A Complete Solution to All There is

Here is a link to it for those who want to read through it all or have it handy:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdotal-stories/6210-something-forever.html


All are welcome here, but it is a Science thread and so there is a need for a higher standard of presentation—of science, math, and logic. Statements should have something behind them so that they don’t just take up space as outright proclamations, declarations, etc. that go nowhere and do nothing.


It turns out that all things have beginnings, and even William Lane Craig got this far, but, unfortunately, for him, this includes beings and Beings, and so there is no past-eternal for them.

Likewise, the universe had a beginning, in form, and that which is the basis of the universe had a beginning, and it still is the universe, one and the same with it, for not anything else could have entered into it. The one cause is still unfolding, for all is but one big event in operation, its essence continuing but changing form.

That the universe is expanding shows that it cannot be infinite in extent, nor can anything, and the universe is of finite duration into the past, coming from a state which could not itself be eternal, or else it would have stayed as it was, as will be shown, in a potential eternal way. That actual infinities and eternities cannot be is a part of the default state—of there being no choice for existence in the form of the universe. What is causeless, whether as Something Forever or a capability of Nothing to be Something, can have no outside directives coming in, so, what it can do, and obviously did do, is only of a default condition.

The arrival of the universe was an interruption in something or nothing, whether by a Big Bang or not, and whether of a singularity or of something as large as the universe. Size without anything to compare it to might not mean anything on an empty scale or one without ends.

Yes, the above has logic in it and so do more of the intro parts, but we know that the science is coming, and it is a fine thing to have agreement between the two, as well as with the attending math, making for triple closure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something Forever?
​

What are the Fundamentals that are ever what they were?

OK, Stuff Forever… which we might better call Something Forever, for, if ‘stuff’ is sometimes taken to be higher or formed substance, that’s not what is meant by that which is/was forever, as substance comes from, or is, fields/oscillations or at least substance has those in its wave nature, emitting those, which may be called ‘energy’ or ‘unstructured substance’, if energy is taken only as a measure of work.

So, these more basic things are still something, and we want to find out if the something has always been, all on its own, and not just because ‘nothing’ cannot be, maybe, which ‘nothing’ may still be a hint, but ‘nothing’ would still have no primacy, since it is said that ‘it’ isn’t there, plus having no ‘there’ in which to be, and ‘nothing’ is also a negative, for it is only existence that defines what is there, and where ‘there’ is.

It would be fine to say that there isn’t anything outside existence, since existence is all there is. It is also conceivable to know that a lack of anything would mean no existence, but that didn’t happen, so we must still look only to existence and how it had to be, which is necessarily ‘forever’ in that it had to have always been the case, if nothing becomes of nothing, causing that notion to be thrown out for now. So, the ‘forever’ aspect seems to be forced, but the extent must be finite, as we will see, and so we’ll have to explain the amount, and not just as “that’s all there is of it”, which is still true, but there is a ‘why’ and a ‘how’ for the amount of the ‘what’, all of which will become apparent.

The universe would seem to be a bubble within nothing, expanding into nothing, but, again, ‘nothing’ would not seem to be, or there, so the universe grows within itself. The universe is still that which changed into its expanded form, and ever reflects its properties, such as symmetry, if that is its necessary nature. Things do not escape from the universe. If I reach my arm out through the edge of the universe, I just create more spacetime through my emanations. Or space wraps back, boundless but not infinite.

If the universe came from something else, we’d just have to go on to that, so let us say that we are already discussing the basic something. To avoid creating something out of nothing, if we have to, it is then a necessity that the basic something has always existed, that is, it is timeless, or eternal, in time, and it is the same as the universe, as it only changed its form, although we wonder why and how.

There is still the ‘problem’ of there being nothing to make anything of, and we can’t leave any problems hanging about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since the universe is expanding, it cannot be infinite, nor can anything, so it is finite, although perhaps unbounded, which is both by its expansion and because spacetime is curved. Technically, it expands into itself, but it is still not surrounded by anything. The universe’s size and location is relative to nothing, whatever than means and implies.

Only in the expression as the universe from the All of the Something Forever do we have space, time, and the rather enduring amount of finite substance that may even be still growing, as is space, to be classified as finite or infinite (imagine how crowded that would be), but the All is still the All, which means there isn’t any more, so in that respect it is the ‘mostest’ that can be our universe.

We live in the finite but seemingly unbounded and closed universe that constantly changes but is itself kind of future-eternal, as it is only a change, even if in a dispersed form, and it is all of itself, contained to itself, and not really contained by not having anything outside it, for that is a ‘nothing’ which is not there, although this is still called nonexistence, and it ever cannot do anything, anyway, so who cares. Remember, if necessary, we have skipped onwards to that something which is the basis of the universe, in case there were further somethings in-between, such as maybe what gave rise to fields, if that was an intermediate.

(That's good for now, for there is much more to come, and there may even be a twist to the drama of the plot.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems an odd disclaimer for a thread that has no science or math content. So far, this thread seems more appropriate for the philosophy forum, since it is only composed of "outright proclamations, declarations, etc. that go nowhere and do nothing".

 

Remember, Yes, the above has logic in it and so do more of the intro parts, but we know that the science is coming, and it is a fine thing to have agreement between the two, as well as with the attending math, making for triple closure.

That's why I put that out, so all would know.


Plus, there is a link to the full account of it.

That's why I put that out, too, so all would know.

 

This is simply word salad, as is the woo-woo site linked to.

 

Not undone, not disproved, not replaced… not anything but a sweeping broad-brush claim with no specifics.

Ask someone to explain it to you who actively deals with such things in the threads, such as Grumpy, Spidergoat, Balerion, Rav, UniversalDistress, and many more.

And don't bother coming back. Go make a thread with your solution and I'll take a look at it.

 

This quite obviously does not belong in a science forum, hence it is moved to alt theories. On a general note, you are no more a sciwriter than I am a jellyfish - don't post this type of thread again in a hard science sub forum and don't troll when people call you out for talking rubbish. I will be handing out warnings and bans should you decide to ignore me.

 

The site is garbage. I would no more pick through that word salad than I would dig through moldy coffee grounds.

 

Sciwriter,
I'm glad you are training with heavier weights, your conclusions are the result of exercising and strengthening your mind. Keep going, and you'll be able to deal with really interesting topics that completely elude most. Your conclusions are right on track. Take breaks for as long as you want, then wait for what grabs your attention. By a break I mean no science, just have fun. This is the real way to educate yourself, it is an adventure, and going by your comments you are capable of getting the answers to all those questions.

 

The rules have not been broken. What has been put forward can be described mathematically.

 

Whatever you don't get - you get rid of? Interesting.

If you cannot engage or communicate on a subject why don't you wait or read until you are capable?

Your approach is not very scientific, is it?

You probably have good reasons

 

A complete solution to all there is: love eternal and boundless for everything that was, is, and will be.

 

That[/] is a science thread in your opinion? Have you ever even been in the same country as a science book?

William Lane Craig couldn't reason himself out of a wet paper bag. He loves to trot out the ontological 'proof' of god, saying it so often to repeat it word for word perfectly on multiple occasions, despite it having glaring basic flaws. And don't even get me started about his view on morals.....

Wrong!

No, you assume the science is coming, but it isn't. You obviously have no science or maths knowledge (which is ironic given your username) else you'd not be putting forth that thread as anything other than a terrible example of pseudo-science, an example not to be emulated.

Wrong!

Do you think you're saying something profound? Or are you aware you're talking in vapid, vague and frequently demonstrably false nonsense?

Which is precisely what your posts are.

 

OK, a new day, with some more background and intro, but ever heading toward the pay-dirt. We are showing how we narrowed down where to dig, but it ever only the gold produced that will tell.


So, so far, we have the current expression of the basic Something Forever, if it is eternal, as a finite, 4D spacetime universe, with ‘c’, the finite speed of light, which seems to disallow everything from happening at once; so, we conclude that there must have been a kind of all-at-once-ness to the singularity, when in that form, or at least it was really crowded (it may have been as large as the universe), but if space came later, wrapped into spacetime, then it’s more than crowded, with everything being on top of everything, taking us back to superposition, which is also said to be of the quantum realm, possibly as an essence that carried on.

We’ve identified why the universe must be finite, but we must go on to say why it has that amount of extent, which at first guess I’d say because it was dictated by the point of symmetry breaking, which we’d then have to go to explain, and, also, of course, how existence has to be a necessity, and, as such, eternal.

The expansion of the universe is even accelerating, but is this at the expense of energy density getting lower or is the actual extent of stuff increasing its amount? It would seem that ‘creation’ (a change in form) is still ongoing. Whatever the case it’s still one heck of a fuel.

The prime cause, whatever it is, if eternal, couldn’t have come from anything, for it is all there is, and must do as it must, heaving no inputs to direct it a certain way, even if ‘what it must do’ is anything and everything possible, within any necessary defaults as to how it is, such as symmetry, perhaps. That it is causeless makes it ‘eternal’ in the sense of it always having been there, as it didn’t come from anything else. So, while it is already made, it never had to be made, and was never made. Thus, I wouldn’t expect it to have any certain form picked out of any available varieties, for it could only be the way it is. It had no choice. Being already made without ever having been made needs a resolution. Can’t have any problems hanging around. The never-made condition the the ‘something’ is incomplete, but its basis is as it didn’t come from anything, which is bordering on that it was from ‘nothing’.

 

The Something Forever, if it was, or nothing, changed, into its expression as the universe, in a very large fashion, causing time to appear, for change is time and time is change. Is it because real somethings cannot remain timeless, balanced, and of perfect symmetry, to the nth degree, as unlike platonic forms that can?

Space appeared, too, for there became room for it. Or it is that the room is space, its lone physical (if not material) quantity being volume. Or is it that particles and their fields or fields and their particles make up all that we call ‘space’?

An aside: ‘ct’ seems to translate ‘time’ into a spacetime distance, as a 4D difference of 3D spaces (plural intended) ? And spaces seem to be a difference or interval of time, as d/c.

In a singularity, everything is at the same 0-dimensional point, where there is no space and no time, in a conjectured superposition of symmetry, which we might regard as ‘less than’ the existence of space, time, and particles, but it is still something, never-the-less, although it seems less, as even a near nothing, but not a nothing at all, as it’s still something, which makes all the difference. Existence requires space and time, which formed as spacetime at the beginning of the universe, and therefore they, being existence, seem to have had to come from a lessor existence, but, not really, for they were still inherent therein.

So we have, philosophically and logically, and partially by Big Bang and other science, that something is the only option, always there, at least as an option, but we have only touched on the mechanics involved.

The Stuff Forever that could no longer contain itself as a singularity, changing its form and ‘banging’ into a universe, obviously met a constraint that was being built up to in its wave form—since matter and spacetime came after the ‘bang’, as a low probability, but guaranteed (eventually), event, so we can go on to say about the only possible wave state of the Forever Something as the how and why of the ‘bang’, as well as the ‘what’ of the waves. Yes, it is a tall order, but we know that it could only do what it did, since all action is only from itself, there being no external directives possible for what is itself causeless. So, we expect to get ‘lucky’ in finding the only possible wave equation.
The symmetry of a balance of opposites even carries on into the universe, as it must; for the essence can't go away, for that's all there is, making the universe to be a change in form of it.

Meanwhile… a few more foundations, and some higher effects, which are necessary to go through in any case.

 

On Diversity and ‘Emergence’

The origin of diversity is undiversified, unstructured ‘prime’ matter and energy. Whatever it is, it is the fundamental building block or blocks from which all matter as we know it is formed. The particles of matter combine and come apart and the product particles continue the process. Most combinations that we know contain less energy than their components because they lost energy in combining. Therefore they need to get energy back to come apart. For that reason they are relatively stable combinations, and their stability is why they are yet present to us.

These particles, by virtue of existing as matter with energy, are in motion. Collisions occur. Some collisions result in combining of the particles. Some of the consequent combinations are stable and unlikely to come apart. That is the first step of diversification. Now the process continues except that an additional type particle, the double particle just formed at the first step, is involved and available to participate in combinations. Thus more varied combinations can occur. Further new types are produced and diversity expands ever increasingly more rapidly as more types participate in making new combinations, making further new participant types.

It occurs unavoidably if matter and energy are present. It is the simplest case, the fundamental form of changes in quantity yielding changes in quality, type, kind, as in the Periodic Table of the Elements.

The rate of diversification and the potential variety increase rapidly as each new variation occurs, as shown in the mathematics of combinations. It is a process that generates the elements, the molecules, the substances, the chemistry, geology, biology of the universe as we know it. The mechanisms vary but evolutions do occur, as they are built up on underlying evolutions at progressively simpler levels, involving existing types interacting with each other unavoidably, where changes in combinations and quantities produce new types, which new types increase the options available for further new types, this often being called ‘emergence’.

Diversity is the inevitable result when ‘prime’ matter and energy exist‚ as diversity from potential. No master plan containing it all in final form is needed; only the beginning is needed and the rest will follow. The specific details of the result are a matter of circumstance but the potential is existential.

 

A new day, and we are approaching the 'meat'…

The Goal and the Method

From where (which is really how and why) came the prime matter and energy (if from anywhere), this being the material, the motive force, and the form (in potential) of the entire universe, and how does it all operate?

Because the universe exists this question must have a rational solution. I am looking into the Something Forever option, for the Something From Nothing option seems very much stalled, as to any possible mechanics, but….

The solution of Something(s) Forever as the origin of the universe must be complete, not needing itself to be further explained, justified, or rationalized. What we call the ‘natural laws of physics’ must be shown as inherent characteristics of matter and energy, an in turn how they are or became, of the same inherence beneath—of no choice, since causeless. It is the no-choice, default condition that narrows the choices and leads to the ultimate knowledge, when the basic or the basic(s) are never made, but always were and still are. The focus for now is on the singular, but who knows, it could become two, or more. This is not to say that my exploring of the Something Forever option means that is it the answer.

Infinity…

Bear in mind that no characteristic, parameter, nature, capability, thing, or whatever can be infinite. Infinity can be dealt with in mathematics, but it is impossible in any physical reality. What is total, whole, or complete does not mean that it is infinite. Things, characteristics and so forth can be all of what they are—and that it is possible to be as finite. The something of the Something Forever would be of eternal duration, but of finite extent.

Then there is the notion of ‘eternal’ to be shown as possible or not, as in Something Forever, or even, as perhaps a stretch into the negative, in Something From Nothing, but, in either case, a state changed into the universe, and so an interruption had to have happened, but an unavoidable one. The 'eternal' business will be dealt with.

As I am on the Something Forever option I will continue to look at that one, but, in general, something (or even a lack of anything) cannot stay as the same form forever, because, (1) That didn’t happen, since a universe formed, and (2) Even during an infinite duration (called ‘eternal’), if taken as possible, of something (or even of not anything), the probability of change is 100%, for the probability of change operates on infinite or near infinite opportunity, as in potentially infinite. Otherwise, all would have just stayed in its original form—and there would have been no universe.

 

The View From Here…

We stand on Sol’s third planet, looking for the eternal something, whose essence must persist all around us within its materialized forms, for the ‘something’ is unmakeable and unbreakable, yet changeable, its multiplicity having to ever be true to itself, carrying on. Before this realization, we thought to poke around in the giant haystack of the universe, to find the needle, and we did find a few things out, but the pinhead of the singularity wasn’t there anymore in the form it had been, if it even had been as such. Perhaps, rather, it was as large as the universe.

There is much that we do understand, high and low, and near and far, so now we aim for the ultimate source, but we always did, anyway. We looked to the sun, it filling our eyes with spots, and finding a nuclear furnace. Stars had breathed life into us. All is as it had to be, for it became and is here, as workable, and so there is a relation among all things.

So we add logic to our science, to clear away the haystack that clutters our view, and wonder, “What is it that everything in the universe has in common in its diversified forms?”

Eventually it hits us: waves. Everything has waves, from violins to oceans to particles. The eternal something is a wave—an oscillation. In one fell swoop we have more than narrowed the field. It is the field. No longer having to be blinded by looking at the sun, we bask in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind of logic ever leading the way. We are past what we want it to be, freed of our being part of it as what can get in the way. We will need to use math to refine the wave, guided by logic, and so now we are using guides as dependable and eternal as that which we seek.

The eternal something of the wave’s characteristics will turn out to be only what it can be, as it has no external directives. It is the default condition. All the other options to what it could be will melt away, as impossible, leaving but one option, that of how it is, and why. The size/amount of the universe will be inherent in it, as, too, it can only be what it is. There will be no more puzzlement about why it wasn’t more or why it wasn’t less. We will find its only and exact changing point of materialization, for there can be no other. Energy will be conserved, for it cannot be any other way. The ‘elementary’ forces will be unified. The eternal something, in its materialized form, is in plain view, and we are in it, and of it: it is the entire haystack, and the needle is everywhere.
We, too, must do as we must, although that can change from learning, to a new ‘must’, but at least one based on a wider range of information, At first, we may not like this state of affairs, but then the other shoe drops, for the alternative (that isn't) would be to have our thoughts and actions not depend on anything at all, and so then we come more to ‘like’ how it really is, although only in that that’s how it has to be. The determinism inherent in the states beneath doesn't carry on up into the felt states of being. Introspection doesn't reveal it. We only know of it from the externals of science. Relying only on internals for knowledge has its limits.

There is still the puzzle of cause and effect not applying to Something Forever itself is, well, not from anything, which is as to say from nothing, but the answer will have to fall out of our derivation of the wave’s nature. It is guaranteed to.

The ‘needle’ knits the fabric of the universe with the thread of the wave. We are on our way. Logic guides us, math provides, and the ‘default condition’ waves us on.

There is one last step we need to take to improve our view of the universe for what we are working on (waves), and that is to visualize it as it really is, untranslated by our senses on into the brain, and which will serve to mostly remove us from ourselves, at least the part that could get in the way.
Since we only really ‘see’ the insides of our heads, the re-presented internal ‘reality’ is but second-hand, although a useful (and often somewhat better) face has been painted upon onto the external reality that we never contact directly (the senses do, but we do not see this jumble of fields directly).
So, you might be seeing a red tomato sitting on a green or bluish counter in your kitchen, or in your imagination, as a fainter image of the same, or you might see or imagine the solar system, it having a sun, moon, and planets.

We are now going to try to look, imagine, and visualize how reality really is, out there, not in here. First, note that the red of the tomato and the blue of the counter are differing wavelengths of the visual portion of the e/m wave spectrum, which through the eye and the visual systems of the brain are re-presented in the brain as ‘red’ and ‘blue’.

So, look at the tomato on the counter again, but render them as waves, as they really are, out there, the waves being more concentrated where the objects are. Then do this for the entire universe. And that’s what we’ll be working with. You can extend this technique to the other senses, too, such as visualizing the waves of air-vibrations that are to become the ‘sounds’ in your ears, or, as ‘taste’ or ‘smell’, molecules arriving, which in turn, are clumps of waves. Even what is re-presented in the brain as light is really, out there, but a lot of photons (waves).

So, we see that while ‘red’ and ‘blue’ look different because their wave frequencies differ, they are both waves at heart, and not such totally separate things after all.

 

The Two Options’ Commonality

So now we take another, slight diversion, but we do so since they ever come into play later or overall, and that’s why they are here. It seems that Something From Nothing vs the Something Forever are options that come close to being the same, if not the same, at heart.

If there is Something Forever then the something doesn’t come from anywhere, as it’s ever there, as causeless, which could be an incomplete tale, since if the story is broken down further it could have the meaning and the indication that the something comes from nowhere and is made of not anything, which, is, well, a lot like saying that it came from nothing. But, the something could be some very minimal, almost intangible thing, as a default, if nothing cannot be; yet, there is really nothing to make anything of, and so it’s tough to consider a thing as always made without it ever having been made, in the first place, one which never was.

Similarly, about the Something From Nothing option, it is also seems rather causeless, but the important point is that the capability itself, that which turns nothing into something, would have to be eternal, which is forever, this still being a something in itself, or it is that nothing is not really nothing, but is a necessarily the near-nothing of the near-intangible hinted at above.

One may argue that the something itself, if produced from nothing, had a beginning, at least as of that form, and could even happen somewhere else, but the something itself is not past-eternal, as it would be in the Something Forever case; yet, the essence of the ‘something’ would still eternal, as being the something from nothing capability, and what is of the essence is still it, albeit in a changed form.

There could even be another, separate stream of Something Forever which is of the same something as from another stream, just as another Something From Nothing could produce the same material. The same for different streams having different content, which could only be if we see that our primal wave basis can have more than one option. And perhaps the Something From Nothing could have another stream that produces different somethings. The stream of either could also each have different somethings in them. But, the birth of all that is the universe happened as a whole, all the elementaries coming out at the same time, and they still have symmetry showing, such as opposing charge and matter/anti-matter states, even produced in pairs, kinetic vs potential energy, and many more, so it really seems that there would only be one stream.

A basic misunderstanding that the Big Bang, and the subsequent radiation, occurred in the same fashion as any other event in three dimensional spacetime. It did not. It IS three dimensional space and time. The Big Bang was the creation and expansion of space and the beginning of time. It was an all-together thing.

So, both Something From Nothing and Something Forever have some commonality, in that both have an eternal aspect, both have very tiny, quite minuscule material basics, both could be multiple streams, both show symmetry in the material, both ‘banged’, both have the same expanding universe, and all its other properties, both have a ‘nothing’ aspect, one as fairly direct and one as implied, and both had an interruption in a big way to any quietus they had before.

Since there are only the two options, we could take what they have in common as being the absolute truth of what must be, which is primarily the ‘eternal’ aspect, and so it is that this ‘eternal’, itself, had no creation, which might be of interest to the religious, for it would have had no Creator. Even without the ‘eternal’ aspect, neither something from nothing nor forever stuff can be ‘God’.

An aside: Some say that ‘God’ is in their felt state of being; however, this is a ‘second story’ account coming from the 'first story' of the states beneath, which are not accessible internally, but one can be informed of them externally, via science's findings. Some people are wholly taken in by the second story, but that is not the whole story, as the author (the chemical substrate) is not apparent. Or they may know the science behind sensation, feeling, and cognition, but the belief overwhelms any meaningful realization and incorporation of it.

I’m still going along here on the Something Forever option, concentrating on the interruption that made for our wavy universe of a lot of balance symmetry, whether of a singular explosion or a similar outpouring happening all over the ‘place’, although the latter is likely, as it would match the size of the universe, as well as that the ‘Bang’ did seem to be everywhere, and, of course, it made the space of that ‘where’ as it went along. Empty space or the lack of space is not anything, which is ‘nothing’.