Philosophy Now Forum

At the beginning here there is a discussion of what "chaos" was in ancient times. In actuality the meaning was initially derived from internalizing the property of objects as having relatively fixed shape. This term became Aten (from Egypt referencing the source perfect shape of the sun or its disc) to Adam (or Atom) those 'shapes' under or objective to or akin to the sun , which referenced the Earth and where those that come from it (mankind) as Adam in the bible.

This quality of description actually represented solids, not ALL matter. Both water and air lacked order and since they perceived that water seemed to be the source of life likely due to recognizing fossils of fish-like entities in high ground AND how the air (Spirit) which seemed as nothing yet was essential to life among many other reasons, thus both became the quality of fluidity, to which they labelled "chaos". Note that the term for the air in Egypt was Nut (nothing) & for water, Nun (none), relating the two and likely a connected source of those suggested terms.

The idea of nothingness commingled with other interpretations, like the word, "JeHovah" which likely meant "the egg" to reference how it gave life and derived from life modeled on the presumed source, the Aten in kind, or Akin (to) Aten. Sorry for the digress on this point. But I believe much of the ideas we only later attribute to various interpretations likely were well thought of long before and is hidden in much of the language they used. We falsely interpret them as signifying them as Gods, but they were likely more secular in interpretation back then. Nothing or Something arguments began back then too.

One other point is that by the time of Euclid, even though he used only Roman Numerals, he also considered the concept with respect to defining a point as that which has no space. We even lose the significance of this in that we don't distinguish the literal way Euclid then went on to describing a line as a succession of points before a straight line, etc. Nothingness was a concept and a zero had been used as a placeholder in some cases (sexigesimal system) and even on counts of 20s (?vignettismal?)

I think we have to step back and redress what most here would hate to do. I agree with Lawrence on an initial state of nothingness but find trouble with using it in the much of the present assumptions that dismissed Steady State theory.

First off, absolute nothingness is also void of space too. The error everyone keeps thinking is that space only acts as an immaterial volume and gets referenced falsely as "nothing". I compare it to a computer program with respect to a program or programmers trying to make sense of memory spaces. From the perspective of the program(mer), it determines the quality of a memory space as a VARIABLE, meaning it can have more than simply one value even if it can only contain one constant at a time. This indeterminate state by people is as misunderstood as zero was because people can't seem to think it means anything.

Yet you can interpret the meaning of the variable by its address as being real because you infer its variability. A program can, for instance assign a VAR as having a constant, 0, then test it to see if it returns this. Then, if it does, you reassign the same VAR (memory address) with a '1' and if it then returns a '1', you have indirect evidence that there is something REAL to that address. This variability proves that it is real even if you cannot actually interpret what its hardware is composed of.

The same with space. The fact that anything can move through it (like a '1') such that it can become empty again (like a '0') proves that space itself is variable and thus indirectly that it is very REAL, not simply an address with no other meaning than nothingness.

Secondly, the expansion of space is NOT an introduction of energy itself but rather information that will later become an initial form of matter, and then later allow for energy. Energy cannot exist until matter exists initially. [This is why I think the Steady State model doesn't actually require it but yet the significant reason the traditional theory abandoned it for the Big Bang via other reasons.] I came to a Steady State type hypothesis prior to learning of Hoyle's version independently.

Note that I believe that gravity itself is a partial measure of expansion as space adds information that affects matter when or where it exists but inversely to General Relativity. It doesn't make Relativity a bad way to interpret the math needed but is akin to how we initially interpreted electricity conventionally as going from positive charge to negative charge. Just inverse the process and the expansion is the initial cause as multiple 'pushes' as space introduces information. [Note this information comes as linear forms at the speed of light but is NOT light or other normal EM waves. It would be best to describe it in terms of EM waves as a beam that approaches infinite frequency and so has no measure with respect to mass nor energy.

This is significant in reinterpreting the other fundamental dismissals in that theory that lent weight to Big Bang by default. Inflation is a false ad hoc explanation and though it may have coincidentally predicted a heat from this, I already interpreted this as necessary from distant space from the effect of galaxies emitting radiation in forms we cannot possibly detect locally due to their extreme high frequency and inability to allow tools we measure things locally as products of matter that cannot directly sense such high energetic particles. So we'd have to see things like quasars as point-like entities precisely because any light we perceive from them were not light at its source but rather extreme high energy ones that we cannot detect until they slow down enough through space and distance.

What is considered 'dark matter' is the initial state of matter derived from those lines (geometric rays) that are both the cause of the pressure on matter [later] that is likely the "dark energy" interpreted. These lines will not interfere normally with any other lines unless and until the collide head-to-head. This creates a contradiction to which it needs to alter its directional information. It does this by creating a 'spin' factor at the point of collision and is so rare that it requires a lot of empty space and less matter. This is because where matter exists, these lines affect matter as gravity but in deep empty spaces they have a better chance to 'survive' to enable chance collisions. The 'spin' factors create 'curved' lines. THIS IS matter. And they form spiral-shaped strings that have a symmetrical movement from the point of collision outward in both directions.

The spiral shaped strings can be of a few distinct forms. One general form is one within a single plane, another is the spirals spinning upon itself (electrons), and another such that the spirals move in opposing directions, such as two cones (pre-proton stage).

These general forms can come in range sizes that relate to harmonic intervals of their spirals in a type of "fractal" way but settle best in its smallest form. The electron is sphere like and has two kinds where the spiral moves out in opposing directions. Only one becomes the normal electrons later as to how they relate to the pre-protons.

The proton proper occurs when an electron gets trapped in one of the cones and pulls it tight to the center. It prevents another electron on the other cone from being allowed any closer and is why a proton accepts an electron.

The curvature of matter as these strings when hit by the linear forms attempt to push the outer portions of the curved spirals in and its information gets transferred to the matter and is gone. Since the any lines hitting the inside are rarer, the tendency of them is to contractually push matter in towards the center of the curves.

Matter, as curves of the same type transfer their information outward on both where they cross making them push away from one another. Since the proton form spirals out differently to an electron type, they try to draw each toward their center.

Gravity is then the effect of any of the original lines from many directions being created by expanding space that 'pushes' matter together by a shadow effect in kind to the Casimir effect.

Electrons appear as less mass because its spin and spherical form concentrates it towards the center as a point. By contrast, a proton is larger in mass appearance because its cones are affected towards a line running through both cones rather than a single point. The conal protons are harder to move and thus more central.

The 'force' at that allows nuclear matter like protons and later neutrons are both due the odds of these shapes to 'fit' without knocking each other away. Like a puzzle piece, these can interlock and have a less chance of flying away, partly because their large masses and shape make them spin more locally than electrons. Then a free electron can be caught in the second 'lobe' of the proton but at a further distance and is best suited at harmonic intervals that define their orbital distances distinctly.

Electromotive charge is the relationships between the different types of curves. In deep space as these are forming, most of it cannot initially form light and why it is 'dark' until these coalesce.

There is a lot more but this may help give a hint at how this operates in a Steady State world and fits in with a something from nothing discussion. You'd have to step back into logic to introduce the function of 'contradiction' as an integral part of it rather than as an end in order to make connection with how all of this works.

Prelogic of nothing to something:

My nothingness is not space nor includes laws either. Initially, if all there is is absolute nothingness, it acts as one PURE TRUTH. That is, if we presume an absolute nothing exists, its very existence (without time) is one certain truth to itself. But this 'truth' requires that at least one fact exists, namely its non-existing existence.


This initiates the first contradiction and is the foundational motivator to all that occurs. It 'repairs' or manifests this by enabling another 'dimension' to which it CAN be true but by perspective. That is this nothingness leads necessarily to it being ONE thing but the contradiction forces it to be contrary by dimension where both exist there.


This is the logical proof using contradiction as a function within logic to initiate all that exists.


To expand, we'd have two facts 'true' at least. One and nothing collectively makes 'two' facts true. But then the concept one, two, and three truths now exist. This process creates the set of whole numbers.


Without getting into the depths that create lines, to planes, to space, and expansion, the rules are all related to these are all that is needed to pre-stage our universe. But note we have to include multiverses as well as well as things like both consistent and inconsistent universes.

On the point that the universe doesn't care, I use this argument with respect to a totality initiating in nothingness even without rules. Since a non-thinking totality has no compassion to care, it doesn't 'care' initially whether it has consistency or inconsistency. But it 'evolves' by taking pieces of data within all possibilities to create pictures like puzzles or pixels on a screen. Some universes will create consistent worlds while other won't. Some will close in their inconsistencies, while others remain open because of its consistency.