Fucking bait and switch for Tier at Seminole Casinos! :(

[1Hit1der]

The contemporary view is that the universe, itself, thus springs back, and forth, of nothingness, and, so, continues to be created, and destroyed.

I referred to the notion of quantum entanglement, by which creation, and, hence, it's removal (of the other way), is still occurring across a thus form of nothingness all along, bit by bit.

Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counter-intuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.

You are correct that the contemporary view of the expansion of the universe is that there will be a "big freeze", at its end, instead of a "big crunch", and, then, another "big bang".

Experimental evidence in the late 1990s and early 2000s (namely the observation of distant supernovas as standard candles; and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) led to the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is not getting slowed by gravity but is instead accelerating.

My own take on that, however, is that the expansion of the universe only appears to be accelerating in the relative sense, that matter becomes smaller until it "moves through itself", to come out the other side of itself, at which point, things appear to decelerate (toward a "big crunch"). Which would alleviate the impossible, one-sided definition, in general, of things derived from nothing, but, not returning to nothing. Which brought me back to some of my early notes, from decades ago. And, to some other things.

[DGenBen]

I referred to the notion of quantum entanglement, by which creation, and, hence, it's removal (of the other way), is still occurring across a thus form of nothingness all along, bit by bit.



You are correct that the contemporary view of the expansion of the universe is that there will be a "big freeze", at its end, instead of a "big crunch", and, then, another "big bang".

Experimental evidence in the late 1990s and early 2000s (namely the observation of distant supernovas as standard candles; and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) led to the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is not getting slowed by gravity but is instead accelerating.

My own take on that, however, is that the expansion of the universe only appears to be accelerating in the relative sense, that matter becomes smaller until it "moves through itself", to come out the other side of itself, at which point, things appear to decelerate (toward a "big crunch"). Which would alleviate the impossible, one-sided definition, in general, of things derived from nothing, but, not returning to nothing. Which brought me back to some of my early notes, from decades ago. And, to some other things.

The interesting thing about nothingness i.e, the nothingness from which the universe may have formed is that it is not well defined.

For example, if nothingness is defined as the complete lack of physical laws & / or cause and effect, then the universe “springing” into being with no cause is perfectly within the rules & no explanation of how or why it happened is needed.

[1Hit1der]

I started out on the game theory side of things, say, with concepts like guaranteed maximum, versus, maximum guaranteed, amounts. Which I, then, went on to apply to a thus solution of a theory of everything, rather than a straight-up mathematical and physical theory of everything. There will always be the two ways to solve things. Of course, though, it's not enough to look at everything, as how it all comes together, but, also every thing as how the individual pieces fit together. I came across a terms for the latter, such as a "theory of everything everything", which has to do with details like why we do what we do.

Anyway, from there, I tried to find the logic from no guarantee, to a guarantee. What's in between? Sort of like a quasi-crystal, but, I didn't know of that per se, at the time. That was a relatively new discovery. I thought that there was some sort of randomness in between the two states above, at which point, things were likely more complicated than simply determined.

A quasi-periodic crystal, or quasi-crystal, is a structure that is ordered but not periodic. A quasi-crystalline pattern can continuously fill all available space, but it lacks translational symmetry.

From there, I started to look at how the dimensions may thus grow out of themselves, starting with a point pertaining to some, or all of, the well-defined notions above. Around then, Roger Penrose had a vortex model of a point. Stuff like that. Quite a few years working back and forth through a few of the dimensions, to try to find a "thread" through them to build on. I guess that any decent theory takes quite a while to figure out what is involved, what the salient question is. At which point, it becomes more a matter of working out a set of a few consistently convergent rules, to work to such a "thread". And, to start, and, re-start from first principles, or, "scratch", every now, and then.

From there, waiting decades for the numerals to show up, on their own, instead of try to infuse them into things, from the start. Doesn't make much sense to build on others such work, because they would have finished it if they had the right thus rules to work with. But, that's okay because there's plenty of time, even on the end of things, to work with the resultant numerals. Numerals are much easier, and faster, to work with, and, without room for error, having to start over.

I like to think that the notion or concept of the word, nothing, is defined in terms of what and how things, however, connect to it. It's pretty damn hard to try to figure out what nothing is, but, then, go from there to other things. Should I write that dimension-0 isn't a dimension? Does no dimension, as mixed with the stuff of dimensions, make dimension-0? I found out that it's a lot easier to figure the nuts-and-bolts details out on the end, after getting numerals that work out. And, if nothing else, in terms of confidence building to keep at it, back to the nuts-and-bolts of the mathematical and physical side of things. One can spend a lot of time to relate abstract notions such as black & white, clear & unclear, contrasted grays, and, then, colors, and, so on, to the math and physics, but, only as means to try to nudge things into giving up the underlying thread. But, no way to conclusively put one thing on another until every other thing, on the end. (Yes, within such exercises, there is the final answer, but, very likely, it's not visible until on the end, after the numerals have shown themselves, at which point, there is a reason, and more-specific ways, to follow up on such.)

A point doesn't lose the other dimensions, but, counts up from plus/minus plus/minus 0, and, down from plus/minus plus/minus all, as it rotates through the other dimensions to connect to them. In general, there's a mathematical point, and, a physical point. Specifically, dimension-0 is time is full is solid is closed is white, and, so on, or, it's (infinitely divisible) matter is full is solid is closed is unclear, and, so on; whereas dimension-all is space is empty is not solid is open is black, and, so on, or, (infinite or perpetual) motion is empty is not solid is open is clear, and, so on, respectively. Similarly, those qualities, but of mind, as reversed, in terms of that which can't physically happen in reality. Similarly, there are the general, and specific, analogous types of mathematical equations, operators & operands. The absolutes. We don't live in the realm of absolutes, but, in a realm of many things in combination, in the sense that each of those things gives up its thus essence along the way. One might look at dimensions- 0, and 2, in terms of algebra, and geometry, but, dimensions- 1, and 3, in terms of functions/relations, (infinities of) calculus, along with trigonometry.

[MisterV]

As a "mud-dweller" in the cosmological scheme of things I look at the universe and wonder "Where the hell did all the sub-atomic particles which fill the universe come from; how, where, when and why did they originate?"

If hypothetically things were created by god, then same question about the origins of god.

[1Hit1der]

Is it fair to put personified God as the fields of gravity, electricity, and so on, as potentiality, with us as the stuff of, on, and through, those fields, as the actuality of our available choices? The neat thing about God being the fields is that the fields are the only (?) thing that come back as themselves, to, and from, nothing. And, so, thus God doesn't have to (always) exist, but, always returns, and, strictly speaking, in the same way as people, or whatever, etc, return. But, as the prime example of faith, in Himself by His own return.

Nothing has no physical, or other, rules, let alone the nonsense ones that relativity breaks down to at the quantum level, and, so, the universe has to produce every thing possible, to cover itself, to ensure that it carries on without gaps. It, nothing, whatever it is, can't know ahead of time what it's supposed to be, let alone without time, to begin. As with, say, the game-theory nature of electrons to optimally form the required shells around their nuclei so that, say, our hands can hold onto things, that our fingers don't inadvertently poke through those shells into mostly nothingness. Incidentally, the certainty of nothing as a point isn't in the simplistic notion of a point -as in there you are - but, in a point's "memory" of every thing possible that annihilated to form it, in it's own possibilities.

The "big bang" goes through a stage of "symmetry breaking", a stage of "inflation", by which that stuff catches up to itself for the stuff of our world to begin to form logically. But, the symmetry is never totally broken. The background radiation from the "big bang" carries on. The relativistic stuff isn't suppose to totally coincide or gibe with the quantum stuff. And, so on. The quantum stuff comes with thus inverted rules. It's not supposed to make the usual sense, of the macro- or large-scale world. The underlying notion there is that it's theory is correct precisely because it's incorrect.

The fact that nothing can't know what to make of itself means that there can't be a theory of everything in any usual sense, and, furthermore, that things carry over to also a mathematical theory of everything. The latter which virtually all mathematicians oppose because of math's supposed inherent symmetry - but, which also had to break, very shortly after the "big bang".

As far as where the elementary particles (and their wave forms) come from, why not get a bit of that from the "horse's mouth".

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-quarks-formed

Oh, almost forgot the related anagrams. Ha.

As a "mud-dweller" in the cosmological scheme of things I look at the universe and wonder "Where the hell did all the sub-atomic particles which fill the universe come from; how, where, when and why did they ... ?"

---> The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students.

https://anagram-solver.net/Asamuddwe...y?partial=true


I had to remove the nine-letter word, originate, to make things fit the anagram solver, but, it follows from the phrase, come from, which was already in the quote above.

If hypothetically things were created by god, then same question about the origins of god.

---> The Fragile Promise of Choice: Abortion in the United States Today.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20If%20h....?partial=true


I guess, abortion in the sense of "arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection".

[1Hit1der]

Just, stumbled across a sort of wacky read at, https://joyintruth.com/steven-hawkin...e-gravity-god/

I had no idea that Hawking, himself, noted that, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Instead of dispensing with the 'God' concept, he made gravity 'God', the invisible force that created all things."

I guess that he just didn't possess the mental horsepower to prove it. I mean, if point as nothing, itself, is the non-personified God, on which the personified One is based, then that point being everything, as annihilated, is everything, in a very close sense.

Things are heating up. Ha.

Deacon Frederick Bartels is a member of the Catholic clergy who serves the Church in the diocese of Pueblo. He holds an MA in Theology and Educational Ministry and is a Catholic educator, public speaker, and evangelist who strives to infuse culture with the saving principles of the gospel.

These guys are like mice in a maze, or, ducks in a shooting gallery.

[DGenBen]

Just, stumbled across a sort of wacky read at, https://joyintruth.com/steven-hawkin...e-gravity-god/

I had no idea that Hawking, himself, noted that, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Instead of dispensing with the 'God' concept, he made gravity 'God', the invisible force that created all things."

I guess that he just didn't possess the mental horsepower to prove it. I mean, if point as nothing, itself, is the non-personified God, on which the personified One is based, then that point being everything, as annihilated, is everything, in a very close sense.

Things are heating up. Ha.

Deacon Frederick Bartels is a member of the Catholic clergy who serves the Church in the diocese of Pueblo. He holds an MA in Theology and Educational Ministry and is a Catholic educator, public speaker, and evangelist who strives to infuse culture with the saving principles of the gospel.

These guys are like mice in a maze, or, ducks in a shooting gallery.

The joyintruth.com article repeats a common mistake. It states that in nothingness you have no physical laws.

Then it says logically something can’t come from nothing. Isn’t that a physical law? Also logic would not exist either in nothingness.

The reality is that even though it’s tough for us to understand, it is perfectly acceptable for something to spring into being from nothingness.

If the nothingness has no physical laws or logic, then it is perfectly within in the rules or lack thereof for something to spring from nothing.

Counterintuitive to our everyday experiences but when you throw out physical laws & logic or at the very least they are different & undefined, then nothing is off the table.