Well, I am exploring where no one has gone before. It is to be expected I will get lost here and there. This is unfamiliar terrain, to everybody.
You mean you just shoved two of your favourite buzzwords into Google, came up with this chunk of mathematics and now you want to pass it off as somehow profound, even though, or perhaps because, you don't understand a word of it.
And you feel qualified to pass that judgement? Tell me where I am wrong instead of slinging your ad hominems again. Admit it, you have no clue as to what I am talking about. Perhaps you are not intelligent enough to understand the mathematical nature of the universe. That's not my problem, it's yours. You'll have to do better if you want to intimidate me with your scientific acumen. I've given you every courtesy in the past, but my patience with you has finished. Click!
Not possible to tell you where you are wrong as it is impossible to work out what you are saying.....oh wait, he's gone. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
river Write4U , response ; Disagree Timeless means , implies no ; beginning nor end . There is no first " instant " . Nor beginning . Further ; without the physical reality of all states of energy and matter , there is no time . Nor " timelessness " . The Physical Reality of the Universe is infinite . ( it can never not be , infinite ) . Therefore timeless when measured .
This universe did have a beginning. It is the moment after the BB and the chaotic "first instant" (inflationary epoch), when we started counting time as an emergent measurement of "duration" of the chronological evolution of the universe and we could apply the term "spacetime" and "space geometry", i.e. the formation of patterns within the spatial geometry. Before then there is only speculation such as "nothingness" or "timeless infinity", or as Bohm hypothesized "pure potential". No one really knows anything about a pre-BB condition, not that I am aware of. This is why theists are able to claim a supernatural creator being. Of course they also have no clue either, but use the opportunity to feed their ego of being created in God's image.
That is the real question isn't it? One can make a case that nothing is a permittive condition that allows for the emergence of something. One can also make a case that what appears to be nothing is a zero state of something which has as yet escaped our observation.
Yes you can. Nothing is a permittive condition. Actually, nothing is permittive of everything. It may not be causal to anything, but then again it might. Perhaps nothingness creates a demand for something. But lets turn it around. Are you claiming that nothing is a restrictive condition? How would that work? Right, but outside our observation. There are many things beyond our direct observational ability. Why do you think we spent billions of dollars to construct the Cern collider, just to observe a Higgs boson? There was only an abstract mathematical prediction of the existence of the Higgs. It is completely beyond our observation unless we imitate conditions which are about 100,000 times the temperature of the sun. That's why Peter Higgs received a Nobel prize. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/313922-cern-collider-hadron-higgs/ And if there is something (or nothing) apart from this universe, how do you propose to study it, leave this universe? I think the point is that there are restrictions to our reality which we cannot overcome. Our Universe is a restrictive as well as a permittive condition. Nothing is fundamentally permittive of everything.
Correct, and we do indeed live in a mathematical universe, however in a physical universe mathematical values and functions impose permissions and restrictions 1 + 1 = 2 (not 3)
Best speculation has it that our universe did arise from nothing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing] Certainly Krauss received plenty of flack from philosophers and his rather demeaning opinion of them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The other point is that while the universe arising from nothing, appears logical [as opposed to ID] perhaps its our definition of nothing that needs redefining.... perhaps nothing is the quantum foam from whence the BB evolved...perhaps this is as close to nothing as one can get...perhaps this existed for eternity...in effect the quantum foam is nothing.
I agree, but IMO, it might go even more fundamental than quantum foam (pure potential) and may have a mathematical geometric underpinning, such as tensors, vectors, and scalars (which may be causal to the emergence of energetic quanta or quantum foam)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
I can't really comment on possible insight into future discoveries, but defining the quantum foam as "nothing" that has existed forever, is ever so more likely then any IDer, or more complicated scenario...I mean what is more imaginable fundamental then the quantum foam? at this stage of our knowledge.
The "nothing" as redefined, is far more logical and reasonable then anything I have heard you suggest thus far.