Nothingness

[JimL]

Total energy of the universe being zero is actually a very real possibility, based on our best current understanding. You are correct in that I am referring to the sum total of the positive and negative energy.

It seems to me that there are some very non-intuitive implications from taking Special and General Relativity seriously.

I think that you are mistaking negative energy as a state of nothingness whereas positive energy is a state of somethingness, the counterbalancing of the two bringing the total energy to zero, zero energy being nothing. If you think about it, that idea, the idea of zero state energy being nothingness, doesn't make sense. Its like saying that the counterbalance between nothingness and somthingness equates to nothingness.

[robertb]

I think that you are mistaking negative energy as a state of nothingness whereas positive energy is a state of somethingness, the counterbalancing of the two bringing the total energy to zero, zero energy being nothing. If you think about it, that idea, the idea of zero state energy being nothingness, doesn't make sense. Its like saying that the counterbalance between nothingness and somthingness equates to nothingness.

No, I consider both positive and negative energy to be something, but I do consider no energy to be nothing.

What I do not take as "gospel" is ex nihilo nihil fit.

Why not instead - out of nothing everything comes?

[JimL]

No, I consider both positive and negative energy to be something, but I do consider no energy to be nothing.

What I do not take as "gospel" is ex nihilo nihil fit.

Why not instead - out of nothing everything comes?

I see little difference in those two statements. We don't see anything come from nothing, effects come from their cause and are in their cause. If our universe, our particular part of existence, were a nutshell, and we being inside the nutshell, can't see beyond it to its cause, but reason alone should tell us that it didn't spontaneously come from out of nothing.

[shunyadragon]

No, I consider both positive and negative energy to be something, but I do consider no energy to be nothing.

The state of no energy has never been observed in our physical existence Quantum zero-point energy is not 'no energy' it represents the state of the energy.

[robertb]

The state of no energy has never been observed in our physical existence Quantum zero-point energy is not 'no energy' it represents the state of the energy.

One last time...zero-point energy requires the existence of spacetime (T > 0) and is thus irrelevant to this conversation.

[robertb]

I see little difference in those two statements. We don't see anything come from nothing, effects come from their cause and are in their cause. If our universe, our particular part of existence, were a nutshell, and we being inside the nutshell, can't see beyond it to its cause, but reason alone should tell us that it didn't spontaneously come from out of nothing.

Cause and effect are temporal relationships, so not relevant.

[robrecht]

Cause and effect are temporal relationships, so not relevant.

We only know of cause and effect within our temporal frame of reference.

[robertb]

We only know of cause and effect within our temporal frame of reference.

True.

[shunyadragon]

One last time...zero-point energy requires the existence of spacetime (T > 0) and is thus irrelevant to this conversation.

No it does not. Quantum zero-point energy occurs at T=0 at absolute zero. If you have Time T>0 you have matter and energy in the physical objects of a universe with a time/space relationship.

You are stuck in Newtonian physics.

[JimL]

Cause and effect are temporal relationships, so not relevant.

If it is your understanding that cause and effect are only temporal relationships, then your argument that either everything is created, ex nihio, or that everything comes out of nothing, is a self contradictory one because in either such case, the cause would then not be a temporal one. I'll take it that what you meant by that was that we are only privy to the temporal nature of cause and effect, i.e that the effect is in its cause and vice versa, and that things that emerge in time, don't come from nothing when time is considered. So, what about time itself, do you think that time itself emerged in time? That of course makes no sense, but neither does it make sense to say that time emerged from nothing, that there was nothing existent "before" time, because the term "before" itself suggest the existence of time. In other words, to say that the cause of time existed "before" time itself, is a self contradictory statement. So it seems more sensible to me that time as an effect, just like all other effects, must necessarily be in its cause.

[37818]

I'm actually partial to Robert G. Brown's treatment on the subject wherein he discusses null sets and the concept of Mu.

I really enjoyed his work on Axioms.

I like them too. But they too are bull****. To use Robert G. Brown's assertion.

[shunyadragon]

I like them too. But they too are bull****. To use Robert G. Brown's assertion.

Need more explanation here.

[37818]

Need more explanation here.

Robert G. Brown's assertion.

[shunyadragon]

Robert G. Brown's assertion.

Explain his assertion and how it applies.

[37818]

Explain his assertion and how it applies.

His assertion is absurd.