Something from Nothing?

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1260030#p1260030)

Not true. Your notions of "nothing" still do not demonstrate understanding.I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first. Whereas any notion we may have of nothing, simply arises out of our inability to establish anything outside of what we know and perceive. So, just because we may not be aware of it, by no means implies that nothing is there ... notwithstanding that we may perceive it as the total absence of everything that we know. Now what is the problem with that?

[DanishDynamite]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1260030#p1260030)

I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first. Whereas any notion we may have of nothing, simply arises out of our inability to establish anything outside of what we know and perceive. So, just because we may not be aware of it, by no means implies that nothing is there ... notwithstanding that we may perceive it as the total absence of everything that we know. Now what is the problem with that?
No idea what you are on about. Nothing is nothing. One only needs to introduce the concept of "something" to help explain the concept to morons.

[Mercutio]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1260030#p1260030)

I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first. Whereas any notion we may have of nothing, simply arises out of our inability to establish anything outside of what we know and perceive. So, just because we may not be aware of it, by no means implies that nothing is there ... notwithstanding that we may perceive it as the total absence of everything that we know. Now what is the problem with that?You are asserting something, people have corrected you, and you are asserting it again. That is all that you are doing here.

At least this clears up some of your earlier confusion--it is not that you misunderstood the concept of "nothing", it is that you say it does not exist. An even greater misunderstanding, actually.


:boxedin:

[Iacchus]

You are asserting something, people have corrected you, and you are asserting it again. That is all that you are doing here.Unless of course you are wrong about what you say below.

At least this clears up some of your earlier confusion--it is not that you misunderstood the concept of "nothing", it is that you say it does not exist. An even greater misunderstanding, actually.

:boxedin:Yet all we have to do, is admit that nothing is a relative term.

[Iacchus]

I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first.Now, just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea here, the nothing I'm referring to, is the nothing which is often alleged to exist prior to the Big Bang. And no Mercutio, I'm not necessarily pointing the finger at anyone!

[rjh01]

There is a major problem with this question. Is there something called 'nothing?' Quantum mechanics say the answer is no. It comes under the uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with how good your measurement instruments are.

[Iacchus]

There is a major problem with this question. Is there something called 'nothing?' Quantum mechanics say the answer is no. It comes under the uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with how good your measurement instruments are.Well, let's say you just spent the last $20 in your wallet, and this is all you had in your wallet. And someone else comes along and says, "How much money do you have in your wallet?" What else can you say, except nothing? ... with respect to the last twenty dollars you spent. This would be the "nothing" I'm referring to here.

[rjh01]

I would answer $0.00. But I am nitpicking.

A long argument over nothing.

[kmortis]

I would answer $0.00. But I am nitpicking.

A long argument over nothing.

Well, in light of Mercutio's participation, I'd say that it's "Much ado about nothing". But that woud just be silly

[TobiasTheViking]

There is a major problem with this question. Is there something called 'nothing?' Quantum mechanics say the answer is no. It comes under the uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with how good your measurement instruments are.
True, but besides the point. :)

In the context of our universe, there is no real nothing, as there will always be Quantum fluctuations. But in the context we are talking in now, i fail to see the relevance. :)

Sincerely
Tobias.

[Mercutio]

Well, in light of Mercutio's participation, I'd say that it's "Much ado about nothing". But that woud just be silly :D

Well, let's say you just spent the last $20 in your wallet, and this is all you had in your wallet. And someone else comes along and says, "How much money do you have in your wallet?" What else can you say, except nothing? ... with respect to the last twenty dollars you spent. This would be the "nothing" I'm referring to here.
Once again, you are thingking of "nothing" as empty space. That you put the empty space in a wallet this time instead of in a giant box, is irrelevant.

[.13.]

Yet all we have to do, is admit that nothing is a relative term.

How is non-existence relative? Can you barely exist? Hot and cold are relative terms but you can't relate existence and non-existence like that.

[Iacchus]

In the context of our universe, there is no real nothing, as there will always be Quantum fluctuations. But in the context we are talking in now, i fail to see the relevance. :)

Sincerely
Tobias.And perhaps these "quantum fluctuations" occur as a result of the second dimensional "layer" that exists between the read/write mechanism of God's harddrive -- or, whatever mean He uses -- and the holographic field/dimension that we live in? :)

[TobiasTheViking]

And perhaps these "quantum fluctuations" occur as a result of the second dimensional "layer" that exists between the read/write mechanism of God's harddrive -- or, whatever mean He uses -- and the holographic field/dimension that we live in? :)
Sorry, the science doens't currently agree with that idea.

First of, science would have to have proof of God.

Then science would have to have proof that this is all a big simulation.

And what does holograph have to do with anything in this context?

[Taffer]

'Nothing' does not exist, Iacchus, it the absense of existance. 'Inside the universe, there is existance. 'Outside the universe, there is no existance. 'Inside' the universe, things exist in relation to other things. For example, a tree exists in relation to the 'not tree space' that surrounds it. It lets us distinguish between things. 'Outside' the universe, however, this is not the case. 'Outside' the universe, Iacchus, nothing exists. Existance does not exist. There is no existance. Hence there is no "in relation to", nor is there any "before" or any "size". There is nothing. No space. No time. No existance. Think of deep, deep, space. Totally black, with no light at all, no starts at all, and no particles. A pitch black, perfect vacuum. Here we would say nothing exists, right? Well outside the universe, there isn't even this. It is "blacker", "colder" and more "vacuumous" then anything you can imagine. You cannot fill it with anything, you cannot measure it, you cannot comprehend it. It is the absolute lack of anything, at all. God cannot exist here, as existance has no meaning. Time cannot exist here, as there is no "here" in which it can exist. Space cannot exist here because then it would be something, and it is nothing. It is the total lack of anything, at all. Ever.

[Mercutio]

'Nothing' does not exist, Iacchus, it the absense of existance. 'Inside the universe, there is existance. 'Outside the universe, there is no existance. 'Inside' the universe, things exist in relation to other things. For example, a tree exists in relation to the 'not tree space' that surrounds it. It lets us distinguish between things. 'Outside' the universe, however, this is not the case. 'Outside' the universe, Iacchus, nothing exists. Existance does not exist. There is no existance. Hence there is no "in relation to", nor is there any "before" or any "size". There is nothing. No space. No time. No existance. Think of deep, deep, space. Totally black, with no light at all, no starts at all, and no particles. A pitch black, perfect vacuum. Here we would say nothing exists, right? Well outside the universe, there isn't even this. It is "blacker", "colder" and more "vacuumous" then anything you can imagine. You cannot fill it with anything, you cannot measure it, you cannot comprehend it. It is the absolute lack of anything, at all. God cannot exist here, as existance has no meaning. Time cannot exist here, as there is no "here" in which it can exist. Space cannot exist here because then it would be something, and it is nothing. It is the total lack of anything, at all. Ever.Actually, Taffer, I have to disagree with your version here. Iacchus already pictures "nothing" as you do...but that is a picture that is not of "nothing", but of empty space. The trick is that the very use of the term "outside the universe" is misleading. There is nothing outside. THere is no outside. Picturing it as empty space is giving it some characteristics. It has none.

[Iacchus]

but that is a picture that is not of "nothing", but of empty space.Not so. That nothing is the two dimensional "layer" (which, in effect is nothing) that exists between our dimension of time space and the dimension that exists beyond it.

Boy, I sure am on a roll today! :D

[Taffer]

Actually, Taffer, I have to disagree with your version here. Iacchus already pictures "nothing" as you do...but that is a picture that is not of "nothing", but of empty space. The trick is that the very use of the term "outside the universe" is misleading. There is nothing outside. THere is no outside. Picturing it as empty space is giving it some characteristics. It has none.

I realise this. I used the term "outside" and "inside" within inverted commas for a reason. ;) This is what I meant by "nothing doesn't exist".

[Mercutio]

Not so. That nothing is the two dimensional "layer" (which, in effect is nothing) that exists between our dimension of time space and the dimension that exists beyond it.
Two dimensions is not "nothing".

Boy, I sure am on a roll today! :D
Yeah, it goes much quicker when you are not constrained by truth.

[Mercutio]

I realise this. I used the term "outside" and "inside" within inverted commas for a reason. ;) This is what I meant by "nothing doesn't exist".
Oh, I know you get it, and that you are technically right. But give some people a blade of grass and they construct a strawman...

[Iacchus]

'Nothing' does not exist, Iacchus, it the absense of existance.This is not the question though ... Was there ever time when only nothing existed? Or, what was the something that existed before the Universe began?

If you're saying that the Universe occurred as a result of the Big Bang, meaning the Universe did not exist prior to that and, that this "thing" which the Universe began to expand into which, is the same thing you refer to as "nothing" that currently exists/not-exists outside of it, what is the Universe expanding into? ... if not nothing and/or something? It would seem to me you've just discovered the existence of a fifth dimension. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Mercutio]

This is not the question though ... Was there ever time when only nothing existed? Or, what was the something that existed before the Universe began?

If you're saying that the Universe occurred as a result of the Big Bang, meaning the Universe did not exist prior that and, that this "thing" which the Universe began to expand into which, is the same thing you refer to as "nothing" that currently exists/not-exists outside of it, what is the Universe expanding into? ... if not nothing and/or something? It would seem to me you've just discovered the existence of a fifth dimension. :eek: :eek: :eek:
Everything about this post screams out that you still do not get "nothing". If there was a time, there was not nothing. If it existed, it was not nothing. If it expands, or is expanded into, it is not nothing.

What we have discovered is merely another area of your willful ignorance.

[.13.]

I'm almost starting to believe we are living in a matrix...

Everytime Iacchus starts a new thread he seems to undergo somekind of a mindwipe. :D

[Mercutio]

I'm almost starting to believe we are living in a matrix...

Everytime Iacchus starts a new thread he seems to undergo somekind of a mindwipe. :D
If I were cynical, I would suggest that he hopes that it would be the rest of us who do not remember his past arguments. Keep watching, you will see that the initiation of new threads is directly proportional to how trapped he is in old threads.

[Iacchus]

Two dimensions is not "nothing".How so? A second dimemsion can only exist if there are two oppossing surfaces, where each surface represents a dimension containing its own volume if you will. Hence you have dimension A, containing its own volume and extending out as far as its surface, pressing against dimension B, it too containing its own volume and extending out as far as its surface as well. So really all you have is dimension A, pressed up against dimension B with, nothing in-between! This "is" the nothing that you folks are looking at! :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

Yeah, it goes much quicker when you are not constrained by truth.I hear you there brother! ;)

[Iacchus]

If I were cynical, I would suggest that he hopes that it would be the rest of us who do not remember his past arguments. Keep watching, you will see that the initiation of new threads is directly proportional to how trapped he is in old threads.Actually, I was considering starting a thread on the fifth dimension, but figured you had enough of me for one day. Maybe I'll sneak it in later, huh? :D

[Mercutio]

How so? A second dimemsion can only exist if there are two oppossing surfaces, where each surface represents a dimension containing its own volume if you will. Hence you have dimension A, containing its own volume and extending out as far as its surface, pressing against dimension B, it too containing its own volume and extending out as far as its surface as well. So, really all you have is dimension A, pressed up against dimension B with, nothing in-between! This "is" the nothing that you folks are looking at! :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

:notm This is not the "nothing" we speak of. It is two dimensions, which is (read carefully) not nothing. It does not have volume, but it does have area; it is not nothing.

[Mercutio]

Actually, I was considering starting a thread on the fifth dimension, but figured you had enough of me for one day. Maybe I'll sneak it in later, huh? :D
Iacchus, you have enough problems with three dimensions. Why start a thread on yet another thing you do not understand and yet have no interest in learning about?

[Taffer]

Oh, I know you get it, and that you are technically right. But give some people a blade of grass and they construct a strawman...

Oh. Opps. :o

Sorry.

[Iacchus]

:notm This is not the "nothing" we speak of. It is two dimensions, which is (read carefully) not nothing. It does not have volume, but it does have area; it is not nothing.Well, whatever you wish to call it, it's the pressing up of one surface area against another, of which there is "nothing" in between ... except perhaps tension and vibration.

[Iacchus]

Well, whatever you wish to call it, it's the pressing up of one surface area against another, of which there is "nothing" in between ... except perhaps tension and vibration.Oh, and let's not forget emf as well ... which, is what's induced across this so-called "hidden" layer.

[Iacchus]

It does not have volume, but it does have area; it is not nothing.No, it has the area which exists on either side of it.

[Taffer]

Lets try this another way, Iacchus.

There is no 'outside' to the universe. You can never 'leave' the universe. Anywhere you ever could go, ever, where something exists, is, by definition, 'inside' the universe. All there is, is the universe. Just us, and nothing more.

Now, this doesn't stop there being, for example, other universes. But we can never know them, we can never see them, we can neve understand them. We are, by our very nature, 'bound' to 'this' universe. Since we are 'bound' to 'this' universe, then we must obey its laws. 'Outside' the universe, there are no laws, and as such, we could not exist. By definition, there is no 'outside' of the universe. We are enclosed in the 'balloon' that is the universe, and we can never, ever, leave. Ever.

[Mercutio]

Well, whatever you wish to call it, it's the pressing up of one surface area against another, of which there is "nothing" in between ... except perhaps tension and vibration.
:notm There are not two areas. If there were identifiable areas, both would be part of the universe.

There is no "tension".

There is no "vibration".

What is so difficult about admitting that you do not know, Iacchus? Why do you quite plainly make [rule8] up, instead of finding out?

[kmortis]

Oh, and let's not forget emf as well ... which, is what's induced across this so-called "hidden" layer.

:dl:
Oh, Iacchus, you make me laugh.


Unfortunantly, it's probably not for the reasons you intend.

[Shadownexius]

We exists between many parallel universe as enstein stated, yet we ask ourselves whether we are limited to this existance or not. In fact the best examples to explain time would say we are not bound to this very universe, since every other parallel universe mirrors the variables and the many different degrees of similarities and changes that can occur with even the smallest electron out of place. We in fact are switching between these parallel universe, for brief moments we are equivalent to that of another universe, but because it reached that point before us, it changes simaltamously, thus we become it and it becomes something new all together.

For the sake of explaining this is a metaphoric example:

Imagine an infinite number of trains (each represent a parallel universe) that normally runs on a specific track (matches the timeline of that universe's current degrees of existance such as where every molecule and atom is at what time, if that changes then we are no long under the same degrees). If those trains change the degrees of their universe by spliting an atom, making a decision that affects who gets to work and who doesnt, we dont follow the set timeline that the universe has planned and thus change to a new timeline of events( in turn the trains switch track to a track that matches it's current variables and degrees). We are not bound to this universe, since in every universe exists point where the laws of physics, time, and space no longer are set but are considered non existant( In other terms black holes are the point that scientist and astronomers believe time, space, and physics no long apply as a constant at some points it changes or is non existant all together). We are surrounded by proof that states that we are set on a pre-determined destiny, though contradictions with free will are present that is not the case, sense we can choose to make decisions that will, metaphoricly(switch tracks).We are not bound by the laws of this universe if for a brief moment all matter and light can exist in the center of a black hole.

If you ask what center?, your correct and wrong; Black holes have a super dense mass located in the center of the event horizon. It reminds you of the core to a star that has cooled, compacted by the force, which strenghts as more matter and light are trapped, of the blackhole. In turn the light a black hole traps is used to compress the matter at a sub atomic level (hollow atoms that represent the same atoms that have lost their energy after being split) which makes the black hole denser and denser.

Before you state that their are constants in our universe, you should consider that there may be exceptions. The truth is that our universe is one in the same of an infinite number of possible universes that eventually will gain the properties of another universe, as we transition into theirs. If you don't understand this I will restate the above in the simplist terms I can use:

Each of these four universe represent some similarities and differences, which means you may live different lives on each of these possible universe, but the laws of physics, time, space, and the location of every atom and electron determine the differences that exist between them(Even if one electron is out of place from that of another universe and all other factors are the same, we are different to the smallest and most extreme degrees. These degrees of change affect the variables that will determine which universe you are currently in or will be in. In turn it is predicting time, only if you could tell where every thing from electrons to atoms in turn all matter, then you could predict where things will colliade, etc. You could determine where the golf ball would land or when the next sun would collapse.)
H represents the track
h represents the transitional track
I represents the path of those transitional changes.
Universe A: Universe B: Universe C: Universe D:
Starting track sequence:
H h H h H h H

H h H h H h H
HIIIIIIIIIIIIIhH h H h H
HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH h H
HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhH



At any time Universe A could switch to track B, C, D, or not switch at all for a fraction of a second or less. Though you can say that each of these universes are seperate, they are us on different timelines, and as we choose to follow a similar or exact timeline, we replace it; and balance has that timeline switch or change to it's own similar or exact timeline. The shifting occurs on a large scales, so their is always a place for one universe to go, as the other universe is transitioning.

[Iacchus]

:notm There are not two areas. If there were identifiable areas, both would be part of the universe.

There is no "tension".

There is no "vibration".

What is so difficult about admitting that you do not know, Iacchus? Why do you quite plainly make [rule8] up, instead of finding out?If the Universe were in fact a hologram (http://www.earthportals.com/hologram), as I have suggested, how would this hologram be acheived, except by some means of electro-magnetic field or, vibration? Also, "what" would exist on the other side of this hologram ... as a means of generating it that is?

[Belz...]

Unless of course you are wrong about what you say below.

Yet all we have to do, is admit that nothing is a relative term.

No, no it isn't. Either there's NOTHING or there isn't. How can you have a relative nothing ?

[Belz...]

And perhaps these "quantum fluctuations" occur as a result of the second dimensional "layer" that exists between the read/write mechanism of God's harddrive -- or, whatever mean He uses -- and the holographic field/dimension that we live in? :)

That would be an interesting theory...


... if it explained anything or made any prediction....


...which it doesn't.

[Belz...]

This is not the question though ... Was there ever time when only nothing existed? Or, what was the something that existed before the Universe began?

There was no before. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the universe (that is, our local spacetime bubble) ceases to exist. There is still SOMETHING there. No space, no time, no matter or energy, but there's still something (a singularity, if I'm not mistaken.)

[Belz...]

Well, whatever you wish to call it, it's the pressing up of one surface area against another, of which there is "nothing" in between ... except perhaps tension and vibration.

What in the blue hell are you talking about ? What two surfaces ? Inside and outside ? No such thing.

[Belz...]

Lets try this another way, Iacchus.

There is no 'outside' to the universe. You can never 'leave' the universe.

Hummm... unless there are other spacetime bubbles (which, I guess, is very probable.) Though I have NO idea how we could go from one to another.

[Belz...]

If the Universe were in fact a hologram (http://www.earthportals.com/hologram), as I have suggested, how would this hologram be acheived, except by some means of electro-magnetic field or, vibration? Also, "what" would exist on the other side of this hologram ... as a means of generating it that is?

Before answering this question, we should first confirm that it IS a "hologram".

[kmortis]

Before answering this question, we should first confirm that it IS a "hologram".

Belz..., you don't actually expect Iacchus to confirm anything do you? Oh, nonononono...that would be like, hitting send before finishing your tho

[Iacchus]

Before answering this question, we should first confirm that it IS a "hologram".Well, if this hologram is being driven by consciousness or, something to that extent, then our means of perceiving what's on the "other side" would be acheived by means of consciousness, don't you think?

[PatKelley]

Alright, so you're positing Samsara, but with quantum-flux bells and whistles. All is illusion, right? Well it doesn't matter - because if we are as illusory as our surroundings, we obey the same fundamental laws: we are part of the universe, and cannot be separate enough to distinguish between us and not-us. We cannot percieve that which violates the laws of our universe, because we are bound by the universe.

Your posit is an exercise in futility, in that there is no consequence for us, and no method of discovering whether it is as you say or not.

[Iacchus]

Alright, so you're positing Samsara, but with quantum-flux bells and whistles. All is illusion, right? Well it doesn't matter - because if we are as illusory as our surroundings, we obey the same fundamental laws: we are part of the universe, and cannot be separate enough to distinguish between us and not-us. We cannot percieve that which violates the laws of our universe, because we are bound by the universe.

Your posit is an exercise in futility, in that there is no consequence for us, and no method of discovering whether it is as you say or not.I agree, what would be the point to finding out about God, if our little sojourn in this temporal fleeting world was the extent to all there was?

[Belz...]

Well, if this hologram is being driven by consciousness or, something to that extent, then our means of perceiving what's on the "other side" would be acheived by means of consciousness, don't you think?

Irrelevant. Please provide evidence of reality beign a hologram. How is that theory more probable and powerful than, say, assuming that reality is just reality.

[PatKelley]

I agree, what would be the point to finding out about God, if our little sojourn in this temporal fleeting world was the extent to all there was?
It doesn't matter. We can daydream all we want about what's "outside" the universe, because for all purposes it does not exist. We could not exist outside of the context of this universe, as we are bound by its laws and conveniences like atomic nuclei that don't decay instantly. Step outside that context, and you no longer exist. Kind of like a hologram on Star Trek:TNG - if you recall, Moriarty disintigrated when he attempted to leave the Holodeck (Context). There is nothing to learn, no "gateway" to find, no way of venturing outside of the blast doors for information that we could hope to return with.

That's the other point; even if you were to establish an "outside" - you could not describe it with the limited set of our universe, any more than you could concieve of it. So anything you gleaned would be useless, and might as well not exist as exist.

It is one of those things: if it has no bearing on the experiment, does it exist for the purpose of the experiment? Essentially, no.

[Iacchus]

Irrelevant. Please provide evidence of reality beign a hologram. How is that theory more probable and powerful than, say, assuming that reality is just reality.I don't claim to be an expert on holograms by any means but, when you consider the nature of holograms, as explained here (http://www.earthportals.com/hologram), there may in fact be something to it. At least this would coincide more with the notion that everything emanates from some conscious mind or entity which, I am already prone to believe.

[Belz...]

I don't claim to be an expert on holograms by any means but, when you consider the nature of holograms, as explained here (http://www.earthportals.com/hologram), there may in fact be something to it. At least this would coincide more with the notion that everything emanates from some conscious mind or entity which, I am already prone to believe.

First of all, your link does not provide proof of the existence of a holographic world. At best, it provides proof of holograms, which, in and of itself, is far from surprising, since we already know holograms exist. However, just because we know cookies exist and are still cookies once severed in two is no reason to believe that the universe is a cookie, much less one with 1% trans fat.

"A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes."

I could've told you that about pretty much everything. I don't see how this explains anything, or how it lends credence to your view.

[Iacchus]

First of all, your link does not provide proof of the existence of a holographic world. At best, it provides proof of holograms, which, in and of itself, is far from surprising, since we already know holograms exist. However, just because we know cookies exist and are still cookies once severed in two is no reason to believe that the universe is a cookie, much less one with 1% trans fat.No, if you were to take a picture of a cookie and cut it in half, you would have two pictures of a "half cookie," not two half pictures of a whole cookie which, is what they're suggesing about holograms.

I could've told you that about pretty much everything. I don't see how this explains anything, or how it lends credence to your view.And, of course if such things as electrons were capable of talking to each other instaneneously, even if billions of miles apart, must suggest that they are not billions of miles apart.

[Belz...]

No, if you were to take a picture of a cookie and cut it in half, you would have two pictures of a "half cookie," not two half pictures of a whole cookie which, is what they're suggesing about holograms.

I was making a joke. Still, just because holograms work that way is no evidence that the universe works that way.

And, of course if such things as electrons were capable of talking to each other instaneneously, even if billions of miles apart, must suggest that they are not billions of miles apart.

Or that they can talk to each other instantaneously, even if billions of miles apart. I don't see why that would mean anything else. Assuming they CAN "communicate" as claimed. Frankly, I'm not convinced. And even if it's the case, it might just be a property of space-time that gravity is transmitted instantaneously. Either way, it's quite a leap to saying that the universe is suddenly conscious, or that its a hologram.

So far you've only hinted to the possibility of the universe beign a hologram. that's not what I asked. Do you have evidence that the universe IS a hologram ?

And even if you could, have you considered that holograms are mere photographs ? They're not exactly as complex and operational as the objects they emulate.

[Beerina]

And perhaps these "quantum fluctuations" occur as a result of the second dimensional "layer" that exists between the read/write mechanism of God's harddrive -- or, whatever mean He uses -- and the holographic field/dimension that we live in? :)

Actually, Einstein did not want to give up on reality, which is to say actual objects "out there" with measurable properties, and especially that these were all bound by relativity.

Trivially, we could be in some kind of simulation where these objects are not real, but that just pushes things one level deeper and we're right back to the same problem. What's the reality of "God's hard drive", or God's processor and RAM and whatnot? What "real objects" are all these built on? What "stuff" instantiates God and His mind? And is that stuff "real", or is it just faux stuff in some still larger world? It's turtles all the way up...

[Beerina]

And even if it's the case, it might just be a property of space-time that gravity is transmitted instantaneously.

IIRC, some scientists tested this within the past few years, and found out that gravity is also bound by the speed of light, so that if the sun suddenly disappeared, the earth would continue to orbit for about 8 minutes before taking the tangent path away from its orbit.

Which seems a bit odd, since that seems to imply particulate nature of gravity rather than as a fundamental feature of the spacetime continuum.

[Belz...]

Which seems a bit odd, since that seems to imply particulate nature of gravity rather than as a fundamental feature of the spacetime continuum.

Personnally, I'd find that more in line with conventional physics, but then I don't know much about the spacetime stuff.

[uruk]

IIRC, some scientists tested this within the past few years, and found out that gravity is also bound by the speed of light, so that if the sun suddenly disappeared, the earth would continue to orbit for about 8 minutes before taking the tangent path away from its orbit.

Which seems a bit odd, since that seems to imply particulate nature of gravity rather than as a fundamental feature of the spacetime continuum.

Newton saw gravity as acting instantaneaously, Einstein found that gravity or gravitational waves are also bound by the speed of light. Quantum mechanics sees gravity as one of the four forces in nature and that it should also have a corresponding particle called the graviton. They still are looking for it.
It's part of the apparent incompatability between relativity and QM that physicists are attempting to reconcile.

[Solitaire]

Iacchus, I think you’re now ready.

Go and carefully read about the H Set (http://www.hnumbers.com/hset.html).

Then come back here and very carefully explain it to me.

I don’t understand that web page at all!

P.S. Oh, do the H Numbers (http://www.hnumbers.com/hnumbers.html) too!

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, I think you’re now ready.

Go and carefully read about the H Set (http://www.hnumbers.com/hset.html).

Then come back here and very carefully explain it to me.
http://www.hnumbers.com/images/hindexss.png

Screw the equations! ...

However, the symbolism is fully exemplified by means of the fifth aspect or dimension (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=47156).

I don’t understand that web page at all!

P.S. Oh, do the H Numbers (http://www.hnumbers.com/hnumbers.html) too!As much as I like numbers, I like this symbol a lot more. It looks like it's an attempt to explain infinite regression and whatnot.

By the way, I noticed a corretation between the number coordinates and the "base fourteen (http://www.dionysus.org/x0401.html)" system I work with ...

101 = 14 x 07 + "03"

212 = 14 x 15 + "02"

323 = 14 x 23 + "01"

434 = 14 x 31 + "00" ... or, 14 x 30 + "14"

545 = 14 x 38 + "13"

656 = 14 x 46 + "12"

767 = 14 x 54 + "11"

[lwsichsldt]

Now, just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea here, the nothing I'm referring to, is the nothing which is often alleged to exist prior to the Big Bang. And no Mercutio, I'm not necessarily pointing the finger at anyone!
I don't think most scientist claim that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang but something called singularity where all matter was compressed into a sphere with no dimension.

[teacher]

"I don't think most scientist claim that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang but something called singularity where all matter was compressed into a sphere with no dimension."

Can a sphere have no dimension? How about a cube? Was that just a slip?

I think 'something', 'singularity', 'matter', 'compressed' and 'sphere' all point to something rather than nothing.

Theists posit a contingent God which explains origins, design/order, morality, existence and full world and philosophical views and hopes etc. At least stick this on the back burner if it is intellectually viable to some (rather than a false hope, superficial whim etc.).

Now I was taught to respect views and certainly not just laugh at them, especially if a reasonable option cannot be offered, and then put that forward too.

Now I'm not a scientist, so can anyone tell me what the scientific view is or are there many or is it not entirely clear? Has there always been something or not? Does the question of origins have challenging implications or difficult questions? If not, there is a framework to at least offer the world, if so - given the seriousness and fundamentalness, shouldn't we keep working before getting on any high dogmatic horse?

What if the enlightenment of scientific advancement is just another historical phase leadimng into spiritualness? I say this merely as a thought creator given the testimony of history and philosophy, and with neutrality as a believer in both.