Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?

[thedoc]

Basically you don't need a chicken to lay a chicken egg,
Then it is not a chicken egg

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

[Impenitent]

Basically you don't need a chicken to lay a chicken egg,
Then it is not a chicken egg

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

unless it is paired with ham- then the egg should be green...

-Imp

[thedoc]

unless it is paired with ham- then the egg should be green...

-Imp

It's good to know that AIG is green.

[-1-]

Thanks, JohnDoe7, for this explanation. It revealed a lot that had been mystery previously, buried in jargon.

Your point is well made, and it makes sense. You call a number of things arbitrarily this or that, and I don't agree with that, but my disagreement does not take away from the beauty and elegance of your script.

I am looking for the disagreement, not for the sake of strict debate, but to observe angles I may have missed. Do you see any contradictions?

It's not your ideas I object to, or the system you describe, but your naming conventions, A., and B., that you don't define the names of your concepts, while their names do not inclusively suggest their meanings.

[Viveka]

The 'Big Bang' was an effect that we don't know the cause, perhaps there was one but it is so far, beyond the observation of science to find it.

Also there is the concept of 'vacuum genesis' where matter comes into existence from nothing. Matter is the effect and the cause either doesn't exist or is unknown.

The Big Bang is nonsense; just a theistic model of genesis (not the biblical) with no scientific support. Dark matter hasn't been detected yet. And with gravitational waves the interferometer won't work because the space the laser beam is moving through, as well as the laser beam, will both ripple at the same time. It is like trying to knock a cowboy off his horse in a movie shown on a flexible screen TV by flexing the screen. And with the CMB: If the CMB is homogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to the inhomogeneity of the universe. If the CMB is inhomogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to there being no homogeneous temperature across the universe which would reflect the relic of the big bang's 'bang'. If anything, we should see the CMB refer to the interstellar medium.
Thus there is no room for the big bang, inhomogeneous or homogeneous CMB. Additionally, there are large-scale voids between matter that formed before the big bang's time of genesis allows, and these voids are interspersed with galaxies and superclusters that are connected by bridges of matter, but dark matter cannot model these bridges.

[thedoc]

The Big Bang is nonsense; just a theistic model of genesis (not the biblical) with no scientific support. Dark matter hasn't been detected yet. And with gravitational waves the interferometer won't work because the space the laser beam is moving through, as well as the laser beam, will both ripple at the same time. It is like trying to knock a cowboy off his horse in a movie shown on a flexible screen TV by flexing the screen. And with the CMB: If the CMB is homogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to the inhomogeneity of the universe. If the CMB is inhomogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to there being no homogeneous temperature across the universe which would reflect the relic of the big bang's 'bang'. If anything, we should see the CMB refer to the interstellar medium.
Thus there is no room for the big bang, inhomogeneous or homogeneous CMB. Additionally, there are large-scale voids between matter that formed before the big bang's time of genesis allows, and these voids are interspersed with galaxies and superclusters that are connected by bridges of matter, but dark matter cannot model these bridges.

Do you have a better theory?

BTW, the Big Bang theory has made predictions that have been verified, and none of the predictions have been proven false, that constitutes a lot of positive evidence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Basically you don't need a chicken to lay a chicken egg,
Then it is not a chicken egg

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

Then why call it a chicken egg?

[Viveka]

The Big Bang is nonsense; just a theistic model of genesis (not the biblical) with no scientific support. Dark matter hasn't been detected yet. And with gravitational waves the interferometer won't work because the space the laser beam is moving through, as well as the laser beam, will both ripple at the same time. It is like trying to knock a cowboy off his horse in a movie shown on a flexible screen TV by flexing the screen. And with the CMB: If the CMB is homogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to the inhomogeneity of the universe. If the CMB is inhomogeneous, then the big bang is wrong due to there being no homogeneous temperature across the universe which would reflect the relic of the big bang's 'bang'. If anything, we should see the CMB refer to the interstellar medium.
Thus there is no room for the big bang, inhomogeneous or homogeneous CMB. Additionally, there are large-scale voids between matter that formed before the big bang's time of genesis allows, and these voids are interspersed with galaxies and superclusters that are connected by bridges of matter, but dark matter cannot model these bridges.

Do you have a better theory?

BTW, the Big Bang theory has made predictions that have been verified, and none of the predictions have been proven false, that constitutes a lot of positive evidence.

Indeed I do. Plasma Cosmology. And there hasn't been one prediction of the big bang that hasn't been fitted to the data due to numerous variables.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, it is possible but has never been observed, to my knowledge.

How can an effect exist without a cause? And how can a cause be a cause without an effect? Everything we know of in this universe has a cause and effect relationship, except for maybe the mind and its operations, but even there there exists cause and effect relationships sometimes. To say that cause and effect doesn't exist but is something different also makes sense to me, but it would mean the universe has the semblance of a cause and effect relationship regardless.

The 'Big Bang' was an effect that we don't know the cause, perhaps there was one but it is so far, beyond the observation of science to find it.

The big bang, assuming its existence, would be equivalent to a cause as all
"effects" are just approximate causes. There is cause and approximate cause (effect).
Also there is the concept of 'vacuum genesis' where matter comes into existence from nothing. Matter is the effect and the cause either doesn't exist or is unknown.

In regards to the "effect" without cause, see the above point.

The vacuum genesis concept I will have to familiarize myself with, but upon first glance it makes perfect sense assuming an "ether" exists.

a) This ether would be one dimensional stable space. In able to maintain itself it self-reflects. Self-reflection and ether, are synonymous and issues would be one of "language".

b) In reflecting upon itself it maintains itself, however reflects an approximate structural space as "fluxing space". This "fluxing space" would be a gradation of the ether and in this respect be "disunified" and ever moving. This "disunity" would manifest itself as particulate, with the particulate being individual parts of a whole and exist if and only if they relate to eachother.

ex: The ether could be viewed as a lake with waves being extensions of the lake.
The fluxing space, we will call "apeiron" could be viewed as a bunch of individual waves that form the lake.

c) Considering the apeiron is flux or primordial chaos, its relation to the ether in turn would cause it to form particles or matter through "movement". The ether in turn would reflect these particles, as it maintains its own stability, as a form of "genesis" within the apeiron.

[thedoc]

Indeed I do. Plasma Cosmology. And there hasn't been one prediction of the big bang that hasn't be fitted to the data due to numerous varaibles.

Plasma Cosmology has been debunked and is nonsense.

[thedoc]

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

Then why call it a chicken egg?

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

[Viveka]

Indeed I do. Plasma Cosmology. And there hasn't been one prediction of the big bang that hasn't be fitted to the data due to numerous varaibles.

Plasma Cosmology has been debunked and is nonsense.

Great rebuttal. Where's your evidence and reasoning to prove such? Or are you going to whine about plasma cosmology without a shred of evidence, reasoning, or science?

[Eodnhoj7]

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

Then why call it a chicken egg?

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

The creature that hatches out of it is defined by the creature who lays it.

The creature, egg, and hatchling are defined by their relations, and in the respect to the chicken example reflect as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.

[thedoc]

The creature that hatches out of it is defined by the creature who lays it.

Is the creature that hatches out of an egg identical to the creature that lays the egg?

[Eodnhoj7]

The creature that hatches out of it is defined by the creature who lays it.

Is the creature that hatches out of an egg identical to the creature that lays the egg?

Is a child identical to the parent? Are they not both human? Do they not share degrees of identity?