Obligatory Monthly Plug Drug's Philosophical Ramblings Thread

[Plug Drugs]

Anyways, continuing where I left off earlier, the very initial stages of the "big bang" probably did not resemble an explosion, but rather it resembled this:

[Plug Drugs]

Have you read about this and tried to follow it along all the way up to the other 11 ( or however many it is, I forget) dimensions?

yeah, but there's something else that starts out just like that which builds up to explaining space and time forming out of a simple geometrical progression. It ends up forming a symbol though, it doesn't go through the 10/11 dimensions, but I know what you're talking about. It's basically an attempt to explain how the universe could form out of absolutely nothing at all:
the nothingness/void would have an absolute value of 1, thereby turning the nothingness into somethingness. Then, this somethingness having a value of 1 causes the alternative (a value of 0) to appear alongside it; this forms two points, which then form a line: the first dimension.
I always struggle imagining any more after that. It's not like the similar progression which shows the 10/11 dimensions, which is what I think you're referring to; the progression I'm talking about ends up forming a certain symbol in Sacred Geometry, and those believing in SG think of the symbol as "what God used to create the universe".

[Plug Drugs]

I would need to see how this theory progresses further to accept it. As it stands I think it has a fundamental flaw that many philosophers have also made. It fails to grasp the concept of "nothing", a non-existence, it attempts to deal with this failure on concept by simply replacing the concept of "nothing" with "something" and even goes so far as to give the "nothing" a value in an attempt to make it tangible. Similar fundamental flaws in logic have also been used in the philisophical arguments used in trying to prove the existence of god. You cannot replace "nothing" (or in other arguments a "god" that not exist) with "something", let alone attribute a value or point of existence to it because basicall the "nothing" is simply not there, it is not exisiting and so it can not be affected by a "something" and cannot be attributed a value. Descartes makes a similar failure in concept when attempting to compare a god that exists with a god that does not exist. He fails to concieve of a god that does not exist and so to deal with this simply replaces a non existence god with a decieving demon, basically positing a god of a different nature where one simply should not exist in order to have a tangible point in his theory to compare the god that does exist to and that is a fundamental flaw in which all subsequent logic that rests on this flawed. A god that does not exist cannot be compared to a god that does exist simply because the god that doesn't exist is just not there to compare against, nor can you attribute any kind of nature to it, decieving or not. In a similar way you cannot posit a true "nothingness" into a theory of "something" and attribute it a value, it is simply not there. If it is there then it is in fact not "nothing" that you are dealing with but instead "something". This does not turn a "nothing" into "something" it instead is two points of "something" and the concept of "nothing" completely fails. As such I do not accept that this theory explains how "something" came out of "nothing", it completely fails to even grasp the concept of "nothing" (which like infinity is a hard concept to grasp) and instead it seems like an infantile idea of how "something" was created and came to be out of "something", both somethings having a value attributed to them. It literally has nothing to do with "nothing".

Do you believe in a prime mover? I myself do not.

You're right; its really just a desperate attempt made by philosophers for thousands of years to cope with the concept of nothingness; to try and make sense of the thought experiment "If at one point in time, there was absolutely nothing in existence, then how did something come out of nothing???"

Although with eternal recurrence, there doesn't need to be an answer to that question, as the reason there is "something" in existence is because there has always been "something" in existence, and there will continue to be "something" in existence until the end of time, because "something" can never be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.