Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 reasons

[Age]

Why cannot a state of absolute nothing persist AFTER the death of a Universe ?

Can a state of nothing persist beyond the infinitesimal after the death of a Universe or anything else ?

I do NOT see how a state of nothing could even be contemplated beyond the infinitesimal, let alone how that state could actual exist EVER.

So, I am the WRONG person to ask such a question.

From what I KNOW, the death of a 'Universe' is illogical and impossible.

If it can then what would actually be stopping this state from being violated by quantum fluctuations ?

Again I am the WRONG person to ask such a question because I am, as of YET, unable to see how 'a state of absolute nothing' could exist, let alone persist. But, if I was to contemplate this question, as though that state was even possible, then I would say that WHAT would stop this state from being violated by 'quantum fluctuations' is that the words 'a state of absolute nothing' infers that there is 'absolutely NO THING', obviously, which would then mean that there is NO such thing as 'quantum fluctuations' ALSO. 'Absolute nothing' means absolutely no thing AT ALL.

I am NOT sure what 'a state of absolute nothing' means to you. But to me it means 'absolutely nothing'.

By the way YOUR questions are based on some ASSUMPTIONS/PRESUMPTIONS being made, which has and will interfere with you being able to SEE the actual and Real Truth of things, for yourself.

[surreptitious57]

They some times come across as you KNOW of things that are impossible to KNOW

How can I know something that is impossible to know as it makes no sense at all so can you understand this ?
I have now had to tell you for the THIRD time that I know very little so will you remember this from now on ?

[Age]

If a new so called intelligent species comes into existence with this so called new Universe then they might call It some thing else therefore
that something which supposedly came into existence from which this new species has evolved from does NOT have to be a new Universe
If they call It something else then that something is NOT a new Universe at all

The meaning is what is important not the label

I am very glad you can SEE this FACT.

So, what is the meaning behind when "you" say the word 'Universe', again?

Would creating two completely opposing meanings when using the same word, in discussions with "others", be an important thing or not a very important thing? Especially when the "other" is just TRYING TO gain clarity in what you are talking about?

[surreptitious57]

So what is the meaning behind when you say the word Universe again ?

Would creating two completely opposing meanings when using the same word in discussions with others be an
important thing or not ? Especially when the other is just TRYING TO gain clarity in what you re talking about ?

This Universe is the Universe and ALL Universes are the Multiverse so there is no confusion
As long as everyone understands which meaning a word is referring to there is no problem

[Age]

Also if quantum fluctuations cause virtual particles to come into existence WHERE do quantum fluctuations come from ?

And are you TRYING TO suggest that if any thing causes virtual particle to come into existence that means these particles came from NOTHING ?

Do quantum fluctuations come from nothing ?

I have NO idea. I have YET to SEE how this could even be possible.

I asked you WHERE do quantum fluctuations come from? Would you like to just disregard answering that question completely?

Do virtual particles come into existence by borrowing energy ?

I do NOT know for sure, but more than likely if I was to take a guess.

But what has this got to do with different so called Universes dying and being born?

And is that energy not something ?

No.

[Age]

You said that quantum fluctuations violate such a state of absolute nothing but then said that absolute nothing is a TEMPORARY quantum state

Absolute nothing is a temporary quantum state BEFORE it is violated by quantum fluctuations

But WHEN has this 'absolute nothing state' ever "existed"?

Or, is it just an imagined idea?

[Age]

What is the difference ?

Quantum level is below the atomic level and classical level is above it [ the one we experience ]
There is actually only one level but it is however compartmentalised for reasons of practicality

So, if the classical level is existing, then there REALLY is NEVER any 'absolute nothing state' on the quantum level?

Although human beings can conceptualize it and imagine it, there really never is an actual state like this because there are NO actual separate nor different levels of things, correct?

[surreptitious57]

I asked you WHERE do quantum fluctuations come from ? Would you like to just disregard answering that question completely ?

Do quantum fluctuations not come from nothing ? What do they come from if not from nothing ?
For if absolute nothing exists in a quantum state then what else can there be within that state ?

[surreptitious57]

Why is energy not something ? What exactly is your definition of something ?
And how does this definition exclude energy ? Does it exclude anything else ?

[surreptitious57]

But WHEN has this absolute nothing state ever existed ?

Or is it just an imagined idea ?

Absolute states exist all of the time at the quantum level
So how then can they be imagined if they actually exist ?

[Age]

For starters get rid of the IDEA / BELIEF that In the beginning actually has any real reference to ALL THERE IS

How can there be a beginning if ALL THERE IS never had a beginning and so has always existed ?

That is a somewhat very nonsensical question to ask.

I do not think that the beginning of THIS Universe is the absolute beginning of every thing at all

So HOW do you think THIS Universe and 'local cosmic expansion' began, and, WHERE do you think THIS 'local cosmic expansion' began from?

[surreptitious57]

So if the classical level is existing then there REALLY is NEVER any absolute nothing state on the quantum level ?

Although human beings can conceptualize it and imagine it there really never is an actual
state like this because there are NO actual separate or different levels of things correct ?

There is absolute nothing at the quantum level

The state does exist but the way it is conceptualised implies that it is separate from the classical
state when the fact of the matter is that every thing ultimately comprises a single unifying state

[Age]

Is not evidence a fact or a truth over a matter ?

Truth is THAT what ALL agree with

Why do you think that evidence is a fact or a truth ?

Because evidence, literally, is the available body of facts indicating whether a belief or proposition is true.

And why does truth require any agreement at all ?

Because if NO thing was in agreement, then there would be NO truth.

Things may exist on their own. But Truth is a human being made up concept. Only 'THAT' what IS in agreement with what is perceived to be true is thee truth.

[Age]

Does reading some thing such as a highly peered reviewed scientific magazine demonstrate enough for you to then form and have a fixed opinion ?

No it does not not even if I were to read every single peer reviewed scientific magazine there is
I would certainly learn more but learning is however not the the same as having a fixed opinion

Okay so what would need to be demonstrated that the Universe did NOT have a beginning for you to form and have a fixed opinion about that?

By the way do you already have a 'fixed opinion' about the Universe having a beginning?

[Age]

I wonder if they really know more or just like to appear as though they do

Every one on this forum knows more than me because their posts demonstrate this

I would disagree with this and just say every one on this forum knows different things.

Some here, in this forum, would LOVE to believe that they know more than "others", but the truth may very well be completely different.

By the way how could 'knowing more' even begin to decided?

There are posts here I cannot understand at all as they are too complicated for me

There is NO thing that is "too complicated" if one has a REAL interest in it/learning. If a person does NOT have interest in what another is saying, then they will just move on, to some one or some thing else. If, however, if one is Truly interested, then they will ASK till they understand.

If one REALLY knows what they are talking about, then through being asked Truly OPEN clarifying questions, then they COULD explain.

Also, if posts APPEAR to be "too complicated" to understand, then that is the fault of the writer NOT the reader. For example, just about EVERY thing I write could APPEAR "too complicated", but really it is NOT at all. This APPEARANCE is because of the way I write, and not because of the reader at all.