Origin of the Universe

@Leadfoot,

What's a "valid axiom"?

@mark noble,

Quote:

"NOTHING" doesn't, never did, and CANNOT ever exist.

By suggesting that "nothing" cannot exist, does that infer that there are infinite "things"? If we preside on the assumption that the universe has limits, what exists beyond those limits? is it something, or are there no things?

Nothing by my understanding would mean no forces, no particles, no entities and no energy. thus the absence of any thing. Is it therefore implausible that no thing is in existence? Within the confounds of the universe, nothing is implausible due to the constraints of natural laws, but externally does that still apply?

Just exploring the thought

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

What's a "valid axiom"?

An axiom is by definition 'always true' but I used the term 'valid axiom' to suggest that you can't generate mathematical axioms about something you don't understand. If you did, they would not necessarily be 'valid' and therefore the math based on them would be speculative and not be proof of anything.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Quote:

By suggesting that "nothing" cannot exist, does that infer that there are infinite "things"?

Si, I don't see why it should
..

Quote:

Nothing ..no forces, no particles, no entities and no energy. thus the absence of any thing....?

That is, the instant before the Big Bang. We can assume nothingness' instability has become infinite for a period of zero time.. New approaches to the idea of time and space hafta be worked out

Quote:

..nothing is implausible...but externally does that still apply?

Don't folloya

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What's a "valid axiom"?
An axiom is by definition 'always true' but I used the term 'valid axiom' to suggest that you can't generate mathematical axioms about something you don't understand. If you did, they would not necessarily be 'valid' and therefore the math based on them would be speculative and not be proof of anything.

What you don't understand is that the word "axiom" has quite another meaning.

By the definition mathematicians go by, and axiom is "a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system."

Try reading about it before commenting on it.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I think this is the first time I've seen you be dishonest Infra.

You are cherry picking your portion of the definition. Here it is in more complete form. Note the part about 'being so evident or well established that it is accepted without question'. You CANNOT establish such a thing about something that IS NOT UNDERSTOOD.

Quote:

An axiom or postulate as defined in classic philosophy, is a statement (in mathematics often shown in symbolic form) that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. Thus, the axiom can be used as the premise or starting point for further reasoning or arguments, usually in logic or in mathematics.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You didn't quote the rest of the definition, yourself.

What it means, simply, is that the premise is taken as "a given" in regard to its truthfulness.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

You didn't quote the rest of the definition, yourself.

What it means, simply, is that the premise is taken as "a given" in regard to its truthfulness.

Umm... yes I did. It is taken as "a given" ONLY WHEN IT-

Quote:

is so evident or well-established that there is no question about it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

In other words, you don't understand what the word means in this context.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That final word is yours.

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Long story short.

1. Everything=The sum-total of all things.

Do you agree?

1 Reply

@mark noble,

I would be inclined to agree yes sir 😊

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

2. 'Nothing'=The absence of 'Everything'?

Do you agree?

1 Reply

@mark noble,

I believe so, yes sir

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

3. Everywhere is 'occupied' by something (There is no 'Nothing').

Therefore - EVERY PLACE THAT THERE IS - IS OCCUPIED BY SOMETHING?

Agree?

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Here may be where our differences begin Mark, by stating that everywhere is occupied by something, it automatically implicates that there are an infinite number of "things." It also implicates that these things must also be infinite,
In this model, we fall back to the issue with infinite equilibrium and an absence of a plausible Genesis event (without the existence of an infinite intelligence)

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

So you believe that Nothing Exists?

Ok.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

I now understand why you made this comment. You got me thinking and I've been studying up. Not a lot of solid information so I am doing the best I can to apply it.

Quote:

Everywhere is 'occupied' by something (There is no 'Nothing').

I realise now that of course outside of time and space, there is no "where" or "there" therefore "nothing" cannot exist as a spatial concept. So I'll explain where I am left positioned on the matter (no pun intended)
If you use the term nothing to means no space. no time, no thing, it could be used as an abstract for what is "beyond" the limits of all that is finite.
The only way I can process the question fully, the idea of nothing would have to be approached dimension by dimension. There is nothing spatial (that we know of) and nothing Temporal (that we know of) external to the universe we inhabit, thus if anything exists, it operates in external dimensions.

Always learning, always adjusting, see while I like science, I am no scientist Smile

I appreciate the exercise thanks Mark

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

You're welcome.
"Pondering" is good! I remember well, the 'absorb' stage - Do I miss it? No.

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

The other thing to remember is that when scientists and physicists talk about The Universe or The Big Bang, they are really talking about a mathematical model which they use to explain and predict data. So when they say they don't know what's "outside" of the Universe or "before" the Universe, what they're really saying is that mathematical model that they use to describe the Universe begins to produce ambiguous results beyond certain input values.

As they get closer and closer to the "beginning" of the Universe, they start to run into more zero's and infinities as input values, and those values don't produce real measurable results. You start getting infinities and zero's back from the input, which doesn't really tell you anything.

The whole model has an asymptotic curve to it which approaches total ambiguity the closer you get to the projected "beginning" of time.

1 Reply

Origin of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know