What is the Origin of Everything?

Originally posted by Eyesee
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.

Abbott:Now let's see. We have on the bags - we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.

Costello: That's what I want to find out.

Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third -

Costello: You know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Certainly!

Costello: Well then who's on first?

Abbott: Yes!

Costello: I mean the fellow's name!

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The guy on first!

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The first baseman!

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The guy playing first!

Abbott: Who is on first!

Costello: Now whaddya askin' me for?

Abbott: I'm telling you Who is on first.

Costello: Well, I'm asking YOU who's on first!

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first.

Abbott: Who!

Costello: The first baseman.

Abbott: Who is on first!

Costello: Have you got a contract with the first baseman?

Abbott: Absolutely.

Costello: Who signs the contract?

Abbott: Well, naturally!

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar. Why not? The man's entitled to it.

Costello: Who is?

Abbott: Yes. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: All I'm tryin' to find out is what's the guy's name on first base.

Abbott: Oh, no - wait a minute, don't switch 'em around. What is on second base.

Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second.

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third - now we're not talkin' 'bout him.

Costello: Now, how did I get on third base?

Abbott: You mentioned his name!

Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third?

Abbott: No - Who's playing first.

Costello: Never mind first - I want to know what's the guy's name on third.

Abbott: No - What's on second.

Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third.

Costello: Aaah! Would you please stay on third base and don't go off it?

Abbott: What was it you wanted?

Originally posted by Eyesee
My statement was not a joke, but feel free to read it as that.
Take anything in the universe - one can always ask of it "where
does that come from?" And if the answer was found to be something
else, the good philosopher would then ask of that, "where does that
come from?" Ad infinitum.

The only answer that can stop this question from being asked an
infinite number of times is : NOTHING.

Everything came from nothing since nothing is the only "thing" that doesn't come from anything.

Originally posted by Mentat
"Nothing" is not a "thing", as you put it. Please, look at the first post of the thread, "An Exercise in Nothing Semantics".

Originally posted by Eyesee
Put it in "quotes" if it will make you feel better but I think my meaning was clear- I don't wish for this debate to degrade into one on semantics.

Originally posted by Mentat
First of all, a semantic discussion is not degratory, merely basic.

Secondly, I put it in quotes because to leave it without quotes is to imply that it is something, when this is a logical contradiction.

Lastly, your point was clear, and clearly wrong. If you run it through the "exercise" it becomes "'everything' (or "the universe") didn't come from anything" and is thus correct. But if you say that there was a state, called "nothing", that gave birth to "everything" you are wrong, because "nothing" is not a state or a thing.

My statement was not a joke, but feel free to read it as that.
Take anything in the universe - one can always ask of it "where
does that come from?" And if the answer was found to be something
else, the good philosopher would then ask of that, "where does that
come from?" Ad infinitum.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, not meaningless answers. Your logic is self-referential and self-contradictory, in other words, paradoxical. Something and nothing axiomatically refer to each other. Often the wisest thing to do is simply admit our ignorance and apparent lack of ability to rectify this ignorance so that we can move on to more productive things.

This is essentially what Aristotle did with Zeno's reductio ad absurdum or what I shall refer to here as the “backdoor” argument. Rather than directly proving something, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are patently ridiculous. For example, if I wish to prove I exist using this backdoor approach, I could first show how absurd it is for me to assert I do not exist. How could I possibly insist I do not exist, unless I actually do exist?

Zeno used this kind of argumentative technique to demonstrate that any possible explanation for existence leads to a paradox, ad absurdium that is. For hundreds of years foolish philosophers challanged his arguments and philosophy to no avail. He used this to justiify his own paradoxical philosophy was no better or worse than any other and, as a result, collected a rather impressive following of argumentative young men who wished to make others look foolish.

Aristotle put a stop to this nonsense by turning this argument around and applying Zeno's own backdoor approach to logic itself. What he showed was that unless we assume everything is either true or false any argument we put forward will lead to a paradox. Thus, if you are going to argue logically that existence comes from nothing you are not inviting an end to the debate, but a continuation of it. Better to just admit we don't know imo.

You write very poetic prose but are you denying that nothing is the absence of anything, and therefore is the only "thing" that need not have a cause?

It is always possible to ask about the origin of something. Anything that has substance that you claim to be the origin, I can always think of something coming before. The only "thing" in which the question "where does this come from" leads to an absolute and irrefutable answer is "NOTHING".

And if Nothing is the only thing imaginable that need not a cause, it can be said to be the first cause. Everything came from nothing.

Originally posted by wuliheron
As I have already pointed out, we could argue this ad infinitum. I will say this once, just as clearly as I can:

If nothing is nothing, then it cannot be the cause of something!

Originally posted by wuliheron
That presents yet another paradox. To say something is infinite is to say it has no limit, but this is a self-contradictory and self-referential statement. It places the limit on itself that there is no limit.[/color]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Its not proof by assertion, again this is a paradox. Nothing cannot be a cause because then it would be something. Go ahead, argue all you want, I refuse to argue anymore with such irrational nonsense.

'Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.'

Originally posted by wuliheron
I suspect like LG, s/he's just talking rhetorical nonsense AG. Every philosophy doesn't have to be logical. :0)

Originally posted by Another God
ah huh... so you are saying that...
0 => 0
Therefore
0 => a

You are aware of the laws of logic aren't you?

Originally posted by Another God
ok, how about...

Y => Z
X => Y
W => X
V => W
U => V
T => U

damn, if this keeps up...i'll run out of letter. What can I do? I know, I need to find something which doesn't need a cause, and put that at the begining.

Therefore:

0 => A

-----------------------------------
IOW: Your logical basis for this claim comes from the fact that you don't want to deal with infinite regress. You ahve no actual basis for claiming that 0 => A, other than the fact that it would be really nice if it did.

Sure, i haven't proven that it isn't possible... But I'm sure it could be done. What I think is most important here though, is simply the fact that there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be true.

Originally posted by Another God
OK then. For your hypothesis that nothing can give rise to something, you are necessrily saying that it is a property of nothing, to cause something.
0 => a
This is a property of nothing, which you are claiming. (Saying that there is a 'chance' that nothing can cause something is meaningless since nothing has no time, has no dimensions, and has no method through which a realisation of chance can occur. It either is, or it isn't.)

In making this claim, you are essentially saying that nothing is an immediate cause of something, and in so doing, you could be said to be redefining nothing, as something.

Nothing = A prime Mover.

LOL, i have just shown that your whole claim is not really what you think it is. You thought it was about something coming from nothing, but if yiou follow the logic through, then u actually end up with a prime mover. LOL.

Can anyone see any faults with my logic? It seems a little weird for me to reach that end...

Originally posted by wuliheron
The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's a common asian belief as well, and totally compatable with Quantum Mechanics I might add. Do you believe anything other than the origin of existence itself is magical?

Originally posted by Another God
Everything which you are claiming here, is essentially meaningless. The concept of magic is meaningless even.

Originally posted by zimbo
Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

Originally posted by Eyesee
I think the relation above does not represent what I am saying.
When you say 0=>0 and 0 => a , you are giving 0 two different
definitions. Of course that would be contradictory. That's like saying an apple is an apple is also an orange. "nothing" is not
"something", I never said it was.

I was speaking in terms of cause and effect. Every "something" can be said to have a cause. "Nothing" otoh is not something, therefore, it doesn't need a cause.

But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself.

The only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer : Everything came from nothing. That's the final answer.

Which hat did you pull this from? How can 'nothing' be the cause and future-residence of 'something'? There's no reason in your statement. It makes no sense.

Thus, it follows that this conclusion is also wrong.
It should be noted that things are finite structures (bounded structures) of existence. I.e., things within existence.
Thus, the only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer: Every-thing emanates from an unbounded existence, which is eternal unto itself. A primal-cause. [/B]

Originally posted by Eyesee
With the help of wuli, I found the right word for the original cause of something: magic. Earlier, I had used the word "nothing" to mean both as a void and also as being the cause of "something". What I meant to say was that the beginning of time was a void, then something came to occupy the void without cause- aka by magic. I am merely proposing that we place the void as the beginning of time since nothing comes before a void. What follows of course is that existence came to occupy the void by "magic".

Nay, as long as there is something, it is possible for one to ask, "where did that come from?" The final answer has to be the void. [/B]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"A void" is an existent 'entity' if it is not nothing. Hence, it is a part (or whole) of existence itself. What follows is that things came to occupy "the void", after being caused to do so by the void itself.
Like I said, 'things' are bounded-structures within existence.
Hence, 'things' emanate from existence. Not magic.

And "the void" itself is eternal. But like I said, the void is not 'nothing'. It may imply the non-existence of a 4-dimensional entity. But it doesn't imply the non-existence of any entity.

Originally posted by Eyesee
I think of the void as truly nothing.

Then, by magic, "things" came into existence and evolved ever after.

So, I guess I am agreeing that existence is eternal

- but only after they came to occupy the void by magic (if that makes any sense).

I probably like your explanation better and there probably isn't much difference between our thinking.

Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

Just like to point out that Abbott and Costello are both names of senior Australian government ministers, which makes your post that much funnier from my perspective.

Well, I think our universe now follows some very strict rules for operation. I find the fact that it does quite magical itself. As far as things popping into and out of existence kind of magic, I think even if this is still happening, it is happening in a different world than ours. Else, I don't see how our universe could remain so stable

Is it any more meaningless than infinite regression of cause and effect? If something always comes from something then the question of origin can never be resolved unless you can count to infinity.

So what better to serve as the time of origin than a true void?

Originally posted by Eyesee
Every "something" can be said to have a cause. "Nothing" otoh is not something, therefore, it doesn't need a cause. But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself. The only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer : Everything came from nothing. That's the final answer.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see two problems with your proposal, but before describing them let me be sure I understand you what you mean by nothing. To say “nothing” I assume you mean absolutely no sort of existence. Nothing could mean no “thing” and a thing might be defined as that which has form. If you defined “thing” that way, then some existent essence which is formless might still fit your definition of no-thing. So, my rebuttals to your points assumes you mean by “nothing” the absence of both form and formless existence – that is, "nothing" is absolutely devoid of existence.

My first objection to your hypothesis all existence stems from nothing is a contradiction that is built into your statement. That logical inconsistency is: nothing is not truly an existential void if it contains potential.

Logically, all that exists is preceded by the potential to exist. That is irrefutable. If you want to call potential nothing, then you have to ignore the incredible emissions of potential that we observe in our universe. Out of potential has burst the entire universe, light, forces, matter, life, and consciousness. All that was present in potential before it ever came to exist or it could not possibly exist. I can't see how anyone can refer to such potential as “nothing.” Contemplating what this potential might be like is a segue to my second rebuttal point.

By saying “Every ‘something’ can be said to have a cause,” you’ve assumed a fact about existence which isn’t necessarily true. Why couldn’t there be some most elementary “existential stuff” which was never caused or created, which has always existed, which will always exist and, in fact, which cannot not exist? Possibly this existential stuff is a luminescent vibrancy that some set of circumstances lift from its base condition into the light and vibratory manifestations so ubiquitous in our universe. (The relatively recent points made about zero point energy, for instance, rather than representing “nothing,” could instead represent a state of counterbalanced polar forces, which are themselves expressed potentials of vibrancy.)

It seems to me that the argument of nothing becoming something can only be made through sophistry. How else does one circumvent the illogic and contradictions of the hypothesis, disregard potential and the possibility of some absolute existential stuff, and the especially ignore the observed and substantive presence of existence?