Shadowy Man

I don't know.

I'm not much up on my cosmology, so the only thing I *do* know for sure is that universe was once hot and dense!

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Shadowy Man ]</p>

echidna

I’d suggest that one need look no further than the contents of George Dubya’s skull to objectively prove the existence of Nothingness.

lcb

test

Ted Hoffman

Shadowy man
I'm not much up on my cosmology, so the only thing I *do* know for sure is that universe was once hot and dense!
Nothing can not be hot and dense. So there was something before the big bang (if the big bang theory postulated that it was hot and dense) right?
That would also mean that there was another univserse before ours and that would also mean that our universe is NOT a closed system as we think.

atrahasis

1. I AM NOT an apoligist.
AND
2.Who is David Mathews? Don't associate me with him.
I have no connection to one or the other[David mathews nor apoligism]

You imply that the word "incomprehensible" is only used by apologist, this is like to say that every body is an apoligist because there are so many things that we can't comprehend. I will explain a few things we can't comprehend and yet we are not apologists.
-------------------------------------------------
1.
The subtle origin of a will. As Schopenhauer said a man can do only as he will but cannot will as he will. What im trying to bring to light is that the human mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. But i also know that there comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there, this has nothing to do with apologism.

2.
The inflationary hypothesis by Alan Guth when applied to the standard Big bang model of cosmology, implies that the average density of the cosmos is very close or exactly matches the critical density required to balance its expansion. In other words Omega equals one. But when all the visible matter is added together the resulting density is but 5, at most 10 percent of the critical density. Where and what is the missing matter? Theli the non-apologist answer this.

The relative motions of galaxies, galaxy clusters and giant Superclusters.

The speeds at which the milky way and our nearest neighbour Andromeda, are rotating demand some extra, unseen matter--otherwise they would simply fly apart. This is a form of matter that is accessible by our frail and feeble minds in slight details. We know it is there. Yet it is so subtle.

3.
Our local group of of galaxies and the virgo cluster are hurtling towards some great, unseen "Greate attractor" at more than one million miles per miles per hour.For decades astronomers have tried to explain the stupedeous velocities they observe.The objects in question simply don't contain enough visible matter to account for the gravitational forces needed to generate these motions.Clearly there's more out there than meets the eyes.That "something",cosmologists believe is Dark Matter. No one quite knows what it is made of but it seems to comprise at least 90% of what is out there. May be the string theory will tell us what Dark Matter is but until then lets settle to the fact that some things are unperceivable. O.K theli.

4.
What happened before the big bang?
Up to date we only know that something must have triggered the first existence of the Big Bang itself. Something that no scientist has been able to comprehend[There we go again].

5.
The upcoming theory of everything/superstring theory which says that the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with NOTHING in it.

OK

This might explain the origin of the Big Bang which now viewed as minor aftershock of a cataclysmic(A violent upheaval that causes great destruction or brings about a fundamental change.
) collapse. The breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a 4 and a 6 dimensional universe.
In principle, it also explains why we cannot measure the six dimensional universe, because it has shrunk down to a size smaller than an atom. Thus no earth bound experiment can measure the six dimensional universe.

What i said is accessible to our mind in their most elementary forms is now clear!

Theli, If we can unify all the four fundamental forces into one unified theory then we can explain what is incomprensible today - It will be a way to explain miscellaneous physical,psychological and sociological phenomena in one consitent way. A way to explain the connection between our thoughts and the physical world. But until then several things are incomprensible to our minds, what we come up with are just theories which until proven, are kind of dreams in our minds.

fando

Wow, so much chatter about... nothing.

I'll repeat myself: The philosophers can handle questions like this. Personally, I don't believe that anyting they say can help us understand the void, kaput, nature ex nihilo, whatever you choose to call it. I don't think science can help either (well, not yet at least). It might very well be a problem of trying to think about what lies outside the box when there's no such thing. Socrates' cave might be all that exists. There might be no such thing as a void.

So yes, it is a philosophical thing. Science has no answers yet because it doesn't have a good definition for 'nothingness'. Look to the philosophers, young one. Your mileage with them will vary, but please steer clear of the post modernists if you value your time. That is all I have to say.

- fando

atrahasis

Black Moses
"Nothing, can NOT be unstable. Unstability involves change from stasis. Nothing can NOT change because change requires an initial state. If something has a state, then it is something, NOT nothing. Nothing can NOT be observed, has no properties and is intangible."[/QB][/QUOTE]
Intensity said.

If our famous Big Bang thoery is not a fallacy and most likely it is not. That alone tells us that their was a singularity epoch. Since premise is true given that our big bang is right then 'Nothing' existed before[if there is at all a before] everything started to exist. But nothing deos not exist anymore. As we feel at this point, i know that the ordering of causality is beaten . Because if the notion of nothing existing is introduced into our perceivable universe its[universe's] logic would seemngly cease to exist.

Intensity if you say NOTHING cannot be unstable, tell me what caused the Big bang.

Intensity, men! Quantum cosmology states that in the beginning there was nothing, no space, no matter or energy. But according to quantum principle, even nothing became unstable, nothing began to decay. With billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly.
If this makes sense, 'Nothing' existed at that instance but not anymore since it is already decayed.

Digest this also

The universe can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of 'Nothing'. This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus it takes no net energy to create a universe.

"Since we have already created an entity[singularity in the big bang] lets not simultaneously create any limits to it. Limits are also entities"

As somebody once said "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

atrahasis

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Black Moses
I will explain a few things we can't comprehend and yet we are not apologists...
Nobody said apologists can't comprehend anything. What Theli said is that apologists like saying everything is incomprehensible. That statement in itself implies that apologists comprehend something: that is, they comprehend that everything is incomprehensible.

Adjust your strawman, put some shoes on his clay feet.

1.
The subtle origin of a will. As Schopenhauer said a man can do only as he will but cannot will as he will. What im trying to bring to light is that the human mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. But i also know that there comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there, this has nothing to do with apologism.
This is NOT relevant to our discussion. You have made a self-subverting and incongruent argument. In any case, what is your point? that "this" has nothing to do with apologism? Or that since we cannot will our will we should give up trying to understand the universe?

2.
The inflationary hypothesis by Alan Guth when applied to the standard Big bang model of cosmology, implies that the average density of the cosmos is very close or exactly matches the critical density required to balance its expansion. In other words Omega equals one. But when all the visible matter is added together the resulting density is but 5, at most 10 percent of the critical density. Where and what is the missing matter?
Since Alan Guth is the proponent of the theory and NOT Theli, why ask Theli?

The speeds at which the milky way and our nearest neighbour Andromeda, are rotating demand some extra, unseen matter--otherwise they would simply fly apart. This is a form of matter that is accessible by our frail and feeble minds in slight details. We know it is there. Yet it is so subtle.
So?

Our local group of of galaxies and the virgo cluster are hurtling towards some great, unseen "Greate attractor" at more than one million miles per miles per hour.For decades astronomers have tried to explain the stupedeous velocities they observe.The objects in question simply don't contain enough visible matter to account for the gravitational forces needed to generate these motions.Clearly there's more out there than meets the eyes.That "something",cosmologists believe is Dark Matter. No one quite knows what it is made of but it seems to comprise at least 90% of what is out there. May be the string theory will tell us what Dark Matter is but until then lets settle to the fact that some things are unperceivable.
It is self contradicting to posit that "some things are unperceivable". Because if they are unperceivable, how do we know they exist?
Even if that were so (ie that some things are unperceivable), that does NOT mean that nothing is unperceivable. You are begging the question here.

What happened before the big bang?
Up to date we only know that something must have triggered the first existence of the Big Bang itself. Something that no scientist has been able to comprehend[There we go again].
The succession of events after and before the big bang is not relevant here, what is relevant is the state of affairs before the big bang.

Because if the notion of nothing existing is introduced into our perceivable universe its[universe's] logic would seemngly cease to exist.
Logic is NOT a property of the universe.

Intensity if you say NOTHING cannot be unstable, tell me what caused the Big bang.
Existence of an explanation concerning what caused the big bang is NOT necessary in arguing that the universe did NOT start with the big bang since what caused the big bang is NOT part of the argument.

Intensity, men! Quantum cosmology states that in the beginning there was nothing, no space, no matter or energy. But according to quantum principle, even nothing became unstable, nothing began to decay. With billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly
Provide links, quote sources that say nothing can become unstable if you are interested in making an argument.
So far, you have made unsupported claims.

As somebody once said "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.
More insignificant claims

atrahasis

---------------------------------------------

It is clear that Intesity has not used any counter evidence. He only escaped my argument by creating questions from my own.

Intesity You can do better than that, Give evidence that shutters mine. and stop speaking for Theli.

If want evidence to my argument thats a whole new issue.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>