Discussions about Metaphysics, Quantum Physics, the Holographic Universe and the Nature of Reality.
I did not realy want this to be a religious debate so I posted it here.
Something instead of nothing?
Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.
Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is. (I my opinion this is nonsense). I cannot believe that we will find “A fact of Everything” scientifically; I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory scientifically answer to this final most profound of questions, ultimate of all questions. “Why is there something instead of nothing?”
By nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything or the absence of existence. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.)
Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have “nothing”, but definite and absolutely do indeed have ‘SOMETHING’. Remember by absolute nothingness I don’t mean just an empty void left but the absence of the infinite void as well.
This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were ever a nothing, there would be no creator, of course.
Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?
Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race. There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man.
You see the universe has a strange Goldie locks condition about it, i.e., it cannot be too hot, or too cold etc, etc, etc, but it has to be just absolutely correct, precise and right or life would not have come into existence and we would not be around to contemplate, debate or dialog on this ultimate enigma. We would not exist. Life hangs on and depends on this knife- edge of harmonies conditions that have to be sustained over countless billions of years, for us to have come into existence and continue to exist. Makes one think, does it not?
Why do we have a Universe? My answer is that Some Infinite Entity created the Universe and the rest of existence. however, then, one can ask, who/what created this Infinite Onesness This cause of everything is and must be so far and beyond our understanding, everlasting, without beginning or end, eternal and ever -existing, and has always existed. Thus i must be Existence Itself.
We will, at the end of the day have to, relent and acknowledge that somewhere out there is a awesome, colossal, mighty, great infinite intelligence that in comparison that we are as a microbe is to a human or perhaps horrors even much further remote, from the Omni-all . It will indeed be a most humbling experience for us to finally realize and acknowledge, that there are things and mysteries that will; remain forever, absolutely, totally beyond human comprehension understand and reside eternally in the mind of our creator God.
It is a fact the finite can simply never ever comprehend the mind of the infinite; this should be logic to anyone...
An uncaused Cause must exist and to me am an inescapable fact of logic, call this entity God/Infinity/Existence/being if you like.
By Alan McDougall 11/6/2007
Mathematical Mysticism: A Sokratic Dialogue between Catsmeat and Big Nose Kate
.by Twain Shakespeare Ross on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 1:24am ·PublicFriends (+)Only Me (+)CustomClose FriendsInvisibleSee all lists...PhilosopherShakespeare's "The World's a Stage" School of ActingSchool of Hard KnocksYEAH I GOT HIGH IN SCHOOLI am not enslavedI used to work for YHWHUnemployed ActorPoetBeatnikFamilyAcquaintancesGo Back
PublicFriendsOnly MeCustomClose FriendsInvisibleSee all lists...PhilosopherShakespeare's "The World's a Stage" School of ActingSchool of Hard KnocksYEAH I GOT HIGH IN SCHOOLI am not enslavedI used to work for YHWHUnemployed ActorPoetBeatnikFamilyAcquaintancesGo Back.11:11pmMe
I think I have found four things that are true. Am I crazy?
Axiom Zero: Zero raised to the zeroth power equals one, thus "Something is generated by the very nature of nothing"
11:17pmBig Nose Kate
You say that all the time, though
Oh, Axiom Zero is new
1. Open systems are synergistic, not entropic, given zero, the universe is open.
11:19pmBig Nose Kate
Axiom Zero seems less open than self-perpetuating
True that, but it doesn't make much dif. Neither is entropic
11:20pmBig Nose Kate
True, neither is.
To recap it another way, zero generates one, which is complexicity naturally growing out of simplicity. This is also demonstrated by numbers increasing one by one, while the relationships between them increase exponentially.
3 Goedel's theorum states that any (closed? formal?) system will contain paradoxes. If I understand it, some of these at least must be resolved "axiomatically."
I am certain that one of the omplications of Goedel's theorum is "complexity creates unpredictable qualities," or
(screwed up freudian typing "complications +implications = omplications) or "newness happens"
11:24pmBig Nose Kate
What was #2?
3rd was #2, 1st was #zero, my bad
(pause 2 roll "cig." Omptemplate dif tween ordinal and cardinal. R they "real" or "abstraction"? Which is what?)
Part I & I
This is also trinitarianism. You may not have noticed it, but zero one and two are the three aspects of the platonic trinity, and the 3 persons of the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva
11:28pmBig Nose Kate
Have we left math?
No, just entered epistemoloogy .
This is the fourth thing I am sure of. Collectively, epistemologically, this is my "semantic" reference for the Hebrew verb "YHWH" "Being"!
11:30pmBig Nose Kate
Fourth thing I am sure of is the rule of the trinity. If there is a final set....
11:31pmBig Nose Kate
Recap, please. What are the four things?
Zero axiom (ordinally 1st) = Brahma
(From here, count exponentially as well)
One (Equals one to the first power)= Order = Vishnu = Logos
Two (ordinally 3rd)= Newness = Meaning/Awareness? = Shiva.
Collectively, this constitutes the Trinity (The fourth thing, counting exponentially, Two squared)
Part I & U & I
11:33pmBig Nose Kate
well, I was intrigued by zero axiom, it raised the question, "what is math? what does it describe?" Math is the very purest attempt to describe the natural world, and the 0-squared thing seems to contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, at least situationally.
This is an attempt to dispense with cosmology as conceived in terms of a closed universe, and provide an alternate paradigm.
This gets fuzzily abstract. I will attempt clarity
Fourth, there is no final set...
unless Zero, one, two, trinity is the final set that generates all (larger) sets.
This is where fifty years of Pythagorean Platonic numeric mysticism have brought me. By the way, are these thoughts crazy?
Or just bs?
11:34pmBig Nose Kate
Like I say, I found zero axiom really interesting. after that, we got into areas which I currently tend to view as superstitious -- Hindu and tetragrammaton analysis seem to me based on superstition.
No jewish number mysticism intended here. The reference to "YHWH" is almost coincidental. I loved the movie "pi". Other than that, I prefer the i ching to kabbala.
Likewise, the Hinduism is minimal. That Hindus had a trinity consisting of a Creator who made Order and Newness was all I knew about Hindu religion, aside from karma, caste and ahimsa, until, oh, adolesence, so I have thought using those terms and catagories for forty years.
11:42pmBig Nose Kate
I guess I misunderstood, then. Okay, looking back, I get "newness happens," after that I got lost.
Part I & U & I & U
The bit about sets is the newest datum I have integrated. I will try another verbal description.
A final set is defined as a set that contains all other sets.
God contains, or knows, or has everything (I am fuzzy on what Plato was claiming, since it is wrong.)
Thus God is the final set, that contains all smaller sets, except....
A final set is impossible, as there is always one more set containng the final set as well as all other sets.
Thus the Creator has a Creator, which includes god itself, and requires another Creator ad infinitum.
Use occam's razor here.
11:49pmBig Nose Kate
This seems like semantics. As far as I can tell, the only objective definition of God is "that which one considers worthy of worship."
As one worships zero!?
As a Jungian polytheist, my only quibble with that definition might be, what's worship?
11:51pmBig Nose Kate
I don't understand how this describes something material. The concept of God might be relevant, but is it how the universe is made, or only how our minds are laid out?
Both. Neither. I don't know. It describes high order semantic (epistemological) abstractions.
11:53pmBig Nose Kate
Oh, I see, just a frippery to take our minds off blank!
Sorry, that was needlessly flip.
Precisely. It makes me feel good while I am not blank LOL! I love you, you genius!
11:53pmBig Nose Kate
* (Footnote added April 23, 2012)
The following emendation of the formulae hastily scribbled above goes thus.
1st. Zero axiom (ordinally the 1st Axiom, exponentially equals 1, yet factorially equals zero) means "Something comes from nothing": The First cause = Brahma= The first Question=the respiration of Atman=the Noumenon,
2nd. One (ordinarily the second axiom and exponentially and factorially equals 1) means "Open systems are synergistic": Order = Vishnu = Logos, yet also YHWH in the OT, the Demiurge, Satan, Tragedy and Murphy, possibly the Titanic Force of Entropy, or Synergy. (What is entropy to us is synergy to worms), or even the more Titanic force of Light= The first answer
3rd. Two (ordinally the "3rd" axiom, both exponentially and factorially create 4 four). This axiom means "Newness Happens Naturally Out of What Comes Before": Meaning/Awareness,=message= Meaning replicates in a new awareness. = Shiva=Loki=Yin+Yang=next iteration of the Tao. Entropy+Synergy= Complexity. The second question, the second answer, the third question, the third answer. Born? Die! Tragedy?. Repeat. Comedy!?. Holy is the ghost in the machine of Life
4th Three. Collectively, this constitutes the Trinity (The fourth thing, or axiom, counting exponentially, Two squared, which equals Factorial two also, but 3 exponentially implies 9, and factorially imples at least 1 times two times three equals six) This 4th Axiom states there is no final set, as long as atman keeps breathing, at least.
The first and second cardinal numbers, zero and one, generate everything else. The first three or four ordinal numbers, depending on rather or not one counts zero, can be said to generate everything else. Primes are additives of these factors, and all other numbers are multiples. The number three represents the dialectic of yin and Yang spinning the Tao. After that is a complexity beyond my comprehension as the exhalations of Atman create the universe in the divine fire of Heracleitus. I am barely confident of those four things, but they are some of the sincerest beliefs I hold.
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
Yea, Ninja pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.
To answer simply the question in the subject, there is a LOT of nothing out there. Ya' ever been to Kansas? There is a whole lot of nothing in Kansas. But they're proud of their nothing and rightfully so. In fact, they are so proud of their "nothing" in Kansas that they spend thousands and thousands of dollars putting big, nice picket fences around their nothing. But to them, their nothing is something. To me, their nothing is, well, nothing. Perhaps nothing is all in the eye of the beholder?
Sorry, I must go to bed now and begin to prepare for my tomorrow's hangover.
Actually, I think Twain was being quite sincere in replying to you. Not that I understood it either - but I think it makes sense to him.
I'll be honest, Alan, I was waiting to see if you were a real poster before responding. You seem to have created a bunch of threads posting old essay's of yours - honestly its hard to tell the spammers from the serious posters sometimes.
I posted those few essays to see if they are the type of topic that interest this particular forum. It seems to me that people here are hesitant to reply they just seems interested to read without contributing.
I am trying to find a forum that almost exactly matches my interests and this one really seemed to fit the bill. I most definitely am not a spammer and have never ever sold my writing to anyone
I apologize Alan. Truthfully though, your post is a little over my head and not particularly within the realm of me being able to comprehend without spending a considerable amount of time studying. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with the paranormal and conspiracy theories.
First of all, may I point out that my commentary was directed at Twain Shakespeare and not you.
Your OP stated that you did not want a religious debate, so obviously, your request for no religious debate was honored.
Your thoughts/theories on this subject seem very well defined.
If you have any idea as to what Twain was trying to say, by all means...feel free to comment, debate or at least give me a clue as to how it does or doesn't fit with your theories.
I agree, as Twain sometimes get sidetracked when he's bringing information to this forum from other sources.
While I have found your posts to be perfectly on topic and extremely interesting, they are beyond my area of expertise. Hence, I read and not comment on most topics. We have a small gene pool on this forum and as Arouet has pointed out, you have started many threads about various topics of interest. Perhaps after posting your full thoughts (essay's) asking one or two specific questions of the members, point by point, might yield better results.
As far as "flippant" goes, yes...I will agree with you that internet commentary can come off that way. We have members from different countries and cultures. The basic subject matter of this forum can bring out some pretty deep convictions and theories, for or against.
Glad to hear that you will stay on here.
Forums seem to ebb and flow like the tide. The best way to find like minded people for discussion is to have patience. It may take more than a few days to find others who share your viewpoint and area of expertise. Give it some time and don't feel that you're being ignored. Believe me you're not being ignored as this forum gets plenty of 'views'. The topic directly under yours has received over 13,000 views with only 46 replies. If I new anything about math, I'd say that your 10 replies after only 235 views so far is pretty good. Granted, most of them are members trying to figure out Twain's reply but I think you'll see more activity sooner or later.
One of the reasons threads die around here is because the OP gets frustrated when the topic doesn't get a ton of responses and then they leave. Eventually another person replies but the OP never returns to continue and the rest is history.
Every internet site has it's share of spammers and I think that when a new member comes along around here, the skeptics automatically assume guilty until proved innocent. Our skeptics are even skeptical about new members. I like to give them a hard time simply because somebody's gotta do it but I'm an equal opportunity snarker. We tend to get spammed in bunches and we've been in a sort of strange spamfest lately with these SEO gurus trying to get their clients into the search engines by using the excellent SEO on this board to up their clients rankings.
As a Moderator I have no problem with members getting the advantages of the search engines by making their information known. However, I do know the difference between getting an advantage and taking advantage. I have not seen any indication that you are doing anything other than expressing your interests and information in a very professional way.
Now I'm going to re-read a few of your topics and see if I can add something to at least one of them. I'm not exactly a rocket scientist and I don't have a clue about metaphysics/quantum physics and the most that I know about holograms is that there is one on my driver's license.
It does seem unlikely that we'll ever have the complete answer.
I'd be careful of reading too much into the "Simplest model is the correct one". I don't think scientists just assume that. But they are searching for scientific elegance, which means seeking the simplest solution - but that solution might still be pretty darn complicated.
I don't think any scientists believe the BBT explains how the universe came to be, but rather how it came to be in it's current form. It only begins a planck length of time after the begining of time. it says nothing about how the singularity got there or what came "before" (if that is even a coherent concept).
I agree. It's not a question to be answered by mere logic. We need evidence that should then be logically interpreted. And we should accept that we may never have that evidence.
while we can't know for certain, I think this is likely true.
I don't think scientists quite agree with that (ie: there are other forumlations that would be better or worse for this kind of life, and there could be other forumlations that would produce different kinds of life), if you add in options like a multiverse with different laws it becomes even more likely that at least one universe would be like ours. But it doesn't seem that scientists currently believe this universe is all that finely tuned (which is the argument you seem to be making)
If life in this universe came about just because certain things got mixed up, became alive, than adapted to the environment, then fine tuning doesn't come into it (anymore than a puddle in a pot hole would think that the pot hole was finely tuned for it.
Right, if things were different, we would not exist, perhaps something else would have existed, or no life would have formed.
With all due respect, these all seem like placeholder terms for "whatever-the-answer-actually-is". The unvierse may always have existed in one form or another. But we can only track it to the big bang. Just throwing in "infinite entity" doesn't answer a question. It doesn't add anything. The unvierse itself may be that infinite entity. "existence itself" I think needs a definition.
I agree its possible there is such an entity out there, but I'm not sure why we have to relent and acknowledge it at this time. What evidence do we have in favour of it?
I don't think logic comes into it. It's an empirical question, one which must begin by showing some evidence of the existence of this mind. Perhaps this infinite being is rather stupid, able to blindly create a universe and set it in motion, but little else. Perhaps it has little concious thought at all. Or perhaps its intelligence is beyond imagination. We don't know. What evidence favours the hypothesis?
Perhaps that uncaused thing is just matter itself.
I dont dispute the wisdom of your replies, the universe might be " All-That -Is"and it might be self aware and intelligent itself?
What we call Existence might contain an infinity of universes all contained within an infinitely huge Mega-universe. Each universe might have different fundamental constants and things miight be very strange there indeed.
This Existence is what I believe most people mistake for a religious god , Existence drives itself and not always in the mindless way that some suppose.
Everything thus is just 'Being"
Just my thoughts!
It's possible - what is the evidence in favour of that?
Possibly - but what evidence supports that?
What we must avoid doing is substituting our own personal gut instinct for the lack of evidence.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests