yourself. :bugeye:

Time is merely relative motion. Infinity has no significance in regards to the universe of a whole. Time is not a path on which things are accumulated like you say. Time is just movement. Your misconception of time is what leads you to believe the universe can't be eternal. Existence doesn't require a beginning.

Time is merely relative motion. Infinity has no significance in regards to the universe of a whole. Time is not a path on which things are accumulated like you say. Time is just movement. Your misconception of time is what leads you to believe the universe can't be eternal. Existence doesn't require a beginning.

And you have proof of your views? From where, based on what?

My view is completely logical, if you hold an entity-based view of causation. If you trace a causal chain backwards, you might come to a first event that was caused simply by the nature of existence, therefore you would not have an infinite sequence. My view is opposite to that of an event-based view of causation (determinism).

My analysis of time is fact. Time is a measurement of motion; as such it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe when you define a standard. The universe itself cannot be measured in temporal terms. It is "eternal" or outside the scope of the concept of time.

My conception of the universe as eternal does not mean that time extends infinitely into the past or future. Rather, it means that even if time is bounded -- that is, even if there was a first measurable time or will be a last measurable time -- one cannot coherently speak of this boundary as marking the "beginning" or "end" of the universe itself. Time-based concepts are not applicable to the universe as a whole. So, for example, to say that the "age of the universe" is 15 billion years (or whatever) is an inaccurate use of the concept of age. It would be more accurate to speak of the earliest known event having occurred 15 billion years ago. Specific events can be placed in time. The universe itself cannot.

alteredperception ,

It does seem then that your view is based on your own reinterpretation of physics.

That doesn't make you inherently wrong but it certainly leaves considerable burden upon you to support your claims. So far you assertions are simply hollow comments devoid of any supportable facts.

I have provided a mathematical model supporting my view. Can you do the same?

MacM,

A mathematical model may add somewhat to the integrity of my theory, but in my mind it would seem unnecessary. I will try to find some numerical support of my theory, because I know some exists already. Of course I am no mathematician, I am strictly a philosopher, but just because the math works doesn't mean the theory is the best account of reality. The String Theory, for instance, looks good on paper, but it probably isn't reality.

As for your theory, I will refute some of the premises when I have time later today.

I don't see why you say there didn't have to be a beginning to things. Most of you are supporting it with mathematical statements, but motion has to be caused by another force in motion. If time is a motion or force, it had to be initiated by another force, what most people would consider to be God.

Yuri- time isn't motion or a force. Time is a measurement of motion.

But if everything has always been in motion (because force can't start from no force), you can trace the reactions back and back until the first reaction and force. I guess there could have been all of this stuff going on for eternity but I find it hard to imagine anything without a beginning. That was my original point but I guess I worded it poorly.

Specific events can be placed in time. The universe itself cannot.

Perhaps this is a good "time" to introduce a distinction between the idea of universe and the idea of cosmos. Universe might be thought of as the observed universe, which includes space and time. It has size and age. Cosmos might be thought of as the totality that is undivided, which has no size nor age, which includes everything and is nothing.

But if everything has always been in motion (because force can't start from no force), you can trace the reactions back and back until the first reaction and force. I guess there could have been all of this stuff going on for eternity but I find it hard to imagine anything without a beginning. That was my original point but I guess I worded it poorly.

Here is where I think my General Theory of Movement comes in handy. Rather than think of everything being in motion, think of movement itself as the substance of which things are made. It's hard to work with - kind of like imagining a wave without water. It is akin to the idea of the "holomovement" that physicist David Bohm came up with.

I like your explanation of time and the cosmos onefinity. I think were on the right track.

Heres a quote from another thread I started, I dont know if youv'e read this but its interesting. It effectively conveys how the universe (existence) doesn't require a cause.

"Is there any need for a first cause?

by Nathaniel Branden:

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

There is nowhere else to go."

Since you are not advocating a God origin, we are very much in general agreement and I would not debate my view vs yours with any real enthusiasm.

However your closing disregards at least one other reasonable alternative.

The N-->(+s) + (-s) solution where the universe comes into existance without any creation. That is the realization that all there is when recombined equals "Zero".

If existance equals zero then we are merely here on borrowed time of bifurcated Nothing. Nothing (not as an enity) was created it merely changed from nothing into equal and opposite somethings which collectively still equals nothing..

MacM,

I'm sure your theory probably works out fine on paper, just as the string theory. But when you apply the mathematical variables to terms such as "nothing" and "bifurcated nothing" does it still work? From my understanding, nothing by definition cannot divide into two parts.

MacM,

I'm sure your theory probably works out fine on paper, just as the string theory. But when you apply the mathematical variables to terms such as "nothing" and "bifurcated nothing" does it still work? From my understanding, nothing by definition cannot divide into two parts.

I would admit that the idea of Nothing becoming bifurcated seems superficially strange but that is only because of our preconcieved ideas.

We must either reinterprete certain thoughts about reality or suffer some rather nasty consequences. i.e.

1 - Eternal existance hence never was created. Which I find absolutely ludricrus. Show me anything that exists which never came into existance. :bugeye: As pointed out the appeal to eternity gets into infinity which by definition is impossible and it really is no better answer than God which is totally unacceptable.

2 - Creation ex nihilo. That too doesn't really provide an answer does it.

3 - The idea that we exist with no creation being required via the bifurcated Nothingness concept where our existance comprises no creation having occured since the totality of existance still equals "Zero".

This view is along the lines of QM and the "Uncertainty Principle" except this is long term vs the temporary creation of virtual particles due to uncertainity, etc.

Come on folks, use some critical thinking here.

If you can locate even one segment of existence without time, it changes the whole question and makes Brandon's argument meaningless.

Look closely at time at the speed of light according to General Relativity.

MacM,

Unfortunately, I would say the majority of our ideas are preconceived. I am curious as to how you interpret reality and nothingness so it works with the "bifurcated nothingness concept". This theory seems ludicrous to me, just as eternal existence does to you. Asking "what caused existence?" is a ludicrous question because if something caused existence that something would, by definition, be apart of existence. See my logic?

I think people need to reinterpret certain thoughts about time, infinity, existence, and causality and they will see the logic.

"All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality".

MacM,

Unfortunately, I would say the majority of our ideas are preconceived. I am curious as to how you interpret reality and nothingness so it works with the "bifurcated nothingness concept". This theory seems ludicrous to me, just as eternal existence does to you. Asking "what caused existence?" is a ludicrous question because if something caused existence that something would, by definition, be apart of existence. See my logic?

I think people need to reinterpret certain thoughts about time, infinity, existence, and causality and they will see the logic.

"All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality".

Ask yourself this question: "What cause is required to create nothing?"

Come on folks, use some critical thinking here.

If you can locate even one segment of existence without time, it changes the whole question and makes Brandon's argument meaningless.

Look closely at time at the speed of light according to General Relativity.

That would be Special Relativity not General Relativity.

You are correct. Timelessness is not the same as eternity and eternity invokes infinity which is a physical impossability by definition.

MacM,

Were obviously not understanding eachother. I just stated my view about causality. I guess I'll say it again. Causality presupposes existence. Nothing doesn't exist.

I understand that something being infinite by definition is impossible, but that doesn't apply to the totality of existence. There cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But that doesn't mean the universe is not eternal, because causality, by defintion, does NOT apply to existence as a whole. "Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time."

Explain your bifurcated nothingness theory to me in a way similar to how I have explained my eternal existence theory to you. How do you rationalize it and articulate your reasons?

MacM,

Were obviously not understanding eachother. I just stated my view about causality. I guess I'll say it again. Causality presupposes existence. Nothing doesn't exist.

I understand that something being infinite by definition is impossible, but that doesn't apply to the totality of existence. There cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But that doesn't mean the universe is not eternal, because causality, by defintion, does NOT apply to existence as a whole. "Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time."

Explain your bifurcated nothingness theory to me in a way similar to how I have explained my eternal existence theory to you. How do you rationalize it and articulate your reasons?

I do not think that you and I may contribute to this old symatic issue. The following is an excellent balanced collections of philosphers addressing this question.

It would be fool hardy indeed for either one of us to presuppose that we have the ultimate answer but requires us to further consider both views in the search for our own truths.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Well it sounds like you are in fact skeptical about your bifurcated nothingness concept. But I, on the other hand, believe in an eternal universe. Nevertheless I continually try to find alternative views and arguments because I want to find more evidence in favor or against my view. I am very open-minded and if I learn about a more reasonable view about the universe I will accept it and disregard my current view without even thinking twice.

I would suggest a variation of these ideas. William James posed a question about 100 years ago: how can the universe be both whole (undivided, which is the same as saying nothing or literally "No Thing") AND yet full of stuff (as it obviously, pragmatically is), at the same time? When we take into account the insights from quantum physics as well as from cognitive science (specifically the work of Maturana and Varela on autopoiesis), we see that the role of the SUBJECT or observer cannot be ignored in this question. The physicist David Bohm developed a good model with the idea of a constant shifting between an undivided wholeness or "implicate order," which is like a background with no boundary, and a formed, observed universe called the "explicate order." This shifting between them he called the holomovement. And indeed, this shifting itself, in the model, is the very substance of all. Weird. Not energy, not matter, but movement from which matter and energy emerge as as aspects of the explicate (observed/created) order. Time (as an act of measurement) would, of course, emerge with the explicate order as well.

Now, all of this begs the question: what is the observer? What are we, if we are wrapped up in this thing that we are wrapping? What is the role of perspective and this continuous creation and destruction of form in a manner that gives us a sense of stability even as we are part of the very chaos of it? (And a part of that stability is the NEED for us to think in terms of CAUSE --> EFFECT, and thus "WHEN was the 'start' of existence?"

How do you think this fits into the discussion?

Well it sounds like you are in fact skeptical about your bifurcated nothingness concept.

Not at all. I am very convienced that neither "Eternal Existance, hence No Creation" nor God(s) have any merit what-so-ever.

Unlike some that would take their confidence to a level of claiming absolute proof, I retain at least the pragmatic notion that I too am not infaliable.

Further that neither you nor I will ever prove our belief's hence I present my view and you can consider it or don't. I have done the same for your view and I don't. So that apparently leaves us at status quo.

You can rant and rave that my view is irrational and yours is perfect but that should lead others to question your ability to assess reality.


But I, on the other hand, believe in an eternal universe. Nevertheless I continually try to find alternative views and arguments because I want to find more evidence in favor or against my view. I am very open-minded and if I learn about a more reasonable view about the universe I will accept it and disregard my current view without even thinking twice.[/QUOTE]

I was not familiar with William James, but now I'm reading up on him and am very interested in what he says. I can tell how him being a pyschologist has influenced his view on the universe. He says the individual observer is the center of the universe for that the person. He also says experiences add quantitatively to the mass of the universe. I don't think I agree with him. He seems to think of the universe as being an abstract internalized subjective entity that we change by merely experiencing it. I think he gets to metaphysical for me :)

MacM, I never said my view was perfect, I acknowledged how I am always testing its validity and comparing to other views.

Well, William James was very brilliant. Known as a pragmatist, but he was open to other possibilities. He was highly critical of thinkers of the 19th century who believed that the true universe was an undivided wholeness, but more because of the flimsiness of their arguments than because of a lack of validity to the idea. In the last book he wrote before his death - or a collection of his last presentations - called A Pluralistic Universe, he puts some very strong thinking together. And of course, it is important to be able to create strong models than to simply argue opinions, eh?

To have existed eternally means you must have accumulated an infinite number of time intervals (regardless of the units of time measure you choose to use).

By definition "Infinity" is larger than any number, hence you cannot have accumulated any number of time intervals so as to have reached infinity or eternity.

The solution is coming into existance, without any creation occuring. This seems paradoxial at first; however, it can be rationalized.

If "N" is Nothingness and "s" is Something then the expression:

N -----------> (+s) + (-s) states that Nothingness can become +/- Somethings where the net affect can be viewed as 0 = (+1) + (-1).

That is we must assume that our existance is merely bifurcated Nothingness. In which case there is no creation but a change of form from nothing to something that collectively still equals Nothing.



MacM

If "nothing" ever existed it would have to be infinite. It would have to be an infinite void or absence of all existence. Nothing would not be "0" in your formula but "infinite 0". Can an "infinite" be divided into 2 parts?

It may be interesting to also look at two myths from our ancestors--concerning their symbolism and metphor regarding the 'emergence of time'

Greek: "The great feminine principle is Space (Rhea, the ancient Greek Titaness, whose name means 'flow' or rhythm). The great masculine principle is Time (the Titan Chronus, husband of Rhea, whose name means 'time' e.g 'chron'ology; 'chrono'meter )......

China: [the empty circle is] "Creatrix, That which Is, Wu chi/Original chaos, Ground Neghentropy"....
[and the s-shaped line added (ie., the yin/yang symbol)] is "Creator, Is Change, T'ai chi/Discrimination/Meaning/Entropy. " (Fruits of the Moon Tree: The Medicine
Wheel & Transpersonal Psychology, by Alan Bleakley)

So we can see how those two myths seem to correlate metaphorically. That the idea is that 'time' Is born from ground/universe rather than vice versa.
so i wonder then: what is time? is it connected to thinking. to rational abstractioning

one thing i have also learnt. that the patriarchy introduced clocks onto churches to opresses pagans peoples out of a sense of ORGANIC time-a movement with the seasons, etc - and introduce mechanical time by the tick tock clock

MacM

If "nothing" ever existed it would have to be infinite. It would have to be an infinite void or absence of all existence. Nothing would not be "0" in your formula but "infinite 0". Can an "infinite" be divided into 2 parts?

Sorry I mean no disrespect but you are babbeling.

Much ado about nothing.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sorry I mean no disrespect but you are babbeling.

Hi MacM,

Nice to talk with you again. I am merely trying to understand your concept. To do that I will need to ask a few questions.

I found the following quote regarding this topic.

Definition of nothing.

“The use of the word 'nothing' has a very special meaning in this context, unlike our every day use of the word. It means here quite literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also, it should be noted, excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.”

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm


Question 1:

Is “Absolute Nothingness” a finite or an infinite condition?

Hi MacM,

Nice to talk with you again.Question 1:

Is “Absolute Nothingness” a finite or an infinite condition?

It seems to me to begin to assert qualities to "Nothing" unintentionally causes it become something. To claim it must be an infinite void is over reaching in that there is no proof (indeed it would be impossible) for the universe to be infinite, therefore one is claiming Nothingness is bigger than all existance.

It can't be bigger, or even as big or have any size and still be Nothing.

The only definition I have found that seems suitable is "The absence of time-space". It is in this view that calling Nothing a void is nonsense. A void occupies space, So a void wouldn't be Nothingness.

I started this thread to show how the universe can in fact be infinite. One must realize that time presupposes existence. I also explained how causality presupposes existence. Therefore, the totality of existence requires no outside first cause (such as God).

Interesting, everyone is theoretically correct because no one definatively knows the answer as yet but... I have my own opinion, if anyone's interested.

I think the universe is most definately finite as it started out as being incredably small and powerful being just a bit of hydrogen and helium fusing to make lithium and so on creating much heat etc in the process until big bang.
I might have the chemicals confused but I think it started with these basic elements.
Anyway, I think it is proven that the universe is still expanding, thus by definition it is finite, how could it get bigger if it had reached a maximum, i.e infinity.
I beleive there will be no retraction, I think the universe is destined to continue expanding within dark matter.
I also beleive this universe is just one that exists within a larger enviroment.
We look at distances as we do time, in our terms, based on our own life expectancy span and our time in existance. Negliagable in the scheme of things. The universe is thought of the same because it really is difficult for us to comprehend the distances and sizes in question.
We must be expanding into something.
There is an underlying...force of sorts, a forward motion , the same power that drives life, survival of the fitest and evolution, a forward driving force that has some universal laws, from the micro to the macro enviroments. Laws that constrain equalibrium, that contain enviroments that evolve through change. It really is miraculous in it's size and complexity and pure brilliance in it's simplicity and humbling by it's power.
I could go on but maybe some other time.
I think we are so mislead by religon, which basically says that it was all created by a god that was made in our own image, how arrogant we humans are!
Anyway.

The only definition I have found that seems suitable is "The absence of time-space".

MacM:

Here is another quote from the same site above:

"Could nothing have existed in the past? No. If it existed in the past, then some event must have taken place to end it. An event would be impossible in nothing, so nothing could never have existed because we do, and as our universe now exists, nothing can never exist in the future either. Why could an event not happen in nothing? Because apart from the obvious that there is nothing to happen, an event would create and require a moment in time. There can be no time in nothing as relativity describes time as just another dimension.

As for Time, without it nothing must have always existed, it can not have a beginning or end because either would create a moment in time. It would in reality be meaningless to ask how long nothing has existed and how long it will continue to exist, it would be eternal and unchanging. Again, because we exist, nothing could not have had an existence because the creation of the universe would have required a significant change, thus contravening an unchanging nothing."

Question 2:

Is a condition where we have the complete "absence of time-space" a condition where change-over-time can ever occur?

hello everybody

its interesting to read this thread......

i agree i dont know that much as u all are discussing about.

from the thread got so many answers definitions, layouts, fixing sentinels for the meaning of time, infinity/...................

but i could not see one definition or an attempt to bring in the meaning of God,

i just dont know how would u bring the feel, belief, a moment of impulse into picture with formulas and besides disproving or approving that,

if that is the case, no testing or derivations (LHS = RHS) could withstand the disapprovement or agreeing the above statement in the subject

One of the major errors of Physics comes from the ignorance of what a cause is. Since they believe that the cause is the origin IN time, they search for an explanation of the existence of the universe in its past. This is impossible. If the effect is present, the cause is present. Time and the universe are the same thing, hence you cannot explain the universe within time. Time cannot start somewhere in time, neither can the universe.

Generally, instead of causes, science searches for the ORIGIN of things. An origin is not a cause (even the triggering factor is not the cause). Both origins and triggering factors take place in the memory of things, in the "past". But not the cause. The cause of something cannot take place in the past.

EVERYTHING PAST IS AN EFFECT, AND AN EFFECT IS A CREATION OF THE CAUSE.

When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. Quantum physicists could have guessed that if they tried to observe the present reality of particles, they would be bound to banish the idea of "particle".

Can an effect be the cause of another effect? As a rule,we tend to think so, but this is a mistake. Every sequential effect is the result of a cause which is THE GOAL. The cause is a PRESENT NECESSITY, producing effects in order to be realized.

The cause is always present, and it is only by studying the present that you can grasp the cause.

What is visible is always illusory, an illusion produced by a cause but unable to create anything. The cause cannot be visible. The present cannot be visible. It is the creator of appearances.

For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed. HENCE THE CAUSE IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE, and apparent reality is always illusory. This is why when Physics tries to seize the atoms' reality, it discovers... nothingness.

Creation takes place at each present moment. Not in the past once and for all, but at every moment.

-

If we take note of Heisenberg, we realize that if we do Physics (which consists in considering the observed world as being "external"), we cannot understand anything about the universe: have you ever seen a cause?

We cannot find the cause by observing effects.
What is visible is the result of a cause.
There is no visible cause.

Nonetheless, Heisenberg and many others continue to do physics and refuse all metaphysical incursions which, in studying the mind (the invisible world of causes) that observes the visible universe (the world of effects), enables us to understand things. Matter is a form of our mind, and Metaphysics unifies matter and mind by including matter IN mind (it is impossible to include mind into matter).

In reality, we can only understand things because they are INTERIOR to our mind. And the LOGIC discovered therein is the manifestation of the evident identity of natures between our reason and matter.

Interesting, everyone is theoretically correct because no one definatively knows the answer as yet but...

Well, I don't know if I'd buy the idea that "everyone is theoretically correct." I say this because an opinion or viewpoint is not the same as a theory, which is a model. And there are stronger and weaker models, based on how well they work for us. However, I would agree that everyone is partially correct. After all, to have a perspective is to be a participant, and co-creator, in that which is being viewed :-)

A supernatural god does not exist for this simple reason, existence doesnt require a creator.

Hi alteredperception,

How does existence exclude a supernatural God if He is existence itself?

If you define God as the totality of existence, then God exists. But that is not the normal definition. Most religions consider God to be a supernatural being.

hi alteredperception,

as per ur definition,

if we assume God exists - u give the definition as 'totality of existence'
and u have stated that most religiions consider God to be a supernatural being

what is the actual context if u do give meaning as 'totality of existence'

u have laid uncertain seamless sentinels, boundaries for the required question ....
i believe for an instinct which is beyond ur control for which u surrender (without ur knowledge ur conscience may surrender) noway a definition, explanation meaning could be given.

Perceptions could only be perceived.......... I believe

MacM:

Q1: Symantics.

Question 2:

Is a condition where we have the complete "absence of time-space" a condition where change-over-time can ever occur?

What do you propose that would change which exists and occupies no space?

What time?

What do you propose that would change which exists and occupies no space?

What time?

MacM,

Existence right now is in a condition which has "time-space". How can a condition of "Absolute Nothingness" where we have the complete and absolute absence of "time-space" ever change into a condition where we have "time-space"? How can this change ever occur under an initial condition which by its own definition cannot ever change in any way? This change of condition requires time but we have no time-space in our initial condition. So how could this change ever occur?

Thank You!

MacM,

Existence right now is in a condition which has "time-space". How can a condition of "Absolute Nothingness" where we have the complete and absolute absence of "time-space" ever change into a condition where we have "time-space"? How can this change ever occur under an initial condition which by its own definition cannot ever change in any way? This change of condition requires time but we have no time-space in our initial condition. So how could this change ever occur?

Thank You!

You make to many assumptions. You assume to know that an instantaneous change is impossible - Ignoring particle entanglement, etc.

We aren't nearly as smart as we think we are. You cannot ascribe our current thinking and impose limitations on processes which we do not understand.

If you can explain particle entanglement then perhaps you would be qualified to comment.

Thank you.

Well, I don't know if I'd buy the idea that "everyone is theoretically correct." I say this because an opinion or viewpoint is not the same as a theory, which is a model. And there are stronger and weaker models, based on how well they work for us. However, I would agree that everyone is partially correct. After all, to have a perspective is to be a participant, and co-creator, in that which is being viewed :-)

Firstly, thank you for reading my post.
I agree, a theory is most definately not an opinion although ones opinion correctly articulated could form one i suppose. This is always my problem, properly articulating what's in me noggin!

I'm glad I found this forum, it seems to have some decent heads contributing, I've got a bit more time on my hands ATM so I'll try and contribute a bit more myself.