0 members (),
466
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
The bit about the void is an extract from "The Boltmann Divinity"; a tongue-in-cheek thing that I wrote some time ago. However, I always welcome serious comments. Thanks.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Presumably the particle/antiparticle creation would have to be up very close where the horizon woule ne unclear. As I see it, the fact that the horizon would be unclear doesn't actually affect the Hawking effect. The "location", if you can call it that, of the horizon would be subject to quantum fluctuation, but then the location of the virtual particles is subject to quantum fluctuation also. So if they happen to come to the right "locations" one of the virtual particles could fall through the horizon, and the other appear as a radiation from the horizon. As an analogy, the surface of the sea isn't smooth at short distances, but the surface at any one location can be located with pretty good precision at any one instant. So the horizon should be able to be located with enough precision to snap up one of the virtual particles. Of course this analogy tends to break down at small enough distances. At the molecular level the interface between the water and the air becomes rather indistinct. But in a way that is what happens at a black hole horizon, so it isn't that much different. At the sea surface there is an interchange of molecules between the air and the water. So at the black hole horizon there can be an interchange between the black hole and the rest of the universe. Now if that just makes sense the next time I read it that will be wonderful Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
It, sort of, makes sense to me, Bill, so I guess you must be in with a very good chance.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Very nice analogy Bill G. Even I can understand it. I'm sure there must be some very nifty mathematics that show it to be true, but they'd be no help at all to most of us. Imagination is a wonderful thing.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Rev, I'm not at all sure that I see what:
"1. the longing for love, 2. the search for knowledge, and 3. unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind...."
have to do with getting something for nothing, but I bet there's a link there somewhere.... With G-0-D in mind, think of it this way: All "love", especially of the agape kind, is creative of things that are Good. Good is knowledge-based science (truth-based). Powered by a Good IMAGINATION, Good comes out of no thing, 0, and can be applied to solve the problem of pain and suffering--in other words, things that are a Delight. =================================
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Powered by a Good IMAGINATION An essential for posting on SAGG.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
With G-0-D in mind, think of it this way: All "love", especially of the agape kind, is creative of things that are Good. Emotional love, attached love, jealous love, personal love is responsible for the distortions of a·ga·pe Definition:
1.the love of God or Christ for humankind. (whatever that is) In your determination God has so many limited connotations, long ago, and for my own reasons--with no intention of being dogmatic--I dropped using the noun "God"--the word has so many limitations God's love being associated to agape must not be exclusive of limiting connotations. You might need to make up another kind of love to go with the made up G-0-D acronym.. How about A-G-A-P-E = A Good And Purposeful Expression... But then we always end up with the subjective personal idealism of what is good or purposeful, and what is the expression of no-thing 2. the love of Christians for other persons, corresponding to the love of God for humankind. There is a loaded definition. Christian being subject to so many negative connotations. 3. unselfish love of one person for another without sexual implications; brotherly love. This sounds somewhat better, but then some will love their brother more than a stranger, and here the ego will not necessarily universally love all humanity equally as long as the other can be seen as a blood/life sucking enigma. Right Rev? So many things without a purpose... what shall a good man do? I know.. Make up something to explain it all away.. 4. love feast ( defs. 1, 2 ) . So the twisting of agape thru all types of love that are not immersed in the experience of God or the Christ are abundantly dispersed within the history of humanity and represented in all human conflicts. Good is knowledge-based science (truth-based).
Anything of the unknown being something other than Good? And are we speaking of relative truths that change in definition with belief and science? Being that science, has not yet made any affirmations regarding God, or G-0-D, or spirituality in general as a truth, but possibly a belief, your G-0-D is not yet truth based. Powered by a Good IMAGINATION, Good comes out of no thing, 0, and can be applied to solve the problem of pain and suffering--in other words, things that are a Delight.
I think you may have some difficulty in scientifically establishing a truth base regarding the no-thing, and how it applies to solving problems of pain and suffering. Especially if the no-thing is exclusive to your definitions of good and doesn't apply to everything else. So far the majority of those who expressly claimed to be good and of God (have been a bit on the narcissistic side), and who have taken part in humanities conflicts to cleanse the earth of suffering have in themselves only perpetuated their reality of what is and isn't God. What you focus on grows don'tcha know... Those who seek to solve problems often become part of the problem as they put their energies into establishing the realities of the problem as fact and in truth NOT of GOD.. because somehow God doesn't have a grip on everything, and evil or that which is not good having such an equal power to the good (Can't have good without bad in duality) even if they are imagined. The examples could be the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the witch hunts which in some respects still continue to this day in the form of religious Jihad. Those with the best intentions claiming to be themselves Good and imaginative do not in and of themselves always capture the spirit of God, but instead project their imagination and all of its limitations of What God should look like according to their beliefs. Without the experience of Union with God in all thought feeling and action, no definition of good imagination is an exception to subjective realities of personal opinion and the evolution of human consciousness. The enlightened ego is not free of subjective determination and the judgments that project evil all around ones self in the creation of God with all of those negative/limited connotations, and the lack of personal delights.
Last edited by Tutor Turtle; 02/02/12 03:10 AM. Reason: God LOVES to change everything so nothing can be more real than anything else
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Bill S, I should have noted in my last post that the following thoughts-- 1. the longing for love, 2. the search for knowledge, and 3. unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind--came from the writings of Bertrand Russell who was famous also for his atheism and bouts of depression. ---------------------- As pointed out in the following essay, critical of the opinions of Bertrand Russell, he obviously lived a life plagued by much sadness and fear of life. http://www.berith.org/essays/br/br03.html--------------------------------- Too bad such a great mind's "search for knowledge" came to an end long before the following knowledge came to bless us in the light of day: HOW TO STRENGTHEN WILLPOWER --------------------------- http://www.ideafit.com/library/how-to-strengthen-willpower-part-1----------------- A strength model of willpower proposes four important ideas: 1.Willpower is a mind-body response, not merely a mindset. 2.Using willpower depletes resources in the body. 3.Willpower is limited. 4.Willpower is trainable. ----------------
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
A strength model of willpower proposes four important ideas:
1.Willpower is a mind-body response, not merely a mindset.
The mind-body response is a reflection of mindset/beliefs. Release the mind from limitations and the mind-body response is to reflect potential rather than limitation. 2.Using willpower depletes resources in the body. Then will is not of the infinite Self but rather stress related, where the body is affected by it's own thoughts, and where it suffers because of its relationship to the world as a limited entity rather than of infinite potential. An egoic mindset of limited qualities and belief. Stupid is as stupid does - Forest Gump - 4.Willpower is trainable. Referring to item 3.. you wouldn't get much out of it 'cause what you can train it to do would be limited to what you believe is the potential of the human ability. That thought in limitation would be constantly in the way. Which is why Russel was always depressed..
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
A strength model of willpower proposes four important ideas:
1.Willpower is a mind-body response, not merely a mindset. 2.Using willpower depletes resources in the body. 3.Willpower is limited. 4.Willpower is trainable. ----------------
Actually 2 of the four I would readily say are wrong and 1 is dubious :-) 1.) Willpower is a mind-body response, not merely a mindset. So if I incapacitate the body say using anesthesia the willpower response is defeated? 2.) Using willpower depletes resources in the body. Easily testable if we knew what resources were involved. 3.) Willpower is limited. I think is correct, everything has limits. 4.) Willpower is trainable. Dubious to me certainly on some things it would be possible but we do see addiction. Some of those addcitions can never be overcome so I think there are also limits to how much training is possible.
Last edited by Orac; 02/02/12 06:32 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Can it be assumed from the Reverends sermon that: WILL + G-0-D = BEING, not a being--Good, Orderly & Desirable..Translates to Will ( a mind-body reaction that drains the bodies resources and is limited but possibly trainable) + G-0-D (a subjective determination of limited acceptance of realities) = BeingBeing in other words is reactive, to the depletion of G-0-D's resources, and... being limited to suggestion would inspire.. desirable circumstance of delight?
Last edited by Tutor Turtle; 02/02/12 09:54 PM. Reason: "God says don't criticize, but rather assume everything can be made real and truth for all"
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Yet another thread turns into a rambling exchange of philosophical/theological animadversions, and the OP didn’t even mention God! Good thing Bill started another thread yesterday with some real (if speculative) science.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Yet another thread turns into a rambling exchange of philosophical/theological animadversions, and the OP didn’t even mention God! More something from nothing? GOD!!! I hate when that happens...
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
What I hate is when people add self portrates to their posts!
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
What I hate is when people add self portrates to their posts! You mean portraits, or were you referring to something else?
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Thanks for the links TFF. The Caltech link looks interesting, although for the most part it seems to be repeating what I've read a few times elsewhere. I downloaded the pdf and will plough through it to see what I can glean (in ignorance of the maths, perforce).
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
“Nothing is unstable,” Frank Wilczek, a physicist and Nobel laureate from MIT, finally said to a general murmur of agreement of his colleagues on stage, John Barrow of Cambridge University in England, Paul Davies of Arizona State and George Ellis of the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Given a chance, nature will make nothingness boil with activity. No doubt this sort of "nothing", which seems to include "nature", does not confuse physicists. Could it be that we non-physicicts are just pedantic, or easily confused?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
The possible reality of the situation has just dawned. Physicists have a sense of humour. They are well aware that the vacuum is something, but they continue to call it nothing because it confuses the hell out of ordinary folk. Those who don’t have a sense of humour stay in line because it gives tax payers something to talk about that takes their minds off what the physicists might really be spending money on.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|