> > If you just "think" about 100% nothingness,
> > thinking of it you imply the information of such and that
> > makes it already into "somethingness".
> I can not follow that logic, friend John. I can not hold to
> the philosophical viewpoint that the universe exists because
> it is envisioned. My opinion is 180 to that: all that exists
> does so because the universe is so constructed as to have
> made existence probable. Not certain, but merely probable
> and perhaps not enduring. It is not necessary to think in
> order for something to be true or false. Imagining the
> number zero (nothingness) does not change its attribute.
> > Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got
> > get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only?
> But yes, I did speculate to "outside" factors; I impute to
> the other side of the boundary of our expanding universe
> (the nothingness).
> perturbation (virtual particles) as long as those
> perturbations cease to exist.
> But how can zero energy be expressed to have a factor called
> eternity? In truth, it can not because space/time and
> matter/energy do not exist within zero energy. Such terms
> belong only within the boundary of a perturbation. From the
> viewpoint of zero energy a perturbation both does, and does
> not, happen simultaneously (it is only a probability).
> > I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations...
> That is a lot to say in so few words! By total dynamic
> exchange, do you mean equilibrium? If so, could equilibrium
> be equivalent to zero energy? What are the attributes of
> this symmetry? How to define that boundary of our universe?
> What causes existence of stress-seeds?
I don't think in 'equilibria' for visualizing unlimited interconnectedness and changes vs the clean-cut models of quantized formalism, so necessary for equilibria. (Again: "in so few words...).
> What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds?
I do not yet
> understand why you disagree, as those questions are not
> resolved to my benefit.
In this I agree. Even if 'satisfaction' instead of 'benefit'. What
causes emergy to do work? What IS energy? Mass? etc. etc.?
> Ron McFarland
> "The idea is that you could understand the world, all of
> nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When
> assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole" (John
Remeber Aristotle's Aris-Total? which is MORE than the sum of its parts? because he was thinking in "pieces" of it only. Not assemblage qualia, functions, interconnections etc.all in the unit of a complexity. - - Cf: J.Holland. =============