Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta,

I look forward to discussing this with you when I complete my hypothesis and start a topic.

Greta wrote:There's probably always been a constant, teeming flux made up Planck scale particles/waves/strings or even smaller objects.

Probably, but what is it unless realized (made real)? It's nothing. It's void. "It" may be there, but it's literally nothing, meaning it has no conceptual descriptive value; no characteristics.

The conceptualization of a "teeming flux made up Planck scale particles/waves/strings or even smaller objects" is loaded with subjective qualities.

I'll have more coordinated arguments when I've completed my hypothesis.

That is an interesting topic, Greta Spiral Out. But, Spiral Out, I'm not sure what you mean by "realized (made real)"? Do you mean the process by which conscious beings assign characteristics to to the universe based on their perceptions of it? If so, are you then suggesting that the universe would not be real if there were no beings capable of perceiving it?

Spiral Out wrote:Greta,

I look forward to discussing this with you when I complete my hypothesis and start a topic.

Greta wrote:There's probably always been a constant, teeming flux made up Planck scale particles/waves/strings or even smaller objects.

Probably, but what is it unless realized (made real)? It's nothing. It's void. "It" may be there, but it's literally nothing, meaning it has no conceptual descriptive value; no characteristics.

The conceptualization of a "teeming flux made up Planck scale particles/waves/strings or even smaller objects" is loaded with subjective qualities.

I'll have more coordinated arguments when I've completed my hypothesis.

Okay, I won't go much into detail until then.

"The flux" would not be "nothing" in that It would have characteristics at the very smallest of scales, although that would certainly seem empty to our perspective. That bubbling flux will logically occasionally come up with areas that are more concentrated than others. Some areas may become so concentrated that they attract more particles/waves and reach a certain threshold where runaway exponentials come into play, building like a snowball (or a sun) and then inflation occurs. It would be a freak occurrence where freak occurrences are inevitable due to the number of iterations, ie. movement at Planck scale or smaller.

Best stop there for now

Is this like the universe emerging from the quantum foam, Greta? That's the way I understand what physicists like Krause and Stenger say. I think it's a fascinating idea. But I don't really understand it. I'd love to understand quantum physics but I get off the knowledge train at protons, neutrons and electrons and even that's way out of my territory so I look forward to what you and Spiral Out have to say on the matter.

Lagayscienza wrote:Is this like the universe emerging from the quantum foam, Greta? That's the way I understand what physicists like Krause and Stenger say. I think it's a fascinating idea. But I don't really understand it. I'd love to understand quantum physics but I get off the knowledge train at protons, neutrons and electrons and even that's way out of my territory so I look forward to what you and Spiral Out have to say on the matter.

Maybe so from the LK talks I've listened to, but I'm not sure.

My understanding is that if you have a massive percolating sea of particles - be they quantum particles or something more fundamental, then at some stage areas of greater concentration must form, just as there must be less concentrated areas. That's just probability. From there, think about the accretion of planets in the dust orbiting a star. Once an accumulation of rubble reaches a certain threshhold it attracts more material and it effectively snowballs until it reached a relatively stable mass as a planet (or moon). In this idea, the accumulation of tiny particles operates roughly similarly and, though, extremely unlikely, the number of actions in a quantum or sub-quantum flux would number in the quintillions per second (our time).

However, I would expect that relative "blank slate" scenario would only apply to the first universe to appear (or the earliest of them). Are we the first, the earliest or the only? No one knows. Maybe, just as prior life and geology (and the cosmos itself) leaves informational traces behind from their prior states, universes could do too, and that the appearance of one would make another more likely, and so forth.

Greta wrote:"The flux" would not be "nothing" in that It would have characteristics at the very smallest of scales, although that would certainly seem empty to our perspective.

If we are to make claims regarding a thing's existence, then we certainly have the burden to realize that thing, otherwise we will be lost in the claim that there is nothing that does not exist.

The claim that things exist outside of our realization logically follows the path of claiming that absolutely everything exists. If everything exists then there is nothing that does not exist and therefore we have an irrational and obviously false claim.

We cannot rationally make the claim that something exists simply because we have not observed it or that a thing possesses characteristics that we have not realized.

Again, the only method of making the claim that these characteristics (conceptual descriptive values) are real is that they must first be realized. Otherwise, the objective phenomena possess no characteristics. Without these conceptual descriptive values (characteristics), an objective phenomenon, which we cannot experience objectively in its pure form, is nothing.

This sets up a type of "observation paradox" which is a small part of the basis of the Void.

Spiral Out wrote:The universe begins when it is realized. Otherwise, there is only the Void.

Spiral Out, Does this mean on an individual level, or when the first individual realized and the universe began?

I also hear you saying the 'void' is not nothing, but is chaos?

Genesis 1, God created the heavens and the earth, Genesis 2, the earth was without form and void - which agrees with you that there being something but unrecognized until it is organized. I am not making this a religious thing - just wondering if this is what you are saying?

Greta wrote:"The flux" would not be "nothing" in that It would have characteristics at the very smallest of scales, although that would certainly seem empty to our perspective.

Spiral Out wrote:If we are to make claims regarding a thing's existence, then we certainly have the burden to realize that thing, otherwise we will be lost in the claim that there is nothing that does not exist.

The claim that things exist outside of our realization logically follows the path of claiming that absolutely everything exists. If everything exists then there is nothing that does not exist and therefore we have an irrational and obviously false claim.

Not if we use judgement rather than mechanistically follow the paths we investigate. There are obviously many things we don't know exist. However, it doesn't follow that everything must exist. So, I can imagine a bubbling foam of quantum particles (or smaller) as the basis, maker and home of the kind of matter we are familiar with but I can't, for instance, imagine a bubbling foam of Santa Claus figureens.

I think we would all agree that our present universe of space time began 13.7 billion years ago. I think it would be safe to assume that existence changed state and the present universe came into existence then. The OP seems to really be asking when existence itself began and that would be a redundant question, at least for now, because we don't have the technology to look beyond the point where the laws of science break down, and there is very little likelihood that we ever will. To all intents and purposes, as of now, we have to accept that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago and we have no idea when, where or how existence began if it ever did begin.

The concept of existence beginning does not make much sense because it would have to pop out of nothing, which, for the present, seems unacceptable to us. That does not exclude the minute possibility that existence also might have had a beginning. But our present understanding of logic suggests that it is highly unlikely. So it is safe to assume for now that existence has always existed.

What happened "before" 13.7 billion years ago, is not philosophy anymore but just conjecture. Anyone can come up with any answer and no one can either prove or disprove it. So why really bother?

Misty wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:The universe begins when it is realized. Otherwise, there is only the Void.

Spiral Out, Does this mean on an individual level, or when the first individual realized and the universe began?

On an individual level.

Greta wrote:

Greta wrote:"The flux" would not be "nothing" in that It would have characteristics at the very smallest of scales, although that would certainly seem empty to our perspective.

Spiral Out wrote:If we are to make claims regarding a thing's existence, then we certainly have the burden to realize that thing, otherwise we will be lost in the claim that there is nothing that does not exist.

The claim that things exist outside of our realization logically follows the path of claiming that absolutely everything exists. If everything exists then there is nothing that does not exist and therefore we have an irrational and obviously false claim.

Not if we use judgement rather than mechanistically follow the paths we investigate. There are obviously many things we don't know exist. However, it doesn't follow that everything must exist. So, I can imagine a bubbling foam of quantum particles (or smaller) as the basis, maker and home of the kind of matter we are familiar with but I can't, for instance, imagine a bubbling foam of Santa Claus figureens.

Why can you not imagine a bubbling foam of Santa Claus figurines? What is the limitation of your imaginings based on?

It's based on observations, or your realization of the thing. Without the realization of the thing, there is no thing.

I might be getting ahead of myself here, but this will all lead into my topic on the Void when I post it.

Spiral Out wrote:

Misty wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Spiral Out, Does this mean on an individual level, or when the first individual realized and the universe began?

On an individual level.

Thanks SO, but could you please answer all of my previous post?

Misty wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:The universe begins when it is realized. Otherwise, there is only the Void.

Spiral Out, Does this mean on an individual level, or when the first individual realized and the universe began?

I also hear you saying the 'void' is not nothing, but is chaos?

Genesis 1, God created the heavens and the earth, Genesis 2, the earth was without form and void - which agrees with you that there being something but unrecognized until it is organized. I am not making this a religious thing - just wondering if this is what you are saying?

I'm not saying the Void is chaos, because chaos is something. I'm saying the Void is absolute nothingness. I'll be explaining this further in my topic.

OK, thanks, Spiral Out.

Harbal wrote: # 226

Wayne92587 wrote: "The Infinite existing both a microcosm and a Macrocosm, is not readily apparent, is no measurable as to the location and momentum."

Is this a mistake or did you intend to write a meaningless sentence?

Harbal you are without a doubt Clueless.

Infinite, Not Measurable, period; large or small, as a Macrocosm or a Microcosm; Infinite having nothing to do with Size. As a Microcosm, an Individuality, an Infinite, indivisible Singularity, which not existing in part as part of a greater whole, as a microscopic Reality exists having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.

A series which begins with a singularity of One-1 exists in part as part of a greater whole, it being the greater whole that exists as the Macrocosm.

One-1 being preceded by Singularity of Zero-0, which having no relative numerical value does not exist in part as part of a greater whole, a Singularity of Zero-0 having no relative, numerical value does not exist in part as a necessary part of greater whole of the Series is left Blank.

In Legal Document it is not necessary to give the first page numerical value (not being numbered), it being obviously so, not necessary.

As a Trust Deed the 2nd Trust Deed is the first in need of being given a number; The First Trust Deed simple being give the title of being the Trust Deed; the number 2 being the first Primary Number; the numbering of a Singularity of Zero-0 and a Singularity of One-1 not being necessary, even though in order for a Singularity of One-1 to have relative, numerical value, a Singularity of Zero-0 must be made to have relative, a have a numerical value for either to exist in part as part of the greater whole, Series, 2 to be the first actually have material worth, that matter.

One-1 can exist without two, existing instead as a Singularity of Zero-0, However 2 can not exist without being preceded by a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1.

If One-1 does not exist in part as part of a greater whole, then a Singularity of One-1 having no relative numerical value is reduced to being without number, to having no relative, numerical value, to not being the First, to having a numerical value of Zero-0.

A Singularity of One-1 issuing forth from a Single, the same, Source in which a Singularity of Zero-0 exists, being a Fully Random Singularity of Zero-0 before it issues forth as a Singularity of One-1, is given a different name simply because the process of issuing forth results in the displacement, the angular momentum, the velocity of speed and direction of a Fully Random Singularity of Zero-0 is without cause automatically converted into a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1.

A Singularity of One-1 having relative numerical value being dependent upon a Singularity of Zero-0 having no relative, numerical value being reborn, being Alchemically converted, becoming the Transcendent Singularity, the first Singularity to have relative, numerical value, the Reality of First Cause, being an Affect, being born of a state of condition, not being born of what was latter to become ordinary, natural cause, means, not being born of cause and effect; the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity, having been displaced, attaining angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction to become readily apparent, Realized, as being the First in a Series, attaining relative numerical value as being the First in a series, as being the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, as the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time; the Reality of First Cause as an affect, being uncaused became the Single Direct Material Cause (as in the Butterfly Effect) of the System of Chaos that has made manifest Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the Material sense of the word.

Wayne92587 wrote: Harbal you are without a doubt Clueless.

Indeed I am.
I suppose you could have written a meaningless sentence by mistake but now you've written a meaningless page full I can only assume you are doing it on purpose.