[Tesla]

Ok. The quest is to find a theory of everthing so we can explain how the universe began, how it will end, and all that lies inbetween, right? Well what next? In whatever theoretical senario explaining the beginning there will always be a before. Well what was there before that, what put it there, then what put that there, and how did it get there? The answers are as infinite as the question. IT BLOWS MY MIND! Infinity slides off the tougue as easily as it slides out of my grip on reality. Well I'd love to type more but it's 2:00AM and I'm exausted. So chew on this and give me your opinions.

MY FIRST POST

Nothing is affirmative to an infinite question. That's my point. Every answer we come up with is just as much a step forward as it is backward. That's infinity. Easy to know, near impossible to fully understand. I've come to accept that space is infinte; with that in mind the notion that the universe began at some time and will end some day does't mix right with infinity. Infinity does't begin or end, it just is, was, and will be. Lets substitute the universe with numbers for a moment. 'I theororize that the numbers started with some sort of big bang at 0!' Oh, ok the numbers started at 0. But what came before that, -1, right? So that must be the beginning! But wait, does anything come before -1? Why yes, there is -2! Oh, wait, what about -3 and -4. And -5 and -6 and -7 and -8 all the way down the negatives, forever, NOT ending anywhere in the beginning. Same goes for the end of the numbers (still universe in this senerio), going in a positive direction. Toward a never ending end. My point is, as i stated in the beginning, a T.O.E. would be as much a step forward as it is backward in infinitely explaining the eternal question...What is the universe, how did it get here, when will it end, and why?


P.S. I know it reads Telsa but it's supposed to be Tesla. Thanks!

[Nobody]

Tesla,

I think the moment we think of the concept of time and space is the moment we create the unresolvable problem you clearly point out, and thinking in those terms can quite literally drive you bananas.

This is partly what scientific logic is about in that they deal with the "real" stuff, and being in that position had no choice but to create the common model that is logical in the relative sense. In other words, the position is one that suggests there was no time or space in "the beginning" and in essense those terms are meaningless. The laws that make time and space possible break down at a certain point relative to our natural laws, and time and space cease to be - there was no "before" because there was no "space" (Planck space mind you) for there to be any correlating "time."

[harmonygirl]

Hi Tesla and welcome to TOEQUEST. I hope you have fun here (I know I have!). When you speak of infinity, are you referring to time or space or both? because while everything ultimately returns to balance, the trip to the point of balance is characterized by questions that are answered in the affirmative, etc. don't you think?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Telsa Nothing is affirmative to an infinite question. That's my point. Every answer we come up with is just as much a step forward as it is backward. That's infinity. Easy to know, near impossible to fully understand. I've come to accept that space is infinte; with that in mind the notion that the universe began at some time and will end some day does't mix right with infinity. Infinity does't begin or end, it just is, was, and will be. Lets substitute the universe with numbers for a moment. 'I theororize that the numbers started with some sort of big bang at 0!' Oh, ok the numbers started at 0. But what came before that, -1, right? So that must be the beginning! But wait, does anything come before -1? Why yes, there is -2! Oh, wait, what about -3 and -4. And -5 and -6 and -7 and -8 all the way down the negatives, forever, NOT ending anywhere in the beginning. Same goes for the end of the numbers (still universe in this senerio), going in a positive direction. Toward a never ending end. My point is, as i stated in the beginning, a T.O.E. would be as much a step forward as it is backward in infinitely explaining the eternal question...What is the universe, how did it get here, when will it end, and why? P.S. I know it reads Telsa but it's supposed to be Tesla. Thanks!

What is the universe?=Manifested thought-Ideation.How did it get here=Intention.When will it end=in obscouration,at the end of this cycle!
Why?Because cycles are the intention of material universes?

kind regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Telsa;
The process of using a mire of terms to describe our universe has lead to the development of mathematical models of our universe called gauge theories. Relativity, Quantum Physics, and String theory are the current models vying for top billing. These theories are not defining reality, they are defining quantities of various mathematical values for terms used in the process of measurement. Only when we are able to trace these terms to fundamental absolutes will we truly understand reality. Once we reach the understanding of absolutes, we will have the fundamental causality of the universe. At this point we will have only one questions unanswered; “Did existence come into being or has it always been?”

BTW: Welcome to ToeQuest.

[Tesla]

Finally! Another response. Thanks dleviwing for the insight. Please, post on my other threads!

Thanks.

[Nobody]

I have to ask what a fundamental absolute is; what existence would come into being from, or what it would always exist as?

I guess it's just me, but I liken the logic to all models as being analogous to, say, your computer existing in a room that isn't there.

Isn't that impossible?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Telsa, welcome to the forum. I have one question to ask. What about the infinite absolute thermodynamic void___before any wave/matter heat was created? Is this not an affirmative to the infinite question? Is there a deeper absolute than absolute infinite thermodynamics?___as it would be the possibility of temperature approaching infinite cold, if all, and I mean all heat[wave/matter and plasma field/matter{1000-2000f.}] were removed. My reverse engineering of the universe shows this to be the case___what you say___infinite thermodynamics? It will always be here in its two forms___cold and hot___No? Infinite? Yes!??? Infinity is thermodynamic change...

regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by Telsa Nothing is affirmative to an infinite question. That's my point. Every answer we come up with is just as much a step forward as it is backward. That's infinity. Easy to know, near impossible to fully understand. I've come to accept that space is infinte; with that in mind the notion that the universe began at some time and will end some day does't mix right with infinity. Infinity does't begin or end, it just is, was, and will be. Lets substitute the universe with numbers for a moment. 'I theororize that the numbers started with some sort of big bang at 0!' Oh, ok the numbers started at 0. But what came before that, -1, right? So that must be the beginning! But wait, does anything come before -1? Why yes, there is -2! Oh, wait, what about -3 and -4. And -5 and -6 and -7 and -8 all the way down the negatives, forever, NOT ending anywhere in the beginning. Same goes for the end of the numbers (still universe in this senerio), going in a positive direction. Toward a never ending end. My point is, as i stated in the beginning, a T.O.E. would be as much a step forward as it is backward in infinitely explaining the eternal question...What is the universe, how did it get here, when will it end, and why? P.S. I know it reads Telsa but it's supposed to be Tesla. Thanks!

[mkirkpatrick]

There is no answer to "why". No answer that would make any sense, or nonsense. That very question Telsa, and I feel that you know this, by your postings, has been asked 10000 years ago in India, and the reply is still the same, we cannot ever know the answer to Why? So as they say in gangster speak "forget about it"!
But we do know the answer to HOW and the answer to that lies in understanding the power of intent, and the formalizing of energy and matter.

kind regards michael.

[Dewd]

Grand master M Kirkpatrick, 9th degree Black Belt Harmony Girl, 6th degree Black belt Lloyd Gillispie, the quite obviously and marvelously accomplished DLeviwing, 2nd degree Black Belt Nobody, 1st degree Black Belt Telsa, and everyone on the forum. Hello! I’m called "Dewd."

I might’ve avoided this forum, except for the objectivity so apparent in the many interesting and thought provoking postings I’ve read here. Said another way, I’ve seen a remarkable minimum in the number of usual (and very human) attempts to impress. So, then, onward and upward, ever toward the "Grand Unification Theory."

First off, I think it’s important that I declare my allegiance to the minority group of thinkers, who might be called "absolutist" --those of us who see the universe as a composite of absolutes. The other broad group, of course, are those who see the universe as a perspective, and might be called "relativists."

By the way, I posted (elsewhere in this forum) the groundwork for what I think should be a major revolution in the way we see the universe. The Moderator decided to move my previous posting, which is entirely okay, but I think it’s rather obscure now.

In the previous posting, I mentioned one of the many problems associated with building a theory of everything based upon the foundation established by Einstein’s "Special Relativity Theory," which suggests that the medium of the universe, devoid of matter, is a "space/time continuum."

I’d like to discuss the possibility that this single-most-obvious truth should be questioned. Please be interested.

Visualizing the universe as a space/time continuum is unsatisfactory, simply because it doesn’t work. The "thinker" hits an impenetrable wall, every which way he turns.

Moreover, because it doesn’t work, we are left with a jumbled-up concoction of buzz words and cheat factors (constants) to explain the universe, simply because we can find nothing wrong with the observation that there is "something" between objects in space, and an elapse of "something" between events.

That’s it folks! It’s difficult to believe that these two simple observations represent the basis for seeing the medium of space (devoid of matter, of course) as a "space/time continuum."

Boy howdy! It does seem overly simplified, but it isn’t. You may call it a wave, a perspective, an absolute, call it what you will, but it should be called a trap, an almost foolproof trap that catches any and all who come near it.

But, without tangible displacement and time, what theory might explain the universe?

May I submit the "Nobody-Here-But-Us-Chickens" theory of the universe? I.e., if it isn’t matter, it doesn’t exist.

In such a universe, all phenomena must be explained within the confines of the nature of matter and its properties.

But, then, when you think about it, the fact that any fixed force can accelerate any given mass to any given velocity, yet cannot do it instantaneously, should be problematic to the rational mind. And, really, this example is only the tip of a mighty iceberg.

Gotta go for now, but I’ll be back, depending on subject matter interest. Thanks for listening.