Origin of Existance

The idea of our origin or existance is a paradox.

Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.

That energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change forms.

That view creates its own paradox. I think we have a tendancy to over dramatize the unknown and immediately branch off to unsupported conclusions.


**********
The conventional view is that "coming into existence" from "nothing", or passing "out of existence" back into "nothing", clearly requires magic, a miracle, or a supernatural act of a God.

That is a logical impossibility by definition of "nothing", meaning non-existence or the total absence of forms at any scale.

Or that "Something" was never created from "Nothing" because it has always existed.
**********

My personal view and that imposed on UniKEF is purely mathematical:


0 = (+1)+(-1)

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.

When accepted at face value it says many things.

Not that we can understand it yet.

1 - "0" is infitesimal.

2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.

3 - The recipocal of infitesimal is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Someting", "Nothing" will ever be physically "Infinite".

Taken as an unknown and perhaps unknowable it has a comfortable feel.

In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes. It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.

It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.

You want proof. Got none. But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.

And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Silly you. The universe has always existed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prove it

RMC,

Prove it. It cannot exist if it was never created. The only way it could have been created is to come into existance from nothing.

0 -------->+1,-1

Infinite existance is an attempt to circumvent the origin itself of coming into existance.

You can hold that view if you choose but infinity is purely a mathematical tool but cannot be sucessfully argued as a physical reality.

A better form would be 0 --------> +n, -n

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mac- In outline I agree with you. It is another way of saying, with Max Velmans, that existence is ontologically monist and epistemologically dual. In other words it emerges from one thing (your nothing) by virtue of becoming two things which are opposites (your +1 & -1). Thus we live in a world of dualities, but one which cannot ultimately be dual (for all the usual logical reasons).

However I feel that your concept of nothing is flawed. Even by your view nothing cannot really be nothing.

The argument that the universe is eternal can only be true if eternity is timeless. In other words the universe must have started in the first moment of time as we conceive of time.

Eternity, when it is conceived as being a long time (or any time at all) is an oxymoronic concept. There can be no passing of time in eternity.

 

*backs away slowly*

- Warren

 

Yeah.. U can't counter this ontologically and epistemologically. No one can, Newton to Einstein and unto later day phiscisists, and scientists. I am going to become a philosopher. Hell with Physics and Maths.. I found the way to unravel secrets of universe.

 

Good for you. Go for it and keep going for it.

 

When i went for philosophy i found this ultimate truth :

We are not accustomed to duality of matter and energy - ontologically we are more comfortable with one of the duality, matter. When it changes to energy we loose our cognitive ability to realise that and so we have an illusion that we all are dying by nuclear explosion. When all the energy again condensate to matter we all will come back to live, back from illusion. Physics and maths are nothing but illusion. Change this fourm name as Philosophic-Physics & Maths. All the physcisists and mathamaticians should go back try to learn the true knowledge of universe that is Philosophy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Any view on this is really nothing more then a guess based on our experiences. Our existance may have actually come from 'something' but we don't know either way...

Generally the raise more questions then they answer... but nothings wrong with that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The null equation

0 = (+1)+(-1)
<HR>
0=0
This is not profound; it is a simple truth.

This Universe is spacially finite. All matter here will be converted to energy. All Energy will leave this Universe. The lifespan of this Universe is finite. What goes to zero comes from zero. The Energy in this Universe required a source from which to begin.
The big bang was big, but whatever brought it here was greater than it was.

The half life of the remaining matter in the Universe will determine the longevity of this Univere. No matter is completely stable. There will be a long period of time when the majority of all mass is in the form of Iron. This period will be far greater than the period of time when all matter is lighther than Iron. This will be the last stages of 'life' in our Universe, a flash in the pan by comparison of its total lifespan.

We already know the amount of Energy in the Universe is finite. It will escape the known Universe in all directions. If Energy has a finite lifespan, it must have a source of mass from which to begin. Any system that can be depleted of Energy must be refueled, or die. Transversely, any system of Energy that can be depleted must also have a source of Energy greater than its total energy from which to begin. What goes to zero comes from zero; it is impossible for something to come from nothing, therefore there must be a source greater than our Universe from whence it came.

 

MacM,

I disagree with your assumption. You're assuming that "-1" is something that can physically exist. Just because something is mathematically possible doesn't mean that it's physically possible. Just take a look at relativity...........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tom

 

Good Point

Tom,

Your stirring the pot.


chroot,

You gave me a chuckle this time.


Canute,

I particularily like this statement. It fits well with my view but I don't dare tread there here. Thanks.

quote:----------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument that the universe is eternal can only be true if eternity is timeless. In other words the universe must have started in the first moment of time as we conceive of time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------quote




To the others,

I like all your answers, since it is just a guess by anyone. The more views to consider, the more likely we are to come to some level of consenses.


James R.,

As usual you are fine tuned.


MacM:
________________________________
Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.
________________________________

JR:
_______________________________
Does it? I've never seen this in a science textbook.
_______________________________

*************
Reply: You are most likely right. I should have made a more qualified statement. That is I believe that most scientist believe....
Or pointed out that to say energy cannot be created not destroyed is another paraphrase with the same meaning.
*************


MacM:
__________________
0 = (+1)+(-1)

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.
___________________

JR:
____________________

It looks like a simple statement of arithmetic to me.
____________________


******************
Reply:IF it represents our origin of existance being simple would be profound.
******************


MacM:
___________________
1 - "0" is infitesimal.
___________________


JR:
___________________

No it isn't. An infinitessimal quantity is always a little greater than zero.
___________________


********************
Reply: Again you are correct. That was a bad example, but most have apparently taken it to mean what I meant to say. I'll have to work on that one.
********************


MacM:
___________________________
2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.
___________________________


JR:
__________________________
Saying "Zero" doesn't invoke anything. Where's the link between the maths and the physical world?
___________________________

*******************
Reply: "0" is non-existance. +1,-1 are existance. I believe after further tought that it should be +n, -n however.
*******************


MacM:
________________________
3 - The recipocal of infitesimal is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Something", "Nothing" will ever be physically "Infinite".
________________________


JR:
______________________
This doesn't seem to make any sense.
______________________



*********************
Reply: If you excuse the "infitesmal" being "0" flub, it means nothing physical will ever be infinite. Infinity is relagated to a mathematical proposition.

Rewrite: 3 - The recipocal of "0" is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Something", "Existance" will never become physically "Infinite". (Still needs work))
________________________


*********************

Macm:
____________________
In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are
one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes.
_____________________



JR:
______________________

Sounds deep, but you haven't explained anything here.
______________________


*******************
Reply: Not detailed yet but the view is for example that the Black Holes are squeezing matter in to a singularity. That in my view is pushing it back +n, -n ---------->0 into the Chiral Condensate.

The particle pairs coming into existance from the Chiral Condensate is creation 0 ---------->+n, -n or a White Hole.
********************


Macm:
____________________
It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.
___________________


JR:
_____________________
What is a triple point, in this context?
_____________________



******************
Reply: It is only a play on words relating the existance of ice, water and steam at the same temperature and time. "0", +n, -n, exist at the same point at the same time. An instantaneous transition of non-existance into existance.
*******************


MacM:
____________________
It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.
_____________________



JR:
_____________________
You still haven't explained what a chiral condensate is.
_____________________



********************
Reply: And as of todate, as far as I know, nobody can. But it is there and it has particles coming into existance from non-existance and vice versa.
********************




McM:
________________________
But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.
________________________



JR:
____________________
You haven't linked the maths to the real world, as far as I can see.
____________________


**********************
Reply: If you truely don't follow the logic then I am afraid I am not equipped to answer your question. That is not to say the math is correct in any detailed sense but is by example.
**********************


Macm:
______________________
And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance
_______________________



JR:
_______________________

Yes. How is that related to what you said above?
_______________________


**********************
Reply: You don't see how coming into existance from non-existance is related to the discussion?
***********************

 

Ok, Im not a physicist but man what you said sounds like a load of shiiii, where are you getting this stuff from ....

 

Comment

Malisha,

It is unfortuante that you either have no view or don't wish to expose your view to review. I suspect your view would be much more concise and coherent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yeh ok Mac whatever,

but unlike you i can admit when i dont have any idea on a particular topic.

I have done alot of math, throughout uni, i enjoy math actually, im a software engineer and use it quite a bit on much of the software i have written/wrote and i have seen many things more significant then 0 = (+1)+(-1) .

How you can justify this simple year 1 arithmetic as

is beyond me ?!?!

You post a formula, an equation i'll follow it, try to work around it so i can decide if

1: it makes sense and isnt a waste of time trying to understand

2: it's 2 hard for me to understand because it requires some sort of background in some other area, then i can ask someone who might be able to explain it to me

3: it has some sort of credibility

you post 0 = (+1)+(-1) & say this is the expression for creation ? please ? what am i supposed to do with that ? how can i prove to myself this is what you say it is, or do you want me to just take your word for it & just except the fact that this is the expression for creation, how can i prove this to myself from what you have given ?!?

Have they even proven the existance of white holes ?
If they have id really like to read about it cause even though im not a scientist i enjoy reading about new discoveries and if they have found proof of white holes i would love to read about it.

Anyway i have no further comment on the topic, say whatever else you like, if anything it makes for some fun reading

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,

cya

 

comments

Malisha,


As you kindly pointed out you actually have no indepth training or experience in physics so your comments are really a bit misplaced. Now JR's comments I pay attention to.

Most of what you say doesn't merit reply.

quote:
***************
Have they even proven the existance of white holes ?
If they have id really like to read about it cause even though im not a scientist i enjoy reading about new discoveries and if they have found proof of white holes i would love to read about it.
***************

Reply: I don't think one could say "Proven" but it is in the mix of ideas that has been talked about, like Black Holes. But Black HOles has recieved a lot more attention. In any case it is not my fabrication.



****************
Anyway i have no further comment on the topic, say whatever else you like, if anything it makes for some fun reading ,
************


Reply: That was the general idea, not some enormous break thorugh annoucement. Get serious, I'm not.

 

NO you dont

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you dont pay attention to JR's, chroots or any other REAL scientists comments, because no matter how many times they have told you your theories dont make sense you still come back and say things like 0 = (+1)+(-1) is an expression for creation , even after james R have said there is nothing more to this then simple arithmetic.

seriously man post some real math, some thing we can all work with so we can see ONCE and FOR all whether or not what your saying is true. You like to compare yourself with einstien right, so do it then, he described what he found out with math, and has let people "such as myself" not in the physics business judge whether what he says is correct by letting us work through he's forumulas, remeber even though i am not a physicist it doesnt mean i cant enjoy & dont enjoy workthing though these kinds of things.

I mean from what you said, you only like speculation from other physcists, doesn this mean your theory is only applicable to other physcists ? You do expect that your theory be taught in schools right maybe even replace relativity (because like you said before you have not used relativity to prove relativity, so your ideas should be original am i correct), so post something which might be taught at a first year university course so "people like me" may be able to understand it.

I mean Mac i didnt want to make any further comments but im intrested in what you have to say, Seriously & also if possible i want to 2 things from you :

1. your forgiveness for making comments on your theory when i myself am not qualified to do so as i am not a scientist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

2. some sort of formal proff, ie formulas on your theories so i can marvel at its greatness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

thanks

mal,

 

I too see Macs simple truth of 0 = (+n) + (-n) It is great way to explain your point, which I followed although I had a few doubts on the way. Malishna, by calling it shiii is quite one eyed and although sure it has many inconsistencies relating to the physical world, I find that it clearly illustrates the way the universe can exist.

How can you explain universe mathematically?? The only way is surely through speculation and physics? Macs "mathematical" way is the only one that actually comes close and it makes so much sense that its scary to believe how profound it is.
Thats my two cence. Basically I've added nothing and just said I have agreed with what Mac says (not all of it). It seemed like he needed some support. LOL.

 

It seems to me that everyone here (well almost) has got a different bit of the underlying stick. What do you make of this?

1) Infinity being equivalent to nothing.

If the cosmos = 0

then

0 = all that there is

then

0 = everything

Thus at the deepest ontological level of existence nothing equals infinity. This doesn't seem an odd idea. It fact it seems a certainty. Thus the question of whether the universe comes from nothing or from an infinite something is not quite the right question. The two opposite answers are each partly right and partly wrong. If this is so then the cosmos would be, by the broadest view possible, a single thing with a dual aspect. Which seems the right kind of answer anyway. This seems to be the only way to get around the laws of thermodynamics and the equivalent 'something from nothing' problem.

2) Nothing being 'infinitessimal'

This is obviously not so. Nothing is nothing and 0 = 0. However there is an argument that ontological nothingness cannot exist, and thus that nothing cannot in the last resort ever be precisely nothing. In every other case 0 = 0, but at the most fundamental level it may be that 0 = < 0, in other words this fundamental nothing may be actually something a little less than nothing. Perhaps this is what Mac had in mind (?) when he said this. (I tend to make the same sort of mistake). To suggest that nothing is not nothing is odd, but it is to say that nothing really is nothing in one sense but is equivalent to something in another sense, in other words that it has two aspects. Thus this relates back to the first point.

3) 0 = (+n) + (-n)

I don't want to flog the phrase to death but this is a precise mathematical equivalent to philospher Max Velmans proposition that existence must be 'ontologically monist and epistemologically monist'. In other words one thing that becomes two. It also accords well with QM ideas, with (-n) presumably being borrowed energy. I agree with others who feel it is simple and important. It is only profound if you see its meaning. If dualism is false it almost certainly represents the logical structure of any true explanation of existence (whether by science or by anybody else).

4) What the effing bleep is this 'Chiral Condensate' thing? Is it necessary to introduce even more technical terms? Things are supposed to get simpler as one practices reductionism. This is the emergence of something from nothing, it can't be all that complicated.