MoK

By whole I mean whatever that physically exist.

But W could not be limited as I argued.

Here. Moreover, considering that you return to the point you started (if you move on a straight line closed manifold) requires extrinsic curvature. Ho...

It requires as I illustrated. Not all hyperspaces that I am talking about are necessarily closed so we could deal with finite hyperspace dimensions wh...

Here I am not talking about intrinsic curvature in spacetime that is caused by a massive object locally but extrinsic curvature which tells us what is...

By hyperspace I mean a space of more than three dimensions. Why does the closedness of the space imply a hyperspace? Because any closed manifold has a...

I think if space is closed then it is embedded in a hyperspace.

Oh, I didn't know about him and his argument. I am glad you mentioned it.

Ok, I found the thread. I am however confused with what you are trying to say. I will read it more and post my opinion in the thread if I understand s...

By limited I mean restricted in size. Think of spacetime for example. If spacetime is restricted in size then we can reach its edges by moving in stra...

By the whole, I mean whatever that exists, spacetime, material, etc. No, it can be physical as well. Correct. But what is the implication of this to m...

What I am trying to show is that there are two cases where what you consider as the whole is either limited or limitless. If W_1 is limitless we reach...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSx1-XFrIk0&list=RDik6tJqjMds8&index=2

I should have said that we are dealing with an infinite regress in time if something exists eternally ("in time" was missing). By infinite regress in ...

Correct. The infinite past makes no sense. Correct. Spacetime simply has existed since its beginning. Spacetime could not begin to exist. That is true...

The beginning of spacetime lay either before or at the Big Bang. The material either popped into existence after or at the beginning of time or it was...

Nothing to something is impossible. This is discussed here. There are two arguments for this one from Bob Ross and another from myself. Bob Ross's arg...

Causality is not a thing. Whether spacetime is a thing or not is still subject to debate. You might like to read this article. I think you are talking...

Oh, thanks for the reference to your thread. I will read it shortly.

I think you are talking about virtual particles that pop into existence from the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum refers to space that is devoid of ...

We are dealing with an infinite regress if something exists eternally. Infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore something cannot exist eternally....

It can be shown that we are living in a block universe once we accept the special relativity. You might be interested to read this.

Nothing stays as nothing. But we need to show this. Bob Ross elegantly put this in an argument: P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible ...

I see what you mean and I agree with you. Time simply relates different states of affairs temporarily when there is something. I think the rest of you...

As I discussed this before considering that something exists right now implements that the initial condition cannot be nothing. One however needs to p...

Well, to show that we are dealing with an infinite regress I just need my premise: Spacetime is needed for any change. That is alright to me. I am not...

Well, that is correct that we normally use the term change when the properties of something change. The condition that there is nothing is however dif...

Yes, I never said before but for. What do you mean? I believe something is missing in this statement. Correct. :) We have been through this. I disagre...

Considering that something exists right now then it follows that nothing is not the initial condition if that is what you are trying to say.

We need one thing in here, nothing to spacetime needs spacetime. We start from nothing and ask ourselves how we could have spacetime (let's call this ...

Correct. No. No, nothing could exist as a physical condition where there is no thing. It however follows that nothing comes from nothing as wisely sta...

Correct. But the only thing that I need to show that nothing to spacetime leads to an infinite regress is that we need spacetime for any change to hap...

You agreed that nothing to spacetime is a change. Don't we need spacetime for this change? If yes, then we need spacetime for nothing to spacetime. Th...

I would be happy to see an argument for nothing is illogical physically.

Yes, but you have to wait for it. I am trying to counter this simply by saying that nothing to spacetime is a change. Sure, but there is no spacetime ...

Yes. I can adjust the premise to Time is needed for any temporal change. Thanks for the correction and the contribution. This premise is the second pr...

Thank you very much for your input and the discussion which was very informative for me. I see what you mean. I however have a problem with this premi...

I already argue that spacetime is needed for any change and you agreed with it. What is left is whether we can agree that nothing to spacetime is a ch...

You are correct. We could have changes in a thing in space such as temperature, pressure, and the like. By change here I mean temporal change rather t...

To me, nothing is a condition that there is no thing, no spacetime, no material,... There is no thing in nothing therefore nothing does not have any p...

To me, spacetime is a substance because it affects the motion of other objects and light. It also carries energy in the form of gravitational waves. T...

Please note that I renewed my argument because of a hidden premise (HP). Please find the new argument in the following: P1) Time is needed for change ...

Well, if nothing to spacetime is a change then we need spacetime for it! That is true since spacetime is necessary for any change. No, please see belo...

We have to agree whether nothing to spacetime is a change or not. Yes or no? Actually, I have two strategies to argue that it is improper to say what ...

Well, that is a lot of reading but here you go (what I quote and write may be enough): 1) Introduction to general relativity 2) This, gravitational le...

Ok, I can simplify this even further. I think we can agree that spacetime is necessary for change. I think we can agree that nothing to spacetime is a...

I think the correct statement is that time is necessary for change. By this, I mean that there cannot be any change if there is no time. You are corre...

I see what you mean. Thank you very much for putting in the effort to convert my pseudo-syllogism into a syllogism. So my argument looks like this aft...

I can define nothing as a condition that there is no thing, no spacetime, no material,...

OK, this is the last arrow in my quiver: Any theory in which time is an emergent property within must be a dynamical theory (for example the theory th...