Nothingness Theory Forum

  Nothingness Theory   

The connection between the evolution of the universe and human thought

© 1989 – 2014 Corey D. Kaup, Kaup Communications – all rights reserved

 

 

Guest





 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:33 am    Post subject: Post Reply with quote

All motion, including the expansion of the universe, is the result of a disturbance of equilibrium.

What would be the explanation for disturbance?
Back to top
 
 
 
Corey



Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Posts: 6
Location: www.nothingnesstheory.com

 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply to "disturbance" question. Reply with quote

"What would be the explanation of disturbance?" is a great question. I never thought of defining it. I'll give it a try.

A disturbance in this context would be a force that increases or creates unevenness between two or more parts of a system.

Lifting a rock from the ground increases the unevenness of space/time between the rock and the earth. Releasing it enables it to resolve the space/time gradient created by the force applied in lifting it. Motion toward the earth resolves the unevenness, regaining the initial state of equilibrium.

What then disturbs the universe prior to its existence, and what does it disturb? I assume you are implying this question by asking for the definition of disturbance.

The answer is that the idea of nonexistence and the complete absence of the universe is an abstraction the way that the idea of a dimensionless point is an abstraction in geometry.

The universe can never be absent in terms of physical, material reality. It has and always will exist. When it passes through the phase of greatest uniformity, it becomes undetectable to humans. We therefore assume it has an absolute beginning at that time. That however would violate simple logic - that there can not be a time before the existence of the universe because "before" is a time designation.

there can also be no time taken for the universe to be completely uniform because time requires the separation of space and matter - which by definition would be non-uniform.

I hope this answers your question. The answer looks right to me at first viewing. Let me know if you see any flaws.

Thank you for your excellent question,
Corey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
 
crazymofo55
Guest





 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You cannot use physics to decribe what occured when the universe began because the laws of physics broke down at the singularity. Even the law of conservation of matter did not apply at this point. Therefore, the current universe is independent from it's original state. Some attempt to use the second law of thermodynamics to set limitations of a continual system, but it is not a continual system. When gravity takes over and sets the universe back to a state of equilibrium, that universe is done, a new universe completly independent from the first is created and you have a tangent system to the first. There are minimums and maximums to this new system limiting it's possible states. If it has too much matter the system will not only fail, but never even occur within a time designation. It will go back to equilibrium state before a planck constant of time can take place and the process will start over. If it has too little matter the system won't do anything with relativity not kicking in and so it will go back to equilibrium without going through a single plack constant of time. It is a processs of trail and error with limitless randomness, but limited successful results. The thrown out results are nonexistence or what cannot occur. The accepted results are what actually exists. When you look at the entire system of our universe you cannot simply look at the 3 spacial dimensions or even 4 and use that to describe the entirety of existence. There may be as many as ten dimensions just in our system. The actual universe is a compilation of unrestricted potiential with the self restriction that only certain states are stable enough to have the attribute of existence. BTW, the definition of beginning and end is also just based on an obervation point from within this closed system. Considering all these tangent systems that may exist with there own time designations, there is no such thing as beginning or end. The universe as a whole simply IS all possible time designations of all possible systems stable enough to exist.
Back to top
 
 
 
Corey



Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Posts: 6
Location: www.nothingnesstheory.com

 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:29 pm    Post subject: Disturbance Reply with quote

Crazymofo brings up a number of complex and interesting points. Taken as a whole, they address the idea of disturbance of equilibrium by exploring excursions to and from equilibrium in an existential context.

In Nothingness Theory, there are three states of equilibrium – Static, Dynamic, and Perfectly Uniform. Static equilibrium is seen when measuring a system on a time scale within which no motion is detected. Dynamic equilibrium occurs when the motion of a system’s parts is predictably repeated. Perfectly Uniform equilibrium is the undetectable state of relative nonexistence occurring at the complete collapse of the wave function along a line of cycles.

The mystery lurking underneath all this is that something restarts the universe’s cycle of existence after it has collapsed into apparent nonexistence, which is the most complete (perfect) state of equilibrium. If all natural systems including the universe are inexorably attracted to equilibrium and ultimately nonexistence, what prevents them from achieving it permanently? Put another way: What disturbs the perfect equilibrium of nonexistence?

Though I agree that if there is a succession of universes, they are each new and unrelated to the other from the point of view of human beings, they are still related via the impossibility of achieving absolute nonexistence. In that sense, there is an infinite continuum of existence with its particular rules of constraint.

Disturbance takes on a profound aspect here. In science, force is the disturbance. In philosophy, the disturbance is human consciousness, and in theology, the disturbance is God. Given this, I have to conclude that my definition of disturbance is inadequate after all.

How disturbing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
 
crazymofo55
Guest





 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nonexistence brings on the ulitmate instability which is the lack of restriction. Existence was brought on as a way to stabilize because existence creates restriction. Existence was limited by systems that would destroy themselves bringing them out of existence's potientiality. Nonexistence therefore is everything too unstable to exist, and existence is everything that is stable enough to take on the attribute of existence. I cannot go any further to explain the disturbance of equilibrium because it is something that cannot be related to cause and effect as we see in the universe we reside in. Personally, I believe that the orginal chaotic state of the nonexisting universe is what god is. No matter what anyone believes though I don't think that creation can be explained using the laws of physics because for starters creation conflicts with the law of conservation of energy and matter and eternity conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics which states that distrophy will increase over time. If anyone attempts to argue that science gives a proper explaination to the creation of the universe they must disprove one of these laws in order to prevent a paradox in their arguement.
    Send mail to Corey@nothingnesstheory.com with questions or comments about this website.
    Last modified: 06/28/14 10:51 AM -0500