Nothing can be destroyed or created

@dalehileman,

You make a confusion on almost every sentence I produce for instance the term "circular" meant in a space time repeating loop and not that the volume of Universe is of a circular shape...probably more like a donut curving upon itself forever...
Certainly even you can understand that if there is a minimum packet of space, if space is not a continuum there must be a finite number of packets or a grid of packets on which all possible space exits...the arrow of time only allow you to see the manifest part of it, that which you call the present, not the entire grid or the potential grid...what certainly it is not logical is to imagine that new packets of space pop out of nothingness or worse as you suggested pop out from existing space, sort of like if magically multiplying...
The Universe is expanding phenomenally speaking just like when you are seeing a film you can't see what lies ahead until you see it but is already in the film photogram sequence...now imagine a 4D film a volumetric film to get my idea...more nobody suggested ensemble space time impinges on anything your imagination is doing that...the only thing so far being said and explain to you was that while a discrete space a grid space has mechanical logic a continuum infinite space has not any mechanical logic...now from there if you can't understand why that is not my problem...I simply don't care !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

All sorts of deductible mechanical problems emerge in a continuum space that even a 12 years old clever child can understand like such magical space requiring infinite energy, infinite mass, infinite motion, to anything progress on it etc etc...any and everything simply becomes transcendent in relation to any other thing around, the best example being light never reaching the observers eye simple because there was an infinite amount of space to cross...the continuum hypothesis is an hypothesis on disconnected reality's a magical realm more fit to a Walt Disney fantasy then to a philosophy forum or any coherent debate !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...in a grid discrete space might be reasoned that what "transits" is information from one sequence of packets to another sequence of packets..and it fairly well can be argued or imagined that information does not even transit but that simply the next packets of unseen space lies there with a very similar set of strings of information with slight changes just waiting to "light up" like a sequence of light bulbs that give you the false impression of motion when lightning up in a given time frame process...so in such panorama the rules of nature establishing what changes are simply the differences in the strings of information from a moment to the next...say for instance "I" in my next moment loose 3 billion atoms of my skin and so on regarding my memory's or any other thing while conserving 99.9 % of the remaining information string which is "me"...the way it progresses is a mathematical algorithm already existing in a timeless ensemble of packets of space time...that which I somewhat mystically normally like to call the "LAW" made thing...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...just so to make it clear by "law" it is not meant something enforcing or imposing on something else if not seen phenomenologically in a linear time frame...what the usage of such term as "law" actually means is that whatever is the case to be true is there timelessly true and unchanged forever, the multiverse itself with all the potential variants and combinations of arrangements of information...no outside, no nothingness, no growth, no shrinking, in sum, no magical property's or behaviour whatsoever...its a boredom or whatever, but at least its logical and feasible !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

You make a confusion on almost every sentence I produce

Alas alack, see how difficult communicating with the Typical Blockhead (me)

Quote:

for instance the term "circular" meant in a space time repeating loop

I’ve heard about that but it seems like a kind of arbitrary conclusion as alternative to the “straight line” concept and I don’t understand its appeal

Quote:

and not that the volume of Universe is of a circular shape...probably more like a donut curving upon itself forever…

There has been a lot of speculation. Lately though I’ve heard it compared to a flat sheet

Quote:

Certainly even you can understand that if there is a minimum packet of space, if space is not a continuum there must be a finite number of packets or a grid of packets on which all possible space exits…

No I’m not at all familiar with the concept but if by packet you mean a discrete quantum unit I don’t see why there can’t be an infinite number of them

Quote:

.what certainly it is not logical is to imagine that new packets of space pop out of nothingness

Yes, no it certainly isn’t. Yet there’s a perfectly serious theory that the Universe popped into existence out of nothing. Not mine of course

Quote:

or worse as you suggested pop out from existing space, sort of like if magically multiplying…

No I don’t remember suggesting that but if space is made of discrete quantum units and if the Universe is growing, then I don’t see how you can avoid the inference

Quote:

The Universe is expanding phenomenally speaking just like when you are seeing a film you can't see what lies ahead until you see it but is already in the film photogram sequence...now imagine a 4D film a volumetric film to get my idea

Do you mean then the entire universe might progress one discrete step at a time

Quote:

...more nobody suggested ensemble space time impinges on anything your imagination is doing that…

Sorry gain Al but that doesn’t seem to make sense. Possible typos or missing words

Quote:

while a discrete space a grid space has mechanical logic a continuum infinite space has not……... if you can't understand why that is not my problem...I simply don't care !

But Al you must care, otherwise why spend so much energy trying to clarify. But I wouldn’t blame you if you were to give up on me as I do seem to be a hopeless case in this arena

…while Al supposing your post #263 to be a summary, I can’t follow it at all. Perhaps English is not your mother tongue, suggesting that other participants might better interpret your position for the benefit of folk like me

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Physics nothingness is an approximation not a real nothingness...you should know better, but the fact is that you don't and that explains allot...the fact that English is not my mother language, I am Portuguese, says nothing upon the clarity of my position...rather the problem seems to be your understanding...again not my problem.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Physics nothingness is an approximation not a real nothingness...

Well Al you’ll have to forgive me then as I didn’t realize that there were two different kinds of nothingness

Quote:

the fact that English is not my mother language, I am Portuguese, says nothing upon the clarity of my position

No, yes, no Al, of course it doesn’t. However part of my difficulty might lie in our different grasp of colloquialisms resulting in semantic discrepancy

Quote:

...again not my problem.

Again yes, no, while nonetheless it's been a pleasure chatting with you and once more my most excruciating apologies

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

you are as Setanta suggested a "malignant" influence around since you deliberately deconstruct what is meant to misinform people around...in fact there is no nothingness that is the claim I actually do...and as for the usual or natural meaning of the word regarding habits and cultural practices there should only be the nothingness which concerns a partial temporal absence in relation to something that does or did exist otherwise nothingness is meaningless...in physics the term refer to a quasi nothingness or a point so small of time space where you can infer no further back because the working of the laws of physics as we do understand them currently become incomprehensible for any further regression...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

you are as Setanta suggested a "malignant" influence

Wow
I assure you and Set it isn’t done purposely

However nothingness remains an intriguing subject and I herewith invite any bystander, if indeed there are any such, to start a new OP on the subject. But I don’t want to leave the wrong impression: I’d be first to admit there’s no nothingness anywhere. For instance if someone were to find a way to remove a packet of space, leaving nothingness, whether surrounding space might rush in to fill the void Stuff like that. We could go on forever

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

You could not remove space as you can't destroy energy or matter...there is no void aside space which is not a void in its absolute but better described as a sort of "Ocean"....

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

You could not remove space

Yes no Al of course not. You can bend or compress it but presumably you can’t expunge it. Incidentally in this connection I’ve often wondered whether gravity might be the local effect of matter “replacing” space but that’s OT and only wild speculation

Quote:

as you can't destroy energy or matter…

Presumably not. However—at risk of repetition— to avoid the pitfalls, confusion, paradox, and contradiction entailed by the idea of space and matter existing forever, there’s a perfectly serious theory--and not my idea—that the Universe did indeed pop into existence out of nothing and that with the Big Crunch it squeezes down to that point—which then pops out of existence

So to skirt all those pitfalls I propose that The Universe—God—has existed and will exist forever, and nothing She does is supernatural, while “creation” is an ongoing process. She is Nature proceeding according to cause and effect, whether continuously or by quantum leaps

Quote:

there is no void aside space which is not a void in its absolute but better described as a sort of "Ocean"....

Certainly space is like an ocean. But now you see where the problem of language and semantics rears its ugly head since I can interpret the statement in a half-dozen different ways. For instance you might be saying there is nothing outside space, and I agree most wholeheartedly since all of it is inside the Universe but when you say “which is not a void in its absolute” you seem to be implying that there might be voids elsewhere described as “absolute” and presumably at least one of them might be “outside” the Universe

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

no I meant what people tend to imagine an absolute void is...just a projection an extension of the "normal" void they know which is temporal and thus partial...a leap of faith...but there's no such thing as an absolute void...there is Space which is a medium...it allows stuff to manifest in it...its not nothingness.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...but there's no such thing as an absolute void...there is Space which is a medium...it allows stuff to manifest in it...its not nothingness.

Yes I agree and now begin to understand what you mean. Some of us think of the Universe as a ball in a void but of course that doesn’t make sense because it equates the void with empty space whereas actually there’s nothing outside simply because there is no outside

Thus our apparent “disgagreement” in the matter of nothingness as I had suggested, appears merely a semantic issue

0 Replies

Nothing can be destroyed or created

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know