The Topic on Space and Energy

[dattaswami]

Some say that space is absence of any existent thing, which is called as ‘emptiness’ or ‘void’ or ‘vacuum’. These people say that space is nothing or non-existent and is relatively existent only with reference to the existence of matter and energy. For these people, space is just conventional with respect to the rest world. This means that when matter and energy disappear, space also disappears spontaneously. With reference to the absolute existence of unimaginable God, the entire world is relatively real (which means that it is unreal by itself and real due to the gifted reality by God). In this angle, we also agree that space is relatively real just like the entire world. In this angle, there is no objection at all from Our side. But some people say that space is relatively real with respect to the rest of the world, which means that space by itself is unreal and that its reality is the reality gifted by the rest of the world! This clearly means that space is unreal before the reality of matter and energy (rest of the world). The entire world is primary-relatively real and since space is one of the five elements of the world, We say that space is also primary-relatively real. But these people say that the world is primary-relatively real whereas space is secondary-relatively real. We object this concept.


These people say that when matter and energy disappear, space also spontaneously disappears since space is relatively real whereas matter and energy are absolutely real. The absolute reality of matter and energy is nothing but a primary-relative reality and the relative reality of space is nothing but a secondary-relative reality. This is just like saying that the relatively real world disappears spontaneously if the absolutely real God disappears (assumption). This point is strongly opposed by Us. We say that even if matter and energy disappear, space exists without disappearing because space is as relatively real as matter and energy. Even if energy disappears, matter can exist. Similarly, even if matter and energy disappear, space can exist. The reason for this is that the Veda says that God created space in the beginning before creating any other item. This means that space can exist by itself even in the absence of matter and energy. If awareness is taken as a form of energy, space can exist even in the absence of awareness, matter and energy.


Here, the main point to be noted is that you need not say that the secondary-relative real space alone exists even in the absence of the rest of the world due to the omnipotence of the unimaginable God. This means that We are not saying that the omnipotent unimaginable God is maintaining the secondary-relative real space by virtue of His omnipotence because the secondary-relative real space can exist by itself based on scientific logical analysis itself. What is that logical analysis? That is – space is not secondary-relative real but, space is primary-relatively real like the rest of the world. In that case, is space energy? Matter? Awareness? The answer is that space is a very subtle form of energy.


This means that space is also a primary-relatively real element like the other four elements, which are air, fire, water and earth. You may get a doubt that how space can be subtle energy since fire has already covered the item energy. Fire is gross energy and space is subtle energy. For that matter, all the five elements are forms of inert energy only. Matter is a form of energy. Even awareness, which is a specific work form is also a form of inert energy only. Similarly, space is a form of inert energy only. No constituent of the creation is leftover, which is not a form of inert energy. The absence of space cannot be specially synthesized without affecting the existence of the rest of the creation. In this way, there is nothing like nothing in the fundamental phase of the creation. In the external objects, pot may not exist in cloth and cloth may not exist in pot. But, at the level of fundamental existence, either God’s absolute existence exists purely (before the creation) or along with it, the God gifted absolute existence of the creation (after creation) exists. There cannot be the existence of nothing at the fundamental level.


Subtle energy does not mean X-Rays etc., which are beyond the visible region in the electro-magnetic spectrum. The subtle nature of space means that its frequency is so high that its wave-length becomes so low that human mind or present instruments cannot grasp it. Due to such subtle wave-length or due to such high frequency, the value of energy possessed by vacuum is tremendously high. This explains the principle of production of galaxies of stars from space or vacuum. The bending of space around the boundary of the object proves that space is something and not nothing since nothing cannot bend. There is also an experiment in physics proving the vacuum energy. We have to ask these people that if space is nothing, how can it disappear at all? (They say that space disappears when matter and energy disappear.) When space is nothing, how was it generated at all?


These people say that space is only geometrical, which is a conventional item with respect to the existence of the rest of the world so that space does not have at least the relative existence of the rest of the world (These people say that the space existing between two walls of a room called A and B disappeared while A and B disappeared. They say that the experience of this dissolution of space is not felt by you due to the existence of two other compound walls called C and D beyond A and B. The existence of space between C and D experienced by you doesn’t allow you to experience the dissolution of space between A and B. This point is imaginary because the distance between A and B, which already existed as a part of distance between C and D still continues to exist as a part of the distance between C and D.). This means that when the rest of the world disappears, space should naturally disappear. This means that at no time, space alone can exist independently without the rest of the world. But the Veda says that the first scene of creation and the last scene of the dissolution (both are same scenes) show only the existence of space and nothing else. Such scene said by the Veda is true. It is not as imagined by these people. In fact, these people are unable to recognize the complete meaning of what they say because they don’t realize that space is subtle energy. If they recognize this fact, what they say would also be true since when matter and energy disappear and space alone exists, energy would not have disappeared completely since subtle energy remains in the form of space. What they say is true, but they are not realizing their statement completely!


In the ancient Indian philosophies, space is told as absence (Gaganaṃ śūnyam- Amarakośa). But here, the absence means non-achievement or Anupalabdhi. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says that the simultaneous values of position and momentum of the electron exist truly in the field of atom, but can’t be calculated simultaneously due to the crudeness of the measuring equipment. It means that something exists, but is not achieved due to its tremendous subtle nature. It appears as if nothing exists. Even Śaṅkara told that space is invisible, which does not mean absolutely non-existent (Apratyakṣe'pi hyākāśe…). Even ancient Indian logic-schools agree that space is a substance or dravya having all pervading nature or vibhu. Substance means that which has existence and not nothing. The school of Sāṃkhya further develops the quantization of space (Ākāśa paramāṇavaḥ).


In the Veda, it is told that God created space and energy as the first item. Since God is told as the cause, space and energy must be the first item of the creation. For the first item of the creation only, God is mentioned as the cause because there was no other item before the creation of the first item. For the second item, the first item is mentioned as the cause since first item exists apart from God. Even though, God is the real creator, in every step of the creation, since a created first item already exists generating the second item, the first item is given the credit of cause by God. Here, God is said to be the cause for space and energy. Two items can’t be the first item and hence, the two items must be one and the same item. Hence, space and energy are one and the same since space is a very subtle form of energy. In view of all this, the theory proposed that space is merely geometrical without even the relative existence of the world is untenable and is rejected.

In the Veda, while describing the process of creation, appearance of air (Vaayu) is mentioned between space and fire. This means that space passed through an intermediate stage of gaseous state of matter before it generated gross energy. This means that space generated gaseous state of matter before it is transformed into gross energy. It is a very simple and straight process for the subtle energy to become gross energy because if the subtle energy reduces its frequency or increases its wavelength, it will become gross energy. In such a very simple process, an intermediate state of gaseous state of matter is generated. This means that a little part of subtle energy became matter (gas) by condensation before it changes to gross energy. It is a scientific fact that the gross energy in the form of radiation with light and heat visible to the naked eye to be called as ‘Agni’ or fire needs matter in the intermediate state. The excitations and de-excitations of particles of matter results in absorption and emission of energy. Hence, production of matter in gaseous state containing free subtle particles of matter for the sake of absorption and emission of energy in between subtle energy (space) and gross energy (fire) is scientifically mentioned in the Veda.


Even if you bring in violation to this concept in the future since there is always a trend of modification of concepts as time proceeds, our original philosophy of the unimaginable God having the power of omnipotence will solve this problem by saying that due to the unimaginable power of God, the concept can be protected even if it is violated as per the development of science. However, this fundamental concept of the omnipotence of the unimaginable God is preserved as far as possible without application provided the concept can be explained by worldly logic or science dealing with the laws of creation. We will insist even a failed scientific concept with the help of the omnipotence of the unimaginable God. You need not mock our concept of omnipotence taking it as our funny imagination because the unimaginable nature of the unimaginable God is already proved through genuine unimaginable incidents called ‘miracles’, which cannot be disproved by any scientist even through very intricate analysis using scientific logic and sophisticated electronic instruments.


Space (Ākāśa) is the first item created by God and awareness (Puruṣa) is the last item in the chain of created items as per the Veda. The second item is air, which is the gaseous state of matter. Without space, the rest of the creation can neither be created nor can exist. In such a case, how can you say that space is relatively real with respect to rest of the creation (matter and gross energy)? The statement should be in reverse, which means that matter and gross energy are relatively real with respect to space. If space is not energy, how is matter (gaseous state) generated from space, which is nothingness as per your concept? Since space is subtle energy, matter is generated as the second item. The Advaita philosophers say that space is generated from awareness. Awareness or soul is the last item in the creation-chain and how can the last item produce the first item, which is space? It looks like a boy telling that the original ancestor of his family happens to be his son!

[socrat44]

‘'The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?'' / Paul Dirac /

[dattaswami]

‘'The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?'' / Paul Dirac /

You are right there nothing like nothing. Even space is a subtle form of energy only.

[socrat44]

‘'The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?'' / Paul Dirac /

You are right there nothing like nothing. Even space is a subtle form of energy only.

Book ''The Fermi Solution''
'': something seems wrong with our idea of the vacuum. It is we who abhor a vacuum,
who recoil from the stillness of the void as from an open grave.''
/Page 37-38, by Hans Christian von Baeyer/

[dattaswami]

‘'The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?'' / Paul Dirac /

You are right there nothing like nothing. Even space is a subtle form of energy only.

Book ''The Fermi Solution''
'': something seems wrong with our idea of the vacuum. It is we who abhor a vacuum,
who recoil from the stillness of the void as from an open grave.''
/Page 37-38, by Hans Christian von Baeyer/

I totally agree with your findings and quotes. Only thing is that we believe in the existence of God, who is beyond spatial coordinates and is unimaginable. God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space, since God is the cause and space is the first effect. Mud is the cause and pot is the effect. Unless you destroy the pot, its cause, the lump of mud cannot be visualized. Unless space is dissolved God cannot be seen. You may try for millions of years to imagine the situation after dissolution of space. It is absolutely impossible to go beyond space.

You can imagine anything with some minute spatial dimensions only, which may be very very small. Your intelligence is limited by spatial dimensions. It cannot cross the three co-ordinates, which are length, width and height called as spatial dimensions. This means, God is absolutely unimaginable to the intelligence and analysis (Yo Buddheh Paratah…). The analysis to know that God is beyond analysis is also analysis only.

[socrat44]

You are right there nothing like nothing. Even space is a subtle form of energy only.

Book ''The Fermi Solution''
'': something seems wrong with our idea of the vacuum. It is we who abhor a vacuum,
who recoil from the stillness of the void as from an open grave.''
/Page 37-38, by Hans Christian von Baeyer/

I totally agree with your findings and quotes. Only thing is that we believe in the existence of God, who is beyond spatial coordinates and is unimaginable. God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space, since God is the cause and space is the first effect. Mud is the cause and pot is the effect. Unless you destroy the pot, its cause, the lump of mud cannot be visualized. Unless space is dissolved God cannot be seen. You may try for millions of years to imagine the situation after dissolution of space. It is absolutely impossible to go beyond space.

You can imagine anything with some minute spatial dimensions only, which may be very very small. Your intelligence is limited by spatial dimensions. It cannot cross the three co-ordinates, which are length, width and height called as spatial dimensions. This means, God is absolutely unimaginable to the intelligence and analysis (Yo Buddheh Paratah…). The analysis to know that God is beyond analysis is also analysis only.

Book: ‘'The quantum self '’
” If we were looking for something that we could conceive of as God
within the universe of the new physics, this ground state,
coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.”
/ page 208, by Danah Zohar/.

[wtf]

God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…).

Would it be churlish of me to ask, who or what created God? If God was "always there," why can't space have been "always there" without the need for God? Maybe space was always there and God is just a name you give to what everyone else calls space. How can you be so sure?

[promethean75]

i see these virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time, btw. even when I'm not high. has to be in a dark room, but if i stare at one point in the darkeness and focus, a tiny swirling ball of about twenty orange points appears roughly the size of a quarter (at less than five feet away to scale), turns and swirls while moving slowly at an angle away from the spot it generated, and then dissipates. this within about five seconds.

i can spot another one but i have to move my line of sight and focus on another point. no two are identical, and so far I've worked out a codex matrix for recognizing patterns in the points movements that can be deciphered as a language of some sort.

basically I'm getting a glimpse of god's subatomic blueprints. 

[dattaswami]

God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…).

Would it be churlish of me to ask, who or what created God? If God was "always there," why can't space have been "always there" without the need for God? Maybe space was always there and God is just a name you give to what everyone else calls space. How can you be so sure?

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation. Ad-infinitum (Anavastha) results. Science disproved some conclusions of the earlier logic and this should not be misunderstood as refusing God. God is in no way touched because the earlier logic also was dealing with only the analysis of created items. Tarka means the analysis of the items of creation, which are indicated and understood by their corresponding names or words (Tarkyante Padarthah Asminniti….). God is beyond all the words and cannot be the understood meaning of any word and therefore, logic cannot touch God.

Today science is the most advanced logic since the experimental verification was improved. Therefore if I am explaining the philosophy based on science, it means that the philosophy is more and more clear due to the advanced logic. I told you already that the logic (science) is only useful to refuse any item of creation as not God.

We should base the subject of philosophy related to God on good logic, which is scientific and systematic without defects like mutual contradiction, ad-infinitum etc.

The example for ad-infinitum is that an endless chain is created in statements like ‘which is the cause for God?’ In the analysis of creation, you may go on stating the cause for every cause.

You may say that the cause for earth is water. The cause for water is fire. The cause for fire is air. The cause for air is space. The cause for space is God (Atmana Aakashah… Veda). You should stop at a particular cause, which has no cause. If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa). To remove this defect, we have to stop at some cause, which is called as the ultimate cause i.e., the God. Hence, the subject of philosophy (Vedanta) should be always based on good logic (Sat tarka) only. Shankara told this point that bad crooked logic should be stopped and good logic should be followed in any discussion (Dustarkah suviramyataam shrutimatah tarkonu sandhiyataam…).

[wtf]

If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa).

So what? Consider the integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...

There is no smallest integer, and every integer has an immediate predecessor. There is no first integer. And what of it? This is perfectly commonplace. You learned it in grade school. Why do you call this "bad logic?"

You seem to be giving the Kalām cosmological argument often promoted by Christian apologist William Lane Craig. It's nonsense. Why can't there be an endless chain of causes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C ... l_Argument

[dattaswami]

If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa).

So what? Consider the integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...

There is no smallest integer, and every integer has an immediate predecessor. There is no first integer. And what of it? This is perfectly commonplace. You learned it in grade school. Why do you call this "bad logic?"

You seem to be giving the Kalām cosmological argument often promoted by Christian apologist William Lane Craig. It's nonsense. Why can't there be an endless chain of causes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C ... l_Argument

It is fourfold logic and since the four logics are interrelated with each other, it is also a four-dimensional logic.

1. Logic of Infinite Regress: In this universe, every item has another item as its cause. That cause will have still another item as its cause. In this way, the ad-infinitum or infinite regress (Anavasthaa) results by which the chain of causes becomes endless. Somewhere, we have to stop so that the ultimate cause is not having its own cause. But, if we see this chain of items appearing as products of upper causes, it should be endless because all these imaginable products must have their causes as we observe the nature of items of imaginable world. Energy is seen to be generated from matter (cause) and matter seems to be generated from energy because matter is condensed energy.

Awareness seems to be generated from the inert energy transformed in materialized nervous system and this inert energy is also generated from food (matter). In this way, the three fundamental constituents of the creation called inert energy, inert matter and non-inert awareness are seen as products of other causes even though, a circular cycle is involved. You may say that since matter and awareness are products of inert energy, let the energy be the ultimate cause of the creation. Such energy is inert and can’t have planned the design of the universe so systematically as told in the Brahmasuutras (Īkṣateḥ…). Even if you support the inert energy based on the theory of probability (which says that some design must have happened based on certain probability), the other three types of logics mentioned below force us to accept the discovery of unimaginable item as the ultimate cause of the creation.

Hence, there is a force that demands the ultimate cause of all these imaginable items must be an unimaginable item, which can be called by a name ‘ParaBrahman’ or unimaginable God.

Other logic i am replying subsequently...one by one...

[dattaswami]

If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa).

So what? Consider the integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...

There is no smallest integer, and every integer has an immediate predecessor. There is no first integer. And what of it? This is perfectly commonplace. You learned it in grade school. Why do you call this "bad logic?"

You seem to be giving the Kalām cosmological argument often promoted by Christian apologist William Lane Craig. It's nonsense. Why can't there be an endless chain of causes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C ... l_Argument

2. Logic of Space: Einstein feels that space is nothing since there is no absolute space but, only a geometrical space. It means space is the distance between two objects A and B. When A and B disappear the space between A and B also disappears. Beyond A there may be a new object X and beyond B there may be a new object Y. Even though, the space between A and B disappears along with A and B, it is not experienced by us because of the existence of space between X and Y. If we take this sense, space is not included in the creation because nothing can be created. In this sense, space is only conventional or myth.

In such case, there is no meaning in searching for the cause of the space. Neglecting space, we have to search for the cause of inert energy and such cause alone can be the ultimate cause of this universe. Regarding matter and awareness, we need not worry because both these are different forms of the same inert energy. Matter is said to be condensed energy and awareness is a special work form of inert energy transformed in the functioning brain-nervous system. In this line, we have to simply search for the cause of inert energy (cosmic energy), which will be the ultimate cause of creation.

Taking another angle of the above topic, we like to consider space as a subtle form of inert energy. Scientists say that from vacuum galaxies are generated. They also say that space bends along the boundary of an object and in such case, space must be something since nothing can bend along the boundary. The Veda also says that God generated space in the beginning of the creation (Ātmana Ākāśaḥ…). It is also said in the Veda that God created energy (Tat tejo'sṛjata…) in the beginning because the first item of the creation must have been created by God only since the second item onwards it is told to be created from the first item. Hence, both space and energy happen to be the first item only. Therefore, it is forced to accept that space is energy by which the contradiction will disappear. However, since space is also energy, in this line also we have to search for the ultimate cause of the creation that generated the energy only as said in the above paragraph.

The entire creation can be considered as subtle energy or space from which matter and awareness were created in course of time resulting in various living and non-living items. Here, scientists take the creation as four-dimensional space-time model. If we analyse sharply, time is also a coordinate of space only that pervades all the three spatial coordinates. Time depends on the revolution of earth and relative movement of sun and moon. Time is defined as the distance between two incidents taking place in the space.

Time is also expressed in terms of spatial coordinates as we see people saying that the time in the morning is about two hands distance from the horizon, which means that the sun moved up so much distance. We also express the distance in the units of time by saying a billion light years distance. Hence, time is not mentioned as an independent item at all in the process of creation described by the Veda. Hence, when we say that the ultimate cause generated space, it means it generated space-time model. We can briefly call this space-time model as space itself in brief.

Now, when the ultimate cause generated space, the ultimate cause must not have space in it. If space existed in the ultimate cause before the generation of space, it becomes absurd since space exists in the ultimate cause even before its generation. In such case, you cannot say that space is generated by the ultimate cause. This means that the ultimate cause is not having space in it, which means that the ultimate cause has no spatial dimensions or the ultimate cause has no volume. Any item with zero volume can never be imagined by any human being even if it breaks its head for millions of births. Hence, the ultimate cause of the creation is unimaginable.

[dattaswami]

If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa).

So what? Consider the integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...

There is no smallest integer, and every integer has an immediate predecessor. There is no first integer. And what of it? This is perfectly commonplace. You learned it in grade school. Why do you call this "bad logic?"

You seem to be giving the Kalām cosmological argument often promoted by Christian apologist William Lane Craig. It's nonsense. Why can't there be an endless chain of causes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C ... l_Argument

3. Logic of Boundary of the Universe: As per the above explanation, the entire creation can be viewed as basically the inert cosmic energy only. This energy or creation is imaginable domain, which is this imaginable universe. The boundary of the universe is unimaginable, which means that the material of the boundary is imaginable, but, the distance at which this boundary exists is unimaginable. This means as we or our imagination proceeds along the diameter of the universe to touch its end point, the end point goes on running away from us or our imagination.

The universe may have a definite boundary, but, it is not touched by us. We say that the boundary is definite because the boundary of the creation is imaginable to God and is not unimaginable to God. When God told that the boundary of His creation is infinite (Nānto'sti mama divyāanāṃ vibhūtīnām…- Gītā), it means that His creation is infinite for the human beings only and not for Himself.

This definite boundary is running away as we try to touch it. This can be supported by the theory of expansion of universe as suggested by scientists. The boundary of the creation is not really infinite, but, it is running away from us (our imagination) since we are not supposed to touch it. What is the reason for this, especially when the boundary of creation is not really at infinite distance? The reason is that as we proceed to touch the boundary of the imaginable universe, the unimaginable domain or the ultimate cause of the creation or God is going more and more away from us because the unimaginable domain can never be touched by the imaginable human beings. Hence, the reason for the expansion of universe is not really the real phenomenon of expansion of creation, but, the actual reason is that the unimaginable domain, which is adjacent to the boundary of imaginable domain is going away since it is untouchable to the brains of imaginable human beings. It is only a relative concept.

However, this analysis proves that the boundary of imaginable creation, which is just adjacent to the unimaginable domain can’t be touched because the unimaginable domain is really the untouchable item for the imagination of imaginable human beings. This can be understood by a simile: let us suppose that the boundary of the ocean (imaginable domain) is just adjacent to the boundary of land (unimaginable domain). In such case, since you can’t touch the land (unimaginable), you can never reach the boundary of water of the ocean (even though it is imaginable). This means essentially that the unimaginable land is actually going back so that you shall not touch it and consequently the imaginable water of ocean is expanding though this water is imaginable and has a finite boundary that is known by omniscient God.

In this way, the expansion of universe is only a relative phenomenon while the incapability of touching the unimaginable God is the final absolute phenomenon. All this again proves that the unimaginable God or the ultimate cause of the creation is surrounding all the creation (Sarvamāvṛtya tiṣṭhati…- Gītā). By this, we can imagine the unimaginable God as the ultimate cause like fire from whom the imaginable creation was generated like smoke. If you follow the track of the smoke, you will reach its cause or fire. But, since the fire (cause) is unimaginable, you can never reach the end point of the track of the smoke (boundary of imaginable universe). All this again proves finally that the ultimate cause of this creation is unimaginable God called ParaBrahman.

[wtf]

In this universe, every item has another item as its cause.

Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief. But even granting the premise, that is perfectly consistent with there being no first cause, as the example of the integers shows.

That cause will have still another item as its cause. In this way, the ad-infinitum or infinite regress (Anavasthaa) results by which the chain of causes becomes endless. Somewhere, we have to stop so that the ultimate cause is not having its own cause.

You're just repeating what you've said before, without bothering to engage with my point.

In the endless chain of integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ....

every integer has an immediate predecessor, and there is no first integer. Why can't reality be like that? Who says it can't?

In any event you have me beat on word count, so you can have the last word.

[promethean75]

You'll never beat wtf, swami. He's one of the five smartest dudes I've ever seen on a forum, so if he says u can't do it, u can't do it bro.