Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[out of whack]

Here is a link that looks at science and the bible from a logical point of view

Sigh. I don't believe you really understand the basic principles of science. The link you posted leads to nothing scientific or logical at all. Nothing more than unfounded speculations and exaggerations from an old book of legends. Texts like this one masquerading as science are commonly called "quackery", precisely the sort of things you have been repeatedly told is not allowed on this science forum. :grumpy:

 

[robertm]

Here is a link that looks at science and the bible from a logical point of view:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml"

How is this relevant? It adds nothing to the current discussion.

I could already see the blatant bias just from the web address, following the link confirmed it to a high degree. All they are doing is attempting to fit current data with a predetermined set of goals. There is nothing scientific or logical about it. Quite the contrary actually, they are participation in a willing surrender of logic.

That is a crackpot website and had you read and understood the guidelines of this forum you should know that such crackpottery is not permitted and will not hold any water.

 

[2foolish]

If there were "nothing", then you would not be here to ask the question! That is basically the "anthropic principle"- it is, in fact, quite possible to imagine a universe in which there is nothing but in any universe in which there is someone to ask that question, there must exist something! I think that is a paraphrasing of what your website says.

A universe by definition cannot 'contain' a cancellation of existence, it would contain empty space which is a something, you can't exist in a non-existent, even if that existent is an empty containing space, empty space is a something, not a cancellation of existence.

 

[castlegates]

you can't exist in a non-existent

I can't imagine existence without a context.

empty space is a something

The definition for empty is : containing nothing.

 

[robertm]

The definition for empty is : containing nothing.

Yet empty space still retains the ability to contain something. Baywax put it well in an earlier post:

"My philosophy is that if you don't have nothing you don't have something because you have to have the potential for something to exist. That potential is found in emptiness. For instance, if you do not have an empty cup... you can't fill it."

 

[castlegates]

For instance, if you do not have an empty cup... you can't fill it."

Or you could say : Keep thinking that Existence is equally dependent on what it is not, and you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.

 

[baywax]

Or you could say : Keep thinking that Existence is equally dependent on what it is not, and you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.

Reality has bowels?

 

[2foolish]

The definition for empty is : containing nothing.

The problem is space exists when space bends light follows it, so yes space is geometric, it must have some kind of strange geometrically existent structure.

That most people cannot properly define space, remember because words exist and have definitions, doesn't mean we've accurately conceptualized it from the world, we get concepts from reality, that is, we get them from pre-existing matter and energy. i.e. the usual person thinks of of space as "nothing" ('not existent) when it is really a geometric structure which we can move in. Space can bend, you can't bend something that doesn't exist.

Consider the problem:

I can move through existence
I can move through non-existence

By definition if we can move through space, it must exist you can't get a vector or move to an area which by definition doesn't exist "i.e. can't get a vector to a space that doesn't exist".

Since we can move in space, space must be a strange geometric object that exists in a way that is counterintuitive to common sense, space must be a volumetric-like object of a kind, i.e. it can warp, it can bend, etc.

 

[baywax]

you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.

Because you have to have "nothing" in order to have reality.



Space is filled with background radiation. This may explain why doesn't seem empty.

 

[2foolish]

New: Why is there something rather then nothing? Because existence has always existed

Well the only answer to that is, we can ask a question..

Do we exist? Why yes we do, we can detect ourselves and you can't detect a non-existence, so we know already that one existence exists, mainly, us. Now that we know that, we know existence exists, because the statement "You can detect a non-existence" is incoherent.

So therefore, we must ask, how many existences are there? To be parsimonious there can only be one, but we detect 'other existences', ahh but all existents then must be partial existents, of one existence, and therefore are sub-existents of the one existence.

Therefore because the universe contains parts, it cannot be the existence because the universe was derived from and it has parts within it, it cannot BE the existence, since the real existence is all the parts united. So there is a higher existence from which the universe is derived because the existence is all parts unified. It is one object, and the universe has separate parts, therefore.

Existence must always have existed, because you can't derive existence from a non-existence.

Was there a time when existence never existed? No, because the universe is NOT exitence it is a SUB existence.

Therefore, there is only the SET A (existence), and divisions of A (sub-A), or sub existents.

 

[robertm]

...but we detect 'other existences',...

Therefore because the universe contains parts, it cannot be the existence because the universe was derived from and it has parts within it, it cannot BE the existence, since the real existence is all the parts united. So there is a higher existence from which the universe is derived because the existence is all parts unified. It is one object, and the universe has separate parts, therefore.

Whoa. Would you care to elaborate on what exactly it is that you are talking about? Especially that first clause...

This all sounds suspiciously subjective and unfounded...

Existence must always have existed, because you can't derive existence from a non-existence.

Well, actually it remains theoretically possible that the universe did indeed originate from nothing at all. You can not make that statement with such certitude.

Was there a time when existence never existed? No, because the universe is NOT exitence it is a SUB existence.

Therefore, there is only the SET A (existence), and divisions of A (sub-A), or sub existents.

Again, the only sense I can make of this is that you are drawing some strange outlandish conclusions from a set of strange outlandish presuppositions. Please provide some sort of rational evidential backbone for your claims.

 

[castlegates]

The problem is space exists, when space bends, light follows it.

Yep ... that's the theory. Key word here is theory.

So yes space is geometric

Then I suspect you should have no problem drawing it up, considering the geometry of it all.

It must have some kind of strange geometrically existent structure.

Strange indeed. Maybe that's why it can't be drawn up.

Space can bend, you can't bend something that doesn't exist.

Didn't say that you can bend that which does not exist. In fact I know you can't. You seem absolute that light follows a curve of space due to a gravitational hocus pocus as it now stands, acting upon that space, but why is it that light can't just be making that curve by way of interaction with a simple gravitational wave, which would not by any means be the nothing we are discussing.

Consider the problem:

I can move through existence
I can move through non-existence

I don't see a problem here. Both are viable as far as I'm concerned.

By definition if we can move through space, it must exist you can't get a vector or move to an area which by definition doesn't exist "i.e. can't get a vector to a space that doesn't exist".

You can go anywhere you please, because there is NOTHING there to stop you. This is not a play on words.

Since we can move in space, space must be a strange geometric object that exists in a way that is counterintuitive to common sense, space must be a volumetric-like object of a kind, i.e. it can warp, it can bend, etc.

You are more than welcome to draw this up, and I am more than willing to look at it. I just hope I don't have to be in another dimension to understand it, because last I figured, there are only three.

 

[castlegates]

Space is filled with background radiation. This may explain why it doesn't seem empty.

I get this all the time when discussing the possibility of space being nothing, they bring up what is quantifiable, like as if that's what I'm talking about, while they completely disregard the nothing between those quantities. You don't get readings off of that which does not exist. :-)

 

[robertm]

You are more than welcome to draw this up, and I am more than willing to look at it. I just hope I don't have to be in another dimension to understand it, because last I figured, there are only three.

It is a little disingenuous of you to ask one to "draw it up", and sounds suspiciously like an appeal to ignorance.

It is common knowledge that the spacetime metrics used in general reflectivity describe reality with a version of geometry. It has been amazingly precise and overreaching in its confirmed predictions in the last 80 or so years and its inconsistencies and shortcomings (singularities and such) are constantly being worked over in an attempt to describe reality to an even higher degree of accuracy and precision. Quantum Gravity is the field in which major work is currently being done to unify a GR based description of gravitation with the implications of more recent quantum physics.

 

[castlegates]

It is common knowledge that the spacetime metrics used in general reflectivity describe reality with a version of geometry.

I have no problems with the predictions of general reflectivity, as I look at a mirror image of it, at a different angle, with the same prognoses. :-)

So what version of geometry are we talking about?

 

[robertm]

Oh ha ha. It is quite late, or quite early depending on how you look at it.

The one based on GR: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm"

 

[2foolish]

Whoa. Would you care to elaborate on what exactly it is that you are talking about? Especially that first clause...

This all sounds suspiciously subjective and unfounded...

You're not capable of understanding the argument until I explain all the concepts, assuming you can even grasp them. It's quite evident that you haven't grasped them.

Well, actually it remains theoretically possible that the universe did indeed originate from nothing at all. You can not make that statement with such certitude.

Actually no, you don't understand what nothing is, you can't get an existent from non-existence, i.e. you were derived from previous existing stuff. So was your parents, etc, etc.

Again, the only sense I can make of this is that you are drawing some strange outlandish conclusions from a set of strange outlandish presuppositions. Please provide some sort of rational evidential backbone for your claims.

You're under the false assumption that each piece of reality is 'seperate', they are not separate in the ultimate sense (i.e. naturalism breaks down), they are only DISTINCT, this is the confusion in science today, the idea that 'objects' are 'seperate' from everything else is an optical illusion of consciousness, if we exist in room, and that room has space, then everything that exists in that space(you can't exist in non-existence), by definition must be connected, you can't detect objects if they are not contained in an actually existing space, because by definition they can't exist without something to contain them and hold their boundaries together... if you don't believe this last statement try it youself:

Think of a thought, now, is that thought distinct from all your other thoughts? It must be by necessity, therefore anything that is distinct from something else has a boundary, and by necessity must be conceived of as an object. Your thought is made of really existing energy, in the real world.

 

[2foolish]

Yep ... that's the theory. Key word here is theory. Then I suspect you should have no problem drawing it up, considering the geometry of it all. Strange indeed. Maybe that's why it can't be drawn up.

You're not understanding a word I said, sorry, you didn't grasp what I said.

 

[Almanzo]

There are (logically) four kinds of entity.

(1) Entities which do not exist, because they cannot exist in any possible world.
(2) Entities which do not exist, but whose existence is not logically impossiple.
(3) Entities which do exist, but whose nonexistence would not be impossible.
(4) Entities which exist, because they must exist in any possible world.

(1) and (4) share an important property: they are noncontingent. A noncontingent entity is one for which it is true that, whether it exists or not, it could not be otherwise.

Now consider the entity which is most perfect in any way whisch does not make its existence impossible.

Noncontingency is a perfection: a noncontingent entity is more perfect than a contingent one, which shares all its other properties.

Noncontingency does not prevent existence; there are noncontingent existing entities, such as the validity of certain mathematical proofs.

Therefore the entity under consideration is not described in an internally inconsistent way, and we can state that it is noncontingent.

Suppose it does not exist. Then it cannot exist.

But we defined it as an entity which is not forbidden to exist. Therefore it must exist.

 

[2foolish]

There are (logically) four kinds of entity.

(1) Entities which do not exist, because they cannot exist in any possible world.
(2) Entities which do not exist, but whose existence is not logically impossiple.
(3) Entities which do exist, but whose nonexistence would not be impossible.
(4) Entities which exist, because they must exist in any possible world.

(1) and (4) share an important property: they are noncontingent. A noncontingent entity is one for which it is true that, whether it exists or not, it could not be otherwise.

Now consider the entity which is most perfect in any way whisch does not make its existence impossible.

Noncontingency is a perfection: a noncontingent entity is more perfect than a contingent one, which shares all its other properties.

Noncontingency does not prevent existence; there are noncontingent existing entities, such as the validity of certain mathematical proofs.

Therefore the entity under consideration is not described in an internally inconsistent way, and we can state that it is noncontingent.

Suppose it does not exist. Then it cannot exist.

But we defined it as an entity which is not forbidden to exist. Therefore it must exist.

Incorrect because you're deriving those concepts from what someone else taught you, just because people invent concepts, does not mean they have derived those concepts (conceptualized them) correctly, this happens all the time. When we speak of non-existence, we speak of the cancellation of an existence or being.

You're missing the key here: You can use a sign as a substitute for the cancellation of an entity, in order to speak about it.

 

[robertm]

You're not capable of understanding the argument until I explain all the concepts,

That is true, and is precisely why I asked you the elaborate.

assuming you can even grasp them.

Hmmm, I do not see how this statement adds to the discussion. Don't worry, I can handle slight little jabs at my intelligence, just keep in mind that I was critical of your ideas not you. Very telling...

It's quite evident that you haven't grasped them.

That is what I said verbatim, and why I asked you to throw in a little logic to your statements.

Actually no, you don't understand what nothing is, you can't get an existent from non-existence, i.e. you were derived from previous existing stuff. So was your parents, etc, etc.

You obviously are not aware of the reference that I was alluding to. In any case, I said it was a possibility, I am more inclined to believe an situation with no beginning at all. The point is that you made a statement of fact which can not be sufficiently backed up to be called a fact.

You're under the false assumption that each piece of reality is 'seperate',

No I am not. I am not under any assumption and you have yet to explain what is meant by "pieces of reality". I have no idea where you pulled that one from.

they are not separate in the ultimate sense (i.e. naturalism breaks down), they are only DISTINCT, this is the confusion in science today, the idea that 'objects' are 'seperate' from everything else is an optical illusion of consciousness,

Ok, start from "'objects' are 'separate' from everything else", and try and help me understand what it is you are attempting to postulate.

if we exist in room, and that room has space, then everything that exists in that space(you can't exist in non-existence), by definition must be connected, you can't detect objects if they are not contained in an actually existing space, because by definition they can't exist without something to contain them and hold their boundaries together... if you don't believe this last statement try it youself:

Connected how? There is no need to say "they are contained in space", I like better, "They 'take up' space." Subtle but important distinction.

Think of a thought, now, is that thought distinct from all your other thoughts? It must be by necessity, therefore anything that is distinct from something else has a boundary, and by necessity must be conceived of as an object. Your thought is made of really existing energy, in the real world.

Ok yes, thoughts are biological functions of the brain. What does this have to do with your idea of distinct realities? And what exactly is that idea?

You really must be specific, I know this is the philosophy forum, but I am a scientist.

 

[robertm]

There are (logically) four kinds of entity.

(1) Entities which do not exist, because they cannot exist in any possible world.
(2) Entities which do not exist, but whose existence is not logically impossiple.
(3) Entities which do exist, but whose nonexistence would not be impossible.
(4) Entities which exist, because they must exist in any possible world.

Ok:

1) & 2) are one in the same, yet neither can ever be possible because, I think we agree, there does seem to be some sort of existence. 'Entities' can not by definition be in a state of non-existence, the word and indeed all words or mathematics etc. lose their validity, their existence, if their is no existence. One concept can not be concieved while the other is present, they are mutually exclusive.

3) & 4) are more interesting, more pertinent you might say.

3) Begs the question: "Are the conservation laws absolute?" Well, I would say that as long as the basic premise is not violated, i.e. quantities are conserved/fundamental laws are not broken, then if you would like to exchange a bag of light for a bag of matter then be my guest.

4) This I think is a little easier: Existence is the only precondition which must be met. It would not seem to matter what exists after (or during if infinite, which I think may be a necessary condition) the initial condition is met. We can model universes consisting entirely of EM radiation, for example.

 

[azzkika]

thinking about nothing and something begs the question, 'why isn't all of something(matter), evenly distributed across the nothing(space)??

 

[2foolish]

That is true, and is precisely why I asked you the elaborate.

I will but you can only GRASP it if you visualize it, if you don't visualize what I am saying using substitutions (i.e. shapes, colors, objects, etc) you won't be able to connect the relationships properly.

Hmmm, I do not see how this statement adds to the discussion. Don't worry, I can handle slight little jabs at my intelligence, just keep in mind that I was critical of your ideas not you. Very telling...

Not telling, George boole, of boolean algebra/logic was totally ignored and criticized -- i.e. practically almost no one understood what he was saying and those people that didn't understand all were distinguished in their fields, yet his logic lead Claude Shannon to the information revolution.

(quote follows)
"Boole's system (detailed in his 'An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities', 1854) was based on a binary approach, processing only two objects - the yes-no, true-false, on-off, zero-one approach.

Surprisingly, given his standing in the academic community, Boole's idea was either criticized or completely ignored by the majority of his peers. Luckily, American logician Charles Sanders Peirce was more open-minded."

Therefore, just because I say something does not mean you will understand it. i.e. a person having the ability to determine who is rational and who is not, is not a given, and I could point to many more demonstrations of people who turned out to be right when the whole community ignored / criticized / did not understand their ideas.

So it's not a jab at your intelligence, it is a matter of human beings not being fully capable of knowing who is rational and who is not. Therefore it is quite possible you can't understand what I'm saying if you can't connect the dots, even though I present them to you... like teaching an animal physics (note: this is not a slight at your intelligence, we don't say "The dog must be stupid because we can't teach it physics", we say "the dog does not (at least not yet given genetic engineering) have the capability of understanding physics".

That is what I said verbatim, and why I asked you to throw in a little logic to your statements.

There was logic in my statements you just can't see the connections, because you're missing some concepts and the understanding of them, if you have IM (if you're interested) I will whiteboard for you, it will make it a lot easier.

You obviously are not aware of the reference that I was alluding to.

Actually I am, but again, this assumes that human beings fully understand the nature of logic AND that they have conceived the concepts (words) properly, i.e. the "worlds" you speak of, I can ask "were they conceived properly?". I would dispute that logic is conceived properly, considering Mr Boole, and the research and advancements inlogic that is taking place -- http://www.boundarymath.org/

Think about this: When you conceive of logic, that is a system someone else derived and came up with, it's completely possible they were not conceiving the totality of of what logic is, only a small portion of it. Which of course is true, i.e. only a small portion because logic is still a very active area of research (as the former site demonstrates). As Einstein supposedly (unsourced) said: "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research" , Right?

No I am not. I am not under any assumption and you have yet to explain what is meant by "pieces of reality". I have no idea where you pulled that one from

Pieces of one single entity, i..e there is only A and subdivisions of A, when I say "pieces of reality" I mean sub-pieces of A, there is only one reality, when we say "reality" I'm saying it is vague and not precise (misconceived), when we start analyzing how pieces of our world actually exist.

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

* "On the Method of Theoretical Physics" The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933); also published in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April 1934), pp. 163-169. [thanks to Dr. Techie @ www.wordorigins.org and JSTOR]

Ok, start from "'objects' are 'separate' from everything else", and try and help me understand what it is you are attempting to postulate.

You're going to have to visualize everything I say, so I'm going to tell you to imagine it's highly likely you won't grasp it non visually.

So, imagine the color white, like a white 'sheet of paper' (except in this example its not 'paper' in the sense of being made of atoms), in your mind it is simply a surface which is all filled, all merged, and all connected (indistinct, i.e. all white), now imagine a small dot from the surface (2D), i.e. a color fades into existence FROM the previous existence (white), so now you have small point (a dot), that dot is DERIVED FROM the previous existing surface, now enlarge the dot to a moderate size, now imagine another dot emerging from within THAT dot. Now that dot is derived from THE PREVIOUS one. but notice they are all ULTIMATELY connected and derived from the same surface, and each dot has 'boundaries' i.e. distinction, but the boundaries are merely DISTINCTIONS, they are not ultimately separate from the paper, they only appear separate (illusion).

Now tell me what concept is happening here... I can't continue until you understand this first concept.

 

[robertm]

I will but you can only GRASP it if you visualize it, if you don't visualize what I am saying using substitutions (i.e. shapes, colors, objects, etc) you won't be able to connect the relationships properly.

Visualizations should not be the basis of any prospective theory. There must be hard objective observational data to provide a framework on which to base mathematical predictions of observable phenomenon.

I am a huge fan of attempting to visualize concepts in physics, but despite the amazing visual processing power of our brains, one must realize that visualizations simply can not go beyond simple representations when dealing with the very large, or the very small.

Therefore, just because I say something does not mean you will understand it. i.e. a person having the ability to determine who is rational and who is not, is not a given, and I could point to many more demonstrations of people who turned out to be right when the whole community ignored / criticized / did not understand their ideas.

So it's not a jab at your intelligence, it is a matter of human beings not being fully capable of knowing who is rational and who is not. Therefore it is quite possible you can't understand what I'm saying if you can't connect the dots, even though I present them to you... like teaching an animal physics (note: this is not a slight at your intelligence, we don't say "The dog must be stupid because we can't teach it physics", we say "the dog does not (at least not yet given genetic engineering) have the capability of understanding physics".

I did not approach your ideas, or criticize them with the intent to determine your rationality. I do not care if you are barking mad (i.e. Telsa) if your ideas and premises are sound then they will be taken with serious consideration regardless of who you are. But you must present something concrete and credible or the benefit of any doubt will begin to fade.

There was logic in my statements you just can't see the connections, because you're missing some concepts and the understanding of them, if you have IM (if you're interested) I will whiteboard for you, it will make it a lot easier.

Sorry not a big IM fan. I suggest you open a new thread to present your ideas, this one is getting quite bogged down at 15 pages.

Actually I am, but again, this assumes that human beings fully understand the nature of logic AND that they have conceived the concepts (words) properly, i.e. the "worlds" you speak of, I can ask "were they conceived properly?". I would dispute that logic is conceived properly, considering Mr Boole, and the research and advancements inlogic that is taking place -- http://www.boundarymath.org/

Logic is a human invented concept, it has no 'nature' outside of a human mind. Any serious attempt to understand and quantify reality must be made through the objective processing and quantification of objectively collected data.

Think about this: When you conceive of logic, that is a system someone else derived and came up with, it's completely possible they were not conceiving the totality of of what logic is, only a small portion of it. Which of course is true, i.e. only a small portion because logic is still a very active area of research (as the former site demonstrates). As Einstein supposedly (unsourced) said: "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research" , Right?

No I wouldn't say that. Logical and rational thinking follows quite naturally and unaided from the physiology of the human brain. Logic is simply the classification and expansion of an inherent mode of thought.

Pieces of one single entity, i..e there is only A and subdivisions of A, when I say "pieces of reality" I mean sub-pieces of A, there is only one reality, when we say "reality" I'm saying it is vague and not precise (misconceived), when we start analyzing how pieces of our world actually exist.

"Pieces of our world", again, what is it that you are PHYSICALLY stating about reality?

You're going to have to visualize everything I say, so I'm going to tell you to imagine it's highly likely you won't grasp it non visually.

Once again, visualizations should not be the basis of any postulate. I am highly sceptical of any theory that can not be described in the language of mathematics...

So, imagine the color white, like a white 'sheet of paper' (except in this example its not 'paper' in the sense of being made of atoms), in your mind it is simply a surface which is all filled, all merged, and all connected (indistinct, i.e. all white), now imagine a small dot from the surface (2D), i.e. a color fades into existence FROM the previous existence (white), so now you have small point (a dot), that dot is DERIVED FROM the previous existing surface, now enlarge the dot to a moderate size, now imagine another dot emerging from within THAT dot. Now that dot is derived from THE PREVIOUS one. but notice they are all ULTIMATELY connected and derived from the same surface, and each dot has 'boundaries' i.e. distinction, but the boundaries are merely DISTINCTIONS, they are not ultimately separate from the paper, they only appear separate (illusion).

Now tell me what concept is happening here... I can't continue until you understand this first concept.

Their is no need for visualization to understand your concept, I found this a little anti-climactic actually...

How and why does this apply to reality and what are the consequences/predictions?

You do not need to piece-meal an idea in the hopes of reining someone into a particular view. If you have a valid well formulated idea, than present it. Stop beating around the bush.

I think it would be highly appropriate for you to open a new thread.

 

[2foolish]

Visualizations should not be the basis of any prospective theory. There must be hard objective observational data to provide a framework on which to base mathematical predictions of observable phenomenon.

I am a huge fan of attempting to visualize concepts in physics, but despite the amazing visual processing power of our brains, one must realize that visualizations simply can not go beyond simple representations when dealing with the very large, or the very small.

You did not understand again what I said. It's obvious from this one paragraph that you are totally incapable of grasping what I just said or you would not have said this, you measure "out there", but your mind and body was derived from pre-existing matter and energy, the "inside" and "outside" are artifacts of language, i.e. they break down once you realize you are matter and energy, or are you claiming your body and your mind was not DERIVED from pre-existing matter and energy, and your thoughts are NOT made of pre-existing matter and energy? Check out your next irrational statement

Logic is a human invented concept, it has no 'nature' outside of a human mind. Any serious attempt to understand and quantify reality must be made through the objective processing and quantification of objectively collected data.

What is the root definition of invent in the REAL world, i.e. someone coined the term but to actually invent something in the real world you make something out of pre-existing stuff. Now your thoughts are made of energy, in order for you to HAVE a thought, you have to make a thought out of (deriving it from) pre-existing energy. So in order to INVENT a concept in the REAL world (that is make something) you have to make it out of previously existing, objectively existing stuff in the real world, consider that before you were alive you were just pre-existing matter and energy, so in order for you to have been formed (invented) you were invented from (made of) pre-existent matter and energy i.e. the same stuff just remolded. You do not understand the concept of "invent" as it is tied to the real world, and you forget the human mind is MADE of the SAME objectively existing energy, i.e. your mind and your thoughts are made out of objectively existing energy or would you like to dispute that?

Because I can see all the fallacies in your above paragraph quite clearly. The rest doesn't matter because you have demonstrated your misunderstanding what I am saying. So I am quite correct in stating you are not grasping what I am saying, because I can point out exactly where you are incorrect.

 

[out of whack]

2foolish, I have yet to read anything concrete from you in all that text you have posted so far. If you have a point to make, make it already.

 

[2foolish]

2foolish, I have yet to read anything concrete from you in all that text you have posted so far. If you have a point to make, make it already.

It's because you're not understanding what I'm saying. My point is this: Every existing thing in the universe derives itself from something that already exists, you can't get an existent from the non-existent entity. There is no entity to derive yourself from, since all things in this universe are merely sub-entities of one source, they are SUB-distinctions, they are not ultimately 'separate' they are merely distinct aspects of the same interconnected existence. The confusion is that the ball and you are "separate" but you can't toss the ball across an interconnected surface that is not really there, tossing a ball across a non-existent spacial-surface, for me to catch. There is no medium to transmit the ball.

When you see a ball and you touch a ball, it is not in the ultimate sense actually separate from you (ball being made of energy), it is merely distinct from you, since you and the ball are derived from the same pre-existing stuff. Yes or no? Do you agree with the last statement? yes no?

The idea you exist "in your mind" is nonsense, since the concept of "insideness" vs "outsideness" is incoherent once you realize you are all made of the same pre-existent stuff. Since before you were conscious you were made of pre-existing energy, you existed (in decomposed form) "out there" in objective reality as land/atoms --> energy becomes merely differently shaped energy(human being), when you "die" you merely decompose back into energy again... i.e. "you" are gone, in the sense that your constituents of your body is no longer functioning but all the energy just returns to the ground it was derived from. So you don't really "stop existing" you merely RETURN the pre-existent stuff you were made back to it's original form which still exists after you're dead.

 

[out of whack]

It's because you're not understanding what I'm saying.

You sure seem to enjoy saying that. Here's a hint. When nobody (so far, according to you) understands what you're saying then it's time for you to look at what these people all have in common. Here's another hint: what they have in common is you. I hope you're understanding what I'm saying.

My point is this: Every existing thing in the universe derives itself from something that already exists, you can't get an existent from the non-existent entity. There is no entity to derive yourself from, since all things in this universe are merely sub-entities of one source, they are SUB-distinctions, they are not ultimately 'separate' they are merely distinct aspects of the same interconnected existence. The confusion is that the ball and you are "separate" but you can't toss the ball across an interconnected surface that is not really there, tossing a ball across a non-existent spacial-surface, for me to catch. There is no medium to transmit the ball.

When you see a ball and you touch a ball, it is not in the ultimate sense actually separate from you (ball being made of energy), it is merely distinct from you, since you and the ball are derived from the same pre-existing stuff. Yes or no? Do you agree with the last statement? yes no?

The idea you exist "in your mind" is nonsense, since the concept of "insideness" vs "outsideness" is incoherent once you realize you are all made of the same pre-existent stuff. Since before you were conscious you were made of pre-existing energy, you existed (in decomposed form) "out there" as land/atoms --> energy becomes merely differently shaped energy(human being), when you "die" you merely decompose back into energy again... i.e. "you" are gone, in the sense that your constituent body is no longer functioning but all the energy just returns to the ground in, every last cent of it. So you don't really "stop existing" you merely RETURN the pre-existent stuff you were made back to it's original form which still exists after you're dead.

So basically you're just repeating in different words what others have already said in this thread. I suspected you were a waste of time.

 

[castlegates]

I suppose 2foolish is saying that the universe has always existed, because you can't get something from nothing, by his reckoning, and that's all fine and dandy.

I personally think you can get something from nothing, and happen to think that realty is conceptual in nature. With this in mind, reality stands as finite geometric representations of nothing. I.E A collection of thoughts that have form, composed of nothing at all. Toss in some interaction that follows universal conceptual laws, and we have a party.

In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of.

With the sentence above, nothing new is created from nothing, as the minimal set for nothing is zero and one. A universe from nothing must by fiat, be made of nothing, there really is no choice but to take it with you in the explanation of it. Thusly all fudamental units in our universe are no more than forms of nothing, and variations of form bring about the diversity we see in nature.

 

[2foolish]

I suppose 2foolish is saying that the universe has always existed, because you can't get something from nothing, by his reckoning, and that's all fine and dandy.

The argument is thus: There is only one existence A, and a is always itself, we exist, but I am not you, but existence is always ALL of itself, since there is only one existence. So anything that is distinct must be subdivision of A (a piece of A), and since A (existence) is always connected to itself at all times, everything that is a piece of A inherits the property-piece of A, anything that exists in distinct pieces must by definition be derived from one whole object (in this case existence). To say we exist, and then say nothing exists is a contradiction in terms, because technically from what we know scientifically we were derived from a prior existence. i.e. the earth, and more importantly it is assumed that the people here have correctly conceived the concept of nothing, i.e. it is assumed they didn't MISunderstand and MISconceive nothing, rather then questioning the concept -- asking "is my conception of nothing actually coherent?" It is obvious from everyone who has replied that they do misunderstand the conception of nothing, they are thinking of it as empty, not as absolute non-existence, but WE exist, therefore non-existence cannot exist, because we are here (an existent). Very simple, very easy, people here do not have the time and are not interested in building up the necessary concepts that lead from A to B.

 

[baywax]

(I) think that realty is conceptual in nature. With this in mind, (...)

I.E A collection of thoughts that have form, composed of nothing at all. Toss in some interaction that follows universal conceptual laws, and we have a party.

You're contradicting your whole premise.

"Reality being conceptual" in nature means what to you?

Please define what you think a concept is.

You say "with this in mind"... please define how you are using the word "mind".

"We have a party"... please define "we" since you have said there is only "1" and "nothing" to "reality".

 

[robertm]

You did not understand again what I said. It's obvious from this one paragraph that you are totally incapable of grasping what I just said

Check out your next irrational statement

Because I can see all the fallacies in your above paragraph quite clearly. The rest doesn't matter because you have demonstrated your misunderstanding what I am saying. So I am quite correct in stating you are not grasping what I am saying, because I can point out exactly where you are incorrect.

I gave you a fair chance, and this metaphysical ridiculousness (which is NOT difficult to understand by the way) is all you are able to spew.

I will leave it to the fair mindedness of anyone who happens to read this. As for me, I am done with this nonsense.

 

[2foolish]

I gave you a fair chance, and this metaphysical ridiculousness (which is NOT difficult to understand by the way) is all you are able to spew.

I will leave it to the fair mindedness of anyone who happens to read this. As for me, I am done with this nonsense.

Nice avoiding the argument, you claim to know I am wrong, you have to show where the error is in my statements, otherwise: You have no valid claim. You haven't demonstrated I am wrong you've only claimed that I am, your claim to my error means you must know where the error is in which word or which statement. Therefore until you point out the error in my statements, which word or which statement contains the error and demonstrate the error, You have no valid claim.

 

[castlegates]

You're contradicting your whole premise.

If there is a contradiction by your calculation, it might help to be specific as to what that might be. I might point out that NOTHING is a contradiction by way of it's own definition. I.E. A thing is used to drive it home.

"Reality being conceptual" in nature means what to you?

For starters, it's not physical, meaning that interaction of reality is not like bumper cars, more like the If - THEN statement in computer software.

Please define what you think a concept is.

A concept is a thought. The universe as an example is a collection of thoughts. Let me draw it up for you in the next few sentences. Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Consider that what is inside the circle is nothing, and what is outside the circle is nothing. Consider that the line used to draw the circle has no thickness. This is what you could call a conceptual geometric emdodiment of nothing (a thought). The concept here is one, or taken further ... one nothing. Variations in these kinds of concepts (thoughts) come by way of variations in form, like a square to a circle. This is the geometric reality of all that exist, the conceptual understanding of one, and the form of it.

You say "with this in mind"... please define how you are using the word "mind".

Maybe the word inclination could be used also? ;-)

"We have a party"... please define "we" since you have said there is only "1" and "nothing" to "reality".

In the beginning there is only One and Nothing, this is the minimal set. Let's call this a marriage. I also said: "In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of." This is the party, an orgy. ;-)

(There are only ones) There is never a time when it is any other way.
(One at a time) Time being nothing at all, and being infinitely divisble, there will never be a time when two entities occupy the same space, hence one at a time.
(Where time is the nothing Ones are composed of) The ones stand as markers for time, time being nothing, just lies there like a 2 dollar whore, such that you sense nothing between the quantifiable ones.


I call this theory -
THE REALITY OF NON-EXISTENCE.