fudgetusk

On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 2:05 PM, Strange said:

This appears to be an argument from incredulity. Can you provide any evidence or rational argument that it is not possible?

Perhaps, to reverse the logic of The Princess Bride, you mean inconceivable?

Note that when Hawking and others refer to the universe being created from "nothing", they do not mean a complete absence of anything. They are referring to a pre-existing quantum vacuum with non-zero energy (because it is a quantum vacuum). And that previous state would have had to exist for some, possibly an infinite, time beforehand. 

 

A third option that you are ignoring is that a god or gods did it. 

Another option is that it is a simulation created by aliens. Or future humans. Or gods.

Or the universe is nothing like you think it is because you are lying in hospital in a coma after a hoverboard accident on one of the moons of Garglepox IV.

>>Can you provide any evidence or rational argument that it is not possible

I already have provided a rational argument. Remember? No? I'll give it AGAIN. If the past is infinite and an infinite length of time cannot be crossed then the now that we exist in is impossible to reach. And that goes for any point in the past or future.  Now concentrate on that notion, pleeeeease. Why am I having to repeat myself for you people? It seems I pose the problem, you misunderstand on purpose, then I have to keep telling you it because misunderstanding is slightly better than admitting I am right and you are wrong.

>>Note that when Hawking and others refer to the universe being created from "nothing", they do not mean a complete absence of anything. They are referring to a pre-existing quantum vacuum with non-zero energy (because it is a quantum vacuum). And that previous state would have had to exist for some, possibly an infinite, time beforehand. 

I know. I'm the one telling you that. Remember? I just did it?  I said no one is tackling the idea that the universe came from nothing. Then you told me about Krauss and Hawking. I looked into Krauss and discovered you were wrong. Now you are admitting you were wrong about Hawking. Neither are dealing with the idea that something comes from nothing. They are dealing with the idea that something comes from something. You made a mistake, again.

God? oh for God's sake...who includes that on a science forum? Blaming God solves nothing because we then have to solve where God came from. That's why I do not include it?

On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 3:28 PM, Silvestru said:

Haha this broke my system. 

You have a real knack for science. 

I'm sure this conclusion was reached after much research. What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

This theory has absolutely no observational evidence behind it but I am sure you wont mind. Just food for thought.

A knack for science? No it's called logic and common sense. Look up the words. A whole new world awaits you.

Eternal return? It does not matter what form the universe takes. It either existed for ever or came into existence at some point from nothing.(both illogical) Why are you posing notions that do not counter my argument in any way?

Seriously, people. THis is not hard. It is just hard to accept. And that's why you are messing me about.

On ‎30‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 11:03 PM, tmx3 said:

Perhaps it always exists in the sense that, if we have to trace back to it, we can (e.g.: fossils of past remains). The evidence is there. Because the evidence is there, it does exist and in some ways can be reached to validate its existence again. 

Seems as if life is ultimately a state of being. We get to the “now,” because we exist in the now. When we, with our experiences and consciousness and so on, do not exist then someone else after us (and before us) does exist with their own experience and consciousness and state of being which makes the past the past, the present the present, and the future the future infinitely. This isn’t directed just to living animals—I’m referring to energy as well. We collectively and continuously cross an infinite space-time by existing in our own point in time: a generation of beings after another generation of beings (i.e., your grandparents took up space-time between 1920s and 2000s, your parents may have taken up space-time between 1970s to current date, and you may have taken up space-time between 1990s to current date and into the future, and so on—and the same is true in the opposite direction, your great grandparents and great-great grandparents and great-great-great grandparents and so on)! And, again, this idea is not restricted to just people or living beings, but to nonliving matter as well. 

As for crossing an infinite amount of time or space, we are lifeforms that are limited in time and space. Maybe some being composed of a different kind of existence can experience infinity in a way that we cannot, and therefore that kind of indefinitely-existing being/lifeform can potentially travel along this infinite space-time—which is something we cannot do. 

However, you can understand the notion of infinity. If you can understand the notion of infinity, you have already crossed space-time. 

*Mic drop*

Can you send a link to the philosopher’s writing? 

Sorry but what ARE you talking about? Nothing you say counters what I am saying. Please go back to square one and start again.

On ‎15‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:28 PM, Strange said:

And so?

We should stop trying to find one? Or do you mean there can be no explanation?

There is no explanation. How could there be? Therefore we need to see that the universe is capable of being illogical. This opens the door for all things weird.

On ‎15‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:51 PM, Carrock said:

You still haven't explained why you have to start in the infinite past. It's similar to my saying you don't exist because you couldn't get here from a billion years ago or from Andromeda.

I never claimed that photons can cross 'infinite time'.

If you want to demonstrate they can't, just show that they have finite range i.e, they somehow cease to exist within finite time (assuming no interaction with another particle).

I'll start again. There are only two options(forget what Hawking says: his third  explanation is deliberately over complicated and impossible to grasp)either something came from nothing or something always existed. These two options cover all the bases. And they shape each other. Now if we realise that something cannot come from nothing(logically) then the past must be infinite and HAVE NO BEGINNING. The fabric that makes up our universe must be infinitely old and HAVE NO BEGINNING. No point where it didn't exist. Which means that any point in time no matter how far you go back or forward has an infinity of time before it. So ANY point in the timeline has crossed an infinite amount of time. It has infinite amount of time BEFORE it.

This is impossible. Never mind that HAVING NO BEGINNING is impossible.

Now, unless someone can convince me that Hawking came up with a viable third option as he claims then the only way the universe could come about is impossible. I personally believe it came from nothing because that is simpler, but still illogical.

On ‎13‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 12:36 AM, beecee said:

Firstly gravity is spacetime, which evolved from what we know as the BB. Having come in late in this thread, let me say with utmost certainty at this time, cosmologists do not know how or why the universe came to be. But they can reasonably speculate....I like the following reasoning. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Let me add that perhaps your definition of nothing should be revised, as hinted at in the extract from the above..."What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself"

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation". 

Obviously the universe being the "ultimate free lunch" at least to me, appears to be the only real answer in the absence of as yet, any evidence. Much the same way as Abiogenesis is really the only scientific answer as to how life came to be.

 

Just because at this time we have no empirical evidence of where the universe came from [other then the BB and spacetime as we know it] does not mean that there is no logical explanation. I just gave you a link to one.

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical.

On face value and to a lay person that may seem illogical. But to a professional scientist, there certainly is logical scenarios as to how the universe came to be.

It's your definition of nothing that needs reappraisal.

 

 

The same arguments I already answered Pal. Go up and read. And why do they call it nothing if it is not nothing? why are they lying? because they are desperate to prove that something came from nothing. they can't so they lie and you believe it.

I'm saying the world came from nothing but we should not regard this as a logical act. It cannot be explained by science and science should not be allowed to downplay this fact.

If nothing is really something then we have to return to the only other option: that something existed for ever. But then we have to explain how an infinite amount of time could be crossed to get to now(read the thread if this does not make sense)

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

And you're saying it is impossible for the universe to have always existed.

So, from the principium tertii exclusi we can conclude that the universe doesn't exist. Is that correct?

Why should they need to? In our current cosmological models, they have only existed for about 13 billion years.

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

I'm not saying photons have crossed infinite time. This other guy is. They haven't. They couldn't. Because infinite time is impossible to cross.

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:01 PM, Strange said:

Just saying it is BS is not a very productive argument. Perhaps you could provide some more (ideally mathematical) detail to support that view?

As far as I know that has nothing to do with the zero energy universe. Perhaps you explain why you mention it?

There are all sorts of possibilities. For example:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

 

I though you said that was impossible?

Why do I even need to demonstrate why it is BS when it is obvious?  I am asking for a theory that starts with true nothing. You do not seem to understand this English word. Because you are damaged. YOu have been damaged by scientists. They have said "here's nothing" and shown you a picture of something. They've done that so many times you've developed Stockholm syndrome. The theory of zero energy is not nothing(with me so far?) it is a balance of positive and negative that results in a state of nothing. (got that?) true nothing would have no particles. no gravity. You've been had. KRauss is a liar and he's lying to scores of people when he claims he has discovered how the universe came from nothing.

Your examples do not explain how the universe could always have existed. They simply show ways in which the universe changed. YOur first example is beyond me. I doubt you can explain it either. Please do.

Let me rephrase the question. Tell me how an infinite amount of time can be crossed.

And yes I am saying it is impossible to make something out of nothing. You cannot go from zero to one without adding a one from somewhere. I'm saying this still happened but it should not be considered a rational act. it is not something that can be explained by science.

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, dimreepr said:

You're missing the point, there is no begin.

That's not what you said.

On ‎12‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 11:48 PM, Carrock said:

Why would you need to cross an infinite amount of time? (Actually photons can cross infinite time according to very robust theory; are they irrelevant?)

You seem to be saying that because we can't in any way reach the infinite past or future they cannot exist and duration must be finite. This is a philosophical belief; i.e. it's not science.

When matter (or a person) crosses a black hole's event horizon it can never again reach the rest of the universe. Does that mean the rest of the universe no longer exists? Does the rest of the universe still exist for other matter?

Why are you people not able to read what I've already explained?

If the universe always existed then that means there is infinite time before this point in time. To get to NOW you will need to cross an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'. I expect you not to.

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Time is part of the universe, so there is no before; did you exist before you existed? 

 

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing. not the ersatz nothing Krauss is espousing. which contains gravity and dimensions.

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Strange said:

Lawrence Kraus? Stephen Hawking? I guess they don't count.

Oddly, as this is a science site and you posted in the philosophy forum, I thought you might be using the word "logic" with its proper meaning. But, thanks for confirming that you are just using it to describe things that make sense to you. This is a totally useless way of judging a hypothesis and the complete antithesis of science. 

But knock yourself out.

Nothing has zero energy. The proposal is that you can create equal amounts of positive and negative energy (so the total is still zero). 

But feel free to ignore it. There isn't really any evidence for it.

There are a few scientists here. But most members are just people with an interest in science. Not sure what you are doing here as you appear to have no interest. Whatever.

That is such a broad generalisation as to be pretty much useless. But if that s as far as your understanding goes, and you aren't interested in learning more, then that's fine.

You have eliminated it by saying you don't believe it / can't understand it. Meh. But if you want to believe the universe came from nothing, then fine. I don't suppose anyone cares much what you believe.

If you are so convinced no one understands you (rather than simply disagreeing with you) then perhaps you need to make your case more clearly. For example, it isn't helpful to just say "I have already said/explained ..." It would, perhaps, be more effective to expand on or provide an alternative explanation for those who don't get it.

However, it seems to be a common tendency for those with their own unscientific "theories" based on common sense and belief to insist that the only reason people disagree is because they don't understand. Or they are scared by it ... oooooh ... an alternative idea, badly expressed .... so scary ...

Lawrence Kraus? Stephen Hawking?

(Do you mean Krauss?)And what do they believe happened?  I know Krauss wrote a book but what EXACTLY does he say about 'nothing'?(update: just listened to him on youtube talking about how the total energy of the universe is zero. so this is the same theory you already presented. which is BS except to those who NEED to believe it. Balance between matter and antimatter is not nothing. it is scientific flim flam. Here https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing he talks about it. and explains that even when you get rid of everything space still contains gravity. that is bloody obviously because it isn't nothing. get rid of the gravity then we can talk about true nothing. and get rid of space time too. fact:scientists do not understand the word 'nothing'. Krauss is saying something came from something. He also talks about there being virtual particles in this nothing. THAT IS SOMETHING. He is saying the universe always existed...as I said. I bet Hawking is saying something similar.)

And if you can explain how the universe has always existed then I AM waiting to hear that and have been since this debate began. Still waiting. Remember the problem: an infinite amount of time exists before NOW. you cannot cross and infinite amount of time. Explain how you can.

23 hours ago, Strange said:

Given that there a many different hypotheses and speculations about the origin (or otherwise) of the universe made by very brilliant people, I don't know how you can narrow it down to just two.

I think you mean "neither of which make sense". You haven't presented a logical argument.

Nope. I am merely stating that (1) your belief that is impossible may be incorrect and (2) the universe may not have come from nothing.

It is up to you to demonstrate that the universe must have come from nothing and that it is impossible. So far, all we have is your personal incredulity / belief.

I guess you didn't understand what it says. The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts.

You appear to be dismissing it for no valid reason.

They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science.

Yep. You don't get it. All the theories of where the universe come from fall into the two categories. Which I have told you. Actually they all fall into one category: The idea that the universe has always existed. There is no one speculating about something coming from nothing.

I don't know what YOU think the word logical means but it isn't the meaning every one else has. Sense and logic are the same. You are coming from the view that if it happens it is logical even if it goes against science and common sense. This is child logic. With an agenda. You cannot face the facts so you use semantics to try and win back the argument. All you are doing is demonstrating your fear.

I have demonstrated that the universe came from nothing by the process of elimination. Again you say nothing of any substance. You are indulging in flim flam. just as most scientists do when they encounter things they cannot understand.

>>The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts.

Meaningless. If I can scratch SOME logic from this nonsensical statement you are saying nothing became zero energy? This is still something coming from nothing. Which is impossible and yet happened.

>>They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science.

If you truly understood what I am saying, which you clearly don't(won't?) then you would know I am right.

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What have you found? And what evidence do you have? 

You know what, I don't really care because you're obviously a crackpot and if you really did have the answer, you'd post a paper with the relevant data/evidence; rather than talk bollox and challenge an obvious layman such as myself. 

No disrespect to Strange and his attempt to correct your BS.

Again you have failed to understand the problem. All the evidence is on this thread. There are only two options of where the universe came from. Strange is so without understanding that she/he thinks there are more. She does not get that all the theories fall into two ideas. But what can I expect from an internet forum. I was deluded in thinking that you guys would be actual scientists. HAH! Boy was I wrong.  AGAIN, there are only two ways the universe could come about. Either from nothing or it always existed. If you do not agree with this then PLEASE tell me the third option because nobody else has come up with one. There isn't one. We have eliminated the latter option. So therefore the universe came from nothing.

FACT. But ignore all I've said and talk BS. 

23 hours ago, Strange said:

No one, apart from you, claims to know where the universe came from. And you have failed to provide any logical argument beyond personal incredulity to support your beliefs.

So I am going to stick with "don't know". Thanks anyway.

Yes, I get it. You don't understand what I'm saying.

On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:48 PM, studiot said:

 

Both have specific status amd meanings in Science, which are different from general usage.

I hypothesis is a (hopefully) well thought out 'guess' or proposal. That is is is made for good scientific reasons.
 

Once made the hypothesis is tested, preferably in many ways.

If the predictions of the hypothesis conform to observation then it may be elevated to the status of Theory.

If not it is rejected.

 

Usually a Theory actually contains more than one hypothesis along with some development of their interactions and implications.

 

Newcomers here sometimes fail to make this distinction and are marked down as a result.

 

Does this help?

 

>>a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES. We have that with QM. Hence theory is correct.

On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:13 PM, Strange said:

Not at all. I have no idea why you would think that.

People with "personal theories" base don belief rather than evidence always seem to think they are frightening people or making them angry with their "dangerous new ideas". The which the only response is: pfffft.

But we aren't talking about a "given frame of reference", we are talking about a hypothetical creation event. So that argument doesn't apply. You need to read up on the difficulty of applying that "law" to the whole universe as described by GR.

But, then again, the net energy of the universe could be zero so no energy was created.

The zero energy hypothesis.

It isn't now. But it would have been before. 

I don't know much about Kaku, but the little I have seen of his popular science writings should be ignored as sensationalistic nonsense.

You have no evidence for this beyond your personal beliefs. Not a good basis for science.

Therefore the universe doesn't exist? 

You really need to sharpen up your critical thinking skills. Honestly, it is not "getting hot under the collar" to point out the enormous benefits of studying logic, rather than just saying that if you belief something then it is "logical".

Common sense is the enemy of science and rational thought in general.

You think you are countering my arguments...but are not. I have no idea what you think you are doing but you aren't actually saying anything. You fail to understand the basic concept of there being only two options for where we came from. Both illogical. For you to be right you need to prove that nothing can become something. The zero energy hypothesis is not nothing. It involves matter being cancelled out. The matter is still there. This is ersatz nothingness. Scientific flim flam. LOts of people fell for it. Not me.  

"The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.^[1][2]"

On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 6:37 PM, pzkpfw said:

You should watch "The last tango in Paris"

(And do that course in logic.)

 

I never said food ONLY goes in the mouth. Might I suggest a course in basic English?

On ‎06‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 12:51 PM, Tub said:

That philosopher may have been Anaximander, sometimes known as " The Father of Cosmology ", who was said to be the first to embrace the concept of infinity:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)

Even if it wasn't him and it was some other philosopher, the idea that " no event can ever happen "  would mean that he never said that anyway but the fact that he did completely contradicts him.

He was ruling out the idea of an infinite past. The other option must be true although still illogical. Ergo something insane happened. Beyond logic.illogical.

On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:53 PM, dimreepr said:

You won't find any.

Your belief is irrelevant, the universe exists it's here.

Science depends on data, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". 

I have found it. You just cannot admit it to yourself. Please explain where the universe came from. If you think you have the answer why are scientists continually coming up with new theories? Because they haven't found the answer. Never will.

You seem to be getting hot under the collar. This always happens when I force people to see this issue. An Opinion can match logic. Therefore be logic. Logic does not have to be  a fundamental law of physics.  Food goes in your mouth. Is a logical statement. einsten did not include eating food in his equations.

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system in a given frame of reference remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.^[1] In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

>>That doesn't invalidate the universe being created from nothing (there are many possible reasons why; you have been given one which you have just ignored)

Which was?

>>Well, one possibility is that the net energy of the universe is zero

Which ISN'T nothing is it. That's what I always come up against when I discuss this. "actually nothing may be something" I'm talking about absolute nothing which Michio Kaku ascribes to.

http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/btbb/michio-kaku-beginning/

Any scientist telling you that you can get something from nothing is really saying you can get something from something. It's a lie they tell all the time to avoid facing the fact that the universe is illogical.

>>We have zero evidence that the universe came from nothing. And no evidence it didn't. All we know is that it was once in a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about or how long it lasted.

We have zero evidence that santa exists. Therefore we do not believe in him. We have zero evidence that scientists can explain where the universe came from. Common sense would dictate that it is not a logical question when you face the facts laid out as I have.

An opinion can be logic. And the evidence backs me up. No scientist has explained where the universe came from yet.  But we are straying from the point. if science says "something can come from nothing" then they are wrong. It is basic logic that something cannot come from nothing. I put across the point that science itself says you cannot create energy. Is science wrong?

when I say nothing I mean absolute nothing. No void. No reality. No possibility of anything existing. I have a pal into physics and we have had arguments about this subject. He sees nothing illogical about the idea that the past is infinite. But he knows the only other answer is illogical. So he's backed into a corner. It's easier to believe in an infinite past because the idea boggles the mind. Then he can say "why is it illogical?" and there is no answer to give because it is just something that is obviously illogical. Like the number one being the number two.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

How do you know that?

I assume by "logical" you are using the informal sense of "makes sense to me, personally". That isn't helpful on a science site.

Although, there is no evidence for it, it is not illogical for the universe to come from nothing.

But, if you think there really is a logical argument to make, then you need to make it using logic rather than an unsupported assertion.

Science itself says that you cannot create energy.

You seem to know your stuff. could you take a look at this thread please?

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:48 PM, studiot said:

 

With respect, there's room for theory  speculation? hypotheses?

 

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:11 PM, Itoero said:

If the universe is infinite then then that doesn't mean lifeforms on this earth are subject to infinity. We are born and die.

When I say NOW I do not mean the now we are experiencing. Rather any NOW along the so called infinite timeline.

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:23 PM, dimreepr said:

I largely agree with Strange, but since this is a philosophical topic I'll answer this. 

Why does it matter?

I'm looking for examples of the universe acting illogically. I believe there is no logical explanation of where the universe came from. Scientists seem to have no answer. They are tackling the question with science, which is dependant on logic. They will never find an answer. Which means things like magic may be real too.

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:40 PM, Vmedvil said:

It didn't come from nothing, it came from another dying universe the energy, The moment energy entered this universe time started before that the universe was void of Energy, thus no time as nothing ever changed, how does one measure time in a void?

 

For instance measure time in this picture can you? (Void Main)

Now this one, measure time. (Void Main DO  Print"_" Clear Screen LOOP)

What is the difference?

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical. of course I bet you will now say "maybe there is no such thing as nothing." which leads us back to the other argument that the past is infinite. You can tell I've asked this question before.

15 hours ago, Tub said:

Hello, fudgetusk. I'm neither Greek,nor a philosopher, sadly, but this is interesting so i'll try to give  some reply - always remembering that a reply isn't always an answer. Anyway, as i see it, the past has no existence so no duration and if something doesn't exist, or have any duration,  can it be said to be infinite?  If the past ( or the future ) doesn't exist, then there is only the present " Now ", with no time existing before or after it. The "Now " must therefore be timeless and, if it is timeless, time cannot accumulate as the past so the past cannot be infinite. Again, if the " Now " is timeless, it must always be new - never happened before, never happen again - and can something new have a past? The Universe can never be the same thing twice and the whole movement of Life is in the present " Now ", so everything that happens only happens in that present and so can never be set back infinitely: the present can never be the past, and vice-versa. Of course we have the very necessary and useful  time of our clocks and calendars but these are psychological concepts and the intellectual product of memory and without these devices does time exist at all?  So, after all that  rambling, i would have to say that ,for me at least, the past is not infinite.

P. S. Who was the Philosopher?  Was it Zeno ?

It wasn't Zeno. His name began with A. he showed there were only two options of where the universe came from and both were illogical.

As for your explanation. The past cannot be found but it did exist. I do think time exists.

Some believe the universe has always existed in some form. This is about getting around the idea of something coming from nothing. I  have a problem with the idea. How did we get to now? An infinite amount of time is impossible to cross just as an infinite amount of space is impossible to cross. And yet people believe there is an infinite amount of time before this point we call NOW. How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

Too soon to decide what is going on with physics. I don't think particles choose. There is simply more going on that we do not see. But where there's doubt there's room for theory.

On ‎30‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:43 PM, Strange said:

Although it is true that is how Heisenberg initially described it, he quickly realised that was wrong. 

What you are describing is the observer effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Well I've been mislead by a modern physics book then. Typical. I've been trying to understand this idea for years and the data keeps changing. 

On ‎30‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:16 PM, DrP said:

It travels through the slits the same way a water wave would travel through a double slit... emerging from the other side from both points which interfere. (I think! - it has been a while - others will say if I am wrong for sure).

 

Here is a you-tube demonstration for water.

 

But why does it not collapse on the side of the screen? by being bisected it is coming into contact with the screen so it should collapse and not pass through the slits.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not really. It is intrinsic to the nature of quantum effects.

The word "particle" is misleading. Quanta are non-local (until measured) and their distribution in space is described by a wave function.

That's physics from last year. I've started seeing new definitions . The uncertainty principle is explained by how we measure particles. By bouncing a photon off them it alters their position or speed depending on how you do it.

Not a religious book so much but Michael Newton phd JOURNEY OF SOULS. He's a hypnotherapist who regresses people to points BETWEEN lives, when they were in heaven. Quasi science. good read though. gives a kind of form of religion. Nearest you'll find to being evidence based.

Quantum uncertainty is about our ability to measure accurately. But then how on earth can a particle become a wave? The term 'wave' suggests something being all over the place. as I suspect shape. size and things like that are illusions that collapse from time to time. LIke volume in the core of a black hole.

666 is greek gematria and nero cesar comes to 666 in that system. In Hebrew gematria it is 616. That is why both numbers have been used. Nero was of course the biggest opponent of Christianity at the time of the writing of the book of revelations. He would burn them alive etc. Revelations sees a future Nero type person or Nero reborn. (oops. reincarnation?)

The photon wave collapses when it comes into contact with something. Why does it not collapse when it passes through the screen with the slits? Why does it split into two waves?

THank you.