Everything came from Nothing

  • Thread starter Eyesee
  • Start date
L

Lifegazer

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.
 
E

Eyesee

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.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
975
3
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.
 
E

Eyesee

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:

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
975
3
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 wierd for me to reach that end....
 
1,927
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.
 
E

Eyesee

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 wierd 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:
1,927
0
The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.
 
E

Eyesee

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.
 
1,927
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?
 
E

Eyesee

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?
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
975
3
Everything which you are claiming here, is essentially meaningless. The concept of magic is meaningless even.
 
E

Eyesee

Originally posted by Another God
Everything which you are claiming here, is essentially meaningless. The concept of magic is meaningless even.
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
50
0
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.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
975
3
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?)

Lol, that skit is one of the most well known classic comedy skits of all time. I think my uncle has a copy of it on tape. It has abbott and costello on stage engaged in a dialogue. Stand up comedy i guess. I would imagine you could download the text from various net based site... Or now, you can just cut and paste from Wuliherons post.

(the footage is black and white BTW... so I get the impression its a really really old skit)
 
L

Lifegazer

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.
I agree with this. It's well-reasoned.
But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself.
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.
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.
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.
 
E

Eyesee

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.
Yes, thanks for helping me make the distinction. 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".

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]
Nay, as long as there is something, it is possible for one to ask, "where did that come from?" One can never count to infinity,
so this position can never be resolved. However, if we placed the beginning at the void, the question of existence is resolved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

Lifegazer

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".
"A void" is an existant '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.
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]
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.
 
E

Eyesee

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"A void" is an existant '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.
Well, that sounds pretty deep. My thinking is probably a little bit more simplistic. 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.

My whole thinking was more to find some practical way to define the beginning of time.
 
L

Lifegazer

Originally posted by Eyesee
I think of the void as truly nothing.
But there is no reason to state that it is. The absence of space-time does not = 'nothing'. It just = the absence of space-time... a void of space-time. It is right here where you make you first reasoned mistake; and why your proceeding logic becomes confusing and flawed.
Then, by magic, "things" came into existence and evolved ever after.
Because you have introduced the concept of 'nothing' into your argument (unreasonably), you now feel justified in using the word 'magic'. It just aint so.
So, I guess I am agreeing that existence is eternal
Are you? You implied that existence came from 'nothing'. Therefore you imply that existence has an origin. Therefore you imply that existence has a finite age. And all of this confusion and contradiction has its source in your treatment of 'nothing'.

Reason would insist that something cannot emanate from nothing. Therefore, if something exists now, then reason would state that existence is eternal, and that there never was a state of nothing.
"The void" is definitely some form of existence, and all 'things' emanate from it.
- but only after they came to occupy the void by magic (if that makes any sense).
No it does not. What is 'magic'? I'm not sure what it means in this context. But it has no credibility in a reasoned argument.
I probably like your explanation better and there probably isn't much difference between our thinking.
There's more than you think.
 
1,927
0
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.
It's an old comedy routine from the movies. I just did a google search for "who's on first". The entire routine can be had for free online in mp3 files if you like, but I decided not to waste space posting the whole thing. :0)

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
Well, Quantum Mechanics insists things called "virtual" particles are appearing and disappearing all the time, but they are so small they cannot be directly detected. Its the extreme nature of the situation that determines whether such magical events are detectable. For example, Stephen Hawking once wrote that a black hole could theoretically emit a color tv or the complete works of Proust in leather bound volumes.

Because their is no cause, there can be no explanation or proof such things are magical. You can't prove what isn't there. All you can do is collect statistical evidence as is the case with Quantum Mechanics. Thus QM asserts that given enough time anything and everything can and will occur.

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?
Paradox or the ineffable are better. As I said before, there is no way to actually prove something has no cause because you cannot prove a negative. Nor does it make sense to adopt a rigid position in reguard to life, the universe, and everything. It may all be a matter of relative perspective. Often the wisest thing is to simply acknowledge and accept the depths of our ignorance or, at least, our ability to communicate. :0)
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
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.
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?
 
Last edited:
1,927
0
Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what. Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational. Even your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)
 
Last edited:
E

Eyesee

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?

Ok, these are good points. But as wuli pointed out, you are assuming a logical model of the universe. Magic is a break in this logic. My statement can be rephrased as thus I think: Any logical model of the universe leads to infinite regression; the only way out of this infinte regression and thus resolving the question of existence is through a break in cause and effect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3,754
2
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

Also, Eyesee, your use of the word "nothing" was the real problem, but as you seem to have abandoned the use of this word (and have instead taken the word "magic"), I don't see any need for me to explain the flaw to you. If you want to (and are open-minded enough), check out the aforementioned thread (Exercise in Nothing Semantics).
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top