Ex-Nihilo

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Prince_James, Feb 4, 2007.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    swivel,
    I would argue very strongly to the contrary......Even Albert Eistien would agree that once energy stops moving [ "c" ] the universe is dead meat. [ non-existant ] If everything exists only because of the differential between energies then once that differential ceases to exist energy is [non-existant] Thus energy must be self sustaining. The key though is: "how is it self sustaining?"...now thats the big question

    In my view the universe is not of our perception but is our perception whether we are alive to percieve it or not.

    And also you are assuming that you know what happens after "we are gone"


    There is only one point in time and it is both zero in duration and lasts for eternity.....[ha Heraclitus was great with duality too]

    Show me the past or the future in any other moment but NOW and I'll change my view.


    Sorry If I am being a little whimsical about all this..PJs reference to Heraclitus is still sinking in....[ I had no idea of his writings and work until now]
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    Pj,
    reading:*

    "Law of contradiction [ Aristotle ] vs Logos [ Heraclitus ] "

    or
    "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." ~Aristotle

    vs

    "I am as I am not"~ Heraclitus

    Yes, I see the conflict between exnhillo logic and current logic in similar terms.

    Obviously I side with Heraclitus Logos

    "Understanding the paradox that exnhillo presents and why as a fundamental of universal physics this paradox is essential to it's existance is half way to finding the truth about the issue." ~ QQ

    I have often in the past argued that until physics can accept the necessity of a fundamental paradox progress in science will be inhibited. The paradox will eventually be seen as not a paradox at all but more a necessary inversion of logic and rational. [ Like trying to describe an "Inverse Sphere" ] or [ a moebus strip with only one reflective side. ha]


    Ahhh the root of our logic ~ illogical, rational ~ irrational dilemma....!!

    NB. IMO the interesting thing about all this is that The law of contradiction and Logos will eventually agree with each other.....
    "I am as I am not" is a statement of deductive reasoning based on the notion that what I am not determines what I am.

    Or if one says "I am and I am not" one can actually prove using AE special relativity that this is true.
    [ long arguement for sure but one that will eventually show that to exist in a zero duration eternal moment means that at any time in existance you exist for only a zero moment thus "Iam and Iam not" holds true. As the truth of our existance is a "nul point".]

    *wiki
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    PJ, you should be shot for introducing QQ to Heraclitus!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    ha ha......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Swivel:

    At least give me a cigarette before I am pressed against the wall for the firing squad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Heraclitus:

    I have a qualm with this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (Kudos if you get the reference!)

    I think what we're dealing with is perhaps a difference of viewpoint on what this NOW amounts to.

    Simply because time is always "NOW" does not mean that the same "NOW" persists. Rather, it would seem by all evidence that the past necessitates that the NOW be a series, rather than a single thing. That is, for every infinitesimal moment that passes, we are in another NOW.

    Accordingly, it is wrong to say the NOW is "eternal", but only that time will always be "NOW". As one cannot be in a time other than "right now", this is clearly true.

    Also, let me ask you this: Are you supposing that when one moves in the "nul state" that one would also remain in place? That is, if I moved the arrow, it would create another arrow right there (or the one in my hand)? For this would seem to be the only way to say that time has not moved forward by the motion exihbited, and even then, we are adding to the systm, which necessitates a time-change, too...
     
  10. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    I'd say that really the problem with that is that now depends on perspective. Your now and my now are not the same one at all, according the general relativity at least.

    In fact, no two nows are the same, yet the one we inhabit subjectively is indeed persistent. It IS always right now, and never any other time.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    I think you are quite right Wes. the entitled to opinion position etc etc...

    I don't hold to the notion of non-simultaneity as I believe inertia demands that simultaneity be actual and real and objectively self evident.

    So for me the NOW is uniformy simultaneous universally regardless of relative Velocity etc etc.


    Yeah I know!! Flying in the face of current scientific opinion...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It appears that Heraclitus believed that everythig was in a "flux" of change and was in conflict with other philosophers who felt that everything was unchanging....Heraclitus makes reference to "fire" which one could easilly see as "energy".

    PJ,
    An example if I may....

    "we have a perfect spherical mirror where the reflector side is facing to it's center. The mirror allows light to enter the sphere but dis-allows light to leave the sphere."

    We place this sphere in sun light.

    According to Special relativity and current light theory if that spherical mirror is perfect or even near perfect the sphere should trap all the light with in it.

    Also according to SRT the photons in side the sphere are changing their location at the rate of 'c'. The sphere is virtually vibrating at the rate of the energy movement with in it.

    Take an ulter high speed snap shot [rated 'c'] and what would you find?

    1] many photons captured in that zero duration moment of time?

    2] nothing at all in side the Sphere.

    3] As the sphere is also made up of energy, nothing inside the sphere and in fact the sphere would also be non-existant.

    Reasoning:

    To capture a zero duration event with a camera would result in capturing nothing as the event is zero in duration.

    Yet if we reduce the rating so that it allows for duration [ say c/2 ] suddenly we can see something. And that something is in constant flux or change as Heraclitus suggested so long ago.

    So the null point is actually 'c'

    As all mass is travelling in excess of this fundamental rate, all mass is time dillated by it's motion this movement creates the temporal effect and gives mass it's reality. To reduce the movement of mass to just 'c' would mean the mass would no longer be mass but energy only. Thus mass is now light and because it has a zero duration it is every where and no where simultaneously.

    Thus light is invisible yet all prevalent...."omni present" just like gravity is.

    It has been said by Albert Einstien that there is no absolute rest to be found any where in the universe, because velocity and thus time is relative. The trick in Hyper space travel I reckon is the finding of absolute rest from mass that is always in motion in excess of the fundemantal 'c'

    In other words energy must be removed from mass not given to mass to generate the null point.
    A bit like what happens when you super cool a super conductor and the conductor levitates in a gravity field. Energy is removed and transfered to the Liquid Nitrogen and the mass defies gravity.

    The irony is that to travel faster than 'c' one does not add energy but actually takes away energy....

    How to do it is a bit of a mystery I must admit.....but the Ancient Eqyptions may have had the answer. [ regarding the construction of those pyramids] by draining energy in to those vinegar pots they found around the site....[ just speculation ok]

    note: you may have noticed I have shifted in to a pseudo relativity perspective with the above in an attempt to find a common ground to work from
     
  12. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    I disagree. I think that there is one, definitive NOW. But, when we start playing with frames of reference, we can see how events seem to occur at different times from two other references. But how can we see this? From a third reference, where the two events are not simultaneous. Since we can never get away from reference points, even to make a reference point, we can't ever really "see" that there is one holistic NOW at any time.

    Imagine if everything in the universe froze at an "instant" which was in concordance with every other frame's "instant". As everything was hanging in that "moment", you would have your absolute NOW.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    Agrees....
    It is often said that SRT is counter intuitive in that absolute time is generally speaking the intuitive position and relative time [ as in NOWS not dilation] is the counter intuitive position.
    It is also said that it is encumbent upon the theory to provide a mechanism where by it can be proved or disproved [ the theory] and as you have stated relative NOWs can not be proved or disproved.

    So I ask it it wise to accept an unprovable position that is counter intuitive?

    I would suggest that it would take more than just convenience for me to accept a counter intuitive position when no proof or evidence can be found to support it.

    I tend to believe that this by product of lights invariance of speed [ relative NOWS ] is a furphy that has held science back for 100 odd years and until unravelled will hold it back indefinitely. As I believe that Distance is an illusion and that light is really the resonating effect of all objects of mass across a void of nothingness relative NOWS is a nul concept and totally a uneccessary complexity. That inhibits study in to inertia and more deeper fundamentals.

    However Einstien almost got it right IMO but science has been reluctant to shift it's approach to the terrific insight Einstien offered.
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Not according to general relativity, not at all.

    That's because the NOW is always your now, and it always will be unless there's no you. That is the definative now. Saying this though, does not exclude other nows that are just as definative.

    Sure, but that's a "would be" not a "what is", and you basically said "imagine there IS an absolute now, there it is, see?", which is none too compelling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    (and nice to see you too qq)

    Uhm, no that's not at all flying in its face!

    Your now is universal because you cannot escape your reference frame. You're permanently locked into it, as you and it are the same.

    But your now and my now are not.

    EDIT:

    I see I misread what you said.

    So you don't buy the whole "space-time" concept at all then? If so, the implications contradict you. If not, then well it would seem that evidence supports the theory, but it could be incomplete or something... but time dilation and such has been measured to be in agreeance with Einstein I believe. I don't see the grounds to reject this, but meh. *shrug* Okay then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2007
  16. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    I think there is an analytic problem with your theory.

    If C = Null point.

    And 2C = Does not.

    Then it would seem you are saying that 0 * 2 != 0.

    That is to say, I fail to see how nothing can be built on like this?

    Also, whyever would it show "nothing" if you captured it at that point? It would seem almost self-evident that we'd have Zeno's arrow in photon forms.

    I think they used good old fashioned muscle.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    You misunderstand GR. His point was that no frame of reference is superior to any other. And that two frames of reference will disagree with each other when looked at from a third frame.

    If all motion could cease during one of these experiments, you would not find the "dropping ball" in two places at once. You would still see the ball in two different places from those two frames of reference, but that is a property of the frames of reference and the relative distances and velocities. It is NOT a property of the location of the dropping ball (or speeding train, etc...) You can confirm this by taking as your frame of reference the dropping ball itself, and the simple fact that it will observe that the two people observing it have absolute positions with respect to its own frame of reference.

    There is only one NOW, even if various people within that NOW will disagree on what is happening in their NOW. Their description of their environment is NOT a reflection of the absolute state of their surroundings, it is a description of their surroundings with respect to relative distances and velocities.

    Think on this for a few days. Most physicists get this wrong, and I've read dozens of books that teach what you are saying, which is flat-out untrue. They are making the easy mistake of equating differences in descriptions from relative frames of reference with true differences in the objects observed.


    Edit: QQ, I think you, like too many others, give Einstein far too much credit for GR and SR. It was an idea whose time had come, and there would have been dozens of others who came to the same conclusions. The media went nuts with Einstein and tried to make him something that he wasn't. He was intellectually inferior to hundreds of his contemporaries, and Bohr has been proven right in numerous of their arguments. He said the right things politically and had the right look. His contributions to science were larger in black-body radiation and work that led to the field which he loathed, quantum mechanics. Perhaps this is why he received a Nobel prize for this work, but never for SR or GR. I would rather have Dirac or Bohr get half the attention that Einstein gets. He is to physics what Freud is to psychology, a media darling held as the gold standard when their contributions were far less than their peers.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2007
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    Pj, The whole universe is moving at 'c' simultaneously thus the rest frame is absolute for a photon. every photon according to theory is simultaneous in it's positionin time. [now]


    Thus if someone travels as a photon does then they can be said to be at rest with a photon. which means that they have achieved a null point in time which is constantly changing at the rate of 'c'.

    assuming a photon has mass which it doesn't...what does a photon look like, after all? Is it a wave or particle? Does it have a flat shape or a spherical shape, is it 3 dimensiional or 2 dimensional, does a photon take up space and so on......

    Does a photon actually exist? Or has it taken on pseudo religious values......? Differentiate a photon from a reflector and you can say the photon is independant of the reflector as proposed by current thought. However this is impossible to do as such so the photon could be and probably is totally fiction.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2007
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    Ahh I see swivel that you and I essentially agree regarding absolute time.
    [If one assumed the validity of a photons independance of reflector]

    I also agree with your note about over stating Einstiens importance. However he did manage to promote the idea of multiple time dimensions which although not necessarily correct certainly manages to stretch any students imagination when trying to accomodate it. SRT would have to be one of those better brain teasers yet developed I reckon. certainly it has captured the attention of many wishing to dispute it.

    But as I have mentioned before SRT is incomplete and not the closed circle of logic that it needs to be to prove a self evident truth. It is open ended and thus a bane of frustration when trying to show why it is wrong and knowing that something is not quite right with it.

    If it was a fully closed logic rational it would be provable and self evident and I might add fully intuitive when understood.

    When taken to it's extremes using the Lorenze Transforms we can see how the results are contra to what should be. [when vm = 'c' d=0 and t= eternity so the result is to travel zero distance takes eternity to travel.]

    When it should be exactly opposite [d=0 t=0]

    It is important to note that SRT etc is probably the only "sane" outcome when considering the incorrect notion IMO that light travels at 'c' through 4 dimensional space. If light does this and is deemed invariant then SRT is the only outcome. As I have suggested this position creates a flawed view of the universe even if it is ocnveniently usable and has utility.

    BY stating the postulate that lights speed is invariant relative NOWS are/is the only outcome thus lights speed is the key issue.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2007
  20. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Heraclitus:

    How can it change and be a null point?

    Also, C is finite. Thus it does not produce instantneous travel, no?

    As we can measure it, it clearly takes up space. Also, a photon appears to us as light beams very easily.

    Does oneself count as "a reflector"? Because I am experiencing a whole bunch of photons right now!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    Prince_James:

    Because the entire universe is changing simultaneously at the exact same rate.

    See above answer regarding null point.


    A beam of light is supposed [ according to light theory ] to be light reflected of humid air masses......you are not seeing a photion...PJ....simple...


    Absolutely you are a reflector but are you reflecting light or just simply a vibration [ resonance ]

    Also explain how the eye can be receptive to seeing nothing? [ If the eyes can only see light how can they see the void of space [ no light source to see]?

    How is the eye able to react to a void with out stimulation available to react too?

    [remember my comment about a mirror reflecting nothing,,,,,well the body/ brain is a mirror that reflects nothing really well ]
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    Maybe this animation might help...


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Note that there is relative time due to velocity and an inherant absolute NOW which is fundamentlay changing at the rate of 'c' in the background to this relative time due to velocity differences.
     
  23. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Even if we accept that the "universe is moving at C", and if C is finite (300,000 km.p.s.) this does not at all mean instantneous travel. If we reached C, we'd simply be moving at C - not transcending time.

    We have seen photons in vacuum-tubed particle accelerators, have we not?

    Moreover, if we are in a vacuum and light in the visible spectrum hits our eyes, we do see it as light.

    The space would be seen as a result of the negative space of the light wedded to reflection of the glass sphere's inside.
     

Share This Page