The paradox of overunity

[quantumtangles]

Thank you for your fascinating post Allcanadian. I really enjoyed reading it.

I think you are right to point out that I lack the apparatus to understand limitlessness because I am a survival mechanism.

As a survival oriented animal, I am good at identifying medium sized things moving at medium speed. But am oblivious to the very large, the very small, the very fast and the very slow.

You may also have explained our inability properly to understand time.

Einstein once referred to time as being "that persistent delusion".

If as you say, we get overwhelmed by oceans of data and thus focus on small clusters of data, the same thing may happen if we try to understand time.

Time may be defined as the interval between events.

If it is correct to say there has only ever been one event which happened 13.7 billion years ago (eg the big bang or some other description of the event) it follows that it is still happening (the universe is still expanding) and that we are part of it rather than outside it (as we are inside the universe).

Accordingly, if only one event has ever occurred, a continuous and enormous event, we would necessarily fragment the grand event up into a superabundance of smaller events we are capable of understanding.

So human thought may be a form of ignorance, in that by focusing on only one aspect of the grand event at a  time, we necessarily exclude all other aspects of the event, and in so doing exclude more than we can ever include during our thought processes.

Thanks also to Wilbyinebriated for your comments. In response, I will say only this:

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Kind regards,

[Gwandau]

Hi everybody,

The posts have reached a conciderable depth since touching the subject concerning "something" versus "nothing.

Great reading!

I would like to get your opinion about my following statement:

If regarding the concept "nothing" as an absolute concept, is it really possible for "nothing" to claim any volume?

I mean, if there was absolutely nothing between two particles, how could it even be any volume existing between the particles.

To me that would be a contradiction, since volume itself must consist of something just as real and existing as matter
in order to give it the properties called volume.

So the same instant there was nothing between two particles, the distance between the particles would cease to exist.

As far as I am concerned, "nothing" is just a word for a "something" that we can´t perceive.

Gwandau

[WilbyInebriated]

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Kind regards,

actually, i never asked you to explain it... i asked for evidences of your assertion (from nothing everything comes). you provided none.

let me try another way... why have you started with the arbitrary assumption that it all began with nothing? why have you started with the arbitrary assumption that it had a beginning?

[quantumtangles]

I do not know what caused the first dense kernel of matter to exist. Applying occam's razor (using the simplest possible explanation) it always existed.

If we don't apply occam's razor, we end up hunting for what 'caused' the first particles to exist, and then what 'caused' the things that caused the things that caused the first particles to exist etc.

A never ending logical regression (as is all causality if one overlooks the fact there has only ever been one event which began 13.7 billion years ago and is still happening).

Logically the simplest explanation is best.

1. The simplest explanation is that matter and energy always existed.

2. For reasons unknown to me, in the first few moments of what became the universe, density and thus magnetic field strengths were enormous. Perhaps trillions of Tesla.

3. These unimaginably powerful magnetic fields may have converted 'no thing' or void into matter and energy. Which is to say magnetic forces may have drawn particles from other dimensions into existence. Both Cern and Fermilab are now investigating this possibility.

4. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The particles that came from 'no thing' (from another dimension) could be disappearing, perhaps going back from whence they came. That may be why the books don't balance.

It is interesting to speculate. More interesting than arguing (unless you have been paid in advance).

[fritznien]

quantumtangles you should read up on big bang theory.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
give you a better idea of what it is and why.