0 = e^∞ ? If absolute nothingness is infinite potential, then is the infinity vacuum First Cause?

That theory is extremely incomplete.

It doesn't make sense if you consider e as a natural log (my first impression) or if you consider e to be the speed of light. As the speed of light is multiplied exponentially without limit, then it equals zero? That doesn't make sense. Light has quantitative values greater than zero-mass, energy, speed, etc. All these are greater than zero and even if the exponent was negative infinity it would still create a limit as e approaches zero (but would never get there).

What you have is a positive infinity which is completely and utterly wrong. Any positive number multiplied by a positive number increases, and the measurements of light are all positive values.

There needs to be information preceding it or relating to it to make sense.

Sorry I call scientific BS on atheists and Creationists alike.

EDIT:

Those don't "support" what you said. I just checked them. That equation is not in there or even implied.

Where does your infinity come from?

Okay that's cool. What you said MAY be accurate but the use of a completely wrong equation was misleading, and I jump on Creationists asses just as much.

Infinity doesn't really get used as a constant.

It's more of a convention for limits.

You're going to run into problems which I believe are completely unecessary.

One of the problems had already been pointed out by Kant: If you suppose that an infinity of time preceded us, how did we get to today?

Another problem is that it may be all well and good in the abstract, but exactly how much is "enough" time for an emptiness vaccuum to no longer be an emptiness vaccuum? All this idea does is suppose there has to be such a number and we must have passed it. An interesting notion, but a rather odd one, and one that is purely abstract as far as explaining anything goes.

I think the real problem is you're attempting to solve a false question. Creation "ex nihilo" is what the Bible says. Mainstream science posits no such initial state of "nothingness". I had a professor of metaphysics, who wrote his thesis on a medieval perspective to the question: "Why is there something instead of nothing?". He ultimately concludes feeling the need to explain existence, as opposed to the need to explain non-existence, is ultimately a prejudice of the mind. In other words: Why not?

First of all, wouldn't e^∞ = ∞?

Second, a vacuum definitely does not have any potential energy in itself.

Third, 'hyper-dimensional infinity vacuum'? As somebody with an engineering degree who has taken many college-level physics classes, this sounds like sci-fi BS, the kind of quasi-science that guys like Deepak Chopra push on unsuspecting people.

In short, this is quasi-scientific nonsense. Are you the time-cube guy?

there was no space, no 'vacuum' prior to the big bang. THe big bang was an expansion of space (as in pure three dimensional space)...as well as matter...and as well as time (ok expansion of time is a strange thing to say and not technical, but its true that the more space you have between mass the faster time is allowed to travel...)

After the big bang, and always, there is no vacuum. A pure vacuum seems to be a physical impossibility. Which apparently is part of the reason that the universe is doomed. (Boltzmann brain)

particular patently impenetrable notions inclusive of infinity and nothingness our links to the continuity of being, are very deceptive. we've recommendations. We communicate approximately it, yet we will not have a real information of the words we use, the recommendations we've. In our ideas, to die potential from somebody you unexpectedly substitute into no one. You stop to be. You stop to exist. it somewhat is the information. in addition, we predict of of start as our initiating. What does it potential to be born ? To be born potential from not something, you unexpectedly substitute into something. From no one, you unexpectedly substitute into somebody. through fact of those notions, we've saved our worry in us for too long. The Enlightened One invites us to hold out worry and look deeply in to the object of our worry : the phobia of loss of existence and the phobia of non-being. it somewhat is the cream of the Enlightened One's Teachings. for this reason, One can't arise with the money for to not study because it somewhat is the suitable of the instructions. So is it attainable to assert that from not something, something has come into ecxistence ? From not something are you able to've something ? Sunyata, vacancy, is a significant term in Buddhism. it is likewise very deceptive. The practice of vacancy is the practice of seeing anybody in you, and you in anybody. in case you have non-worry in you, your existence would be greater eye-catching, happier, and you will help many people. Non-worry has an energitic base for social action, movements of compassion and different mandatory ethical movements. suitable desires !

Please show the derivation and proof of your equation. It is false upon inspection. Until you do that it is gibberish.

This question really sucks.

sure i like lollipops.

I LIKE TURTLES