[zeroca]

According to my theory nothing - zero plays fundamental, principal part. I think that before arising of the universe there didn’t exist anything, i.e. only nothing existed before the birth of the world.

Generally I think that nobody can prove anything to anybody, so despite my being very convinced in my theory, I prefer it to be produced as based on an assumption.

At the beginning let’s call the initial, starting stage of arising of universe “Big Bang” as everybody does it.

So I don’t think that any materialization existed just before Big Bang. The term “Big Bang” doesn’t mean anything like bang. I think it’s only introduced to emphasize “the process that takes place “everywhere simultaneously”.

If there didn’t exist anything, it means that there didn’t exist even two different eternally small points, as the space and time didn’t exist (“nonexistence” didn’t take place within time and space). When we say that the process began from some center it doesn’t mean that this center really existed and it had size. We probably want to figure to ourselves how the process of existence started. According to me we mustn’t think that such state took place in an empty 3-D space, I definitely emphasize that 3-D space didn’t exist. As nothing is homogeneous, it means that it’s equal or rather the same in its “different places”, so we can figure it as one center, but it doesn’t mean that this imaginable center is any kind of accumulation of energy.

So I repeat: nothing existed before arising of the world and arising of the world is the process of separation of nothing into two equal opposite parts.

Let’s assume that it was really so, i.e. nothing existed before arising of the world: nothing means – no 3-D space, no time, no existing changes, no existing motion, i.e. complete, thorough quiescence. Let’s call it – “existence of nothing in itself”, so only nothing in itself existed before Big Bang.
How long lasted such state - existence of nothing in itself without separation? We can’t say that such state lasted even infinitely small fraction of the second, or even lasted, because such state didn’t happen within time - to say figuratively: as time didn’t exist, no matter how long such state lasted: “millions of years”, or “infinitesimal part of second” and if any “changes” are expected, they must happen at once.

But a question arises: Are really any changes expected within nothing? Or rather has nothing any possibility of change? I definitely think that only kind of change that’s possible within it is its separation, splitting, dividing into two equal opposite phenomenon. I’m really not obtruding my theory on you, but all phenomenons in universe exists based on a duality, and hardly anyone can cite the event, which hasn’t got its opposite (except for nothing itself, that’s only phenomenon, which’s single, absolute, unique... i.e. to say briefly there isn’t the second zero, but only one…)

For instance:

3D-space: Up - down, left - right, front - back, inside – outside; center – periphery;

Time: before – after, i.e. past – future and vice versa;

Misfortune – happiness;
Consolidation – rarefaction;
Friend – enemy;
Man – woman;
Left eye – right eye;
Love – hatred;
Male – female;
Cold – warm… etc.

Or into two equal opposite processes, distributed within time:

Day – night;
Summer – winter;
Spring – autumn;
Prosperity – adversity;
As you sow, so shall you reap;
To kill in present life – to be killed in the future life;
To be a prosecutor in present life – to be prosecuted in a future life; I.e. the after-effects, the consequences of Karma…

How can I prove that’s really so?

I think that if the sum of opposite equal phenomenon is zero, it means that zero can be a possible container of opposite equal phenomenon, i.e. zero contains in itself the possibility of separation.

I myself call mentioned quality of nothing – weakness, against of the quality – steadfastness.

Steadfastness can be called the quality of the event the probability of which equals to 1. (For instance, probability of falling out of six on a dice, on each side of which is inscribed six), but the weakness – the quality of the event the probability of which is less than 1, in our case equals to 0.5 (I.e. zero has two alternatives: either to stay undivided or to become separated)
As the first condition of nothing doesn’t last inside the time, so separation happens at once.

The question; what forced nothing to separation, to splitting? I.e. what was the initial impulse, or impact? - can be answered, that as from two alternatives of nothing (to stay undivided, or to stay separated) the first doesn’t last within the time, then nothing automatically “chooses” the second, because nothing “isn’t waiting for some period to pass”, because there isn’t any period (as time doesn’t exist), i.e. weakness of nothing is contained in its probability of change and its un-separated condition sporadically turns into its separated one, so to say briefly

Nothing included in itself the code of arising of the world and there hadn’t been any need in “forcing it from the outside”.

The turning of this universe from present state into nothing again can be called - a Big Annihilation, but it has very small credibility, since for fading away of this universe a simultaneous neutralization of all opposite phenomenon is required, but anyway small credibility of annihilation doesn’t exclude its possible incoming occurrence some day.

So according to my theory so called “Big Bangs” are alternated with “Big Annihilations” in succession, i.e. world arising is followed by its dying.

The fading away of universe can be called as interruption of existence of universe. I repeat that during the interruption 3-D space, gravity, distance, time, motion - fade away and as interruption doesn’t last inside the time, so any previously existed universe turns into following one at once, i.e. we can say that this universe (the truth with cessations) exists permanently in the space inside the time, since those interruptions (each of them) don’t last inside the time.

The process of separation within nothing (i.e. the Big Bang) at once is accompanied by simultaneous arising of 3-D space and time; Why?

I think it is regularity, since the separation means the change, i.e. the existence of difference, i.e. existence of at least two different points, and to characterize two different locations the space is needed at once.
Three inter-perpendicular directions are enough for that, i.e. the space presents 3 conventional parameters of localization, i.e. localizational parameters of motion.

The time as well doesn’t exist on its own, but it’s needed to characterize the change, i.e. not only two different locations, but two different conditions as well (figuratively: the cold today - the warm tomorrow, day and night, summer and winter at a certain intervals).

Time presents itself no more than successional parameter of motion.
Finally I can say that general rule of world arising consists in separation of nothing into two opposite equal phenomenon, or into two opposite equal processes with simultaneous arising of 3-D space and time, as attributes of motion; and world fading away is the process of complete annihilation of universe with synchronous fading away of 3-D space and time.

[subversion]

I think your theory is correct but incomplete. You're saying that nothingness will inevitably split, and then return to nothingness. This seems valid but rather pointless. One of the things that I think is most important about the TOE is that it will be profoundly meaningful, not a description of a tedious and repetative cycle. You must consider this, what is the meaning of your theory? In order to figure that out, you have to tell me why the cycle exists to begin with or what kick started it. Otherwise the cycle is pointless right?

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by subversion why the cycle exists to begin with or what kick started it?

1. I tried to explain the initial impact of separation above. As I mentioned, nothingness had to alternatives:
Either
1. To stay undivided
Or
2. To become separated.
Notice that under the first condition there wasn’t any force, which could kick any process neither from “inside”, nor from “outside” of nothingness (since nothingness is homogeneous), so its instantaneous un-separated state sporadically (by itself) turned into separated one at once (without needing in kicking) and that quality of it had been contained in its probability of separation.

Originally Posted by subversion I think most important about the TOE is that it will be profoundly meaningful, not a description of a tedious and repetative cycle. Otherwise the cycle is pointless right?

Why has nothingness the probability of separation? And why has this universe the probability of die? Is there any purpose or meaning in it?

Is there any meaning in fact that,
---coin has two alternatives: head and tail, and the probability of falling out of each equals to 1/2?
If we make a coin of any kind, it will at once have head and tail and told above probability of falling out…
If we make an ordinary dice, it will at once have six sides and the probability of falling out of any cipher equaled to 1/6…

Why it happens?

I think all above told is on its own, and so is the tedious and repetitive cycle of universe arising and dying as well…

---So the coin hasn’t got any other choice then to have two alternatives – head and tail,
---Ordinary dice as well hasn’t got any other choice then to have six sides, or rather six alternatives of falling out,

---Nothingness by itself hasn’t got any other choice then to have two alternatives: either 1.to stay undivided or 2.to stay separated (the second variant is our universe in whole);
And the second (separated) condition of nothingness is more “durable”, since the first one doesn't last within time and also for annihilation of the whole universe the simultaneous annihilation of all pairs is required (too small credibility)...

Originally Posted by subversion what is the meaning of your theory?

About the meaning and practical use of my theory I'll answer another time...

[mkirkpatrick]

The centre of the universe is any where you want it to be,it does not really
matter as it extends into infinity in all directions,as regards nothingness or nothing,there really is no such thing,as nothing,or to be more precise no-thing,the universe is absolutely full,you could not even squeeze a banknote in
between if that was at all possible,there are no gaps or spaces anywhere in the
universe,only energy,interacting with other energy,at different levels of vibration.I know that at times it is difficult to find words to express some of these ideas,but we can but try,energy is force is power is focussed is in the last analyasis is a product of mind,and mind is ominipresent and totally fills all that is
andwill ever be,and very soon the scientific world will come to the same conclusion.the only empty spaces to be found are between each sentence.?

kind regards michael.

[Guille]

The centre of a universe is the unvierse itself, for the centre of something, i.e. the most important part of it, reveals the grounds of what something is.

For example, look at the mayor events of my life, and you will be able to understand and predict my behavoir, emotions and thoughts. Theremore, you will govern me.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick The centre of the universe is anywhere you want it to be

Maybe you are right, but I pointed finger at me, you pointed finger at you, and all the rest pointed fingers at themselves:
All of us have our own centers, all heavenly bodies, all molecules, atoms have their centers, and do you think all these centers can be counted the center of universe, because the universe only hasn’t its own center, hasn’t its own origin and its own end, because as observers say, it always existed?
This poor universe!

Best regards, Merab.

[subversion]

I still don't believe that nothing could spontaneoulsy separate for no reason. If you believe it did, then you can't answer this question: why did it do so when it did? You say it has two choices, to separate or to remain nothing, and that it will always seperate because nothingness does not exist within time. Well that could also be used to say that since nothingness is timeless then it will not separate because the nothingness can persist eternally and forever. So how can time enter in and effect something which doesn't exist in time to begin with??????

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by subversion I still don't believe that nothing could spontaneoulsy separate for no reason. why did it do so when it did?

The fact that universe exists is real, even if this existence is an illusion,
i.e. even illusion of existence means existence definitely. But we can not detect
nothingness because nothingness itself means complete undetectable phenomenon, so we have

1.to analyze it mentally (from our present position, i.e. position of existence) or

2.To make some experiment with it to receive some expectable results:
(about this second opportunity later, when I answer your question about the
meaning and practical use of my theory)

Let's take an ordinary coin again: if we flip it up, in the moment of fallin it always "chooses"
either the head, or the tail, but it doesn't know itself about these two alternatives.

If we make both sides of coin equal, it will not have two different choices, and accordingly will
not know anything about its lost second alternative.

And told above two different alternatives of an ordinary coin are imprescriptible, essential
quality of it.

Nothingness itself didn't know and didn't do anything as well. It even doesn't feel that has any
alternatives (but it has!!! as it can be the sum of opposite equal phenomenon), and this quality
works as a regularity. We can compare it with any kind of container: is container full or empty
doesn't change the essence of it, for instance: is canister full of liquor or empty with it, it
remains container anyway and its quality to be so consists in its ability to occupy 3-d space
within it, and the ability of nothingness to be a container for universe consists in its ability to
be a sum of equal opposite phenomenon (i.e. in occupying such opportunity without knowing it),
regardless of its being empty or full with these phenomenon. (we can call the first state of it
"nothingness in itself", but the second - "nothingness full with separation"), so nothingness makes
only environment for separation. Time affects only the results of separation: space and its
content, but doesn't affect nothingeness itself and it remains beyond the bounds in any case.

[subversion]

hmmm, that was a long explanation. Sorry, but I still don't get it. Allow me to requote myself.

Originally Posted by subversion how can time enter in and effect something which doesn't exist in time to begin with??????

can you please answer this question in a simple straightforward fashion?

ps. you say time effects only the results of separation, but I say that time must predate separation, because separation itself is an artifact of time. In order for time to start it implies that time in a certain sense already existed.

kudos

[zeroca]

I don't say that time enters in and affects something which doesn't exist in time.

I assert just opposite, that time doesn't affect nothingness itself, which doesn't exist in time,
Time affects only the products of separation of nothingness.

O.K. I'll try to answer as simply as can:

Take a numeral axis. You can see, that it experiences complete, thorough symmetry towards zero, i.e. zero has great potency to be a sum of finite or infinite number of pairs of equal opposite phenomenon (also it has the potency not to be a sum of any pairs or any phenomenon) and it remains zero in any case, i.e. it doesn't experience changing itself, but contains in itself the possibility of change (but only of separation into two equal opposite phenomenon).

In the first moment of separation arise time and space as attributes of separation.

Anyway this theoretial analysis might be right or wrong (we mustn't care greatly). But if it's right then presently existing universe must exist based on duality and here's nothingness as well, so there must be a system, or mechanism based on using of nothingness, by means of which one can, let's say, harmonize the whole universe.
And such system really exists ...