Recent content by Castlegate

One point I was making is that all things must be composed of nothing in a universe that came from nothing. Hence we are also forced to conclude that reality is conceptual in nature, also that "nothing" cannot be divorced from "something". This is in direct opposition to what you are saying...

By the fact that there must be one of them. This is enough for a condition of "being".

This thread is essentially about what must happen if the universe came from nothing. It is very likely in the extreme sense that there is only one roadway out of nothing, if the initial assumption is correct. My contention is that this must be a conceptual path by way of no other alternative...

With the question of (If the universe came from nothing) as an accepted fact, and a coveat that the state of nothing cannot be defined, we are forced to accept that the universe is an incomplete definition of it. This is to say that the universe is a finite entity, such that x number of units...

Given the assumption that the universe came from nothing, and the likelyhood of conceptual reality as a matter of due course, we can surmise that even a fundamental entity is self aware, and if so, the introduction of consciousness for humans is the collective of fundamentally self aware...

About all you can say about nothing, is that there is one of them. The concept of one constitutes a reality. It is common to all of existence, and form is just another way of saying one. A form of nothing is the same as one nothing, and is for all expressive purposes ... the equivalent of a...

With the assumption that the universe came from nothing, we must assume that all things in the universe are made of nothing, and if this is true, reality must be a conceptual entity. We can know reality by it's form, in relationship with other forms. We can have conceptual forms of nothing, as...

The universe (IS) the definition of time. It stands as markers for time. The universe (markers) exist, and time (NOTHING) does not.

If the universe came from nothing .. contradiction is an absolute requirement, and it is therefore correct.

I'd like to offer up an explanation of how a goemetric representation of time can become a property such as mass, but that will take some effort on my part, and I'm a bit short on time, at this time. I will do my best when time allows.

I'd have to agree here. Any suggestions?

I've been saying for a number of years now, that the universe is the definition of nothing. This is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. I also assume that all things are composed of nothing, because that is all that is available to work with. In our universe there are...

Removing change, or what I would call markers for time involves removing all that exist. We would then be left with nothing (time). Thusly an eternity of time would have to pass before a new marker could be put into play, by which all other markers after are based. Time (nothing) serves no...

This doesn't make sense to me. If we were the number 5 on an infinite timeline ... one cannot claim an infinity before or after 5. We obviosly have a different interpretation of infinity. By making this statement I assume that when you use the word infinity, that you really mean it. i.e. a...

So you're saying that the universe can't come from nothing? That the universe had no beginning? If so - then the universe has always been. Not for x number of years, but for an infinity of years. Yet here we are as time passes, which implies an incomplete infinity, which brings us back to ...