Originally posted by knightmeisterAll of existence is an emanation of Brahman and an aspect of Brahman could not send the totality of Brahman into non-existence.
I have a thought experiment....
Imagine I have created a nothing-o-tron. It is capabale of sucking up anything in existence into it's great wobbly belly. I start her up and she starts sucking (oooer!) and whole galaxies are pulled into her mouth . The earth was destroyed in seconds, the sun in a minute. The nothing-o-tron has one special power... ...[text shortened]... chance that existence will somehow find a way to re-exist from absolute non-existence?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFirstly you are using false analogies. Time having a beginning would be equivalent to length having a start or weight having a minimum.Your analogy is more equivalent to time having time which is not what is being talked about.
Time having a beginning is in my opinion as illogical as Length having length or Weight having weight.
In the other thread you failed to show how weight necessarily must have negative values and how it is capable of being infinite. If the universe is finite in expanse then weight is necessarily finite also and so are the spacial dimensions. So if you feel that it is illogical then please explain it as I am sure that as it contradicts the big bang theory, a lot of people will be interested.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have never claimed that S can come from N. What I have claimed is that it is not a prerequisite for finite time. You continue to blabber on about S from N when nobody to my knowledge has yet supported the idea in any of your threads.
So the onus was on you, not me to show how and why S could come from N.
I cannot answer your original question in this thread as it introduces a meaningless concept of nothing with a time component which you simultaneously claim is not a component. You then ask an illogical question about whether or not something can 'come' from the nothing. But both A and B presume a time component which you have stated is non-existent in your concept of nothing.
Basically your whole thought experiment is a strawman.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour point about weight was well made, and I am still pondering it. I suspect my mistake may have been (I think I did make a mistake) that weight is not a dimension in itself but a combination of several dimensions combined with mass, which is not a dimension itself. Weight is mass x length / (time x time) as any force is. The length is always taken as positive no matter which direction it's in; that is, a person at the North Pole has the same weight as someone at the South Pole despite these forces being exactly opposite in direction. Perhaps weight is in fact an absolute value of m x L /(t x t), because direction is ignored.
Firstly you are using false analogies. Time having a beginning would be equivalent to length having a start or weight having a minimum.Your analogy is more equivalent to time having time which is not what is being talked about.
In the other thread you failed to show how weight necessarily must have negative values and how it is capable of being infinite. ...[text shortened]... it as I am sure that as it contradicts the big bang theory, a lot of people will be interested.
However I disagree that Big Bang theory disagrees with me.
The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.
Notice that this conclusion comes from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However there's no reason to believe that this Law holds in a singularity, and therefore anything before the singularity should not be assumed to be bound by it.
Also notice the comment about the stars not shining before a certain time. Now, if the beginning of stars is the beginning of the universe and of time, then there was a time before time.
If the universe is finite in expanse
What does that mean exactly though? It seems to me that this means that the mass and energy which was released in the BB only reaches so far, not that farness doesn't exist beyond the bounds of the universe. How can there be a "beyond" the bounds of the universe if space doesn't exist except in the bounds of the universe?
it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before.
Notice the reference to a before the Big Bang.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.
Again, notice the reference to events before the Big Bang and the arbritrary, convenient way in which "time" is defined as the period in which events have observational consequences. How can there be a "before time" if "before" is dependent on time - which it is?
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
Originally posted by twhiteheadBB theory implies that they are curved in on themselves and finite as the circumferance of a circle is finite. However, you can take as much string as you want and keep wrapping and wrapping and wrapping around the circle and you'll never get to the end of the circumferance. Thus there is not maximum length, but instead, a length which will lead back to the length's starting point.
BB theory clearly implies that the spacial dimensions are finite in extent.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe difference between spacial dimensions and time is that time is directional.
BB theory implies that they are curved in on themselves and finite as the circumferance of a circle is finite. However, you can take as much string as you want and keep wrapping and wrapping and wrapping around the circle and you'll never get to the end of the circumferance. Thus there is not maximum length, but instead, a length which will lead back to the length's starting point.
So suppose we take the analogy of the surface of the earth, where distance in the direction of the south pole is called 'southness' and distance along a line of latitude is a spacial dimension. Then the line of latitude is equivalent to your spacial circle. The line of longitude is like time.
You cannot go further south than the south pole.
So, southness has a minimum.
Why can time not be like southness?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBecause southness is defined as the direction of the south pole. Time is not defined like that.
The difference between spacial dimensions and time is that time is directional.
So suppose we take the analogy of the surface of the earth, where distance in the direction of the south pole is called 'southness' and distance along a line of latitude is a spacial dimension. Then the line of latitude is equivalent to your spacial circle. The line of longit ...[text shortened]... south than the south pole.
So, southness has a minimum.
Why can time not be like southness?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou then ask an illogical question about whether or not something can 'come' from the nothing. But both A and B presume a time component which you have stated is non-existent in your concept of nothingWHITEY
I have never claimed that S can come from N. What I have claimed is that it is not a prerequisite for finite time. You continue to blabber on about S from N when nobody to my knowledge has yet supported the idea in any of your threads.
I cannot answer your original question in this thread as it introduces a meaningless concept of nothing with a time co ...[text shortened]... existent in your concept of nothing.
Basically your whole thought experiment is a strawman.
Why do A and B presume a time component ? It's only a matter of speech really . I have said that the nothing-o-tron sucks everything up including time (if it exists?). You sound like you would not subscribe to B and would see A as the most likely scenario. The nothing-o-tron has killed existence , dead , deceased , non-existent!!! You sound like you would most likely subscribe to the idea that from non-existence , existence cannot "become".
Now what I would like you to do is then explain what difference that would make to your concept of existence. Someone like scotty would go for B but you would not I guess. Scotty can clearly say "existence has a beginning" and it has a point at which it begins which makes it finite in my mind....would you say the same even though your concept of existence is so different? Would you then say existence is permanent and beginningless? Is it the word eternal that gets you twitchy? Surely you cannot be saying existence is temporary because then you will have to explain B and that's what you don't want to take on.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBasically your whole thought experiment is a strawman.WHITEY
I have never claimed that S can come from N. What I have claimed is that it is not a prerequisite for finite time. You continue to blabber on about S from N when nobody to my knowledge has yet supported the idea in any of your threads.
I cannot answer your original question in this thread as it introduces a meaningless concept of nothing with a time co ...[text shortened]... existent in your concept of nothing.
Basically your whole thought experiment is a strawman.
You can only think this if you think the thought experiment flawed.
Which would imply that you think it's logically and theoretically impossible for existence to be annihilated? Existence is permanent. If so then existence must be endless since it cannot be destroyed or made to non-exist , so it's kind of eternal at least at one end? It will exist for an infinite time in the future...so why not in the past as well?
Maybe you think the thought experiment theoretically possible but the questions invalid. If you think this then it is not a strawman at all but just poorly worded. If so feel free to suggest some alternative wording rather than avoid the question (again).
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI am afraid you cant hide behind the speech excuse. Your entire thought experiment relies directly on a time component still being there in the nothingness or the options become totally meaningless.
Why do A and B presume a time component ? It's only a matter of speech really .
I have said that the nothing-o-tron sucks everything up including time (if it exists?). You sound like you would not subscribe to B and would see A as the most likely scenario.
I am sorry but you cannot choose for me. Your claim is that there are two choices and that they are the only choices therefore everyone must subscribe to one or the other. So let me ask you this, which is true:
1. God is dead.
2. God is the invention of man.
It sounds like you subscribe to 2.
The nothing-o-tron has killed existence , dead , deceased , non-existent!!! You sound like you would most likely subscribe to the idea that from non-existence , existence cannot "become".
No, I subscribe to the idea that non-existence is a meaningless concept.
I repeat as you dont seem to be able to get it: I do not nor have ever in any of these threads, subscribed to the idea of S from N. However I do subscribe to the idea that finite time is a possibility. They are not equivalent ideas.
So far you have not shown nor given any reasoning for you claim that they are equivalent. Please either give your reasoning or stop making the claim.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have already said as much.
You can only think this if you think the thought experiment flawed.
Which would imply that you think it's logically and theoretically impossible for existence to be annihilated? Existence is permanent.
No it does not. There is nothing wrong with supposing that time and existence might have an end. The strawman in your thought experiment is to then claim that time and existence then proceed beyond the end of the previous time and existence to give some state of nothingness.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSurely an everything o tron would create itself and start spewing out a universe.
I have a thought experiment....
Imagine I have created a nothing-o-tron. It is capabale of sucking up anything in existence into it's great wobbly belly. I start her up and she starts sucking (oooer!) and whole galaxies are pulled into her mouth . The earth was destroyed in seconds, the sun in a minute. The nothing-o-tron has one special power... ...[text shortened]... chance that existence will somehow find a way to re-exist from absolute non-existence?
Mind you I thought that about the only law of physics that doesn't get broken is the fact that energy is just converted, not destroyed.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't know the answer. But this is a great sci-fi plot!
I have a thought experiment....
Imagine I have created a nothing-o-tron. It is capabale of sucking up anything in existence into it's great wobbly belly. I start her up and she starts sucking (oooer!) and whole galaxies are pulled into her mouth . The earth was destroyed in seconds, the sun in a minute. The nothing-o-tron has one special power... ...[text shortened]... chance that existence will somehow find a way to re-exist from absolute non-existence?
And what if you additionally had a something-a-tron, which continuously pumped out existence? And what if the nothing-a-tron and the something-a-tron were continuously locked in an unending struggle? In particular, the nothing-a-tron continuously tries to negate, not just existing things, but the something-a-tron itself; however, the something-a-tron continuously frustrates it by generating something else that imitates it, a pseudo-something-a-tron, which the nothing-a-tron keeps mistakenly negating.
The origin of the something-a-tron remains a mystery. Perhaps it brought itself into existence by going back in time. But then where did time come from?
But let's suppose that the something-a-tron is responsible for everything else that exists. If so, then the something-a-tron originally made the nothing-a-tron exist, or made something else that did, like an evil mastermind with a death instinct. Or perhaps the something-a-tron has to eventually generate everything it can, including a nothing-a-tron. Perhaps the only or best way to evade the nothing-a-tron is to make another one with which it fights. Or maybe, when two nothing-a-trons eliminate each other simultaneously, a something-a-tron is born...
It's Lord of the Rings for the space age! But is it really any more farfetched than scientology with all the Xenu nonsense?
