Where Did it All Come From?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Balance between charges{ + and - } is zero{ 0 } not infinite is same conclusion as your above.

A net energy balance of 0.

The most generalized{ most cosmic } --ergo most inclusive naught is left out of consideration--- eternally existent, Cosmic Trinity Set :

1} spirit-1, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

--------------conceptual line-of-demarcation-----

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse or God, aka spirit-2, 3 and 4.



You associating of non-occupied space with positive or negative is in error.

Non-occupied space is neither a positive, or a negative geometry, nor is it a charge{ + or - } ergo non-occupied space has not any characteristics that can be associated with occupied space.

The sum of any two negative numbers is always a postive number so your above is in error.

I didn't say anything about the sum of negative numbers.

The balance between positive{ + } and negative{ - } is zero

That's what I said.

The abacus is derived from the above or vice versa.

I don't know how an abacus works.

zero{ 0 } is a numerical place holder for any numerical value{ count }

in the first column of an abacus, once that column is full and there is need to start a 2nd counting column.

OK, then it is a set based device.

In this way zero{ 0 } is counting number{ value }.

It's a place holder on a number line of nil value, and it symbolises the base of counting systems.

Zero is niether postive or negative. diametrica opposite of +1 is -1.

The diametric{?} opposite of zero{ 0 } is infinite.

Your "between the infinite and the infinitesimal" is not a rational, logical common sense statment i.e. meaningless.

It to with convergence in math where lim(n->) or lim(n->0)

Again, use occupied space Uni-V-erse macro-infinite non-occupied space as an example;

1} Universe{ occupied space } has at minimum three values of consideration ergo associated with numerical numbers of number line;

..1a} -1 as fermions, or -1 as negative shaped )( Dark Energy

..2a} 0
..3a} +1 as bosons, or +1 as positive shaped ( ) Gravity

2} .....infinite space...... has no numerical values to be associated with it.

It is true that numerical zero{ 0 } is closet numerical value we can associate with a macro-infinite non-occupied space as in saying it is not an occupied space thing ergo we can assign a zero{ 0 } to represent nothing{ 0 }.

Then occupied space Universe can be assigned numerical 1{ ergo +1 }.

On the other hand we can use the same two above as postional opposites if not also a diametric opposite as follows and actually closet to what exists geometrically;

infinite<-------radii from (center of finite Universe) radii------->infinite

beyond number{ count }<-----radial number line( 0 )radial number line----->beyond number{ count }

Infinite this or infinite that, is the diametric{?} opposite of zero{ 0 } when zero is used as a place holder for any specific value/count.

The sum of all real numbers is 0. The number of all real numbers (or the set of all real numbers) is infinite.

Perfect representation for macro-infinite non-occupied space.



Ergo Universe aka Uni-V-erse

The closet we may come to "stillness", barring non-occupied space, is the constant speed of EMRadiation being constant to all observers irrespective of their speed moving toward or away from radiation{ photon }.

This is what Einstien thought with his thought experiement, riding on beam of EMRadiaton, he would not experience time.



This may also be closely related to geodesically curved, metaphysical-3, gravitational Space ( ) and geodesically curved, metaphysical-4, dark energy )(.

Of course an observer traveling at c experiences no space/time (distance), but you've obviously taken me out of context.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

The sum of all real numbers is 0. The number of all real numbers (or the set of all real numbers) is infinite.

None of that above makes any rational, logical sense to me.

The word "all" in your sentence inherently means a finite set of numbers i.e. all = finite set

The sum of a finite set is finite, not infinite.

Sorry Gem, without more precise {step-by-step }explanation I have no idea how you reach your conclusions.

beyond finite{ macro-infinite }<-----radii ( 0 )radii------> { macro-infinite }beyond finite

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

A net energy balance of 0.

No, that is impossible. If all occupied space existence were in balance i.e. equilibrium, then we would have occupied space as charge, mass, color, taste, sound etc.


Occupied space exists because it is always{ eternally } chasing its tail, whether the tail is;


1} positive or negative and/or,


2} inside or inside-outed,


3} expanded or contracted,


4} left-spin or right-spin,


etc.


Occupied Space Uni-V-erse is always in cycles{ frequency } as motions between this position, state or phase and another position state, phase etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1} Metaphysical-3 gravity ( ) and metaphysical-4 dark energy )( may be considered beyond our our observed reality ergo beyond our observed 3D, yet they are still within context of 3D, its just we do not observe{ quantise } them. Ok?



2} remember the basic 4th spatial dimension{ 'd' } is just the 45 degree, volumetric diagonal 'd' of a cube{ XYZ } ergo 'd' exists within confines of cartesian XYZ{ 3D }. Ok?



3} Fuller reconsidered dimensions as powers as in matematical powering as motions of spin, orbit, expand-contract etc were powerings. Mathematically powering of shell growth of cubo-octahedron composed of spheres{ vertexes } have layers of concentric shells of events but the whole is withing context of 3D. See LINK



He also considered powering as 4D being spatial four surface openings of tetrahedron, perpendicular to the 4 idametrically opposing vertexes as the basis set of points of consideration for all 3D existence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

Multi-dimensional exists as a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and not as any actual, realized occupied space coin.



Until we can grasp, and acknowledge-to-self, the differrence between occupied space coin{ something } and a conceptual coin{ something } were doomed to believe in a false, occupied space of multi-dimensions, of which we have no evidence they exist.



We have mysteries, that are difficult to answer ergo people reach out for abstract, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual scenarios irrespective of how illogical, irrational or lack of common sense occur.



Ex why does speed of radiation appear the same to all observers irrespective of their speed towards or away from the radiating photon?



Driving home the other night I once again ran this one through my mind and had some new thoughts in those regards that relate to my numerically derived geometric torus with inversions that result in an internal sine-wave pattern /\/\/\/\/ topology.



/\/\/\/\/\/--->|-----(observer)---->|<-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/



speed of radiation{ photon } ----->|----( * i * )--->|<---speed of radiation{ photon }



photon speed towards------>|----away from--->(* i * )---towards--->|<----photon speed towards



----->|------------>---------->|<-----------



My latest thoughts on the above semi linear scenario is that when we observe the photon it is not from a linear pathway from the source{ ex the sun or flashlight }.



My latest thoughts is that the photon appears to us from a direction that is at 90 degrees to the source and that will help to explain why

speed-of-radiation is a constant irrespective of speed-of-observer.





Here below I'm attempting to show that the overall sine-wave pattern o of photon is linear but that pattern is a resultant of the top peak and peak of trough occurring from the sharp inversions -----ergo at 90 degrees--- from postive peaks of surface of Space Torus postive and negative curvature.


---------( ) gravitational positive surface of torus ( )-----------------------

.............................photon..v.............

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

..............................photon...^...................

-------)( dark energy negative surface of torus )(----------------------------



Seriously, if we want to think outside of the conventional box of wisdom if we to understand how a photon can be constant to all observers irrrespective of their speed and direction. There is much more complexityh to be considered in the above. This is just my minimal first rough draft for considering alternative ways of thinking about why photon is always a constant to the observer.



Think of multi-dimensions being the surface of the gravitational ( ) and dark energy )( surface of Space torus and our 3D reality as the resultant internal sine-wave of Time, to torus tube sine-wave of associated reality.


( ) Space - vTime^ - Space )(





Uni-V-erse is composed of finitely large set of overlapping and interfering, micro and ultra-micro tori.

Originally Posted by shivatar

IMO it all came from and continues to exist within God. All of reality is not a place outside of God, it takes place within God.

I also like to think of God as infinite, beginningless, and endless. And also as being beyond human comprehension. So instead of asking questions about God I just humble myself and pray to God for love and grace.

This is very much in line with my understanding.

IMO every thing I experience, all came from and continues to exists within me. All of reality that I experience is not a place outside of me, it takes place within me.

I also like to think of myself as infinite, beginningless, and endless. And also as being beyond human comprehension.

But then as I am from and continue to exist within God, it is sort of the same thing.

[r6r6]

Our finite, occupied space Uni-V-erse is eternally operating --ergo eternally dynamic motion--- in cycles{ frequency } between this position, state or phase and, another position, state, phase etc.


(--><--) = positive or convex contractive shape, state, phase geodesic of gravitational { mass-attractive/associative } space.


<--)(--> = negative dissociative { dissipative } dark energy geodesic of space.


/\/\/ = sine-wave frequency of reality


* i * = bilateral looping { recall? } invokes intelligence and ego

[TerramineLightvoid]

You're all wrong. Nothing begets nothing, even scientists agree with this which is why no scientist thinks the Big Bang came from nothing... despite Christians trying to criticize science by saying the BB essentially "says" that something came from nothing. The problem is defining Existence as a finite quantity... rather than a State or Quality. By being a quality it can be innate to the universe, Existence has always been here even when it appeared to not be.

This was something I had heard suggested in a book on the science of "Nothing". The person had explained that so far Science has not been able to mathematically validate True Nothingness. But rather that the most "nothing" universe we can conceive of is still a Something. It's a very small spacial plane with a black hole contained inside it. As much as that seems like nothing... it's still something.

The QED field is still present even in an apparently empty universe. Hence why seemingly "empty" space is filled with unseen fluctuations as demonstrated by Lawrence Krauss.

But all of this is predicted by basic fundamental philosophical logic. That nothing... is... well. Nothing. It doesn't exist by definition. If Nothingness doesn't exist. Then there is no such thing as things "not existing". All possibilities exist, all impossibilities "don't" exist simply because those aren't actually things... they are nonsenses. The scenario where nothing exists and there is nothing, not even space or time themselves. Just sheer and utter nothingness. Is impossible, functionally speaking. In order to reach that point, you must first define that Nothingness... Exists. But Nothingness is nonexistence, so it does not exist.

Coming full circle, this is precisely why we witness a Multiverse where ALL possibilities exist simultaneously in a larger overarching space.

[TerramineLightvoid]

TL;DR

Nonexistence is nonexistent.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by TerramineLightvoid

You're all wrong. Nothing begets nothing, even scientists agree with this which is why no scientist thinks the Big Bang came from nothing... despite Christians trying to criticize science by saying the BB essentially "says" that something came from nothing. The problem is defining Existence as a finite quantity... rather than a State or Quality. By being a quality it can be innate to the universe, Existence has always been here even when it appeared to not be.

This was something I had heard suggested in a book on the science of "Nothing". The person had explained that so far Science has not been able to mathematically validate True Nothingness. But rather that the most "nothing" universe we can conceive of is still a Something. It's a very small spacial plane with a black hole contained inside it. As much as that seems like nothing... it's still something.

Science really ends up coming down to the uncertainty principle, so when we say something comes from nothing, we only mean the total energy balance sums up to zero (and all things, matter etc, are, in the fundamental sense, energy).

The QED field is still present even in an apparently empty universe. Hence why seemingly "empty" space is filled with unseen fluctuations as demonstrated by Lawrence Krauss.

But all of this is predicted by basic fundamental philosophical logic. That nothing... is... well. Nothing. It doesn't exist by definition. If Nothingness doesn't exist. Then there is no such thing as things "not existing". All possibilities exist, all impossibilities "don't" exist simply because those aren't actually things... they are nonsenses. The scenario where nothing exists and there is nothing, not even space or time themselves. Just sheer and utter nothingness. Is impossible, functionally speaking. In order to reach that point, you must first define that Nothingness... Exists. But Nothingness is nonexistence, so it does not exist.

Coming full circle, this is precisely why we witness a Multiverse where ALL possibilities exist simultaneously in a larger overarching space.

The Krauss idea that something comes from nothing was mainly, not to validate nothingness, but to explain why God is not necessary as the cause of the universe. Hawkins had already said that science does't disprove God's existence; it only shows that God is not necessary for the universe to be.

Try to imagine two points with "nothing" in between them. Try and try and try... After doing this can we still try to say that "nothing" is a reasonable possibility?

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by bartholomew

Try to imagine two points with "nothing" in between them.
Try and try and try... After doing this can we still try to say that "nothing"
is a reasonable possibility?

Well, gee, quantum physics says we (our bodies) are 99.99999% empty space.
Also...there is no empty space...there is something there, of course.