Where did everything come from?

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

"You have to "assume" that existence is already taking place at the very "beginning" of your model, don't you?"

 

In the same way the beginning to my own theory is a postulate based upon logical deductive reasoning asserting that something does not come from nothing. That is the deductive logical foundation of the very beginning of my own cosmology theory, the Pan Theory.

 

Then the above is your first "assumption." 

 

You have to start out with the same logical deductive reasoning that everyone else has to operate from: something from nothing doesn't work. It leads everyone to start off with the first assumption:

 

Something that must have already existed, began to change in x ways leading to our existence and observational abilities here and now. 

 

You, like everyone else in the game, has no choice but to begin modeling the universe on the "assumption" that existence was already in play and then pick up from there.

 

And I'm sure that that's not the end of the assumptions that you must make, like everyone else has to. Walter has outlined many more. Which should be obvious and apparent. 

 

What it looks like you're doing is applying the same "assumptions" that anyone else has to make as well, but carefully trying to avoid typing the word "assumption" as you do it. In order to claim that you don't make any assumptions. When you do. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

Thanks John.

You're welcome.  I am also a Google-recognized, peer reviewed scientist, which is why I know better than to further contribute to the confusion between a scientific Theory, and a personal idea, or "theory" as the term applies in the commoner's tongue.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=theredneckprofessor&oq=theredneckprofessor&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.12481j0j7&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

 

 

 

See also: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21562162/

 

 

 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Then the above is your first "assumption." 

 

You have to start out with the same logical deductive reasoning that everyone else has to operate from: something from nothing doesn't work. It leads everyone to start off with the first assumption:

 

Something that must have already existed, began to change in x ways leading to our existence and observational abilities here and now. 

 

You, like everyone else in the game, has no choice but to begin modeling the universe on the "assumption" that existence was already in play and then pick up from there.

 

And I'm sure that that's not the end of the assumptions that you must make, like everyone else has to. Walter has outlined many more. Which should be obvious and apparent. 

 

What it looks like you're doing is applying the same "assumptions" that anyone else has to make as well, but carefully trying to avoid typing the word "assumption" as you do it. In order to claim that you don't make any assumptions. When you do. 

 

There are generally no assumptions regarding my related theory. Generally speaking, much of it is very different from any cosmology you have ever read of, and it's far simpler. Talk to me about it in the other thread If you are interested in my explanations and related theories. You be the judge if you think that I have made assumptions concerning theory.

 

 

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

......As far as I can see the Herald Press and Send2media aren't science organizations which use peer-review.  They appear to be news and media outlets....

 

These are press releases regarding my related papers. They are written in common language so I expect they would be easier to understand than the science-journal papers themselves, the links to them have also been given.

 

You seem to have no further comments regarding your Andromeda proposal, so I will explain the related theory in that thread where such explanations are on-topic.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

These are press releases regarding my related papers. They are written in common language so I expect they would be easier to understand than the science-journal papers themselves, the links to them have also been given.

 

You seem to have no further comments regarding your Andromeda proposal, so I will explain the related theory in that thread where such explanations are on-topic.

 

Yes, I understand what they are, Pantheory.

 

However, you made this claim.

 

What I call theory are far more than personal opinions or just hypothesis. They have been peer reviewed, published in mainstream journals.  tested by many decades of observations, and some have been coauthored by a number of other theorists.

 

Thus far, you have not presented any evidence from mainstream journals to support your claim.  I'm sure that you can do this, but I'm a little confused as to why you haven't done so.  Anyway, my confusion aside, would you please be so kind as to present the evidence that will support your claim?

 

When a Christian makes a claim, we politely request that they support the claims that they make with evidence.  In fact, we ask the same thing of anyone, be they atheist, agnostic or religious.  So, this request is nothing special, Pantheory.  It's a standard, normal and usual thing that happens within this forum.

 

Therefore, please honour this request.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

These are press releases regarding my related papers. They are written in common language so I expect they would be easier to understand than the science-journal papers themselves, the links to them have also been given.

 

You seem to have no further comments regarding your Andromeda proposal, so I will explain the related theory in that thread where such explanations are on-topic.

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I was waiting for you to explain how your personal theory goes about studying M31, the Andromeda galaxy.

 

If you consider that to be off topic, would you please be so good as to create a thread where this can be done?

 

Or, if you prefer, I can create it for you and then you can enlarge on how your theory works with regard to M31.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I was waiting for you to explain how your personal theory goes about studying M31, the Andromeda galaxy.

 

If you consider that to be off topic, would you please be so good as to create a thread where this can be done?

 

Or, if you prefer, I can create it for you and then you can enlarge on how your theory works with regard to M31.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Your are confused. Your request was in the other thread regarding Assumptions and Inferences of theory.

 

Such explanations are off-topic here IMO -- that's why you requested the other thread.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I was waiting for you to explain how your personal theory goes about studying M31, the Andromeda galaxy.

 

If you consider that to be off topic, would you please be so good as to create a thread where this can be done?

 

Or, if you prefer, I can create it for you and then you can enlarge on how your theory works with regard to M31.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Remember, I hope. This has already been done at your request and you have already posted there -- then asked me to wait for you which I did. Go there if you want to discuss the Andromeda Galaxy concerning theory.

[walterpthefirst]

I apologise for any confusion caused, Pantheory.

 

This is was my request.

 

 

Pantheory,

 

Thanks for this, but can I forestall you and request that you hold off on your planned posting so that we can back up a little and actually apply the five steps of the scientific method to the Andromeda galaxy, as per my request?

I believe that doing this will generate pertinent questions that will need answering and clarifying.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

 

What I didn't make clear enough in it was that I'd like you to actually apply the five steps of the scientific method, when it came to the study of M31, the Andromeda galaxy.  Then we could see how this is done and that would generate the pertinent questions I mentioned.

 

So, I trust that we can go forward now?  That you will take us through those five steps?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

So, for sake of this discussion, we have resounding agreement that the answer to where did everything come from is "something." 

 

Everything came from something.

 

But what exactly that something is - physical matter, primary consciousness, or something else - are 

where the actual debates exist. 

 

Something = something can be viewed myriad ways. There's no fixed conclusion yet. And no possible consensus on a conclusion that doesn't currently exist in the objective sense. 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

So, for sake of this discussion, we have resounding agreement that the answer to where did everything come from is "something." 

 

Everything came from something.

 

Pantheory seems to be saying something along the lines of the universe creating itself.  So, it's possible that in his model there is no difference between 'everything' and 'something'.  That something is everything, which means that he doesn't have to point to prior mode of existence of anything for everything to come from it.

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

But what exactly that something is - physical matter, primary consciousness, or something else - are 

where the actual debates exist. 

 

Pantheory seems to be saying that what we observe, the physical universe, is that something.

 

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Something = something can be viewed myriad ways. There's no fixed conclusion yet. And no possible consensus on a conclusion that doesn't currently exist in the objective sense. 

 

Pantheory appears to be saying that the Zero Point Field is that 'something' and we observe it today, as quantum fluctuations.  So, in his model there's no need for him to invoke a prior mode of existence from which everything arose.  It's all around us.  

 

Since nothing preceded it, the question of what came before is meaningless.  Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal deals with time in a not dissimilar way.  "When you are at the North pole, asking the question, how can I get further north? is meaningless."

 

 

 

My apologies to Pantheory if I've erred here.  I'm still working out his ideas.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

Your name is spot on.  Good video 

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Pantheory seems to be saying something along the lines of the universe creating itself.  So, it's possible that in his model there is no difference between 'everything' and 'something'.  That something is everything, which means that he doesn't have to point to prior mode of existence of anything for everything to come from it.

 

 

Pantheory seems to be saying that what we observe, the physical universe, is that something.

 

 

Pantheory appears to be saying that the Zero Point Field is that 'something' and we observe it today, as quantum fluctuations.  So, in his model there's no need for him to invoke a prior mode of existence from which everything arose.  It's all around us.  

 

Since nothing preceded it, the question of what came before is meaningless.  Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal deals with time in a not dissimilar way.  "When you are at the North pole, asking the question, how can I get further north? is meaningless."

 

 

 

My apologies to Pantheory if I've erred here.  I'm still working out his ideas.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

There is nothing about the Pan Theory that would be complicated for most any interested layman other than its totally unique  equations, that are only valuable for its exact numerical predictions. But this is not the tight thread for its discussion. If interested go to the Assumption and Inferences thread.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

There is nothing about the Pan Theory that would be complicated for most any interested layman other than its totally unique  equations, that are only valuable for its exact numerical predictions. But this is not the tight thread for its discussion. If interested go to the Assumption and Inferences thread.

 

Forgive me for straying, Pantheory.

 

I just thought that I could help Josh out a bit.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

56 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Forgive me for straying, Pantheory.

 

I just thought that I could help Josh out a bit.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

You got it pretty much right. The main exception is that the zero point field also did not exist before the beginning, It too was created extremely slowly by the same beginning. It accordingly took countless trillions of years for the physical zero point field to develop first, long before the creation of matter and energy other than zero point energy, See the thread regarding Assumptions and Inferences for further detail.