[N0B0DY]

If you guess that based solely on opposing me, then I guess you're right.

We have to consider that the big-bang model was created, ex-nihilo, by a catholic scientist based on biblical renderings, and has been modified based on it being too illogical to bear.

[dipayankar]

I believe matter was created not by God, but by some process which is unknown to us...

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; Here's the problem, you can either believe something from nothing, not to logical. Or you can believe something is Eternal. Again not to logical. Do you have a third possibility? I'd love to hear it. Best, Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY If you guess that based solely on opposing me, then I guess you're right. We have to consider that the big-bang model was created, ex-nihilo, by a catholic scientist based on biblical renderings, and has been modified based on it being too illogical to bear.

Hi Nobody;

You take things far too personal, what do you mean "based solely on opposing me". I may or may not agree with your definition, but that doesn't equate with me opposing you.

I believe thought is a real thing and I guess you don't, and so we'll just have to agree that we disagree on that subject.

Additionally, I don't care if the "big bang" theory was Satan's own theory, it's either right or wrong. Oh I forgot you don't think right or wrong is relevant. Well I do.

It's the most accepted theory by most cosmologist, physicist, and mathematicians. It's part of the standard model. It was accepted by Einstein and Hawkings.

I hope you're not offended by any thing in this post, because truly that is not my intention.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

No, I don't get offended, Pat, but when you complained about my monster ton overshadowing your idea and I come here to focus on the cause of the idea via the cause of the root point of one-dimesnional strings, explaining that existence cannot exist within non existence, and you respond with, "I guess the universe can exist with no outside?", it tells me something about your intentions.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Profpat I'm a little confused here Drifter. I'm not sure what you mean by the ' I " thought. Also I have no problem with the concept of Eternal Return ( Your link ). I don't know if it's true, but it could be. Best, Pat

Look in vain for "I"
It's one of the terms you employ most frequently. During the day, the word "I" crops up in nearly all your sentences. Since your most tender childhood you have ceased referring to yourself by your own first name. "I" has become the word by which you express your desires, disappointments, projects, hopes, acts of all kinds, physical sensations, illnesses, pleasures, plans, resentment, tenderness, your weakness for vanilla and your aversion to fennel. For a long, long time you have linked this tiny word to your multifarious mental states. It is intimately involved in your feelings and your memories. Apparently, nothing is possible without it. It is there in all your stories and all your judgements. Not a single decision, not the slightest rumination escapes it.
The curious thing is, everyone uses the same word. The most irreducible intimacy, the most singular existence, for each one of us, is linked to a word that we neither chose nor coined, and that everyone else employs in exactly the same way. A pronoun in the language. There's nothing less personal than this "personal" pronoun. The particular existence it refers to remains, linguistically speaking, completely interchangeable. It could be anyone who says "I'm happy" or "I'm sad." All of us, in all our difference, refer to ourselves by exactly the same word as everyone else. A most paradoxical situation. But you don't think about it, and nor does anyone else, of course. You have enough to do without worrying your head about questions of that order.
And yet, try to pin down this "I." Does it exist? How can you find it? What does it look like? If you apply yourself to asking these questions, and trying to resolve them, you'll find that this "I" is neither simple to localize nor to authenticate.
This is not a brief experiment, whose limits are easy to circumscribe. It can come to seem, on the contrary, like a long pursuit. You need time, different occasions, a certain application, and stubbornness. So where is this blindingly obvious "I?" You will seek for a long time, in different places and under different aspects. And there is a strong chance that, at the end of it all, you'll return somewhat at a loss. Which is where things start to get interesting.
Among the avenues of inquiry you might like to pursue, it's worth remembering the existence of the body. Is not this "I," which is both individual and yet assimilable to others, in fact identical with the body that houses it, with its habits, its weaknesses, its vulnerabilities and its particularities? But there's no trace of an "I" in your body. Not one of your cells lives longer than ten years. No part of your body has persisted unchanged. So what will you address as "I?" The form? The ensemble? The general organization? There remains, famously, the phenomenon of thought. All may change, but not your memories, not your sense of remaining unchanged despite corporeal alterations. But even here, you cannot put your finger on an "I." All you will ever discover are thoughts, sequences of thoughts, memories, associations of ideas, desires-all of them pressed into service by what you call your "I."
To all these sensations, to all these mental events, the "I" seems to provide a common denominator. But it neither supports nor drives them. It merely imparts to them something like a family resemblance, a shared aspect to what are very diverse notions and feelings-something like a color or an odor. A way of seeming, a style. Nothing more. "I" is not a someone or a something. And yet neither is it just a word. It must be a refrain of the self, a secondary quality, at one remove.
If you manage to carry the experiment thus far, you will need to know what to do about this sensation. What impact will this impossible discovery about your "I" have upon your existence? How will you cope once your "I" has gone missing? That is another story.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Profpat I'm a little confused here Drifter. I'm not sure what you mean by the ' I " thought. Also I have no problem with the concept of Eternal Return ( Your link ). I don't know if it's true, but it could be. Best, Pat

WHO AM I

Who is this I that I seem to be,
That I feel I am, yet cannot see;
The one in me I've yet to know,
Though ever present wherever I go.

Who can it be, this I in me,
The I that I am, yet never see;
The one in me that still goes on,
When all about has come and gone.

The one in me that always knows,
That never comes and never goes;
That's always here and never there,
Ever present and so nowhere.

The one in me, the one in you,
The I in us and all else too;
The root and core of all that lives,
The essence and soul of all that is.

The I in all, which cannot fall,
Alive in the hearts of great and small;
That's never apart and always near,
Knows no hunger and has no fear.

The one in all, the one in each,
The one all seek, but never reach;
The I that I am, that you are too,
The I that answers the question who

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY No, I don't get offended, Pat, but when you complained about my monster ton overshadowing your idea and I come here to focus on the cause of the idea via the cause of the root point of one-dimesnional strings, explaining that existence cannot exist within non existence, and you respond with, "I guess the universe can exist with no outside?", it tells me something about your intentions.

Hi Nobody;

I was trying to respond to your quote in#379 above:

That reality can be said to exist within non existence; it can be said that a house can exist with no outside.

I had no particular intention when i responded " I guess the universe can exist with no outside" Isn't the current thought is that the universe is flat with no inside or outside?

I only thought that is what you were referring to.

So what intentions did you think I had?

Best,

Pat

P.S. What did you mean in it post in #379?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar I believe matter was created not by God, but by some process which is unknown to us...

Hi Dipayankar;

That unknown process would still have to be eternal or created.

Here are some thoughts of Plato and Aristotle on the subject from Wikipedia:




Plato and Aristotle, depicted here in The School of Athens, both developed arguments from a first cause.


Plato and Aristotle both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BCE) posited a basic cosmological argument in The Laws (Book X). He argued that motion in the world and in the cosmos was "imparted motion" that would have required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain the motion.[1] Plato also posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. For Plato, the demiurge lacked the supernatural ability to create ex nihilo or out of nothing. The demiurge was only able to organize the "anake". The anake was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony.
Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) also put forth the idea of a first cause, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" or "Unmoved Mover" (the πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον or primus motor) in his work Metaphysics. For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying "stuff" of the universe always was in existence and always would be (which in turn follows Parmenides' famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle posited an underlying ousia (an essence or substance) of which the universe is composed, and it is the ousia that the Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but is instead a Being who constantly thinks about thinking itself, and who organized the cosmos by making matter the object of "aspiration or desire".[2] The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking", an eternal process of pure thought.

Best to you,

Pat

[Tina]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Being eternal defies logic. And anything that defies logic is not acceptable. And hence it is not possible to imagine a indefinite Universe..

Here is logic: When have you seen something new come into existance? Tell me of something that is not just re-arrangement of existang matter!

[N0B0DY]

It was a logical implication, Pat. It doesn't make sense that existence exists within non existence, but the sole concern of mainstream science is the study of effectual phenomena and is understandably not concerned with what is outside the universe.

Space is allegedly asymptotically-flat, but it is a scalar effect that presupposes a false vacuum inside and true vacuum outside which equates Eucludian and Minkowski space. Ironically, the false vacuum can shed a new light on the true vacuum where we can better understand the nature of space and how its pseudo-warping is impossible. The pseudo effect is the result of mass changing forms, as Tina points out, but abstract in the sense that matter(not mass/energy), like a white sheet of paper, contains all massive forms and this is where the popular space-matter hypotheses comes in.

The more we progress scientifically, the more things thought to be different are being merged as one, and the relevant questioning - unlike the irrelevant ultimate truth - is based on the lack of motion of absolute spacematter, where the non-existent inferences are only based on lack of physical properties. Then this: "The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking", an eternal process of pure thought." can perhaps become unthinkable, unnecessary, because there can be no literal rearranging of what has only one density and is everywhere at once, which equates to no density and nowhere at nonce.