# Infinite past... with a beginning?

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.

This may be of interest.

Implicit function theorem

I'm not sure what to make of this, but the term "implicit" struck me. It is a major theme in Bohmian Mechanics. "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".
Seems like a metaphysical condition based on inherent potentials.
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?

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!

Last edited:
And you feel qualified to pass that judgement?
Tell me where I am wrong instead of.......

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.

river

I read , but don't understand .

So infinity condensed ? ( what infinity is condensed in a single instant ? ) Explain in-depth.

Write4U , response ;

First, in a timeless potential any emergent dynamic action constitutes the first instance of a emergent timeframe associated with that dynamic action. When there is no prior time, every dynamic instant would be the first instant.

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 .

Last edited:
river

There is no first " instant ". Nor beginning .
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.

river said:
river

There is no first " instant ". Nor beginning .

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.

I know one thing ; nothing is for infinity is nothing ; nothing can never become something .

I know one thing ; nothing is for infinity is nothing ; nothing can never become something .
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.

Last edited:

I know one thing ; nothing is for infinity is nothing ; nothing can never become something .

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.

No you can't .

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.

Which then was never nothing in the first place .

No you can't .
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?
Which then was never nothing in the first place .
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.
CERN is perhaps most famous for its discovery in 2012 of the elusive Higgs Boson [named after British physicist Peter Higgs who predicted its existence in 1964], the so-called ‘God particle,’ which allows other particles to build up mass as they pass through the Higgs field.

Today, however, CERN is more famous – or perhaps infamous is the better word - for an upcoming experiment in which scientists will play God in an effort to recreate the conditions immediately following the ‘Big Bang’ event that gave birth to the Universe millions of years ago.

For those who are in the dark about CERN and the controversial objectives it hopes to achieve, here is a quick primer.

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.

Nothing is permittive only in a mathematical Universe .

NOT in a physical Universe .

Nothing is permittive only in a mathematical Universe .
NOT in a physical Universe .
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)

river said:
Nothing is permittive only in a mathematical Universe .
NOT in a physical Universe .

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)

Any Real physical thing , an object , has mathematics associated with it . It has shape and depth .

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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

What is logical about nothing ?

perhaps its our definition of nothing that needs redefining..
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)?
In mathematics, a tensor is an algebraic object that describes a (multilinear) relationship between sets of algebraic objects related to a vector space.
Objects that tensors may map between include vectors (which are often, but not always, understood as arrows with length that point in a direction) and scalars (which are often familiar numbers such as the real numbers), and, recursively, even other tensors.
Tensors can take several different forms – for example: scalars and vectors (which are the simplest tensors), dual vectors, multi-linear maps between vector spaces, and even some operations such as the dot product.
Tensors are defined independent of any basis, although they are often referred to by their components in a basis related to a particular coordinate system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor

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

Shapes , physical shapes . Is the underpinning of all tensors , vectors and scalars .

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)?
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.

What is logical about nothing ?
The "nothing" as redefined, is far more logical and reasonable then anything I have heard you suggest thus far.

river said:
What is logical about nothing ?

The "nothing" as redefined, is far more logical and reasonable then anything I have heard you suggest thus far.