[dleviwing]

Well Eric; I suppose if you did not want the average individual to understand what you’re thinking, this would be the way to put it. I think there is far too much ambiguous science literature now contributed to Quantum Mechanics. Personally I prefer a nice cup of classical thought.

[Eric]

Yes, I know what you're getting at.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Exactly, Eric.

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Eric

Dave,

I keep noticing that thoughts regarding the big bang always include a pre-existent component.

But wouldn't it be logical to say that empty space (void), location within it, that which is located, and change of location (movement) are all equal and different components?

In other words, isn't it all about understanding the juncture of finite and infinite, with all things including time, being infinite on one side of the juncture and finite on the other?

Eric

[Eric]

Lloyd,

I'm admittedly weary of being in agreement with you. One day I'm a complete idiot who is lying to the forum and the next I'm right on the money.

I know it's not my logical viewpoint swaying, because I know what it is from beginning to end and then back again, so it must be one of two things.

Either there are bits you can see and others you can't, or you are swaying between needing companionship and needing to be in control of your companions.

In either case, I find no blame, but it does get in the way of progress.

Is there something we can do about this?

Eric

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, the way I see it we are trying to define two entirely different absolutes. I only accept one absolute___The absolute one law of the universe is___The infinite thermal space matter motion is one single ground state entity. This is, imo, the universal ground state mechanics explanation in and of itself___This law of one law is the law of all law. This represents just a simple common sense mechanics of the ground state of the infinite universe. The absolute model I'm representing is just this one law state of___"The Absolute" is infinite thermal space matter motion.

Now, I think the place where we both may be getting messed up is whether talking about the infinite or finite concepts. Since this dialogue is so new to the world, we are both bound to make mistakes, as are all others of our and their interpretations. My problem with your definitions, so far, is there hasn't been enough of them. One time I see you responding scientifically, and the next metaphysically, about the same subject. I am trying to stay focused on the scientific, only, to get this model down pat. Since you are new to the forum, you most likely, don't see the problem of bouncing from one view to the other, as much as I do. Like I said, a while back, if you wanted to discuss the deep metaphysical aspects of the absolute, I'd be more than willing in private e-mail, but not on this forum. You didn't take me up on the offer, so we are still stuck bouncing between science and metaphysics. I know they represent the one, but I think dialogue can only be achieved separately, as I've tried with many for years, without success.

If that helps,
Lloyd

[Eric]

Hi Lloyd,

Excellent reply. I appreciate it.

I agree that it's been bits and pieces. That's why I mentioned it as a possible reason for your inconsistent reactions. I do remember your offer to email back and forth, and I, of course, didn't take you up on it.

I know I haven't laid out an entire picture, and I have been scientific and then metaphysical at times. I think I've even been "religious" at least once, in that I mentioned "God".

So what you say is very true, and I think it is wise to stop it.

What I do want to do, now that I've tested the waters, is to post somewhere and somehow, to test a completed TOE that is interdisciplinary; but for reasons I won't get into, I don't simply want to just post the finished paper, and get reactions to it.

So sometime in the near future I will do that and we'll see what happens.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain what's been going on.

Eric

[dleviwing]

Thank you both for being such gentlemen. Let’s see just how far we can take our concepts of Absolutes.

My view of the first absolute law of physics is:
All fundamental laws must sustain validity without exceptions to time or location.

This simply means that if a law is not applicable to existence before the big bang event, it is not a fundamental law of physics. This first law virtually makes most of the current laws of physics only local or implicit laws.

Lloyd: If I understand you right, you are suggesting that not only the void is infinite, but matter is spread throughout the infinity of the void as an electromagnetic wave aether. Is this it in a nutshell?

[Eric]

Thaks David,

I want to be clear before commenting.

Are you saying that time and location are not implicit in the first law? More clearly possibly, that there was a time and location of the BB or there wasn't?

Eric

[dleviwing]

Hi Eric;
The current standard model to me is saying the same thing as the Book of Geneses and therefore is just another “Let There Be Light” explanation. As a realist I do not accept the something from nothing scenario even though it is as good as any other possible scenario. I have no difficulty however accepting the premise that both time, space, and matter are eternal. No real beginning to existence. The beginning of our universe however, was an event that has a point in eternal time and a place in the eternal void. Scientist with closet religious views tend to like the Geneses Big Bang standard model. See my BLOG.

[Eric]

David,

I agree that all three are eternal. But personally, I would use infinite instead of eternal. Eternal applies to time, but infinite applies to all three. But then again, maybe I'm missing a point.

In any case, you state that mass, space, and time are infinite as far as existence is conerned, but not as far as the universe is concerned. Again, I hope this reflects what you're saying.

So a finite point of time and location "happens", but you didn't specify a finite point of mass as well. Should I gather you meant to include it?

Let's say you did. So in my estimation, you've just described what I refer to as the "juncture" between infinite and finite. The juncture between infinite potential and the finite "expression" of potential.

This juncture is what has NOT been explained by science or philosophy.

Personally, I can explain this juncture, but it would require going beyond finite expression and infinite potential. Finite expression is contained within infinite potential and infinite potential is contained within... I won't get into it, because it's further than you want to stretch "reality".

Eric