In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.

The Omnipresent Law of the Universe
By: Guido ArbiaAccording to the Big Bang Theory, the beginning of the universe began with a colossal explosion which apparently came out of no where. In other words, in the beginning of time, there was no existing thing, but then out of this nothingness came existence packaged with physical laws and the material which was in the universe evolved into highly advance systems to produce everything around us including us.However, this raises a red flag in my mind. If you rest a ball on the table with no external force acting on that ball to move it, that ball should hold position. There would be no reason why that ball should suddenly decide to move from one location to another.Well, if the universe has an absolute beginning then that means that at one point there was no universe. At one point, there was nothing. No physical laws, forces, or cosmological constants existed, and according to a lot of recent theories and books, the laws of the universe even, had a beginning.Now, here is where the rested ball analogy comes into play. If something is the way it is without any thing external acting upon it to cause it to change, it will remain as it is. So, if in the beginning there was nothing, then there should continue to be nothing. The only possible way for there to be something is if there was a physical law that said that something can exist.This physical law itself would then need to come from some place. This physical law could not have sprang into existence though. If there are no laws, then there will never be laws. Therefore, in order for 1 law to be present it must have always existed, because if not, it won't get a chance to.OK, so now we have the understanding of the concept that there must have been a law extending into infinite past which would allow time and space and matter. Without this law, no law would ever come, and no matter would ever come, because if my car is green, it will stay green until someone changes it. So if the world is void, and no forces exist to change it, it shall remain void. This is why a past everlasting force must have existed to begin the universe.Now, there must have been an exact point in time in which the universe as we know began to exist. This law is what is required in order for the universe to come into existence in the first place. It seems as though this law would just pick a random point in time and say, exist. If this is true, then maybe this law is not being random, perhaps there is a chance that is has made the decision to create, because why just suddenly create now. Why not 50 years ago?This law would have begun our universe. We would have eventually come, packaged with the human consciousness. This law must have been capable of producing the physical laws and entities required to produce consciousness. If this is so, then isn't it likely that this law would be a source of consciousness itself? And if this law is a source of consciousness itself, then can't this law be conscious.In conclusion, based on all the logical evidence presented, it is possible that since infinite past, although hard to comprehend, could have held a law witch was conscious of itself and was able to make decisions, such as to create the universe. According to the logic, we are forced to draw this conclusion, because there is no way that anything will happen without something causing it to happen. To assume this would be to assume that your computer will suddenly transform into a cat without reason. Without a cause, there can be no effect.Therefore either god is real and:
1. Caused the big bang,
2. Created the world in 6 days. (My prefered belief) or
3. Did it another way.Sources about what the BB is:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.htmlThis message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-19-2005 08:20 AMThis message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-19-2005 06:39 PM

quote:

---

That's true in this universe. But isn't it possible that Newton's first law of motion and the first law of thermodynamics had no relevance before the Big Bang, that they were created along with the universe as we know it?

---

Exactly my point, then nothing would ever move, without laws of motion.

quote:

---

That's true in this universe. But isn't it possible that Newton's first law of motion and the first law of thermodynamics had no relevance before the Big Bang, that they were created along with the universe as we know it?

---

Exactly my point, then nothing would ever move, without laws of motion.

If there are no laws of motion, then there is no reason for any object to move, even spontaniously, because there is no law stating it can.Nothing to allow it. Take for instance a computer program.You plan to write a gravitation simulator. You make the ball, and all you have so far is a ball on the screen but no code for that ball to pretend to be pulled towards the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that the ball will have spontainous movement? No. The ball simply won't move. Laws do not prevent things from happening, they cause things to happen. Friction is not a prevention of objects moving, it is a causing of energy transfer, which in term makes the object slow. So there is no physical law that actualy prevents an action or something, there is only law which makes something occur, and with out them, there is no reason for anything to occur, because in order for sparatic activity to occur, there must be law that says so.

There IS NO law which prevents anything.Friction IS NOT a force which prevents objects from moving. Friction IS a force which converts physical energy into thermal energy when 2 objects slide past each other thus naturally causing them to slow down.Gravitation IS NOT a force preventing things from flying off into the air. Gravitation IS a force that pulls things towards the earth.Inertia IS NOT a force which prevents sparatic movement of object. Inertia IS a force which allows objects to move. If this law is absent then objects simply will not move. NO sparatic activity will occur.The idea of preventing something is merely an illusion when it comes to the laws of physics. We think it is preventive but it preventitivity is just a natural result of it causing something to occur which in term appears to prevent something.Another thing is actually about what a law actually IS. How do you know that all physical laws are not just a natural result of the working of 3 or less laws?Counter acting forces are different because it is not a LAW which is preventing anything. The LAW allows for these 2 forces but it is the forces which are counter acting each other.Two equal charges push each other away. They are not preventing each other from getting close, they are just pushing each other away.And they both are governed by a law which just says that 2 equal charges repel. However, this is just a human-defined extracted law. It may be part of a collection of laws which are really just the result of 1 law. So we may understand certian natural cociquences as laws but when I talk about laws I mean natures working itself. Not just are definition of splitting 1 law into 50 laws. All of newtons laws may be governed by the same mechanism who knows?This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-20-2005 02:15 PM

OK, I just looked it up and it is not very clear how they explained it can you elaborate.Anyway, when a scenario arises in which they are those 2 things with equal quantam numbers present, does it cause a problem? If it just causes a problem, then this is not a prevention, it is mereley the natural result of those 2 things being present.Example: Brother and sister can not be in the same room.Why? Not because of a preventive law, but because of the natural conciquence when you put them in the same room.Sister comes in.
Brother says, get out of my face.
Sister says make me.
Brother rips her hair out.
Girl runs screaming out of room.So there was no actuall absolute law stating that they can not be both in the same room.As for matter no occupying the same position in space at the same time, it is just the nature of the particles making up the matter which are doing something which seems to be preventitive.The law may say that the particle just takes in energy from the other particle on contact and move away for example. It does not nessicarily mean that the law says that no 2 objects can be in the same position.There is no law preventing atoms from being phased together. Why not, because of the orbiting electron repeling the other atom's orbiting electrons. It is not preventive, it just yeilds a result that we can classify as a preventitive law but in reality it is not.Edit: If you can provide me with a truly preventitive law then I will withdraw this argument and use a different one instead but I will continue to shell my whole point. If you say that preventive laws are real, I could just use that as part of my point although at this present time it don't fit yo. However, that would alter my whole point which I don't wan't to do and I think my present point is right so I defend the non-preventive law idea in order for me to maintain my present point.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-20-2005 03:37 PM

A law is something defined by science that explains things that occur in nature.Example: The law of gravity pulls everything towards the earth.However, I am using law to mean much more then that. I am talking about the absolute mechanics which cause the universe to operate.A computer displays information on the screen. OK, this is a law. However, this computer has mechanisms inside it run by other laws which cause that law to be and so on, untill you reach the final set of laws or law.So I am trying to use law to mean that declaration that this work a certiain way but on the smallest scale of the universe.So it is hard to describe but I don't think that the universe has anything which prevents only does things which seem to prevent as explained previously.It is hard to explain and I can't really do it.Do you have anything else cause I would like to move on but if you have more I wan't to talk about it.

I know what a law is I just can't explain it well.I am talking about absolute laws though. Ones that are true wheather we think they are or not. Like gravity, just because you don't believe it is a law does not mean it is not a law. So I don't mean are defined laws but laws that exist wheather we know of them or not even though the standard definition of law says we know of them.

I think that an absolute law (unlike gravity, sorry, I only used for example but I don't think gravity) is a law that does not work because of smaller mechanics or anything causing it to work but just works.I really don't want to keep going on explaining this it is difficult to express what I mean.

OK... I will think about the whole "LAW" thing and come back to it. Let's move on to the other issues now because I can't resolve the "LAW" thing at this present time but intend to after my brain is refreshed because I have not just been thinking. I have been experimenting with the possiblility of mind over matter which I don't know for sure is true or not but regardless of whatever everyone says I wan't to see.
Anyway, let's adress some of the other things in my original post. Don't think I am a dumb dumb for expirememting without psi phenomina cause I am just testing to see for myself if it is possible. OK... time to get back on topic.

Hello, Guido from the past. Wow, its nice to meet myself. Your post is retarded. Thank goodness I've developed past such posts.Can I have this topic closed pleased? I am not really making much of a case here. I think maybe sometime in the future I should propose a better topic with a much stronger premise to debate.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.