A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

Fine, include periodicity and change, but just do it.

I already have, twice, I'm not repeating myself again because you lack comprehension

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, then what do you say time's tangibility is outside of the observation of periodicity and change?

I don't talk at all about tangibility. Again, that is *your* criterion.

 

[Polymath257]

Space is the zpe, infinite em energy density, what do we call this universal ocean of em energy if not a substance or essence, aether, dark energy, spirit? As I keep reminding folk, the real is forever on the other side of the names and concepts.

No, space is different than an E&M energy density. To say something is 1 meter long doesn't say anything at all about electromagnetism.

Boy, you are meshing a lot of different concepts there: energy, dark energy, 'substance', aether, 'spirit'. Some are valid, although seemingly misunderstood by you. For example, aether is no longer considered to exist at all; EM energy, while it exists, doesn't overlap with space; substance and 'essence' are too vague to be useful in any detailed discussion; dark energy is equivalent to the old cosmological constant, and I have no idea whatsoever what the term 'spirit' means. Using vague or misleading terms isn't going to be useful.

Yes, a real chair is different than the word chair. And yet, there is a real chair in my room. Whether something is a chair or not depends on our conceptual definition of a chair.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1. Find a periodic process (pendulum swings, days, years) and count the number of times cycles are completed.
2. Find a regular process (sand through a hole, or radioactive decay) and measure how far along the process is.
3. Measure how far something of known velocity (such as light) travels.

The goal in all of these is to make sure that no external influences change the rates involved.

So how does time cause radioactive decay, periodic processes, or light speed, it seems to me you are conflating proxies for something with that something?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, space is different than an E&M energy density. To say something is 1 meter long doesn't say anything at all about electromagnetism.

Boy, you are meshing a lot of different concepts there: energy, dark energy, 'substance', aether, 'spirit'. Some are valid, although seemingly misunderstood by you. For example, aether is no longer considered to exist at all; EM energy, while it exists, doesn't overlap with space; substance and 'essence' are too vague to be useful in any detailed discussion; dark energy is equivalent to the old cosmological constant, and I have no idea whatsoever what the term 'spirit' means. Using vague or misleading terms isn't going to be useful.

Yes, a real chair is different than the word chair. And yet, there is a real chair in my room. Whether something is a chair or not depends on our conceptual definition of a chair.

We are talking about universal space, universal space is not a vacuum, it is constituted of substance, and that substance is em energy know as zpe. Some called it dark matter and energy, others aether....a name by any other name smells as sweet..

I must remind you again that reality is on the other side of names and concepts, aether is a concept to represent omnipresent substance, aether according to only one definition of it has been disproved, but not the actual reality that my understanding of the concept aether means. Your preoccupation with hiding behind definitions does not do anything for your credibility and integrity. Not understanding what I am saying to you is one thing, purposely being pedantic to avoid being found out is another, man up!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just because you fail to understand is not by problem, but there is no need to stoop to personal attacks to vent your frustration

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I already have, twice, I'm not repeating myself again because you lack comprehension

Show me where you have done it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't talk at all about tangibility. Again, that is *your* criterion.

It is Christine who claimed it was in a post to me, and you jumped in with support for her, so I then put to you the same question as I did to her and now you bail out because it is *my* criterion...haha..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Polymaths, do you understand what zpe is?

 

[Polymath257]

Polymaths, do you understand what zpe is?

Zero point energy. Also known as the energy of quantum fluctuations. At this point, we don't know how much or if it is related to dark energy. If dark energy is solely a matter of a cosmological constant, then it is. But I have seen a LOT of mystical mumbo jumbo concerning zero point fluctuations. Don't blindly accept everything you hear about it.

This is an area where physicists *know* we don't understand what is going on. But to connect it to 'spirit' or 'essence' or even 'substance' is just silliness. At most, it points out our lack of understanding of quantum gravity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Zero point energy. Also known as the energy of quantum fluctuations. At this point, we don't know how much or if it is related to dark energy. If dark energy is solely a matter of a cosmological constant, then it is. But I have seen a LOT of mystical mumbo jumbo concerning zero point fluctuations. Don't blindly accept everything you hear about it.

This is an area where physicists *know* we don't understand what is going on. But to connect it to 'spirit' or 'essence' or even 'substance' is just silliness. At most, it points out our lack of understanding of quantum gravity.

I understand that science makes distinctions wrt various aspects observed and/or theorized of the substance of universal space, but underlying these distinctions is an underlying unity. This underlying unity of universal space is called aether in the metaphysical tradition and spirit in the religious.

So what I mean is that the substance of omnipresent universal space is understood differently by the different traditions.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand that science makes distinctions wrt various aspects observed and/or theorized of the substance of universal space, but underlying these distinctions is an underlying unity. This underlying unity of universal space is called aether in the metaphysical tradition and spirit in the religious.

So what I mean is that the substance of omnipresent universal space is understood differently by the different traditions.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. You would have to show that the 'traditions' have anything at all to do with zpe, for example.

 

[Thief]

Is any god tangible? There are several evidences to indicate gods don't exist, even can't exist.

Dark matter has been indirectly detected for several years, and may recently have been directly detected but this is not confirmed independently.

Dark energy ... Who knows if it exists? Its certainly a feasible tool to explain certain phenomenon.

and with cause and effect in play....
I believe God is a feasible explanation for the phenomenon we call the universe

Spirit (Cause)
universe (one word)....the effect

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, I just don't buy it. You would have to show that the 'traditions' have anything at all to do with zpe, for example.

Zpe is omnipresent, it is the 'ocean' of space that is full, there is nothing in existence that, speaking dualistically, is not in and of the substance of zpe. Now in the metaphysical tradition, it is understood that there is an omnipresent universal 'ocean' which is named 'aether'. Now given that metaphysics preceded modern science and the discovery of the 'zpe' ocean, and since there is only one universal 'ocean' of energy, both concepts, aether and zpe refer to the one universal ocean of space.

 

[Polymath257]

Zpe is omnipresent, it is the 'ocean' of space that is full, there is nothing in existence that, speaking dualistically, is not in and of the substance of zpe. Now in the metaphysical tradition, it is understood that there is an omnipresent universal 'ocean' which is named 'aether'. Now given that metaphysics preceded modern science and the discovery of the 'zpe' ocean, and since there is only one universal 'ocean' of energy, both concepts, aether and zpe refer to the one universal ocean of space.

OKay.....backing away......

 

[gnostic]

No, space is different than an E&M energy density. To say something is 1 meter long doesn't say anything at all about electromagnetism.

Boy, you are meshing a lot of different concepts there: energy, dark energy, 'substance', aether, 'spirit'. Some are valid, although seemingly misunderstood by you. For example, aether is no longer considered to exist at all; EM energy, while it exists, doesn't overlap with space; substance and 'essence' are too vague to be useful in any detailed discussion; dark energy is equivalent to the old cosmological constant, and I have no idea whatsoever what the term 'spirit' means. Using vague or misleading terms isn't going to be useful.

Yes, a real chair is different than the word chair. And yet, there is a real chair in my room. Whether something is a chair or not depends on our conceptual definition of a chair.

I find it absurd that Ben keep talking about time not being tangible, and therefore not real, when he believe in spirit, which is also tangible yet but real...at least real to him.

That's double standard.

If tangibility is evidence for reality, and time is not real, then wouldn't that mean spirit is also not real?

God (or gods) is also not tangible, but I don't see him say god isn't real.

Ben has the tendency to define things one way or another, depending on only when it suit him or his agenda.

But Ben is not unique in cherry picking meanings or playing semantic games. It is a common and dishonest traits shared by most creationists and those who labeled themselves advocates for ID.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is just so lazy to regurgitate the stuff learned in high school, college, uni, or self taught by studying the same source material, and not add significantly to humanity's collective ever evolving understanding of the universe by self discovery, introspective reflection on the nature of your own consciousness.

I mostly admire the ones that take the more difficult path of skipping all that pointless education and proceeding right to the free-form speculation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

and Man was turned to believing ...long before the methods of science came to be

Isn't that what would be expected? If we hadn't come up with a god concept before the advent of science, we certainly wouldn't have afterward.

It's been said that the religious phase of man is the one connecting the time when he was first intelligent enough to wonder about how the world worked, and the time where he discovered his answers.

 

[ChristineM]

Show me where you have done it?

A Universe from Nothing?

 

[ChristineM]

and with cause and effect in play....
I believe God is a feasible explanation for the phenomenon we call the universe

Spirit (Cause)
universe (one word)....the effect

Major flaw with that idea, the laws of thermodynamics, and hence causality did not resolve until after the beginning of the universes.

Spirit -alcohol
Drink - one word
The effect - inebriation