The Topology Of Time, Or The Universe Or Something....

[Pincho Paxton]

You go to McDonalds, and buy a burger. If you were told that the burger was made by God in the kitchen you have to doubt it, because making a burger is a simple, and known process. To me, the Universe is a simple, and known process. So God would be an excessive extra ingredient. To me, the Big Bang is an excessive, and ridiculous extra ingredient as well. Proof in science is the same as proof of God. In science you can say that an apple is pulled to the Earth, and never have to prove it, you just need faith in Newton, Faith in Einstein, Faith in The Big Bang. All proof is faith, unless you are very strict in your proof formula. I am much stricter than science in my proof formula. Therefore the only proof I ever believe is my own proof. Last week I was banned for not posting links. Find a link to proof of an apple pulled to the Earth, find proof of any pull force in the Universe, find proof of magnetic pull forces, find proof that you can pull up your trousers. You can't pull anything. To pull anything your fingers have to be behind atoms, and a behind force is a push force. There are no pull forces in the Universe. The proof of science ends at Newton in the 17th century. No proof since the 1700's. Yet I can get banned by a religious faith. So far only I have any real proof of anything, because the whole of science is dependant on pull forces. All of the maths include pull forces. Einstein's cosmological constant was there to correct a pull force. Einstein's cosmological constant was backwards, and the Universe is accelerating. The opposite to a pull force is a push force, the opposite to a backwards cosmological constant is a push force. The only proof so far is that everything in science is backwards. A backwards Big Bang is a Galaxy. A push creates the black hole, the black hole creates the matter. A big crunch therefore creates matter.

 

Any thread about the proof of God should also include all proof as examples of what a proof really is. So far, I am not happy with what has been called a proof.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Pincho Paxton]

We have no idea if existence has a cause and if it does then why does that cause have to be a god?

 

We know that existence has a cause. All physics are Cause, and effect. It's just likely that the cause is circular, like string theory, so you may have to adopt one from a choice of circular causation.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Moontanman]

We know that existence has a cause. All physics are Cause, and effect. It's just likely that the cause is circular, like string theory, so you may have to adopt one from a choice of circular causation.

 

 

Please show some evidence that everything has a cause.

[Pincho Paxton]

Please show some evidence that everything has a cause.

 

You don't need to, it's one of those proofs where the opposite is a paradox. So creating the Universe without a cause is a paradox therefore the opposite is true. These situations prove themselves. It's similar to prove that nothing doesn't exist. The Universe exists, therefore nothing would be a paradox, so it is proved by the opposite being a paradox.

 

Don't confuse Cause with reason. There is a cause, but there is not a reason.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Moontanman]

You don't need to, it's one of those proofs where the opposite is a paradox. So creating the Universe without a cause is a paradox therefore the opposite is true. These situations prove themselves. It's similar to prove that nothing doesn't exist. The Universe exists, therefore nothing would be a paradox, so it is proved by the opposite being a paradox.

 

Don't confuse Cause with reason. There is a cause, but there is not a reason.

 

 

How about you stop confusing cause with God?

[C1ay]

We know that existence has a cause.

No we don't. I challenge you to PROVE that assertion!

[Buffy]

The "Cause" arguments presented above are always quite amusing as they're so simplistically false.

 

The basic argument is:

 

1. Everything has a cause
   
2. There was a beginning
   
3. There was nothing before the beginning
   
4. Therefore something caused the beginning
   
5. The only thing that can exist when there is nothing is God
   
6. Therefore the only thing that cause could be is God.
   
7. God created the heavens and the Earth. QED
   

 

Well lots of questions pop out of this that leave the logic convincing only to those who "believe" in the last step:

 

• You sure there was a beginning? Really?
  
• How do you know there was nothing before the Big Bang/7 Days of Creation/Breaking of the Eggs in the Omelette?
  
• What evidence is there that there's nothing outside our Creation?
  
• If the cause comes from a Creation outside our Creation, couldn't we have infinite regression backwards with endless Creations begating Creations? Any reason it couldn't be circular?
  
• Why is it that God can exist when there is nothing? Does that mean that by definition God does not exist? Or maybe he only exists when there is nothing?
  
• If God is Nothing, does the concept have any significance whatsoever?
  
• If God is Nothing then how could she actually create anything?
  

 

This of course can go on endlessly, because the only way to resolve any of this is to define axioms, which is the only way a logical system works. Of course the people making this argument have some very important axioms that are "obvious" to them, but really have no justification in any universal sense:

 

1. "There was nothing before the big bang."
   
2. "God is the only thing that can exist when there's nothing."
   

 

1) isn't really provable. We've got lots of conjecture about various possibilities of what was "before the big bang" none of which are refutable. It's pretty clear that oodles of different things could have come "before." 2) is dependent on 1) but for the sake of argument, lets just say 1) is true: if nothing really were Nothing, then we've got all sorts of contradictions of which the list above only scratches the surface. God is nothing, therefore God does not exist. God violates all physical laws therefore God can't exist *within* the Creation. God could be as simple as "quantum foam" springing into existence out of nothing. Just a bubble! Or maybe we're just an undiscovered bit of someone's lab experiment, and we've rolled under the table and God doesn't even know we're here!

 

This goes on and on and on, and leaves those who believe believing and those who do not, unconvinced.

 

Back where we started.

 

So "Cause" as the proof of God is boring, and it's best if no one wastes their time on it here.

 

 

So, this doesn't mean anything, but at least it's not obvious nonsense, :phones:

Buffy

[Pincho Paxton]

The "Cause" arguments presented above are always quite amusing as they're so simplistically false.

 

The basic argument is:

 

Everything has a cause

There was a beginning

There was nothing before the beginning

Therefore something caused the beginning

The only thing that can exist when there is nothing is God

Therefore the only thing that cause could be is God.

God created the heavens and the Earth. QED

 

No that's an illusion created by the decimal counting system. A decimal counting system has ends. 1 to 100 has two ends, it starts at 1, and ends at 100. However every action has an equal, and opposite reaction, so a true counting system must have equal, and opposite ends. So a true counting system uses ring mathematics. 1 to 100 -100 to -1. Which now has closed ends. With closed ends you have no beginning, and you have no nothing, because nothing in a ring system is 1 + -1 = 0. Therefore you need two opposites to create nothing. Which would be two particles, one of matter, and one of anti-matter. The cause of the Universe is 1 + -1 = 0. Which means that the cause of the Universe is a ring counting system which starts with nothing, and nothing is actually two things combined.

 

How about you stop confusing cause with God?

I never mentioned God. Edited September 6, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Buffy]

No that's an illusion created by the decimal counting system. A decimal counting system has ends. 1 to 100 has two ends, it starts at 1, and ends at 100. However every action has an equal, and opposite reaction, so a true counting system must have equal, and opposite ends.

A "decimal counting system" has ends? Um, even "Natural Numbers" has only one end, and that's because by definition it arbitrarily begins at 1.

 

And if you want to go beyond Aleph Null, you can up to infinite infinities in cardinality in more than 2 directions, as with Real or Complex numbers.

 

"Decimal" of course refers to representation of numbers and is not really used in number theory.

 

It's of course fascinating that in order to try to prove a Creator that some find a need to create their own definitions of math and science that no one else recognizes.

 

I never mentioned God.

What, pray tell, were you referring to then? If the Creator is not God then what the hell do we care who she is, since she ain't around anymore? That makes the question even more pointless!

 

 

Some men storm imaginary Alps all their lives and die in the foothills cursing difficulties which do not exist, :phones:

Buffy

[Pincho Paxton]

A "decimal counting system" has ends? Um, even "Natural Numbers" has only one end, and that's because by definition it arbitrarily begins at 1.

 

And if you want to go beyond Aleph Null, you can up to infinite infinities in cardinality in more than 2 directions, as with Real or Complex numbers.

 

"Decimal" of course refers to representation of numbers and is not really used in number theory.

 

It's of course fascinating that in order to try to prove a Creator that some find a need to create their own definitions of math and science that no one else recognizes.

 

 

What, pray tell, were you referring to then? If the Creator is not God then what the hell do we care who she is, since she ain't around anymore? That makes the question even more pointless!

 

 

Some men storm imaginary Alps all their lives and die in the foothills cursing difficulties which do not exist, :phones:

Buffy

 

Decimal is man made, and the Universe doesn't use a decimal counting system, it uses membrane which are spherical, and so the calculations are all ringed, and looped. So the beginning of the Universe doesn't exist, because it is ringed, and time is ringed. There is only a beginning to a decimal counting system for time.

 

If the creator is not God it is particles, and physics. It's obvious, and it's very simple.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Guest MacPhee]

No that's an illusion created by the decimal counting system. A decimal counting system has ends. 1 to 100 has two ends, it starts at 1, and ends at 100. However every action has an equal, and opposite reaction, so a true counting system must have equal, and opposite ends. So a true counting system uses ring mathematics. 1 to 100 -100 to -1. Which now has closed ends. With closed ends you have no beginning, and you have no nothing, because nothing in a ring system is 1 + -1 = 0. Therefore you need two opposites to create nothing. Which would be two particles, one of matter, and one of anti-matter. The cause of the Universe is 1 + -1 = 0. Which means that the cause of the Universe is a ring counting system which starts with nothing, and nothing is actually two things combined.

 

I never mentioned God.

 

Your thoughts about counting systems are valuable. Counting systems must influence the way we think. We've invented a decimal counting system which starts with 1, then goes on to 2, 3, 4..40...400...4,000......4 trillion, and so on - in an unending series. Isn't that bound to make us think about things in a serial, linear way? And so make us conceive the Universe as a linear series of events - starting with a "Big Bang"?

 

Suppose we had a different counting system - based on a ring, as you suggest. Like the ring formed by the dial of a traditional 12-hour clock.

 

On such a clock, the hands move round the dial steadily. Marking out the smooth passage of time - from 12 o'clock, through 6 o'clock, and back to 12 o'clock. The hands show no definite "starting-point" - no equivalent of a "Big Bang"! Clock time passes rhymthically, continuously. With no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.

 

Mightn't the Universe operate like that?

Edited September 6, 2012 by MacPhee

[Pincho Paxton]

Your thoughts about counting systems are valuable. Counting systems must influence the way we think. We've invented a decimal counting system which starts with 1, then goes on to 2, 3, 4..40...400...4,000......4 trillion, and so on - in an unending series. Isn't that bound to make us think about things in a serial, linear way? And so make us conceive the Universe as a linear series of events - starting with a "Big Bang"?

 

Suppose we had a different counting system - based on a ring, as you suggest. Like the ring formed by the dial of a traditional 12-hour clock.

 

On such a clock, the hands move round the dial steadily. Marking out the smooth passage of time - from 12 o'clock, through 6 o'clock, and back to 12 o'clock. The hands show no definite "starting-point" - no equivalent of a "Big Bang"! Clock time passes rhymthically, continuously. With no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.

 

Mightn't the Universe operate like that? An appealing theory - but don't mention the cuckoo-clock! :) :D )

 

That's exactly what I mean, put in a better way. A Galaxy dies, a Galaxy is born, it all just circulates.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Buffy]

Decimal is man made, and the Universe doesn't use a decimal counting system, it uses membrane which are spherical, and so the calculations are all ringed, and looped. So the beginning of the Universe doesn't exist, because it is ringed, and time is ringed. There is only a beginning to a decimal counting system for time.

Membranes are not spherical. Topologically they can have any genus, and spheres are genus zero.

 

I'm glad we agree that the term "decimal" is irrelevant to this discussion! :cheer:

 

If you have questions about the other mathematical terms I've used, please ask: you may find it edifying.

 

If the creator is not God it is particles, and physics. It's obvious, and it's very simple.

 

...and of course that makes it all Theologically uninteresting.

 

 

There are three cures for ennui: sleep, drink and travel, :phones:

Buffy

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm glad we agree that the term "decimal" is irrelevant to this discussion!

 

We don't agree. You rewound the Universe to a beginning, so you used a decimal beginning with time at zero. But another counting system like a clock does not rewind to a beginning. With no beginning, you no longer need a creator.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Buffy]

We don't agree. You rewound the Universe to a beginning, so you used a decimal beginning with time at zero. But another counting system like a clock does not rewind to a beginning. With no beginning, you no longer need a creator.

It may be useful to re-read what I wrote, since I argued exactly the opposite.

 

I apologize for using exact mathematical terms as you may be unable to grasp what I'm saying, so please ask if you don't fully comprehend anything I say.

 

How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world, given my waist and shirt size? :phones:

Buffy

[Pincho Paxton]

It may be useful to re-read what I wrote, since I argued exactly the opposite.

 

I apologize for using exact mathematical terms as you may be unable to grasp what I'm saying, so please ask if you don't fully comprehend anything I say.

 

How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world, given my waist and shirt size? :phones:

Buffy

 

Ending every post with headphones on seems to match your replies, you aren't listening. If you rewind something to a beginning you have two ends. The start point, and the rewind to zero point. You don't rewind something and ignore both points. Two end points is decimal. The Universe should be rewound to repeating structures with no end points. No end points means no start point, and no start point means no God.

 

Here, I made a video of a Universe counting system...

 

 

Here's a 3D version of it spinning...

 

Edited September 6, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Buffy]

Ending every post with headphones on seems to match your replies, you aren't listening. If you rewind something to a beginning you have two ends. The start point, and the rewind to zero point. You don't rewind something and ignore both points. Two end points is decimal. The Universe should be rewound to repeating structures with no end points.

 

Hmmm. I can't seem to find a reference to "rewind" an any of my posts in this thread, but I assume there's some other word that I'm using that you're unfamiliar with that you posit is equivalent in meaning. If so, let me know and I'll clarify.

 

But anyway. An 8-track tape has no end, yet you can "rewind" it to an arbitrary "beginning": on the tape an electronic mark, in our universe the big bang. That doesn't mean it's not infinite in both directions (topologically speaking), and the notion of zero is simply an arbitrary point that's significant only to the observer. In either case, a Flatland observer would not be able to distinguish between loop or infinite linearity, and quite frankly it would not matter, since the two are isomorphic from a reference point inside the system.

 

If this isn't clear please let me know.

No end points means no start point, and no start point means no God.

 

While I agree with the conclusion as a possible interpretation, this is unfortunately not a valid logical argument...unless you're taking back your contention that God is not equivalent to the Creator.

 

Sometimes when attempting to make a point, consistency can be useful.

 

 

Grasp the subject, the words will follow, :phones:

Buffy