...space(time) me (time)space....

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 38
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Concept of a Creator God of Universe is allowed, even if such  does not truly as an occupied space.

God as finite, occupied space Universe exists eternally.

Naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed eternally.

Humans discover **what is allowed** by physical laws and cosmic principles, so in that sense, naught is created only discovered possibility by humans.

All that is allowed is possible, ergo, all that is possible is allowed with finite, **occupied space **Universe and its complementary finite set of cosmic principles and physical laws.

Absolute, relative and false narrative  truths  are exposed to humans via time and space.    ......space(time)(time}space....

......space(^v^v)(^v^v)space

.....space(> * * <)(> * * <)space.....

......space(> * * <) i  (> * * <)space.....

......space(> * <) me  (> * <)space...

.....space(> * <)  God  (> * <)space...

TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
......space(> * <) me  (> * <)space...
.....space(>.<) me (>.<)space...

Also, eternal universe has no explanation for its existence, even much less than eternal God does.

If Universe is eternal, then it exists without any creator.

If things dont need any creator or cause to exist, then anything would be able to come into existence at any time.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Your confused or other. Read again.

Humans discover some of what is allowed by physical laws and cosmic principles, so in that sense, naught is created only discovered possibility by humans.

All that is allowed is possible, ergo, all that is possible is allowed with finite, occupied space Universe and its complementary finite set of cosmic principles and physical laws.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
naught is created
Thats a clear logical fallacy. If things dont need to be created in order to exist, then anything can exist as there is no limit to existence. Simply put, if there are no conditions for existence, then everything is possible, unicorns and Gods.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,508
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
naught is created
Thats a clear logical fallacy. If things dont need to be created in order to exist, then anything can exist as there is no limit to existence. Simply put, if there are no conditions for existence, then everything is possible, unicorns and Gods.
You keep arguing against your own position.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,855
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If things dont need any creator or cause to exist, then anything would be able to come into existence at any time.
Yes, your argument even includes God, curiously enough, as your argument includes that possibility. I'm sure there are infinite objects in the universe which do not contemplate  existence, nor any cause for it, yet, there they are, even brilliantly illuminated objects that rise on Earth's horizon, and set on an opposite horizon, and do so daily, without fail. "Rise on us all, it is Ra," as the Egyptians would say.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,175
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
@TheGreatSunGod
If everything is finite, then it cannot be infinitely reduced, therefore it will eventually cease to exist.

On the other hand, if everything is infinite, then it can be infinitely reduced and never cease to exist.

So everything will expand and then contract to either a point of nothingness or a point of re-initiation.

Wherein, might lie the significance of the GOD principle....Rather than a magic bloke in a frock and sandals.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Your still confused about finite, occupied space Universe and its complementary, meta-space physical laws and cosmic principles

Humans do not create any of the finite set of  physical laws, nor the finite set of cosmic principles.

Humans discover some of these finite sets via experiment --ex a child or progeny of any animal learns what is possible and what is not-- of what is allowed --ergo what is possible--  by Universe.

1st law of thermodynamics ....naught is created nor lost, only transformed eternally...... within the finite set of occupied space possiblities of Universe
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
So everything will expand and then contract to either a point of nothingness or a point of re-initiation.
1} Zed, as soon as you use the word ' everything ', your invoking/inferreing a finite set. So infinite things becomes moot with such comments.

2} you seem to believe the 1st law of thermodynamics is not truly a eternally existent meta-space cosmic physical law, when in fact, humans have no { zilch } evidence such physical law ever being violated anywhere,

3} GRelativity maths  ---primarily exist Schwarzchild's static math's---  because, if followed to the extreme, leads to photon trajectories inside a black hole becoming incomplete, null geodesics aka singularities. Gone from Universe etc

Einstein did not believe such extreme celestial black holes existed.

AI..." Birkhoff's theorem states that any spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the Einstein field equations is necessarily static and stationary, meaning the Schwarzschild solution is the most general such solution "...

This is why the Roy Kerr the father of the math for rotating black hole  states,  all black holes are rotating and all scientists know this yet carry on with these static mathematical black holes as if they actually exist, when no such static black holes exist.  Roy Kerr goes on to show dynamics of rotating black holes, the photon trajectory in a black hole does not come to incomplete null geodesic singularity.

He also states, that, singuarlities in black holes may exist, only that his maths do not invoke such, and he dosent know that singularities do not exist.

AI..." Singularity:
While the Kerr solution predicts a ring singularity, recent research suggests that this singularity may not be physically real "

A ring singularity just means the photon trajectory goes on in a circle forever, or at least until the BH evaporates via Hawking Radiation.

String theory's AdS/CFT, ----Maldacena's AdS/CFT correspondence---- ..." On the “AdS” side, we have a theory of quantum gravity in D-dimensions, whose geometry is asymptotically Anti de-Sitter space (AdS), a hyperbolic space with constant negative curvature.

....On the “CFT” side we have a conformal field theory (CFT) living in (D-1)-dimensions at the (flat) boundary of the AdS geometry. A conformal field theory is a quantum field theory that, roughly speaking, behaves in exactly the same way at all scales.

.....All of the information in the quantum gravity theory is encoded within the lower-dimensional (and non-gravitational) CFT living at the boundary)
As redditor gerglo says, the "extra" dimension is a result of the entanglement structure in the CFT  "..

..." In theoretical physics, the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence (frequently abbreviated as AdS/CFT) is a conjectured relationship between two kinds of physical theories. On one side are anti-de Sitter spaces (AdS) that are used in theories of quantum gravity, formulated in terms of string theory or M-theory. On the other side of the correspondence are conformal field theories (CFT) that are quantum field theories, including theories similar to the Yang–Mills theories that describe elementary particles."..
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
1st law of thermodynamics
Who do you think created that specific law?
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
......space(time)(time}space....

......space(^v^v)(^v^v)space

.....space(> * <)(> * <)space.....

......space(> * <) meta  (> * <)space...

......space(> * <) ego  (> * <)space.....

......space(> * <) i  (> * <)space...

......space(> * <) me  (> * <)space...

.....space(> * <)  God  (> * <)space...

Integrity = whole = everything and the whole finite set of occupied space is complemented by meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

Human meta-space ego becomes the meta-space pointer to this that or other as a a meta-space Creator God or themselves as a meta-space God
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Read again, as you still dont seem to grasp the meaning of the word ' eternally existent '.

Google eternal or us any of many dictionaries out there.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
Read again, as you still dont seem to grasp the meaning of the word ' eternally existent
So no one created it then? If your position here is that things dont need to be created in order to exist, then that means anything is possible. Your explanation for existence of something is that it actually exists eternally. But that explanation fails to answer the question of why it exists the way it does. Also fails to answer what is the condition for existence there. By saying that things dont have conditions for existence now or ever, it means anything is possible then and anything can exist.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Who do you think created that specific law?

Humans discover what exists eternally.  Simple
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
Humans discover what exists eternally.  Simple
So why it exists eternally in the way it does remains unexplained there.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So why it exists eternally in the way it does remains unexplained there.

Why Universe and its complementary meta-space absolute truths exist eternally is incorrect question i.e a moot question. Its obviously that way.

Why others would think otherwise does not follow the evidential science.

You seem to be denial of obvious scientific truths.

Humans do and believe all kinds of illogical lack of common sense critical thinking truths ---based on scientific evidence--, all of the time.

If it floats their meta-space boat, more power to them, as long as it is not inflicting undue detriment onto other humans.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
Why Universe and its complementary meta-space absolute truths exist eternally is incorrect question
An incorrect question!

I didnt know questions could be incorrect now.

Now, the question was asking for an explanation of specific set you are talking about here.

There either is an explanation or isnt.

And "exists eternally" is not an explanation of what made it exist as it does. In fact, it is a concession that things dont need cause in order to exist.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
An incorrect question! I didnt know questions could be incorrect now.
Yeah.  AI...' An "incorrect question" can refer to several types of flawed or inappropriate inquiries.A common example is a false premise question, where the question is based on an incorrect assumption. Other types include loaded questions that assume something controversial, and suggestive questions that imply a specific answer. Additionally, a question might be considered incorrect if it's unclear, double-barreled (asking multiple questions at once), or inappropriate for the context. '...
Now, the question was asking for an explanation of specific set you are talking about here.

Adxressed and you appearing clueless to my reponse's. Can lead horse to water/truth...etc

And "exists eternally" is not an explanation of what made it exist as it does. In fact, it is a concession that things dont need cause in order to exist.

Yes it is because that is the way it way it is and your refuse experimental scientific evidence validating such, as Ive stated.

horse > water > some horse's are clueless is the answer to your inability to reconize this clueless-ness on your part.

Dealing with you on this issue is like being trapped in Escher stair case.



TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
where the question is based on an incorrect assumption
Question by definition does not make a statement, so it cannot be an assumption.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
Yes it is because that is the way it way it is
So it is the way it is because it is the way it is?

Sadly, same logic proves Holactie the creator of light.

Yes, he is because he is!
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,508
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@ebuc
Dealing with you on this issue is like being trapped in Escher stair case.
So you admit being trapped.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So it is the way it is because it is the way it is?

I think your finally getting to the crux/root core of your inability to recognize your incorrect question.

Feel free to question others about your inability to ask relevant question about our eternally existent Universe, as Ive lead you to absolute truth based on scientific evidence. By Sunny God, or maybe more correctly stated as a Cloudy God blocking out truth.  I dunno

TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
Thanks for proving that Holactie exists.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ebuc
You attack my profile name as Sunny God.

Your profile picture is qliphoth star with 11 points and also eye in the middle, representing tree of knowledge of Satan (as opposed to tree of life).

The number below image is clearly 66.

I cant really understand why would an atheist have or know such symbol.

Care to explain that?

Is it just coincidence?
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 864
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Why leave out 12th point in that image?

And why draw eye in the middle?

And write 66 under?

If you wanted a 12 point star, why leave out one point so it only has 11 points now?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,175
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Ah!

My Statement perfectly takes on board the 1st Law of thermodynamics.

I think that you misinterpreted what I said.

And "everything"  infers everything that is subject to the 1st Law of thermodynamics, in whatever state it exists at any given moment of Universal duration.

I simply hinted a process whereby an entropic state of reduction transitions to a negentropic state of re-initiation.

I also hinted at ideas relative to infinite and finite situations, because we have no way of knowing the duration or outcome of a Universal process.

We can only theorise, based upon what we know at this moment.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
And "everything"  infers everything that is subject to the 1st Law of thermodynamics, in whatever state it exists at any given moment of Universal duration.
I think everything is subject 1st law of thermodynamics, tho in the case of Gravity and Dark Energy it may or is more difficult for to assimilate an answer in those two cases... 

I simply hinted a process whereby an entropic state of reduction transitions to a negentropic state of re-initiation.
..
Zed, I think you error with terminology " re-initiation " as it leans too much twoward a scenario where finite, occupied space ceases to exist, starts from truly non-occupied space, as is what some people --maybe your self believe occurred some13.5 or so billion years ago.

An eternally existent finite, occupied space Universe --and I step outside my defining of reality here--- is inherently in eternal transformation aka change etc

Transformation from one  set of parameters of finite, occupied space, to another set of parameters of finite, occupied space,  is better { better clarity } than " re-initiation '...

I also hinted at ideas relative to infinite and finite situations, because we have no way of knowing the duration or outcome of a Universal process...
Zed, I think we been over this before.  There is not nor ever has any evidence for and infinite, occupied space Universe. Please share when you have some.
..
We can only theorise, based upon what we know at this moment.
All humans ever have known is that integrity of an occupied space is inherently  finite.  Even ultra-short lived mesons { two quark force excahnge between hadrons - heavy matter particles } have integrity for their lifetime of existence as a Bosonic Force via two quarks.

PLease share when you have evidence of any occupied space that is infinite.  especially if you have scientific evidence of such infinite occupied space.






zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,175
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Well.

Occupied space is as it says.

And I have never suggested that the occupier has infinite potential (1st Law of thermodynamics).

Which is not to say that space is not infinitely occupiable...What evidence is there to say that such potential is limited?

The limiting factor of occupation, would only be the limited potential of the occupier, rather than any limitations of the intangible potentials of time and space.

After all, time and space are only human concepts relative to the perceivability of material event and duration.

And science can only predict the outcomes of something that does not as yet exist, or has not as yet occurred...So neither you nor I can have access to any factual evidence.


ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,381
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Which is not to say that space is not infinitely occupiable...What evidence is there to say that such potential is limited?
1} What evidence for any infinite occupied space?  We only have evidence for finite occupied space integritites.

2} Your esposusing sci-fi, nothing more nothing less, until you can provide the evidence for you sci-fi.

The limiting factor of occupation, would only be the limited potential of the occupier, rather than any limitations of the intangible potentials of time and space.
See #1 and 2 above

After all, time and space are only human concepts relative to the perceivability of material event and duration.

3} Zed, meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego are co-existent complement to occupied space integrities. 

4}  Occupied space has a complementery meta-space shape/patterrn/form. 

5} externd your arm out in front of you, now move it back and forth laterally. Next raise and lower it as you go back and forth. Now you see a sine-wave. Next stop raising and lowering your arm as you go back and forth. Your arm still exists, yet the sine-wave cease to exist.  All the remains of the wave is as a meta-space concept ual pattern in memory.
...Note: the occupied space medium --ex woord, water, metal, stone--- is not the meta-space geometry/pattern.   The occupied space has charge, taste, color, spin, mass. The geometric shape/patttern has no mass, color, charge, taste.

And science can only predict the outcomes of something that does not as yet exist, or has not as yet occurred...So neither you nor I can have access to any factual evidence.
Zed, we do have evidence for only finite, occupied space integgrities ex coffee cups, baesballs, automobiles etc.

We have no evidence for an infinite set of occupied space baseballs, coffee cups,  automobiles etc.

Ive enjoyed scif-fi ideas for many years.  Infinite occupied space is not only not existent, or poetntial to exist, as well as illogical, lack of common sense critical thinking.  Some sci-fi is logical, common sense critical thinking potential possibilites. 

 ray guns from the 50's  = potential for portable lazers. Sure.

This is the case throughout history. In 1800's we had dreamers of going to moon were called ' lunatics '.

Finite se of gun powder discovered and toady we have finite set of bullets

People say things like the sun is infinite energy for Earthians. False.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,508
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@ebuc
People say things like the sun is infinite energy for Earthians. False.
Name an alternate source of energy for Earth besides the sun.