Everything came from Nothing

  • Thread starter Eyesee
  • Start date
  • #1
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
zimbo
50
0
Nice one! (At the risk of sounding stupid: I take that it's a joke?)
 
  • #3
wuliheron
2,135
0
Tools

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is molded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Confusion surrounds our abstractions;
Because we are ignorant
We may find answers
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by Eyesee
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.
If we are the product of some cosmic crepitation would anyone have heard the noise?
 
  • #5
Mentat
3,918
3
I'm going to assume/hope that you are joking.

On the off chance that you're not, run your post through my "exercise of nothing semantics". In so doing, you produce: "'everything' didn't come from anything".
 
  • #6
wuliheron
2,135
0
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?
 
  • #7
Well, this thread has slipped horribly off topic! [Runs around in circles. Screams and shouts.]
 
  • #8
wuliheron
2,135
0
The topic was nothing, just ignore it. It'll go away. :0)
 
  • #9
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.
 
  • #10
Mentat
3,918
3
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.

"Nothing" is not a "thing", as you put it. Please, look at the first post of the thread, "An Exercise in Nothing Semantics".
 
  • #11
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".

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.
 
  • #12
Mentat
3,918
3
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.

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.
 
  • #13
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.

I had put the word "thing" in quotes if you had not noticed since I had anticipated different interprations of the meaning "thing".

I don't understand how you can twist the meaning of my statement and then claim that it is wrong? Of course it is wrong if you change the meaning to what YOU want it to mean. In my statement, I was making a very simple claim: the question of origin can only be answered finally by answering that everything comes from nothing. But I had assumed the most widely accepted meaning of the words "nothing" , "thing", "everything", "comes", "because", "it", "from", "only", "the", and "doesn't", instead of your more esoteric definitions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
wuliheron
2,135
0
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.

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.
 
  • #15
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, ad infinitum. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
wuliheron
2,135
0
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.

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!
 
  • #17
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!


That's called proof by assertion, I think. How do you know something can't come from nothing? We have never observed nothing. But only nothing did not come from anything so it is the only answer that gives finality to the question of origin.
 
  • #18
wuliheron
2,135
0
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.'
 
  • #19
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
987
4
I've come to the conclusion that there was always something.
 
  • #20
wuliheron
2,135
0
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.
 
  • #21
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
987
4
I never said it was a 'good' conclusion. It just happened to be the point I had got to when I stopped thinking.
 
  • #22
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.
I've not read anything else. But this is nonsense reasoning.
How can "no limits" be a limit? A limit to what? Name me one thing that a no-limits being is limited to be.

Make philosophy your slave. Don't be a slave to a particular philosophy.
 
  • #23
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.'

No, that is only if you assumed something always has to be caused by something. Something that is caused by nothing does not make the nothing a something. Nothing is the natural origin for all things since there is nothing before nothing.
 
  • #24
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
987
4
ah huh... so you are saying that...
0 => 0
Therefore
0 => a

You are aware of the laws of logic aren't you?
 
  • #25
wuliheron
2,135
0
I suspect like LG, s/he's just talking rhetorical nonsense AG. Every philosophy doesn't have to be logical. :0)
 
  • #26
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)
Correction. No religion has to be logical.
 
  • #27
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?

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.
 
  • #28
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
987
4
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.
 
  • #29
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.

Yea, I think this is a nice assessment. All but the part about you being able to prove that nothing cannot be the cause of something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
987
4
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...
 
  • #31
wuliheron
2,135
0
Nope, that's just the circuitous route to exactly what I said. That is, that to say nothing is the cause of something is to say nothing is something. In other words, rhetorical nonsense.
 
  • #32
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...

No, I did not redefine nothing as something, you did. What is a "prime mover"? Can it be seen, felt, smelt, heard, tasted?

Maybe "cause" isn't the right word to describe the process of existence ex-nihilo since we usually associate cause and effect
as a relationship between two "somethings". Rather, existence ex-nihilo- something coming into existence from non-existence- is a process that happens "without cause". It is a break in cause and effect.

It's like if a purple dinosaur (a real one) suddenly appeared in your living room. This is an effect that has no cause. Extend this thought to a time when there was no living room, no energy, no matter- nothing. Here, "Nothing" did not cause the purple dinosaur to exist but rather describes the void that became occupied by the purple dinosaur when before it was not occupied by anything.

Before there was a purple dinosaur, there was a void. Before there was a void, there was a void. Before there was a void, there was a void. A void is the only "thing" where there is no before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
wuliheron
2,135
0
The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by wuliheron
The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.

Yes, magic. Everything came from magic.
 
  • #35
wuliheron
2,135
0
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?
 

Suggested for: Everything came from Nothing

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
283
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
696
Replies
6
Views
367
Replies
32
Views
715
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
963
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
401
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
883
Top