The Void of nothing

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Invent for me some new words then. I explained it's the inadequacies of the English language that is the problem.

[b]However, as usual you choose to ignore the real issues.[/b]

Consider the infinite universe simply as a loop space and our big bang universe as a fiber bundle of knots contained inside it and maybe you might be getting close to the answers that KM is baffled about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have already knocked it down quite conclusively. Your concept of nothing 'existing' is a meaningless concept and so any claims based on it such as 'nothing must continue existing' are invalid from the start.

I have been reading these posts, would you be kind enough to show me where you have knocked down the the idea that only nothing can come from nothing? I mean the faithful to the Big Bang may agree with you, but true believers do stick together, so maybe you spoke the group think verbage and everyone, except the non-believers understood where to say amen.
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think the problem is here is that you won't pin your colours to the mast. Either you believe that the universe is finite or you don't . But you won't allow yourself to be drawn too specifically.

I have pinned my colours all over the mast. I have quite specifically stated that I do not know whether the universe is finite or infinite. What I am saying is that your attempts at logic do not show that it is infinite.

All I am asking you to do is to consider what the universe being finite implies and then follow that argument through to the end.
So back to basics , let's assume the universe is either a) finite or b) not finite. Surely that's not too great a leap of logic to make?[/b]
I agree with that. I disagree with your out of hand elimination of a) without good cause.

Originally posted by knightmeister
We are already throwing plenty of logic out of the window mate , or had you not noticed? Mysticism is just a position of realising that some things are beyond rational inquiry and are never likely to be expalined , only contemplated. There's no logical reason to assume that everything in existence should be understandable in a rational sense anyway.

I disagree with your definition of mysticism. I also disagree that some things are beyond rational inquiry. The fact that we do not know the answers is not the same thing as saying the answers are no rationally obtainable. Mysticism to me is the belief in something that you cannot explain. Just not explaining something is not, in my opinion, mysticism.

You have got no closer to understanding why existence exists than me and I doubt you ever will.
Well thats partly because I am not particularly bothered by 'why' everything exists. I am not even sure if the question itself is rational. What we are discussing here is not the why so much as the how. And not so much the 'how' of coming into existence but the 'how' of current existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But for how long would something have to exist for to stop nothingness existing ?

I don't see how long time is, is relevant. You are again claiming an external timescale and space in which the universe and its existence is only a subsection. If the universe existed for a mere second, that would not directly imply that time goes on for a minute and therefore there are 59 seconds unaccounted for. All time is contained in the universe whether finite or infinite, it makes no difference.

A trillion , trillion years or may be a bit more ? If something had a beginning would it be able to prevent nothingness? , I think not. If something had an edge or boundary would that do the trick? I don't think so because it would have an edge with something or other... or nothing(but we can't have that it's meaningless , it can't exist!) more somethingness then ad infinitum.
Again you are making totally false claims about edges and simultaneously ignoring the possibility of circles.[/b]

Originally posted by knightmeister
Physics suggests that time/space will just continue in a timeline dissipating into the heat death of the universe which doesn't sound much like your circle.

Actually it does no such thing.

I would say the beginning of the circle would be the point at which the circle began to exist .
You have found the beginning of a circle? Thats news for mathematics! Of course you have quite conveniently changed the whole meaning of the words involved to suit yourself.

It would be just the same with a line , or a square or a bowl of blancmange. The point at which it began to exist would be it's beginning.
So now you are admitting the flaw in your infinity theory. Even your eternity must have a beginning! Its at the point where it began to exist!

No different with a circle. Once the circle existed then time could go round and round with no beginning , unless the circle had never not been there.
The circle is time so where exactly could this piece of time be which is not on the circle?

What I really want to know what your circle is supposed to represent and what on earth it's got to do with the real world?
The circle is just an example of a finite entity without a beginning. It could just as well be a sphere or even a 3 or n dimensional sphere.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have some more questions on this. Firstly , where would you place the big bang in your circle of time ?

At the point labeled "big bang".

Secondly do you accept the Big bang idea that suggests the universe to be an expanding balloon of some sort (rather than a neat circle)
Actually it is a neat circle but in more dimensions than one.

with matter/energy moving outwards from the centre?
So the universe has a centre now does it? And where would that be?
Matter is not 'moving' at all, the space itself is expanding giving the illusion that bits of matter are moving away from each other.

How do you equate this with your tidy circle? Do you place the balloon within the circle or is the balloon also the circle?
Space is a circle in more dimensions than one. Why not in the time dimension as well?

How do you get by the time paradox problem of the future connecting up with the past (Einstein though this impossible) ?
Maybe it is the past connecting up with the past as in the south pole on a sphere.

Most importantly , would you accept that for time to be in a circle , time would have to be flowing around this circle constantly in motion? If so is the time constantly in motion or has the circle ever been motionless , "waiting" for time to start moving? For it to be time it would have to be constantly flowing and in motion. Has it always been in motion?
Now you've got time moving through time! This gets better and better! Its about time you took a break and read a book on physics.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I've told you before I don't think length or depth exist either . A dimension is not a "thing" , it's just a descriptive concept. How heavy is length , does it have any mass? How many lengths are there on earth ? Are they all the same colour?

So because you cant measure one dimension with the units of another dimension you declare the dimension to not exist?
So this energy you claim does exist, how heavy is it? What colour is it? what is it's length? Keep in mind that I am talking about all types of energy including potential energy.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
ime (tīm) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A [b]nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
2. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
3. A n ...[text shortened]... tempo.
13. Chiefly British. The hour at which a pub closes.
14. Sports. A time-out.

Nowhere in this list does it mention time as being an objective thing consisting of matter and energy. I might easily say that beauty is a " property " of the universe, but would that make beauty exist for you? You have already said yourself that having matter , mass and energy is a pre-requisite for anything existing

Originally posted by twhitehead
At the point labeled "big bang".

[b]Secondly do you accept the Big bang idea that suggests the universe to be an expanding balloon of some sort (rather than a neat circle)
Actually it is a neat circle but in more dimensions than one.

with matter/energy moving outwards from the centre?
So the universe has a centre now does it? And where This gets better and better! Its about time you took a break and read a book on physics.[/b]

with matter/energy moving outwards from the centre?
So the universe has a centre now does it? And where would that be?WHITEY

In Scotty's singularity? Your argument is maybe not with me. Are you denying that most physicists posit that the universe is like an expanding balloon ? If it is spherical in someway then every sphere has a centre point that could be worked out mathematically.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nowhere in this list does it mention time as being an objective thing consisting of matter and energy. I might easily say that beauty is a " property " of the universe, but would that make beauty exist for you? You have already said yourself that having matter , mass and energy is a pre-requisite for anything existing

Nowhere in anyones posts can I find a claim that time does consist of matter and energy. (matter is energy but not the only type).

You still wont answer my questions about potential energy which is a form of energy which is based solely on the spacial dimension and which is convertible to any other form of energy.

Tip: If a post comes out all in bold then edit it and make sure that every [ b ] has a corresponding [ / b ]

Originally posted by knightmeister
In Scotty's singularity? Your argument is maybe not with me.

Scotty's singularity only applies to a specific point in time (or period of time). Do you know where that singularity is now?

Are you denying that most physicists posit that the universe is like an expanding balloon ?
Key word here is 'like'.
It is more like the surface of a balloon but in more dimensions. Now where is the centre of the balloons surface?

If it is spherical in someway then every sphere has a centre point that could be worked out mathematically.
Yes, but the centre point you are talking about is not on the surface of the sphere. And the sphere is not 'discontinuous' at the centre point which is the original claim you were making.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have been reading these posts, would you be kind enough to show me where you have knocked down the the idea that only nothing can come from nothing? I mean the faithful to the Big Bang may agree with you, but true believers do stick together, so maybe you spoke the group think verbage and everyone, except the non-believers understood where to say amen.
Kelly

Interesting point. I believe in the big bang but not something from nothing. What's also interesting is that although in some ways the other posters differ quite greatly on certain issues they never seem to take each other to task but always centre on me. It makes me wonder if it's debating the issues that motivates them or knocking Christians. I already know that Scotty is devoted to "stopping me" from doing something or other. Making sense maybe ? If one invests soooo much emotional energy trying to make out Christianity is a crock then contradicting yourself to do so isn't a big deal.

The ironic thing is that the idea of beginingless eternity is far far from a proof of any God or god. What are they afraid of?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it does no such thing.

[b]I would say the beginning of the circle would be the point at which the circle began to exist .
You have found the beginning of a circle? Thats news for mathematics! Of course you have quite conveniently changed the whole meaning of the words involved to suit yourself.

It would be just the same with a line ty without a beginning. It could just as well be a sphere or even a 3 or n dimensional sphere.

The circle is time so where exactly could this piece of time be which is not on the circle? WHITEY


It took me while but I finally came up with a refutation of your finite circle of time with no beginning. I was going for a walk and it came to me....


If you are positing a circle of time with no beginning for said time then there are a few logical implications here...

1) Time has to be in motion moving from one event to another in sequence. So if you put time in a circle then it has to be flowing around the circle , otherwise time has stopped. We know this because Einstein proved that time is related to motion and speed of movement and predicted that we cannot travel backwards in time.


2) Now if your time is moving around the circle in a direction (which in your mind has no beginning) then time and the series of events that are causally connected which happen in time must either repeat itself or not repeat itself.

3) For your circle of time idea to work you need time to repeat itself over and over again because you need the future to come round the circle and join up with the past in order to create your circle.(For what circle can have gaps in it? )

4) If the future does not come round and move back into it's own past and repeat your circle of time is gone. BUT if this happens there must be a point where the future joins up with it's own past.

5) This turns out to be very interesting because if you imagine your circle as a race track or a looping repeating piece of music ( a good analogy because there is a flow of movement in one direction) then a race track or a loop of music DOES have a point where the loop joins up with itself and repeats . On a race track its call the starting line , but of course it is also the finish line as well. But it CAN be located at a point in the circuit.

6) It turns out with circular repeating time that one must logically have a point on it where the end meets the start again and that's where the beginning would be. (Remember Groundhog Day when the alarm clock rings) Your repeating circle would HAVE to be more like a time LINE that has been looped round to make a circle. And a timeline either has a beginning or not . But if this time line has no beginning how are you going to get it to loop round in a finite circle and join up with the end of the line?(if there was one) . You timeline has to be finite not infinite in order to be able to join it up and if you join it up there is a clear point on it that could be identified as the beginning of the line.

7) Now , You could go for the other alternative and say that time doesn't repeat in your circle. This would avoid this problem. But how could time move around in a circle and not meet up with itself and repeat? In order to avoid the repetition your movement in time would have to break out of the circle and become something more like a corkscrew spiral that doesn't really meet up with itself . But if you take a spiral like and stretch it it would be in effect a spirally LINE which would have to either have a beginning or eternally stretch out into infinite beginninglessness.

8) You see even in Ground Hog day time wasn't circular because it didn't repeat exactly each time , it corkscrewed instead and he found his way out of it. The fact that time moves continuously and is destined to repeat exactly in a circle with no gaps is your oversight. If time didn't move in a direction you would be fine but moving through time in your circle one would inevitably reach a point where one would say "Ah , this is it , we've reached the end and we are back to the beginning again".

You can try and hide the beginning of your finite time line by stitching it up into a finite circle and pretend that it's eternal but the repetition is going to catch you out , the stitch marks will be there.

This is not eternity . Eternity is a beginningless line (and endless) with an infinite length with no need for repetitons. It is mathematically impossible to make a circle out of beginningless infinte time because you need two ends in order to join it up. Eternity won't fit into a circle of time mathematically and as such it is in a different catagory. The only way you can hide the beginning is to make your circle stationary , but if you do that it can't be a circle of time.

PS- I think the same would apply to a sphere as well because a sphere has to join up as well and is really just a 3d circle.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Interesting point. I believe in the big bang but not something from nothing. What's also interesting is that although in some ways the other posters differ quite greatly on certain issues they never seem to take each other to task but always centre on me. It makes me wonder if it's debating the issues that motivates them or knocking Christians. I alrea ...[text shortened]... f beginingless eternity is far far from a proof of any God or god. What are they afraid of?

I believe you already nailed it. I knew where to say amen!
Kelly 🙂