can absolute nothing , produce something?

[N0B0DY]

Your heart is in the right place, MJA, but fixing a world that is based on inequality - that can't exist without inequality - is an impossibility in my mind.

It would take a renewal and creation of a perfected genetic foundation capable of perfect replication, instead of the imperfect replication leading to mutation and evolution which breeds more and more imperfection.

It is like those who bash the bible based on all the evils found within it, instead of focusing on all the good found within. Similarly, there is good and evil within the universe, within the world, within individuals; many people can't even talk right, let alone eat right, sleep right and think right.

We're not dealing with self-corrective nature, but irreparable self-destructive behavioral patterns that are apparently endless when we consider how history seemingly repeats itself.

We don't have the knowledge to fix everything, and I think equality is nothing belonging to us, but to the universe that is capable of fixing what it started. I think it already has, but we just don't realize it yet.

[RascalPuff]

The Steady State theory was abandoned because it required the spontanous creation of something to make up for what would - in a spatially expanding universe - be the increasing space between galactic stellar systems. That contradicted the law of conservation of mass energy and the Hume-Locke statement that 'Nothing begets nothing'. The Steady State theory was consequently abandoned.

Exerpted from Google
STEADY-STATE UNIVERSE

Fred Hoyle
Quasars
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson
Cosmic Background Radiation

The Big Bang
Proposed in 1948 by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle, the steady-state theory was based on an extension of something called the perfect cosmological principle. This holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the space between them.)

Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s. How could the universe continue to look the same when observations show it to be expanding, which would tend to thin out its contents? Supporters of this cosmology balanced the ever-decreasing density that results from the expansion by hypothesizing that matter was continuously created out of nothing. The amount required was undetectably small—about a few atoms for every cubic mile each year.

The steady-state theory began to wither in the 1960s. First, astronomers discovered quasars, the highly luminous cores of very distant galaxies. Because the vast majority of quasars lie exceedingly far away, their existence proves that the perfect cosmological principle cannot be true—the distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby. The death knell for the theory sounded when radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. The steady-staters had no reasonable way to explain this radiation, and their theory slowly faded away as so many of its predecessors had.

Best regards,
- RP

[Profpat]

RP;

You are a steady stater, right ?

I'm not, but with all the talk about multiverses, I guess some would be steady state, some pulsating, some created.

But which is ours?

Pat

[RascalPuff]

RP;

You are a steady stater, right ?

I'm not, but with all the talk about multiverses, I guess some would be steady state, some pulsating, some created.

But which is ours?

Pat

______________

Well, Prof, 'ours', as I see it, is the universe as it is - the omnidirectionally accelerating 4-D matter: expanding with the space (and apparently the cause of the expansion of space), so we're back to a reinstated Steady State Theory, uniformly sprinkled with Cosmological Constant; garnished with a couple of dashes of reinstated Lambda /\ ...

It's always good to hear from you, Prof.
Thanks for asking - it accents the piquant issue.
Hope you find the response adequate.
- RP