Energy

This is one of the physical laws: Energy can neither be created or destroyed. It can only change form.

Refer to the info in this hyperlink. You can see what Physics experts think and why you need to research your homework better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings."

Because you have no faith. Learn to believe.

I suppose, Otis, religion aside, it's because nothing can come from nothing

Why that should be I don't know but it sounds reasonable

As to where the Universe came from, I'd guess there's something logically wrong with the idea of a preceding nothingness, that there always was a Universe in one form or another

Again purely intuitive, scientifically worthless, but suggestively stimulating

The assumption that this universe (ours) is a sole event is not only ridiculous, but why physics has reached a dead end.
We can only percieve from within the confines of our relative fishbowl, I agree, but every inner demands an outer and vice versa.
Russian dolls.....

Because energy is everything.
Everything is energy.
It can be moulded, shaped, absorbed, displaced, transferred, etc, but never created or destroyed - because NOTHING doesn't exist - So where would it go? And from where would it come?

Yea Mark, another way of saying that, nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else; while some facets of the Universe we can't understand, patly because our language is excessively dualistic and partly because we don't yet know it all, if indeed we ever will

As for 'nothing is entirely everything' - That's ambiguous to me dale:) I will assume you mean 'no thing is entirely everything' (Correct me, if wrong). And yes - Each thing is but the sum of its parts. - Even 'everything' equates to this.
There is no thing in any universe that is beyond understanding, but many things unworthy of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9fC3flXY5g

Somewhat to me too because nothing is entirely clear to anyone

Not what I meant Mark but partly true, I suppose. What I mean to do is counter the sort of dualism that for instance has God on one hand and the Universe on the other

..concrete on one, abstract on t'other

Can 't be entirely true, some of its parts being abstract or at least partly so

Intuitively I'd disagree. With advances in language, logic, etc, we can get closer and closer but at the same time making the whole shebang proportionally more complex and therefore less accessible

…while of course my own assertions can't be entirely true; if indeed anything can

Is it? "De Sitter space can be defined as a submanifold of a Minkowski space of one higher dimension. Take Minkowski space R1,n with the standard metric:

ds^2 = -dx_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^n dx_i^2.

De Sitter space is the submanifold described by the hyperboloid of one sheet

-x_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2 = \alpha^2

where \alpha is some positive constant with dimensions of length. The metric on de Sitter space is the metric induced from the ambient Minkowski metric. The induced metric is nondegenerate and has Lorentzian signature. (Note that if one replaces \alpha^2 with -\alpha^2 in the above definition, one obtains a hyperboloid of two sheets. The induced metric in this case is positive-definite, and each sheet is a copy of hyperbolic n-space.)

De Sitter space can also be defined as the quotient O(1,n)/O(1,n−1) of two indefinite orthogonal groups, which shows that it is a non-Riemannian symmetric space.

Topologically, de Sitter space is R × Sn−1 (so that if n ≥ 3 then de Sitter space is simply connected)."

Thanks Con for that piece on DeSitter space, 'way beyond your Typical Clod (me)

I'd point out though, however useful connecting events and predicting the future, math is also dualistic, in the sense that it doesn't really "exist" except in our heads

Some theories of mathematics hold that view; others do not.

I agree on math (measurement) being abstract (Imaginary), but it is valuable in regulating physical order.
As a tool, it allows recognition and mergence amidst chaos.
Now I'm wondering whether to indulge into the potential for abstract-physicality/physical-abstraction having any qualitive or quantitive bearing on 'reality'.

Cheers Dale.

Oops Mark. I'm not sure what it might mean when expressed that way but what I thought I had said was ""Nothing is entirely anything…."

Well put Mark. Applies not to just math but to speech and its attempts at communication where dualism is practical, indeed valuable, but carried to its extreme limits our ability to reason in further depth


Mar you might have to clarify this assertion in language suitable to the Average Clod (me)

Cheers Dale.
Animation and good cheer, Mark

Hi Dale.
Clarification: To further investigate/explore why the 'imagined', being formed by firing neurons (displacement of physical energy), is accepted, without further ado, as being non-physical.
If we label an idea as 'existing/something' then it must surely exist somewhere.
"Everything" exists "Somewhere"...?

Hmmm...

Mark yes I see what you mean--maybe. But my reaction is that the notion of physical v non- is one of those dualistic notions that only limit further exploration, like the immaterial God at one hand with physical objects of the Universe at the other

Things just happen; and they happen the way they do because they can't happen any other way--such an exception would entail a paradox or contradiction

What if everything is paradoxical?

Only Mark because it has been so labeled. In fact there's no reason to assume an "outer," no evidence for it whatever. There's a Universe yes, but it's not inside anything since there simply is no outside

That doesn't mean however that you shouldn't speculate. as with "What if everything is paradoxical?" However, we'd need at least one example or two

Well yes, in a sense the conventional theories such as creation out of nothingness, a God existing outside of time and matter, etc might be called paradoxical. But there's neither paradox nor contradiction in the notion that the Universe exists because it has to and that it has no beginning nor end

However given forever and/or an infinite amount of raw material, the notion of simultaneous identical galaxies is so troubling as to be called paradoxical