I agree about things not coming from nothing or being around forever; thus, only Possibility of things was 'forever' (but really, just was, there being no time).
However, like all suppositions and "could be's"on the origin of the universe, one must admit than no no one can know, unless their theory gets proved somehow, which it probably can't, since no one can go back there.
So, then, as all most will still stand by their SURE THING theories, what is it in human nature through natural selection that makes one HAVE TO invent sources for the unknown?
Each day, I post a different invention somewhere on ToeQuest that is the RIGHT one.
Who is willing to admit that they go on what is unknown, even the face of what we see here and now?
Now, today's SURE THING is that Gods are just higher forms of humans and that we can progressively rise up through reincarnation, but if we fall to an animal level, then we are kind of stuck there as animals can't really do good or bad to rise back up top human.
Now, why would those above, or of any other belief, insist that they were SO RIGHT BEYOND ANY DOUBT?
I'm still confused how you get SOMETHING from NOTHING. NO THING, Nada, zilch, null, void, empty, no potential, no paradox, no consciousness, NOTHING!!!
To me the only possibility.
Pat, in short: you're right!
We cannot get something from nothing.
Yet to understand where we are, we must have come from a location where we are currently not, nor can there be here any direct scientific evidence of that location from which we came; a full disconnection must have occurred otherwise our universe cannot be as it is. If you want to call what was the previous state god, I have no problem with that at all. If you want to believe it is still around, I have no problem there either.
Yet the framework in which we exist is the framework for which we are trying to get a ToE. That means the origin may be revealed a tiny bit by this ToE — we may have to adjust our other ways of thinking somewhat to incorporate the ToE — but the origin itself can most likely not be known much further in a scientific way than as the Potential. Describing the potential needs to be done really carefully, and I think that you, Austin, are giving yourself a tiny bit more freedom there than I would, and to the extent that it may confuse others because of that extra bit of freedom you give yourself; but ultimately you do hit bull's eye and say the exact thing(s). Also, Pat, to turn the potential into a higher being than us is also a form of taking freedom where we should really be careful with our words. In some kind of way, we are all saying the correct things; it is more a matter of figuring out which framework our words belong to.
The pentaist ToE shows that the step from the potential state to the current state requires the incorporation of the position of nothing, for otherwise the full transition with disconnection from that previous state would have either not been possible or the previous state would be here with us, and we would have direct scientific knowledge about it.
The phenomenon of nothing is like having a magic door through which energy flowed (and possibly still flows) from the previous state to an energy/mass creation in the current state. The separation of energy itself into the dual energy/mass condition is possible because the phenomenon of nothing allows/forces energy in transmission to choose between various forms where first that additional option was not considered.
To say the same in other words: the previous state can be described in your exact words, Pat: the whole and the void. The current state is: the whole and the phenomenon of nothing incorporated into what is therefore now for us the new whole, and let's call that the current status.
The incorporation of the phenomenon of nothing into the current status is what happened in and around the Big Bang; it changed the previous whole into separate parts that on some level are in full disagreement with one another (Weak Nuclear Force and Strong Nuclear Force) without them destroying each other; they have on a fundamental level nothing in common.
These two forces have a grounded feature, meaning they do not change under any condition into another force (unless possibly via the potential state, or possibly into E/M; but this is just conjecture). The other two forces of Electric and Magnetic status do change under specific conditions (and do not need a step via the potential state, if that were already possible). The fifth force — gravity — is a freebie, and can according to me better be seen as a phenomenon than as a force.
In math systems there is evidence that zero is always there; we always have at least a duality on this side of the universe. The position of nothing, the empty position, allowed/forced energy to diversify from the potential that could have been singular (but we cannot know that scientifically) to the materialized universe in which energy is known to be varied beyond it being singular. We find a matrix of six positions: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Both the 0 and the 5 may be considered as nothing additional in a material way; the empty position and the synergy position (of having something additionally occurring when the parts fit in certain ways like bike parts strewn on the floor vs. a mounted bike). Another fun number fact: 3 cannot exist unless 4 is there, too.
By wanting to incorporate the previous state into our thinking about the current state, we make it impossible to get our heads around the whole thing, because the previous state and the current state are two states, not one. Where singularity was potentially possible in the previous state, we know that we have two states that are different, so we should not try to unite these two states nor try to find unification in the second state by itself. Unification as the ground rule is not possible on this side of the universe.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I don't think you can definitively say that we won't be able to determine what was here before this universe.
Call it a hunch, rather than a "sure thing".
I agree, Max, the potential can only be known as the potential, so a hunch is definitively in place. Yet that means that first there is certainty about the ultimateuncertainty of the previous state, and next we also have certainty that it did allow our universe to come into being.
Not all is lost therefore: science does allow us to theorize about the previous state as long as what our theory claims is in agreement with our scientific knowledge; then we can indeed go there. Yet as you and I know, theory is not the same as fact, and we can then definitively say that we won't be able to determine what was here before this universe except that it was potentially already at least that what enabled the universe to become.
Allow me to fill a few of the steps in that we can take:
What existed before must have enabled our universe to come into being. If our universe is a place of non-unified conditions then that condition must have either already existed in the Potential or must have already potentially existed in the Potential. Language is tricky here, I hope you catch the difference. If we say that the current state is non-singular, then the previous state may have or may have not been singular itself, but contained either way the potential to develop a non-singularly based universe.
The step from previous state to current state must have started out at a given center, because we find an overall outward movement in our universe. We do not know exactly whether that center was occurring just in the Potential with no immediate materialization happening right after or if it was the threshold itself at the beginning of our materialized universe. I claim it existed just in the Potential first and materialization happened later; in contrast, most scientists today would probably say this threshold occurred together with materialization.
That specific center at the Potential state that led to incorporating a limit in subsequent materialization must have been a position in which the limit (of whatever the Potential state was) was reached. Something occurred in the Potential that was new for the Potential in such a way that it subsequently led to the materialized universe. I claim a stressful situation was created that led to some parts letting go of each other at a basic level, a basic level unrelated to the general level of the Potential. The entire construct within the Potential unraveled all the way into materialization because the general level of the Potential was set up in a specific way, while the letting go happened at a different level.
Do you agree, Max? What is your idea? Can you provide more examples of theoretical certainty about the previous stae?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Interesting reply, Max. Even though there is quite a bit of indicators that black holes exist, I would not call that a theoretical certainty. I for one, do not consider black holes to be what most scientists today claim them to be, and I do not have to change anything about the current knowledge to find it a possibility that black holes are not much more than gravitational-neutral locations within large gravitational disks (galaxies).
Or are you saying that the previous state is a black hole in which our reality of this universe may disappear? An interesting observation, in as far as you would then have a return path for our currently materialized universe to the previous state, where I do not. As mentioned, I consider black holes specific states within gravitational entities, with gravity being a phenomenon rather than a force, and black holes therefore specific aspects in large gravitational entities that provide difficult situations for mass/energy, but not an actual player within that mass/energy picture. It is more like cousin Paul doing a 180 because the family asked him to do that than what he would have done all by himself without the family interfering. His behavior is therefore influenced, but he would not be swallowed by the family, only crunched at the most.
My view on gravity is that it is a phenomenon. Newton's apple and an object the size of an apple but made out of lead, both fall towards the earth at the same rate. That indicates that not the object is at the heart of gravity, but rather that gravity is something circumstantial; it is something that belongs to a circumstance or set of circumstances. My explanation is that, on the outward trajectory away from the Big Bang, our earth and the objects on it are so close to one another, they automatically cling together. The earth's spin and circular motion around the sun are only minimally of importance in light of the trajectory away from point X. It is like two objects (the apple and earth) both falling towards the same point in the distance, with of course, the apple doing all the budging towards the planet. When I jump up, I am unable to free myself onto a separate course away from point X, and I fall back onto this collective course again.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I thought that the standard model accepts the unification of forces at the very first nanoseconds of the universe. That is the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electro/magnetic, were all the same force at the beginning.
In my An Idea, the weak nuclear isn't the opposite of the strong nuclear, rather it's a manifestation of the limitation of strong nuclear bonding do to a limitation of positive/negative areas in the proton/neutron.
This is why I believe in singularity ( neutral ) becoming duality ( positive/negative ) and finally trinity ( positive/negative/neutral ). 1,2,3 infinity.
There essentially is 1 force, electro/magnetic. Gravity being an effect not a force.
I thought that the standard model accepts the unification of forces at the very first nanoseconds of the universe. That is the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electro/magnetic, were all the same force at the beginning.
In my An Idea, the weak nuclear isn't the opposite of the strong nuclear, rather it's a manifestation of the limitation of strong nuclear bonding do to a limitation of positive/negative areas in the proton/neutron.
This is why I believe in singularity ( neutral ) becoming duality ( positive/negative ) and finally trinity ( positive/negative/neutral ). 1,2,3 infinity.
There essentially is 1 force, electro/magnetic. Gravity being an effect not a force.
You see, Pat, we're not that far apart. You call something neutral, I call something the phenomenon of nothing; you believe in duality, I believe in duality; you say the weak nuclear isn't the opposite of the strong nuclear force, I say the weak nuclear isn't the opposite of the strong nuclear force (because otherwise they could annihilate each other, which they don't). I do say both are grounded onto themselves and have nothing in common with one another on at least a fundamental level. You say gravity is an effect, I say gravity is a phenomenon.
You say the standard model accepts the unification of forces at the very first nanoseconds of the universe, I say the standard model accepts the unification of forces at the very first nanoseconds of the universe. But of course that does not mean I agree with that position. My Empty Nest theory, in which during the first stages of materialization we are already a long way off from point X in the middle of the new universe, nothing occurs in the middle of that materialization, at least not until after materialization is established. The materialization in my theory is like a ball with a lot of nothing in the middle, and only the outer layers materialize. In the middle, where it all started (within the Potential) we find point X. Nothing is happening right around point X, a lot is happening way out in all directions from point X.
I claim scientists are folding the forces into one at point X where that is not possible. I place the (possible) unification right smack in the middle of the Potential. Within the Potential the reason for materialization was created, after which materialization then started to occur. Read well: after which, not: with which. Whether that after is just a second long or 4 billion years long of non-materialized outward flowing energy, I don't know, calculations will need to guide us there.
I think we have a lot in common, Pat, but I did leave out some of the parts where we do not agree (yet), and as always language and ideas are tricky and need to be understood for their true values and positions.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
"The incorporation of the phenomenon of nothing into the current status is what happened in and around the Big Bang; it changed the previous whole into separate parts that on some level are in full disagreement with one another".....Fredrick
Hi Fredrick...your statement above interested me so I am going to ask a question which probably may seem stupid in the face of what you guys all know...but I will ask it anyway..
If the Universe's big bang changed the previous whole into separate parts could that also be implied to our state as first in the fetal state in some kind of state of wholeness with the Universe and then the big bang for us was "birth" which the ancients seemed to think shattered or fragmented the wholeness into parts?????
Re: An Idea 
Linear Mode
