Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 198
Like Tree44Likes

Thread: How to make a Universe out of Nothing. You decide.

  1. #1 How to make a Universe out of Nothing. You decide. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    I've just joined up a few days ago, so go easy on me please! I am in a bit of a pickle, and need some direction. I am not a particularly organized person, and I am unsure how to go about this, but I will throw this out and see if anyone can help. I do hope that I am in the right place here, and will be treated nicely. I have a big heart, and im not very good as a flaming subject...

    I have over the past 20 odd years developed a philosophical hypothesis of the Universe, and how it began. Everything so far is based purely on logic. I do it mainly as a hobby, and come back to it from time to time, having forgotten various aspects of it, which I have to re-realize. I have filled countless books up with scrawl, and I have gone back over some aspects so many times now that it seems they are second hand...

    I sit here sometimes, wondering if I will ever do something about it. And in all the time I have spent on developing it, I know in my heart that I have made some very serious and meaningful discoveries along the way. If not for others, then for myself. As I have said, it's a hobby and I enjoy it very much. I don't really expect it will ever see the light of day as by it's nature as it's well... difficult.

    What I would really love to do is translate from a philosophical hypothesis into a physical one. And with this I am having a hell of a time achieving. For the most part I don't really know how to go about it. Everything I have done is based on a pretty broad understanding of the physical universe with serious respect for modern cosmological understanding. For me, everything has to fit, and fit well.

    So, to begin. I decided to attack what I consider the most relevant base question to begin with. We always ask ourselves "So how did the Universe come from Nothing?"...

    "Nothing" is a word that gets bandied about quite often. It is usually of no more meaning than "0"... A footnote to figuring out what went on. I feel that it's a bit left out in the scheme of things.

    I would like to describe to you how you have already discovered the "Grand Unified Theory"

    Then I would like to show you some perspective. I would like to show you how you have been missing a key element all this time in your understanding. At least I hope to. It's not an understanding that comes straight away. And maybe im a complete idiot. But I will try and describe this.

    What I would like here is an open environment where everyone can contribute. I am in no way protective of my ideas. If it gets shot down, it gets shot down. If it does good, it does good. I've just become a dad for the first time, and have an operation on Monday, so my reply's might be a little slow to start with if anyone is interested. Please tell me first if I should bother or not, then I can get started. 10 personal descriptions of "nothing" to start with would be welcomed too. Just so I can get a taste.

    Have a lovely day, and kind regards,

    M


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I do not understand, right off the bat, your assumption that the Universe began from nothing. There is no current working model in cosmology that declares such or makes that assumption.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    It's a natural assumption. That everything must have a beginning. And you are quite correct. As children we ask ourselves this. Until we learn of quantum etc... I wrote this in the tread to address that old curiousity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Everything so far is based purely on logic.
    This rings alarm bells. I suspect you will not get a very positive reaction here. People are more interested in evidence-based theories.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    It's a natural assumption. That everything must have a beginning.
    An assumption, indeed. It is based only on your perceptions from existing in this environment.
    One could say the following with as much ease as you just showed:
    "It's a natural assumption. That everything must have a Creator."

    A change of state could be called a beginning of the next phase of state. However, the assumption that all things must have a beginning is simply a biased assumption and nothing more. I'll leave it at that unless you ask pointed questions... So that you can return to describing your hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    As children we ask ourselves this.
    As a child, I also asked old men if there were dinosaurs when they were kids and what the meaning of life was. The act of asking a naive question does not validate the question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    I will be dealing with some very basic preconceptions here. Please have patience. And also I am not very experienced in public writing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Ok then. Please describe to me what you're preconception of "nothing" means. It is absolutely necessary for me to understand base opinion at this point. And yes, I will go easy with storybook mode.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    It's a natural assumption. That everything must have a beginning.
    An assumption, indeed. It is based only on your perceptions from existing in this environment.
    One could say the following with as much ease as you just showed:
    "It's a natural assumption. That everything must have a Creator."

    A change of state could be called a beginning of the next phase of state. However, the assumption that all things must have a beginning is simply a biased assumption and nothing more. I'll leave it at that unless you ask pointed questions... So that you can return to describing your hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    As children we ask ourselves this.
    As a child, I also asked old men if there were dinosaurs when they were kids and what the meaning of life was. The act of asking a naive question does not validate the question.
    A change of state implies time. When I talk of "nothing" I speak literally of "nothing". No time, no space, no energy etc. The base idea of this hypothesis is that possibility itself is cancelled. When I say "Nothing" I really mean it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    I will be dealing with some very basic preconceptions here.
    I hate to say it, but that's what they all say.

    Anyway, I will leave you to it. I have decided I am going to take no part in this sort of thread from now on. Just thought I would give you a friendly warning about what you are letting yourself in for ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Does that perk you're interest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    BTW... how do I get this thread to auto update?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Does that perk you're interest?
    Pique* interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    BTW... how do I get this thread to auto update?
    You should be subscribed to it since you made it as well as posted in it...

    Nothing: Complete absence of anything. You described it about the same as I would have...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Ok then. I was asked to ask a pointed question. So here we go. In a state where time itself does not exist, how can "Possibility" itself exist? If there is no possibility for that chance of state to occur, then how does it occur?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Ok then. I was asked to ask a pointed question. So here we go. In a state where time itself does not exist, how can "Possibility" itself exist? If there is no possibility for that chance of state to occur, then how does it occur?
    You were not asked to. I said I would leave it at that unless you had a pointed question.

    The reason I said "pointed question" was because if you're planning on asking loads of philosophical questions instead of detailing and describing your hypothesis, I'll warn you that you'll end up talking to yourself.

    To answer your question:
    We perceive time as an effect in a specific manner due to the nature of the Universe in its current state. We inhabit Spacetime. This effect as we perceive it is dependent on space and matter in this current state but this does NOT mean that in a different state of existence, say a super condensed energy/mass sub-state that hypothetically could have existed prior to the Big Bang event was without time, rather that effect (time) could have been perceived in a different manner than the one we know, dependent on the properties of that pre-BB state.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Ok then. I was asked to ask a pointed question. So here we go. In a state where time itself does not exist, how can "Possibility" itself exist? If there is no possibility for that chance of state to occur, then how does it occur?
    OK. I can't resist... You are inventing this notional state so only you can answer the question.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I return to the point raised earlier by either Neverfly, or Strange. (Or both?) I'm not too sure of the point of asking the question since it is seeking to answer a question that likely has no relationship to reality. It's rather as if you were to ask "If pink unicorns existed, why do you think they would be pink?" It might be amusing as an intellectual exercise, but I can't see it as being an important question. (And the answer would be even less so.)

    To be clear, no current mainstream theory requires that the universe emerge from nothing. Why, therefore, do think it does?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    A good question. You are quite correct that no current mainstream theory requires nothing as a start. However, I do believe that by understanding various aspects of it, it will give new insight into current theories. Now, I fully understand that this topic mainly lies in the philosophical area. But also in physics, the life of a physicist becomes very uncomfortable when realising the breakdown of physics involving a massive singularity. Dealing with infinity becomes a problem then. At some stage in this situation, they too must guess what happens next. What I am doing here is asking a mainly rhetorical question in order to create a train of thought and realisation amongst you in order for you to see something more. What are the limits of what we can understand? How can we learn from those limits? When I referred to a child's curiosity earlier, I was referring to their curiosity. We have an innate ability to question. These questions are answered by yes, no, or maybe. When we grow older, we use the scientific process to give us definitive results to yes or no or we don't know enough so maybe. Maybe though is very unsatisfactory. It implies that we don't know what's going on. So we bravely sail on until we have a yes or a no. Many times in physics have we seen the side effects of this. Einstein's cosmological constant for example. When in doubt (maybe) we want to invent to make things fit. Even when we know it is not right. What I want to hopefully show everyone here, is that "maybe" is just as fundamental in the Universe as yes and no. The idea of "nothing" I believe is the best way to start. I hope I have been clear, but it is hard to tell, as I'm typing this on my mobile currently on the balcony, and can't see what I have written so far as it has scrolled into oblivion!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    What I am doing here is asking a mainly rhetorical question in order to create a train of thought and realisation amongst you in order for you to see something more.
    Even when we know it is not right. What I want to hopefully show everyone here, is that "maybe" is just as fundamental in the Universe as yes and no. The idea of "nothing" I believe is the best way to start.
    This is a forum. Not a tutorial of students obligated to attend an introductory course of ?????

    Most of us know how to think, many of us know a fair bit about various things. The one thing we're certain of, that thinking requires something to think about and, if you've read through past threads, we've dealt far too often with people who believe they have something to "teach" us about our limitations in thinking.

    "create a train of thought and realisation amongst you" sounds much more like a teachery platitude rather than initiating a discussion among equals. And I think you'll find that we're not all equals on this particular topic. Several members here are top notch on dealing with such questions as well as on science and scientific thinking.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    A good question. You are quite correct that no current mainstream theory requires nothing as a start. However, I do believe that by understanding various aspects of it, it will give new insight into current theories. Now, I fully understand that this topic mainly lies in the philosophical area. But also in physics, the life of a physicist becomes very uncomfortable when realising the breakdown of physics involving a massive singularity. Dealing with infinity becomes a problem then. At some stage in this situation, they too must guess what happens next. What I am doing here is asking a mainly rhetorical question in order to create a train of thought and realisation amongst you in order for you to see something more. What are the limits of what we can understand? How can we learn from those limits? When I referred to a child's curiosity earlier, I was referring to their curiosity. We have an innate ability to question. These questions are answered by yes, no, or maybe. When we grow older, we use the scientific process to give us definitive results to yes or no or we don't know enough so maybe. Maybe though is very unsatisfactory. It implies that we don't know what's going on. So we bravely sail on until we have a yes or a no. Many times in physics have we seen the side effects of this. Einstein's cosmological constant for example. When in doubt (maybe) we want to invent to make things fit. Even when we know it is not right. What I want to hopefully show everyone here, is that "maybe" is just as fundamental in the Universe as yes and no. The idea of "nothing" I believe is the best way to start. I hope I have been clear, but it is hard to tell, as I'm typing this on my mobile currently on the balcony, and can't see what I have written so far as it has scrolled into oblivion!
    The best description of this I can come up with is boring, pedantic, self-congratulatory word salad.
    PhDemon and DogLady like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22
    What I would really love to do is translate from a philosophical hypothesis into a physical one.
    Then all objects and relations in your philosophical hypothesis must be rigorously defined, and consistent with the current body of physical observation.
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22
    It is usually of no more meaning than "0"... A footnote to figuring out what went on.
    While it is true that Zero is often used symbolically as a place holder, it (0) as a matter of fact is a rich and important mathematical object. It is the additive identity element in numerous different algebraic structures.
    See the Wiki below;
    0 (number) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Neverfly likes this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Well I usually start with a little flour, then add a little bit of baking soda.....
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    If you want to make apple pie, first, you must invent the Universe.
    shlunka and onechordbassist like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If you want to make apple pie, first, you must invent the Universe.

    Neverfly, babe and marbor22 like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If you want to make apple pie, first, you must invent the Universe.
    My sister bitches if she has to make the pastry from scratch...
    Then don't ask her to make pastry from scratch, stud.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    My son JUST called me to ask questions about making a scratch pie crust for a Jamacian meat pie.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    My son JUST called me to ask questions about making a scratch pie crust for a Jamacian meat pie.
    Cannibal... you sicken me.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    My son JUST called me to ask questions about making a scratch pie crust for a Jamacian meat pie.
    Cannibal... you sicken me.
    I am neither Jamacan nor a pie crust.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    I've just joined up a few days ago, so go easy on me please! I am in a bit of a pickle, and need some direction. I am not a particularly organized person, and I am unsure how to go about this, but I will throw this out and see if anyone can help. I do hope that I am in the right place here, and will be treated nicely. I have a big heart, and im not very good as a flaming subject...I have over the past 20 odd years developed a philosophical hypothesis of the Universe, and how it began. Everything so far is based purely on logic. I do it mainly as a hobby, and come back to it from time to time, having forgotten various aspects of it, which I have to re-realize. I have filled countless books up with scrawl, and I have gone back over some aspects so many times now that it seems they are second hand...I sit here sometimes, wondering if I will ever do something about it. And in all the time I have spent on developing it, I know in my heart that I have made some very serious and meaningful discoveries along the way. If not for others, then for myself. As I have said, it's a hobby and I enjoy it very much. I don't really expect it will ever see the light of day as by it's nature as it's well... difficult.What I would really love to do is translate from a philosophical hypothesis into a physical one. And with this I am having a hell of a time achieving. For the most part I don't really know how to go about it. Everything I have done is based on a pretty broad understanding of the physical universe with serious respect for modern cosmological understanding. For me, everything has to fit, and fit well.So, to begin. I decided to attack what I consider the most relevant base question to begin with. We always ask ourselves "So how did the Universe come from Nothing?"..."Nothing" is a word that gets bandied about quite often. It is usually of no more meaning than "0"... A footnote to figuring out what went on. I feel that it's a bit left out in the scheme of things. I would like to describe to you how you have already discovered the "Grand Unified Theory" Then I would like to show you some perspective. I would like to show you how you have been missing a key element all this time in your understanding. At least I hope to. It's not an understanding that comes straight away. And maybe im a complete idiot. But I will try and describe this. What I would like here is an open environment where everyone can contribute. I am in no way protective of my ideas. If it gets shot down, it gets shot down. If it does good, it does good. I've just become a dad for the first time, and have an operation on Monday, so my reply's might be a little slow to start with if anyone is interested. Please tell me first if I should bother or not, then I can get started. 10 personal descriptions of "nothing" to start with would be welcomed too. Just so I can get a taste.Have a lovely day, and kind regards,M
    Hello;

    FYI; There is a another sub section for discussing alternative ideas. That said, when you say nothing, do you mean what led to the BB? Is your argument countering the BB theory? Are you a supporter of the BB theory? Maybe we should start there.

    What do you mean by "10 personal descriptions of nothing would be welcome?" Our personal ideas of "nothingness?"

    Thing is, unless you have some quantitative info to align with your "theory," you might lose your audience.
    Last edited by wegs; August 18th, 2013 at 12:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    I thought of the old Billy Preston song "Nothing from Nothing Means Nothing" even if the lyrics do not apply


    Billy Preston - Nothing from nothing 1975 - YouTube
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Lol babe!!Poor OP. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Lol babe!!Poor OP. :P
    There is a song for just about anything and that is how my brain functions or..*laughing* misfunctions!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Good morning everyone!

    @Wegs: Yes I support the BB theory. @adelady: Yes, I've been put in my place. No longer attempting to convince people, you can do that yourselves. Thanks for the bitch slap. @giantevil: Yes, "0" is facinating. It's rich history in maths etc... and early belief systems involving it. I didn't spend the last 20 years ignoring that.

    @neverfly: "We perceive time as an effect in a specific manner due to the nature of the Universe in its current state. We inhabit Spacetime. This effect as we perceive it is dependent on space and matter in this current state but this does NOT mean that in a different state of existence, say a super condensed energy/mass sub-state that hypothetically could have existed prior to the Big Bang event was without time, rather that effect (time) could have been perceived in a different manner than the one we know, dependent on the properties of that pre-BB state."

    Correct. Anyway. There seems to be a lot of confusion over what I am saying here. And I have learnt from the responses I have seen so far. To be honest, I have to try again but in a different manner. Otherwise im going to get eaten for breakfast.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Lol babe!!Poor OP. :P
    babe also equals brat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Correct. Anyway. There seems to be a lot of confusion over what I am saying here. And I have learnt from the responses I have seen so far. To be honest, I have to try again but in a different manner. Otherwise im going to get eaten for breakfast.
    I think you first need to ask yourself just how meaningful the question of what was "before the BB" really is. You can walk all the way north to the north pole - but once you reach it, no matter which way you face, everywhere is south. Same with the Big Bang - you can go back all the way to it, but once you are there, everywhere you face in space-time is in the future. There is no going back, just as there is no north from the north pole. If you speak of the initial conditions which gave rise to the BB event, then you are talking about something which isn't part of our universe, and which lies not within our space-time continuum. Anything you theorise will forever remain pure speculation; we can only meaningfully work within the confines of our own space-time manifold. You may get around this though if you propose an embedding into a high-dimensional manifold, but then the BB is no longer a true beginning.
    Neverfly and wegs like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Correct. Anyway. There seems to be a lot of confusion over what I am saying here. And I have learnt from the responses I have seen so far. To be honest, I have to try again but in a different manner. Otherwise im going to get eaten for breakfast.
    I think you first need to ask yourself just how meaningful the question of what was "before the BB" really is. You can walk all the way north to the north pole - but once you reach it, no matter which way you face, everywhere is south. Same with the Big Bang - you can go back all the way to it, but once you are there, everywhere you face in space-time is in the future. There is no going back, just as there is no north from the north pole. If you speak of the initial conditions which gave rise to the BB event, then you are talking about something which isn't part of our universe, and which lies not within our space-time continuum. Anything you theorise will forever remain pure speculation; we can only meaningfully work within the confines of our own space-time manifold. You may get around this though if you propose an embedding into a high-dimensional manifold, but then the BB is no longer a true beginning.
    Since this thread is not a hard science thread, I want to make a comment on this.
    I like this analogy- I have seen you use it before.

    Even so, I think it is not impossible, that even if it's a million years in the future, humanity may be able to glimpse beyond our spacetime, beyond our universe.
    Halliday likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Even so, I think it is not impossible, that even if it's a million years in the future, humanity may be able to glimpse beyond our spacetime, beyond our universe.
    I don't know if it is possible or not. All I can say is that I do not see any way how this would work while not breaking the laws of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If you want to make apple pie, first, you must invent the Universe.
    My sister bitches if she has to make the pastry from scratch...
    CHUCKLE and when is the last time YOU have made pastry from scratch?

    That really mad me laugh!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Thanks for the reply Markus. What I would like to acheive here is to describe how Possiblity itself is Space-Time. And how Possibility demands the existance of an original "Nothingness" from which the Universe sprang from. Then I would like to explain how it IS possible to theorise about it even though it lies outside the bounds of space-time continuum. Using a logical thought experiment I will highlight certain deficiencies that we have when using our minds to explore these non-regions. Then present a rules of the road as it were for us to ponder over.However these guidelines will only enable us as a species inhabiting space-time the benefit of knowing it's the best we can come up with. (there will always be uncertainty)

    I then hope to show how "Nothing" itself is the most powerful driving force not only in our Universe, but outside of space-time too. What I hope to most of all though is to provide insight. I should never have started this thread with the description "Philosophical Hypothesis" I should rather have said "Thought experiment to provide insight and a bit of direction" I cannot provide physical evidence. Nor maths at this time. They don't exist. All I can hope to do is clear the playing field up a bit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Ok. saw that. I can't say "Driving force" rather, "Idea"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Even so, I think it is not impossible, that even if it's a million years in the future, humanity may be able to glimpse beyond our spacetime, beyond our universe.
    I don't know if it is possible or not. All I can say is that I do not see any way how this would work while not breaking the laws of physics.
    Don't worry about that. The laws of Physics are not touched here. All current theories stay the same and are safe and sound. Even though "nothing" is not needed by current theories, it's hiding in the background.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    chuckle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Even though "nothing" is not needed by current theories, it's hiding in the background.
    As already demonstrated, this is a baseless assumption on your part.
    To put this into perspective, I'll ask a simple enough question.
    Without running a calculation- just take a guess:
    How much cubic space would you need to stack 1 billion pennies?

    While you could calculate out a number, given the restriction if simply guessing you may find that the way our brains evolved had no survival advantage of understanding such huge numbers. We cannot fathom a billion even if we use the word "billion" on a daily basis.

    Such is the struggle you're having with the concept of Infinity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Lover of Ideas jacate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    On a dot, blue in the universe, miniature on Earth
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    I've just joined up a few days ago, so go easy on me please! I am in a bit of a pickle, and need some direction. I am not a particularly organized person, and I am unsure how to go about this, but I will throw this out and see if anyone can help. I do hope that I am in the right place here, and will be treated nicely. I have a big heart, and im not very good as a flaming subject...

    I have over the past 20 odd years developed a philosophical hypothesis of the Universe, and how it began. Everything so far is based purely on logic. I do it mainly as a hobby, and come back to it from time to time, having forgotten various aspects of it, which I have to re-realize. I have filled countless books up with scrawl, and I have gone back over some aspects so many times now that it seems they are second hand...

    I sit here sometimes, wondering if I will ever do something about it. And in all the time I have spent on developing it, I know in my heart that I have made some very serious and meaningful discoveries along the way. If not for others, then for myself. As I have said, it's a hobby and I enjoy it very much. I don't really expect it will ever see the light of day as by it's nature as it's well... difficult.

    What I would really love to do is translate from a philosophical hypothesis into a physical one. And with this I am having a hell of a time achieving. For the most part I don't really know how to go about it. Everything I have done is based on a pretty broad understanding of the physical universe with serious respect for modern cosmological understanding. For me, everything has to fit, and fit well.

    So, to begin. I decided to attack what I consider the most relevant base question to begin with. We always ask ourselves "So how did the Universe come from Nothing?"...

    "Nothing" is a word that gets bandied about quite often. It is usually of no more meaning than "0"... A footnote to figuring out what went on. I feel that it's a bit left out in the scheme of things.

    I would like to describe to you how you have already discovered the "Grand Unified Theory"

    Then I would like to show you some perspective. I would like to show you how you have been missing a key element all this time in your understanding. At least I hope to. It's not an understanding that comes straight away. And maybe im a complete idiot. But I will try and describe this.

    What I would like here is an open environment where everyone can contribute. I am in no way protective of my ideas. If it gets shot down, it gets shot down. If it does good, it does good. I've just become a dad for the first time, and have an operation on Monday, so my reply's might be a little slow to start with if anyone is interested. Please tell me first if I should bother or not, then I can get started. 10 personal descriptions of "nothing" to start with would be welcomed too. Just so I can get a taste.

    Have a lovely day, and kind regards,

    M

    My definition of nothing in 2 paragrahs:
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________

    Ok that is it.

    If you get it i will applaud your ability to connect dots that hardly actually make sense. However there is something in nothing and in every nothing there is always something there(sorry for philosphy)
    Thus the universe did come from nothing, there was actually something in it before hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    I couldn't be arsed. I got enough to deal with at the moment without being kicked in the nuts because I wanted to share an idea. I understand a lot of it is my fault because I'm bad at phrasing things, and got ahead of myself. Somehow before I even managed to start. Nothing to see here, move on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    I couldn't be arsed. I got enough to deal with at the moment without being kicked in the nuts because I wanted to share an idea. I understand a lot of it is my fault because I'm bad at phrasing things, and got ahead of myself. Somehow before I even managed to start. Nothing to see here, move on.
    Seriously, start a new thread in the alternative theory section. That's why that section exists.Don't let the guys teasing get to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Thanks for the advice wegs. Appreiciated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Cause and Effect.

    There are currently no cosmological theories requiring a state of “Nothingness” to be present pre Big bang. Also, it is considered impossible to know of anything before this as it lies outside the scope of the space-time continuum.
    Modern cosmological theory(s) are founded all on the same question. We asked ourselves – “What came before?” In the past, we were curious about the nature of the Universe and how it came to be. The most blindingly obvious answer to the problem was “Nothing”
    As Humans, we follow the principle of cause and effect in our actions and thought processes. In general, consider this: At first Dad had an idea. This idea then turned into an enjoyable evening for him and his wife, followed by a period of pregnancy, and ultimately followed by many sleepless nights. This is generally how we explain the stories we tell, and everything we experience. So, when we were confronted by the idea of there being nothing at all at the very beginning of the universe, we had a problem. We had no backstory to rely on. How could we make a Universe spring from nothing? We couldn’t. And this is why today; there are no mainstream theories that rely on “Nothingness” as a start.
    Currently we are having difficulty reconciling the main forces in the universe into a coherent Grand Unified Theory. No matter how hard we try, we fail. We come incrementally closer, but still, it is out of reach. It seems we are missing something.
    I would suggest that we have made a mistake. It’s pretty obvious to me at least if you look at it. We ran away from the idea of “Nothingness” at the beginning. Not literally, as for many thousands of years we have been fascinated by it. But in the end, and correct me if I am wrong, I believe we kicked it under the carpet (in a sense) so we could get on with things.
    As you lot fully know, “nothing” these days is anything but nothing according to quantum. We have learned even in the last decade a vast amount that would rile the blood of any living physicist back then. What I am saying here, is put the brakes on here and consider what I have to say. Just for a moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Empty musings. No scientific content at all.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Cause and Effect.

    There are currently no cosmological theories requiring a state of “Nothingness” to be present pre Big bang. Also, it is considered impossible to know of anything before this as it lies outside the scope of the space-time continuum.
    Modern cosmological theory(s) are founded all on the same question. We asked ourselves – “What came before?” In the past, we were curious about the nature of the Universe and how it came to be. The most blindingly obvious answer to the problem was “Nothing”
    As Humans, we follow the principle of cause and effect in our actions and thought processes. In general, consider this: At first Dad had an idea. This idea then turned into an enjoyable evening for him and his wife, followed by a period of pregnancy, and ultimately followed by many sleepless nights. This is generally how we explain the stories we tell, and everything we experience. So, when we were confronted by the idea of there being nothing at all at the very beginning of the universe, we had a problem. We had no backstory to rely on. How could we make a Universe spring from nothing? We couldn’t. And this is why today; there are no mainstream theories that rely on “Nothingness” as a start.
    Currently we are having difficulty reconciling the main forces in the universe into a coherent Grand Unified Theory. No matter how hard we try, we fail. We come incrementally closer, but still, it is out of reach. It seems we are missing something.
    I would suggest that we have made a mistake. It’s pretty obvious to me at least if you look at it. We ran away from the idea of “Nothingness” at the beginning. Not literally, as for many thousands of years we have been fascinated by it. But in the end, and correct me if I am wrong, I believe we kicked it under the carpet (in a sense) so we could get on with things.
    As you lot fully know, “nothing” these days is anything but nothing according to quantum. We have learned even in the last decade a vast amount that would rile the blood of any living physicist back then. What I am saying here, is put the brakes on here and consider what I have to say. Just for a moment.
    This is nothing all that 'new.' The questions are...what is your alternative idea? What do you feel is the 'mistake' we have made?

    Largely, this is philosophical in nature, but scientists often propose that the universe exists because 'nothingness' can't exist. If that makes sense. Scientists already cope with these questions, but it would be a bit unethical for lack of a better word for them to address it scientifically. But, philosophically, it can be dealt with.

    (I think because it's more in the philosophical realm, it would probably get more play (feedback) in the alternative section)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    There are currently no cosmological theories requiring a state of “Nothingness” to be present pre Big bang. Also, it is considered impossible to know of anything before this as it lies outside the scope of the space-time continuum.
    Not really. There are a great many hypotheses about this. Prenrose's may be the most well known (because of his status).

    Modern cosmological theory(s) are founded all on the same question. We asked ourselves – “What came before?” In the past, we were curious about the nature of the Universe and how it came to be.
    Not really. Until very recently, the universe was thought to be infinitely old and (as proved by Newton) infinite in size.

    The most blindingly obvious answer to the problem was “Nothing”
    Not really. Until very, very recently, the most obvious answer was some some sort of "big bounce".

    As Humans, we follow the principle of cause and effect in our actions and thought processes.
    And the scientific method attempts to eliminate these sort of biases (which is just one of many problems with philosophy and pseudoscience when applied to the real world).

    What I am saying here, is put the brakes on here and consider what I have to say. Just for a moment.
    I have no idea what you are saying.

    The problems with integrating all the forces theoretical (i.e. mathematical) and practical (i.e. the difficulty of performing experiments at high enough energies). I'm not sure where you have addressed either of these. Or anything else.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If you want to make apple pie, first, you must invent the Universe.
    My sister bitches if she has to make the pastry from scratch...
    CHUCKLE and when is the last time YOU have made pastry from scratch?
    I don't do cooking
    Laughing in a good way!

    WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED! *chuckle*

    I am a very good cook! I cook pretty European though. Though my husband and I don't live together 7 months of a year, I sometimes think he misses my cooking more than me!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    What have Infinity, Time and Nothingness got in common? Fairly confusing, to say the least! However, I’d probably define “Nothingness” as a region of space which doesn’t exist, not even within our imaginations, like Narnia!

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around that North Pole analogy. Is it that a need for a set of unknown conditions prior to the Big Bang is not a requirement under the North Pole analogy?

    If you keep travelling backward in time, towards the Big Bang event (or in the analogy, keep going North), then when you reach the point in time of the Big Bang, without a change in direction, you suddenly find yourself going South in the analogy (or with time travel, without pulling on the breaks, you notice your heading forward in time again)? If so, then what you think we’ll discover if we keep going South?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    marbor22,

    ....10 personal descriptions of "nothing" to start with would be welcomed too. Just so I can get a taste.
    When coming up with a hypothesis of some kind one must use the same words with the same understandings everybody else has for those words. So in this case you asked for "personal descriptions." If you want to use the word nothing you need to know the standard meaning of the word and not deal with personal descriptions. This is what the dictionary says:

    "Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything." This is a standard English definition more relating to philosophy than to physics.

    Nothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There is nowhere within the universe where we are aware that there is a volume of 'nothing,' or nothingness. Instead when we evacuate all matter away from a volume we end up with an entity called the Zero Point Field. There is, however, thought to be more energy in the Zero Point Field than there is in all the rest of mass and energy in the universe combined. So the Zero Point Field collectively could be considered the farthest thing away from nothing that is possible.

    So if you wish to stick with observed reality you might consider that the state of "nothingness" may not exist anywhere within the known universe.

    Stephen Hawking in his last book "The Grand Design" discussed the creation of the universe from nothing. Instead what he was talking about was the creation of the Universe from the Zero Point Field, which is known to contain Zero Point Energy -- which technically is certainly not "nothing" in the dictionary sense of the word that I provided.

    This general idea/ definition of "nothing" is what Hawking was using for his proposal. The standard definition of the Zero Point Field is: "In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles."

    So now you have two definitions of "nothing" to work with. One definition is the total "absence of anything." And another definition which could equate "nothing" with the Zero Point Field (ZPF), which hypothetically might include as part of its definition: "the total absence of all matter and wave energy."

    Coming from ancient Greek philosophy and later becoming a Roman saying, comes the axiom, "from nothing, nothing comes," or simply something cannot come from nothing." I think to deal with this question you are more addressing philosophy than science as you have suggested.

    OK, now what are you going to do with these definitions? Good luck
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 26th, 2013 at 01:48 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Cause and Effect.

    There are currently no cosmological theories requiring a state of “Nothingness” to be present pre Big bang. Also, it is considered impossible to know of anything before this as it lies outside the scope of the space-time continuum.
    Modern cosmological theory(s) are founded all on the same question. We asked ourselves – “What came before?” In the past, we were curious about the nature of the Universe and how it came to be. The most blindingly obvious answer to the problem was “Nothing”
    As Humans, we follow the principle of cause and effect in our actions and thought processes. In general, consider this: At first Dad had an idea. This idea then turned into an enjoyable evening for him and his wife, followed by a period of pregnancy, and ultimately followed by many sleepless nights. This is generally how we explain the stories we tell, and everything we experience. So, when we were confronted by the idea of there being nothing at all at the very beginning of the universe, we had a problem. We had no backstory to rely on. How could we make a Universe spring from nothing? We couldn’t. And this is why today; there are no mainstream theories that rely on “Nothingness” as a start.
    Currently we are having difficulty reconciling the main forces in the universe into a coherent Grand Unified Theory. No matter how hard we try, we fail. We come incrementally closer, but still, it is out of reach. It seems we are missing something.
    I would suggest that we have made a mistake. It’s pretty obvious to me at least if you look at it. We ran away from the idea of “Nothingness” at the beginning. Not literally, as for many thousands of years we have been fascinated by it. But in the end, and correct me if I am wrong, I believe we kicked it under the carpet (in a sense) so we could get on with things.
    As you lot fully know, “nothing” these days is anything but nothing according to quantum. We have learned even in the last decade a vast amount that would rile the blood of any living physicist back then. What I am saying here, is put the brakes on here and consider what I have to say. Just for a moment.
    OK, good reasoning I think. But modern cosmology has not gown off the deep end. In the BB model, for instance, the beginning entity was the BB entity, not "nothing." There are other hypothesis concerning a different beginning but most would consider all of it hypothetical, with almost countless variations. So what do you think the problem is with our present proposals?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    marbor22,

    ....10 personal descriptions of "nothing" to start with would be welcomed too. Just so I can get a taste.
    When coming up with a hypothesis of some kind one must use the same words with the same understandings everybody else has for those words. So in this case you asked for "personal descriptions." If you want to use the word nothing you need to know the standard meaning of the word and not deal with personal descriptions. This is what the dictionary says:

    "Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything." This is a standard English definition more relating to philosophy than to physics.

    Nothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There is nowhere within the universe where we are aware that there is a volume of 'nothing,' or nothingness. Instead when we evacuate all matter away from a volume we end up with an entity called the Zero Point Field. There is, however, thought to be more energy in the Zero Point Field than there is in all the rest of mass and energy in the universe combined. So the Zero Point Field collectively could be considered the farthest thing away from nothing that is possible.

    So if you wish to stick with observed reality you might consider that the state of "nothingness" may not exist anywhere within the known universe.

    Stephen Hawking in his last book "The Grand Design" discussed the creation of the universe from nothing. Instead what he was talking about was the creation of the Universe from the Zero Point Field, which is known to contain Zero Point Energy -- which technically is certainly not "nothing" in the dictionary sense of the word that I provided.

    This general idea/ definition of "nothing" is what Hawking was using for his proposal. The standard definition of the Zero Point Field is: "In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles.

    So now you have two definitions of "nothing" to work with. One definition is the total "absence of anything." And another definition could equate "nothing" with the Zero Point Field (ZPF) which hypothetically might include as part of its definition "the total absence of all matter and wave energy."

    Coming from ancient Greek philosophy and later becoming a Roman saying, comes the axiom, "from nothing, nothing comes," or simply something cannot come from nothing." I think to deal with this question you are more addressing philosophy than science as you have suggested.

    OK, now what are going to do with these definitions? Good luck
    Thanks Forrest.

    You are quite correct. This also is how I understand things. We have two separate definitions of "Nothingness" to deal with. One like you said, "the total absence of anything." and two, "the total absence of all matter and wave energy."
    And ditto, I will be dealing firstly with the former. And please remember everyone, these are philosophical questions, and certainly not a physical ones.

    The reason why I believe there to be something wrong with our present proposals is this: Firstly. In this vast Universe we live in, we cannot only approach everything from a purely scientific approach.

    Now I want everyone to hold up a minute, before this goes down the rabbit hole.

    We are creatures of the Universe. And as such are subject to it. We have only our minds, our mathematics and the scientific process to help us out in our understanding. But the process of reasoning starts in the mind itself. If we are to make deductions about the nature of the Universe, we must begin with ourselves. And if something is at fault there to begin with then it stands to reason that our eventual hypothesis will be colored or tainted by it. Or perhaps we don't see what we should be seeing.

    The Universe will quite happily provide us with answers using to the scientific process. We will gain knowledge. But don't forget one thing. It does not care what we think or do with our results. Our translation of what we see, very much relies on us.

    In the same way that we require the scientific process to make progress in our understanding, I would firstly propose we need to be more aware of our thought process. It's our fundamental tool in the toolbox.

    Now, I hope that's clear to everyone. I don't think I said anything too inflammatory there. Just that hey, pay a little attention to how you think, not what you think. It might help a bit, and we might learn something.

    To clear something up. I would like if you give me time, to illustrate the "How we think" bit by looking into what we know as "Nothing" in the sense of a "total absence of anything".

    As I see it, it's a paradox, and as such is a good starting ground for what I have to say. I had developed a totally hypothetical hypothesis to deal with this. In other words a mind game. Which for years intrigued me. Until I realized that it was no longer a mind game. It suddenly became very, very serious. Give me time people, and I think you will come to realize the same.

    I understand one would normally post this in the far out section, and not here to perhaps gain more views or more acceptance. I'm not after that. This thread needs to be here.

    If you lot are happy, I will begin.
    One thing I will point out here right at the start. There is no particular order of understanding involved here. I will try my best to provide some. As I progress, It will become clearer that what I am attempting to describe lies in the sum total of the parts. Have a little patience. And @Forrest: I will get around to talking about ZPF later...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Get on with it.
    I personally deny that the universe came out of nothing . I postulate that it is made of God. "God" being atleast partially defined as that which exists beyound the limits of time and space in all directions, including time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Which leaves you with exactly zero explanatory power...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    And in the wrong forum.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    A good question. You are quite correct that no current mainstream theory requires nothing as a start. However, I do believe that by understanding various aspects of it, it will give new insight into current theories. Now, I fully understand that this topic mainly lies in the philosophical area. But also in physics, the life of a physicist becomes very uncomfortable when realising the breakdown of physics involving a massive singularity. Dealing with infinity becomes a problem then. At some stage in this situation, they too must guess what happens next. What I am doing here is asking a mainly rhetorical question in order to create a train of thought and realisation amongst you in order for you to see something more. What are the limits of what we can understand? How can we learn from those limits? When I referred to a child's curiosity earlier, I was referring to their curiosity. We have an innate ability to question. These questions are answered by yes, no, or maybe. When we grow older, we use the scientific process to give us definitive results to yes or no or we don't know enough so maybe. Maybe though is very unsatisfactory. It implies that we don't know what's going on. So we bravely sail on until we have a yes or a no. Many times in physics have we seen the side effects of this. Einstein's cosmological constant for example. When in doubt (maybe) we want to invent to make things fit. Even when we know it is not right. What I want to hopefully show everyone here, is that "maybe" is just as fundamental in the Universe as yes and no. The idea of "nothing" I believe is the best way to start. I hope I have been clear, but it is hard to tell, as I'm typing this on my mobile currently on the balcony, and can't see what I have written so far as it has scrolled into oblivion!
    The best description of this I can come up with is boring, pedantic, self-congratulatory word salad.
    Yes. I know. And I feel a little guilty about this. At the moment im the new kid waving his toy around saying "Look at this! - aint it so cool!" While thumping the nearest forum adult around the head with it. A little time while I compose myself if you can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    At the moment im the new kid waving his toy around saying "Look at this! - aint it so cool!"
    At the moment you are the new kid promising that one day you will show us your new toy. I must admit to skimming most of your posts (your could consider taking a course in communication skills or essay writing) but I have seen no significant content yet. Just a lot of waffle.

    Can you summarise in one or two short sentences what the point of this thread is?

    (And if you have got Forrest on your side, that is not a good sign. He has, in the past, proudly proclaimed his ignorance of certain theories and then attempted to argue they are wrong. He is ignorant and dishonest. Not a great reference or role model.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    (Forrest)...is ignorant and dishonest. Not a great reference or role model....
    (parenthesis added)

    Ignorant means "not knowing," and we all know what dishonest is. You rarely sink to false accusations. Shame on you. You are neither ignorant nor dishonest -- so why falsely accuse others with a "flaming" posting. This can be the strategy of those that possess those characteristics themselves. ".....look to the motivations of the accuser first."
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 26th, 2013 at 08:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Ignorant means "not knowing," and we all know what dishonest is.
    And your point?
    Or do you think it's not possible to be ignorant of some things and dishonest on other things, those of which you're not ignorant about?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Ignorant means "not knowing," and we all know what dishonest is.
    And your point? "My point is that I am certainly not ignorant"

    Or do you think it's not possible to be ignorant of some things and dishonest on other things, those of which you're not ignorant about?
    Of course it's possible, but he is talking about me. I may have at sometime given an ignorant answer when I thought my answer was correct. But I expect this rarely has happened. I only comment on subjects that I feel I am generally very knowledgeable about and well versed. In most science subjects I feel that I am far more educated than most others commenting on the subject. False dishonesty allegations are easy to make. I think that most that engage in such stupidity, mostly cannot understand the arguments involved, and think they must resort to false or imagined allegations to keep from losing face when confronted concerning their statements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I only comment on subjects that I feel I am generally very knowledgeable about and well versed.
    Your feeling is incorrect.

    I feel that I am far more educated than most others commenting on the subject.
    And deluded.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I only comment on subjects that I feel I am generally very knowledgeable about and well versed.
    Your feeling is incorrect.

    I feel that I am far more educated than most others commenting on the subject.
    And deluded.
    Take a look at my online profile here, or "about me" at pantheory.org. You may have no idea what I know if you cannot understand what I am saying, which is what you have asserted before. Believe me there are people in this forum that can understand almost everything I have to say, whether they agree or not. Very few of my postings assert facts without link support, especially when the subject could be controversial, or when I have been contradicted. Even upon request, many members here cannot or will not offer evidence for their questionable or wrong assertions. Often these are the most belligerent and most accusative persons, and/or those whose postings often involve negative comments rather than science.

    BTW, I have seen you make valuable and worthy postings, in my opinion, from time to time. I would like to see more of them
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 27th, 2013 at 12:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    I certainly don't believe the world was created in 7 days....that is plumb moronic!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I certainly don't believe the world was created in 7 days....that is plumb moronic!!
    Yup, but unfortunately there are still many intelligent people in a number of different religions that still believe in such fables.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    OOPS!

    Maybe I should have said, I don't think the world was created in 7 days.

    I keep getting in trouble with Sir Duck when I say believe......and that is probably because that word is drilled in my brain.

    Directors always say, "I don't believe you were frazzled. I don't believe how your presented that." You have to make them believe, so I tend to use that word a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by person on ignore
    I only comment on subjects that I feel I am generally very knowledgeable about and well versed.
    That would be what is technically known as a "lie".

    Forrest has in the past boasted of his deliberate ignorance of quantum theory. Yet he is very confident to pontificate about it, give appallingly bad explanations, and insist it is wrong. His level of knowledge is equivalent to someone who has read a few popular science articles and then not even understood them.

    His "rationale" for not learning about it is "because it is wrong" <facepalm>. That is the level of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty we are dealing with here.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    I've just joined up a few days ago, so go easy on me please! I am in a bit of a pickle, and need some direction. I am not a particularly organized person, and I am unsure how to go about this, but I will throw this out and see if anyone can help. I do hope that I am in the right place here, and will be treated nicely. I have a big heart, and im not very good as a flaming subject...

    I have over the past 20 odd years developed a philosophical hypothesis of the Universe, and how it began. Everything so far is based purely on logic. I do it mainly as a hobby, and come back to it from time to time, having forgotten various aspects of it, which I have to re-realize. I have filled countless books up with scrawl, and I have gone back over some aspects so many times now that it seems they are second hand...

    I sit here sometimes, wondering if I will ever do something about it. And in all the time I have spent on developing it, I know in my heart that I have made some very serious and meaningful discoveries along the way. If not for others, then for myself. As I have said, it's a hobby and I enjoy it very much. I don't really expect it will ever see the light of day as by it's nature as it's well... difficult.

    What I would really love to do is translate from a philosophical hypothesis into a physical one. And with this I am having a hell of a time achieving. For the most part I don't really know how to go about it. Everything I have done is based on a pretty broad understanding of the physical universe with serious respect for modern cosmological understanding. For me, everything has to fit, and fit well.

    So, to begin. I decided to attack what I consider the most relevant base question to begin with. We always ask ourselves "So how did the Universe come from Nothing?"...

    "Nothing" is a word that gets bandied about quite often. It is usually of no more meaning than "0"... A footnote to figuring out what went on. I feel that it's a bit left out in the scheme of things.

    I would like to describe to you how you have already discovered the "Grand Unified Theory"

    Then I would like to show you some perspective. I would like to show you how you have been missing a key element all this time in your understanding. At least I hope to. It's not an understanding that comes straight away. And maybe im a complete idiot. But I will try and describe this.

    What I would like here is an open environment where everyone can contribute. I am in no way protective of my ideas. If it gets shot down, it gets shot down. If it does good, it does good. I've just become a dad for the first time, and have an operation on Monday, so my reply's might be a little slow to start with if anyone is interested. Please tell me first if I should bother or not, then I can get started. 10 personal descriptions of "nothing" to start with would be welcomed too. Just so I can get a taste.

    Have a lovely day, and kind regards,

    M
    WELCOME and I hope your surgery goes well!! I have one in two weeks too!.....

    I read more than I write as this is not my forte, but always interesting to learn!

    Speedy recovery! Aloha!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Space-time. “Nothing” in the classical sense (an absence of anything) can’t exist within it. The closest we can get is the idea of a zero point field.

    The Human mind. “Nothing” in the classical sense can’t exist here either. Now pay attention: in the Human mind, if you really think about it, “Nothing” - “Nothings” itself out of existence.

    What? You may ask… Why? In order for something to have definition in our brains, it must mean something. And if we think about what it really means, we come to the conclusion above that it’s “the total absence of anything”. Fair enough. We usually leave things there.
    However some deeper thought will reveal that it can’t – in our minds – exist as a solid point of reference, such as a car (Solid object) or number (Amount of cars) “Nothing” by our very definition being a “Total lack of anything” demands that it is just that: “A total lack of anything”- Including “Nothing” itself!

    Ponder over that for a moment. You might say that well, “nothing” is not “anything” – it’s “Nothing”
    But, in order for our brain to have definition of something it must exist in the sense of “Something” Quite simply, it’s the way our brain is wired. For a bit of fun, you can compare it to the “Observer in the Universe” argument. That we can’t know what is outside the bounds of space-time.

    So, for us as people, it exists and doesn’t exist in a dual reality. It is I believe the simplest of things that we encounter that has this property in our mind.

    Simply put, it’s a paradox. And for us, the most basic of paradoxes.

    But, this is our minds we are talking about here. Not the Universe. Although we are a product of the Universe…

    Perhaps it is a key of some kind. What would happen if we tried to resolve this paradox within our heads by using the Universe itself as an example? What would happen indeed…What could we discover about ourselves? And the way we see the Universe? Would that change?

    Right now, I imagine a lot of people looking at this post are rolling their eyes... saying to themselves "What a waste of my bloody time..." But, as I pointed out above, we are a product of the Universe. And we want to figure it out. And to figure it out, our minds must be in good shape. When we observe the Universe through our minds, eyes and knowledge, we want to connect things up correctly. When one of our very definitions (Nothing) for example remain largely unexplored in our own minds we do ourselves an injustice.
    We say that "Nothing" in the classical sense cannot exist in the Universe. Ok. But it simultaneously exists and does not exist in our minds. How can we reconcile this when we try to understand the Universe as a product of it? Who are we to say that when we can't say it about ourselves?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    So your only point seems to be that a perfect vacuum, empty space, does not exist. <yawn>
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Main point being is that if we have this perception built into us, perhaps it is an indication that in our understanding of the universe, we should include it too? Give it a little more respect as it were. I know fool well that I am stating the obvious in my last comment. Most people would say, "Yes, well we know that nothing is a paradox. So what? It does not affect our ability to work things out, so why should I give it any time?" And they would be right. And, yes, life goes on quite finely thank you. But if we are a product of the universe and have this basic ability of understanding, then to me at least it highlights that perhaps the universe itself has this same existential crisis too? That nothing might exist and not exist simultaneously? Perhaps similar to a quantum froth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    That last bit might have been a bait...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    At the moment im the new kid waving his toy around saying "Look at this! - aint it so cool!"
    At the moment you are the new kid promising that one day you will show us your new toy. I must admit to skimming most of your posts (your could consider taking a course in communication skills or essay writing) but I have seen no significant content yet. Just a lot of waffle. Can you summarise in one or two short sentences what the point of this thread is?(And if you have got Forrest on your side, that is not a good sign. He has, in the past, proudly proclaimed his ignorance of certain theories and then attempted to argue they are wrong. He is ignorant and dishonest. Not a great reference or role model.)
    WOW! You most be so proud. What a disgusting and childish way to treat anyone, especially someone that not only shares your same interest in physic/cosmology but truly seems to enjoy it. I know that the arguments or heated discussion are part of the norm but if you can't be slapped with a lawsuit for what you said you alt to at least be slapped. That was really low down and whatever your excuss or history for saying such a thing doesn't matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    @Bill: it's fine mate. While it's nice to see some support, he is also right in his comment that I'm a pretty bad writer. I'm learning here. And I'm taking it very slowly because I also need to understand people's reactions. Regarding my lack of content, he is also correct. I launched myself into this with no preparation as such. And recently became a dad to a very thirsty boy while also undergoing a large operation. His comments about Forrest I will ignore. He seems like a nice guy. And that is for me to decide. Not somebody else. And you are absolutely right. I love cosmology. I want this thread to be constructive. That's all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    WOW! You most be so proud. What a disgusting and childish way to treat anyone, especially someone that not only shares your same interest in physic/cosmology but truly seems to enjoy it. I know that the arguments or heated discussion are part of the norm but if you can't be slapped with a lawsuit for what you said you alt to at least be slapped. That was really low down and whatever your excuss or history for saying such a thing doesn't matter.
    I have no idea why you think what I said was so bad. After however many thousand words from marbor22, I still have seen nothing but "there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum". Meh. We know that. So what.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    WOW! You most be so proud. What a disgusting and childish way to treat anyone, especially someone that not only shares your same interest in physic/cosmology but truly seems to enjoy it. I know that the arguments or heated discussion are part of the norm but if you can't be slapped with a lawsuit for what you said you alt to at least be slapped. That was really low down and whatever your excuss or history for saying such a thing doesn't matter.
    I have no idea why you think what I said was so bad. After however many thousand words from marbor22, I still have seen nothing but "there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum". Meh. We know that. So what.
    If you don't think calling someone ignorant and dishonest is wrong then that's your problem not mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    @Bill: it's fine mate. While it's nice to see some support, he is also right in his comment that I'm a pretty bad writer. I'm learning here. And I'm taking it very slowly because I also need to understand people's reactions. Regarding my lack of content, he is also correct. I launched myself into this with no preparation as such. And recently became a dad to a very thirsty boy while also undergoing a large operation. His comments about Forrest I will ignore. He seems like a nice guy. And that is for me to decide. Not somebody else. And you are absolutely right. I love cosmology. I want this thread to be constructive. That's all.
    Sorry but I was referring to the childish accusation against Forest. And I mean no disrespect but I do agree with Strange that you need to get to the point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    If you don't think calling someone ignorant and dishonest is wrong then that's your problem not mine.
    Not when it is obviously true, no.

    Sorry, I thought you were referring to my comments to marbor22, which were intended to be helpful and to try and get him to focus on the point he wants to make.

    Forrest is on my ignore list (because of his persistent lying and proud boats of wilful ignorance) but I'm sure his recent posts will demonstrate his dishonesty and ignorance quite clearly. He has proved over many years that he is unwilling to learn and will never admit to being wrong (even when there is overwhelming evidence). In short, if Forrest supports something you say, then it is almost certainly wrong.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    It's a natural assumption. That everything must have a beginning. And you are quite correct. As children we ask ourselves this. Until we learn of quantum etc... I wrote this in the tread to address that old curiousity.
    Why is it a natural assumption that there must be a beginning? If the universe is not infinitely old, then you've given yourself quite a puzzle to solve in trying to determine what things were like before it began.

    It's just like if you think it's not infinitely wide. You're stuck with the question: what's outside of it then? Why isn't the outside considered part of the universe? (Of course BBT cosmology suggests that the universe simply curves around so you never actually find an edge.)

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Empty musings. No scientific content at all.
    What it lacks in content, it makes up for in entertainment value. At least I must say I am entertained.

    And if you're not entertained, then why are you reading this thread?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Get on with it.
    I personally deny that the universe came out of nothing . I postulate that it is made of God. "God" being atleast partially defined as that which exists beyound the limits of time and space in all directions, including time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Which leaves you with exactly zero explanatory power...
    As do most "originating event" theories.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Surrounded by papers here... have some patience!
    Just letting you know im still here...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm changing my position. The Astronomy forum seems dead since this thread got here. A fun thread, but more suitable for Pseudo-Science no?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Possibly. I have no idea how to categorise this. And I really have no idea what to do with this. Right now, headache. And ive been ordered to bed by the Mrs. This WILL take some time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    23
    This might not make any sense.Something from nothing can be found in geometry.Further study is Phthagoreas.And Comparative observations from Einstin.Something coming into existance from noware and nothing is very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    This might not make any sense.
    Like most of your posts.

    Something from nothing can be found in geometry.
    Details please.

    Further study is Phthagoreas.
    You mean Pythagoras?

    And Comparative observations from Einstin.
    Yeah, but what did Einstein have to say about it?
    Did he make "comparative observations"?

    Something coming into existance from noware and nothing is very interesting.
    Examples please.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Well I usually start with a little flour, then add a little bit of baking soda.....
    You put your right foot in
    You put your right foot out
    You put your right foot in
    and shake it all about

    You do the Hokey Pokey
    And you turn yourself around
    And that's what it's all about
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Everything so far is based purely on logic.
    This rings alarm bells. I suspect you will not get a very positive reaction here. People are more interested in evidence-based theories.
    My own personal view is that the nature of reality should be based on pure logic. However, I have discovered with my own ruminations that it is all too easy to err by making implicit assumptions that aren't necessarily true. For example, in the past, I had derived a generalised version of general relativity from first principles and this led me to make conclusions about quantum mechanics that I now know are not supported by the empirical evidence. My error was the implicit assumption of counterfactual definiteness. This taught me a valuable lesson: while I still believe that reality should be based on pure logic, one must still perform empirical checks for behaviour that violates one's logically derived theory. Of course, the above assumes that one's "logic" is sound (I like to think that mine is, but I am not in a position to make that judgement).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    And I think that is pretty much the point. Someone who has taken a disciplined approach to the study of logic in philosophy, math or even science may be able to deduce something logically from some axioms (which should, of course, be made explicit and open to challenge).

    But I haven't yet seen someone with their own "alternative" theory use "logic" to mean anything other than "here's a random string of unconnected ideas that make sense to me" .
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Depends on how simple the logic is. Right now I'm working on concrete stuff for you guys. In the meantime, an example of simple logic. Please feel free to disagree if you like. While I'm doing my thing, it's important for me to see how you guys react to some ideas... So go ahead.

    If we applied absolute nothing (in a classical sense) to the universe, we would have...

    No Space-time
    No Mass
    No Energy
    And no possibility (in a Nomological sense)

    This make sense to you guys? Did I miss something? (I understand the first thing you might think of is that coming up with the bloody idea in the first place is being illogical, but cmon...)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Right now I'm working on concrete stuff for you guys.
    You said you have been working on this for 20 years and yet you still, a month after first posting here, having nothing to say. Bizarre.

    If we applied absolute nothing (in a classical sense) to the universe, we would have...

    No Space-time
    No Mass
    No Energy
    And no possibility (in a Nomological sense)
    It depends how you define "nothing" (and I don't think "in a classical sense" answers that). After all, space-time isn't a "thing" it is just a set of measurements. You might say that if there is nothing to measure, then there is no need of space-time. But on the other hand, one can define an empty space-time containing no mass/energy where, therefore, nothing ever happens.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    @KJW.. I understand you perfectly there mate. Guess it's just rigorous assassination of anything that even looks funny at you. I have a saying... "Presumption is the mother of all F*** up's" I think we all want our answers to be elegant, and intuitive. At the end of the day, we all make those mistakes, but which ever way, it's all fun!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    @strange. Yes. I can understand that after 20 years, I might have a bit more to say. My problem is not lack of information, it's too much of it. How to arrange it so you can see the end result is most important to me. It's a very circular thing. (not a circular argument though) There will be situations coming up we don't even have words for in the English language. Sure, I have my pet names for them, but how to get you guys to see and understand them is another thing altogether... This "definition of nothing" is only the start, and that's hard enough for me... In the meantime, I ask you guys to please discuss ideas... whats you're personal opinion of our place in the Universe and understanding of it, you're pet ideas, etc... regarding this topic... I would enjoy it and learn stuff too while im at it. Sharing ideas on a forum in order to progress stuff?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    @strange. Ok. So for the point of the exercise, you agree my logic is sound?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    @strange. Ok. So for the point of the exercise, you agree my logic is sound?
    I don't really see any logic. Just a definition of what you mean by "nothing" (no mass, no energy, no space or time).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    But it is fair to say the definition is correct within the sense of the argument? How would you change it? Logically, there would be an absolute lack of anything to operate with? Is this not blatantly obvious? If I work at this pace im going to have a hernia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    How can that be a lack of logic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    But it is fair to say the definition is correct within the sense of the argument?
    A definition is correct ... by definition. If that is how you are defining "nothing" then no one can say it is wrong.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    How can that be a lack of logic?
    Logic is starting from a set of premises (e.g. your definition of "nothing" and other axioms) and using the rules of logic (syllogisms, etc) to derive a conclusion. If the logic is valid and the premises are true (i.e. the entire argument is sound) then the conclusion must be true.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Re: How do we decide who gets to be an American?
    By Bad Robot in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2013, 06:12 PM
  2. Help me decide what class I should take?
    By elegance in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 7th, 2010, 07:51 AM
  3. IQ tests cannot decide upon ones intelligence
    By blue_space87 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 10th, 2008, 08:11 AM
  4. You decide
    By Quantime in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 12th, 2007, 06:33 PM
  5. You decide
    By Quantime in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 12th, 2007, 06:08 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •