You mean you just shoved two of your favourite buzzwords into Google, came up with this chunk of mathematics and now you want to pass it off as somehow profound, even though, or perhaps because, you don't understand a word of it.This may be of interest.
Implicit function theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_function_theorem
I'm not sure what to make of this, but the term "implicit" struck me. It is a major theme in Bohmian Mechanics. "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".
Seems like a metaphysical condition based on inherent potentials.
And you feel qualified to pass that judgement?
Tell me where I am wrong instead of.......
I've given you every courtesy in the past, but my patience with you has finished. Click!
↑
I read , but don't understand .
So infinity condensed ? ( what infinity is condensed in a single instant ? ) Explain in-depth.
First, in a timeless potential any emergent dynamic action constitutes the first instance of a emergent timeframe associated with that dynamic action. When there is no prior time, every dynamic instant would be the first instant.
This universe did have a beginning. It is the moment after the BB and the chaotic "first instant" (inflationary epoch), when we started counting time as an emergent measurement of "duration" of the chronological evolution of the universe and we could apply the term "spacetime" and "space geometry", i.e. the formation of patterns within the spatial geometry.river
There is no first " instant ". Nor beginning .
This universe did have a beginning. It is the moment after the BB and the chaotic "first instant" (inflationary epoch), when we started counting time as an emergent measurement of "duration" of the chronological evolution of the universe and we could apply the term "spacetime" and "space geometry", i.e. the formation of patterns within the spatial geometry.
Before then there is only speculation such as "nothingness" or "timeless infinity", or as Bohm hypothesized "pure potential". No one really knows anything about a pre-BB condition, not that I am aware of.
This is why theists are able to claim a supernatural creator being. Of course they also have no clue either, but use the opportunity to feed their ego of being created in God's image.
That is the real question isn't it?I know one thing ; nothing is for infinity is nothing ; nothing can never become something .
↑
I know one thing ; nothing is for infinity is nothing ; nothing can never become something .
One can make a case that nothing is a permittive condition that allows for the emergence of something.
One can also make a case that what appears to be nothing is a zero state of something which has as yet escaped our observation.
Yes you can. Nothing is a permittive condition. Actually, nothing is permittive of everything. It may not be causal to anything, but then again it might.No you can't .
Right, but outside our observation. There are many things beyond our direct observational ability.Which then was never nothing in the first place .
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/313922-cern-collider-hadron-higgs/CERN is perhaps most famous for its discovery in 2012 of the elusive Higgs Boson [named after British physicist Peter Higgs who predicted its existence in 1964], the so-called ‘God particle,’ which allows other particles to build up mass as they pass through the Higgs field.
Today, however, CERN is more famous – or perhaps infamous is the better word - for an upcoming experiment in which scientists will play God in an effort to recreate the conditions immediately following the ‘Big Bang’ event that gave birth to the Universe millions of years ago.
For those who are in the dark about CERN and the controversial objectives it hopes to achieve, here is a quick primer.
Correct, and we do indeed live in a mathematical universe, however in a physical universe mathematical values and functions impose permissions and restrictions 1 + 1 = 2 (not 3)Nothing is permittive only in a mathematical Universe .
NOT in a physical Universe .
Correct, and we do indeed live in a mathematical universe, however in a physical universe mathematical values and functions impose permissions and restrictions 1 + 1 = 2 (not 3)
Best speculation has it that our universe did arise from nothing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing] Certainly Krauss received plenty of flack from philosophers and his rather demeaning opinion of them.One can make a case that nothing is a permittive condition that allows for the emergence of something.
One can also make a case that what appears to be nothing is a zero state of something which has as yet escaped our observation.
Best speculation has it that our universe did arise from nothing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing] Certainly Krauss received plenty of flack from philosophers and his rather demeaning opinion of them.
The other point is that while the universe arising from nothing, appears logical [as opposed to ID] perhaps its our definition of nothing that needs redefining.... perhaps nothing is the quantum foam from whence the BB evolved...perhaps this is as close to nothing as one can get...perhaps this existed for eternity...in effect the quantum foam is nothing.
I agree, but IMO, it might go even more fundamental than quantum foam (pure potential) and may have a mathematical geometric underpinning, such as tensors, vectors, and scalars (which may be causal to the emergence of energetic quanta or quantum foam)?perhaps its our definition of nothing that needs redefining..
In mathematics, a tensor is an algebraic object that describes a (multilinear) relationship between sets of algebraic objects related to a vector space.
Objects that tensors may map between include vectors (which are often, but not always, understood as arrows with length that point in a direction) and scalars (which are often familiar numbers such as the real numbers), and, recursively, even other tensors.
Tensors can take several different forms – for example: scalars and vectors (which are the simplest tensors), dual vectors, multi-linear maps between vector spaces, and even some operations such as the dot product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TensorTensors are defined independent of any basis, although they are often referred to by their components in a basis related to a particular coordinate system.
I agree, but IMO, it might go even more fundamental than quantum foam (pure potential) and may have a mathematical geometric underpinning, such as tensors, vectors, and scalars (which may be causal to the emergence of energetic quanta or quantum foam)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
I can't really comment on possible insight into future discoveries, but defining the quantum foam as "nothing" that has existed forever, is ever so more likely then any IDer, or more complicated scenario...I mean what is more imaginable fundamental then the quantum foam? at this stage of our knowledge.I agree, but IMO, it might go even more fundamental than quantum foam (pure potential) and may have a mathematical geometric underpinning, such as tensors, vectors, and scalars (which may be causal to the emergence of energetic quanta or quantum foam)?
The "nothing" as redefined, is far more logical and reasonable then anything I have heard you suggest thus far.What is logical about nothing ?
river said: ↑
What is logical about nothing ?
The "nothing" as redefined, is far more logical and reasonable then anything I have heard you suggest thus far.