How can anything come from nothing

[Iacchus32]

No-thing is the "absence" of some-thing.

 

[THANOS]

something came from everything.

 

[Iacchus32]

There is no-thing wrong with the word "nothing" if, in fact this is what the issue is. The word nothing is a perfectly acceptable English word.

On the other hand, would it be possible to say that something arose out of nothing, such as the beginning of the Universe? I would be inclined to say no. However, it doesn't take much -- as in the case with us human beings -- for two of the tiniest little germs to get together, and create a fully fledged human being.

So, even though there may have been an appearance of nothing in the beginning, there must have been "something" there.

 

[UltraPi1]

There are a couple of choices here that are equally distasteful. Something from nothing, or in the words of Rosanne Rosanna Danna - Theres always something. Proving either choice could prove to be impossible.

So, even though there may have been an appearance of nothing in the beginning, there must have been "something" there.

Continue this charade with humans to germs, and do this ad infinitum with anything else you come up with beyond germs, because that's the choice you came up with. Theres always something. Perhaps when you have taken the universe back a trillion years, times a trillion times a trillion, I'll come runnin to your camp, or maybe I won't, because you have'nt even touched the surface of how long an infinity of time is.

What is rediculous is to rule out something from nothing with absolute certainty, which goes to show you, it's always somthin.

I'm willing to look at this at all angles including something from nothing, and it's always something as if both were true. That would entail nothing as a thing. Not possible? It is if it's conceptual. Meaning - The universe is not a thing, but a conceptual thing. All conceptual things think they are things, including a fundamental unit. I think - Therefor I am, and act accordingly - All in the course of not being anything at all even though I think I am.

 

[Messiah]

Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'? Why do you presume the phenomonon of existence is explained by a process i.e. creation?

Most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

No, the enigma of existence is explained by a principle - not a process.

Theory of Reciprocity

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Messiah
Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'?

Because the best evidence we have suggests it did.

But creation would require a creator

Why?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
No -

When conventional matter and 'anti-matter' collide, energy is produced and mass is destroyed.

The matter and anti-matter to which I was referring would be truly countervalent existences. Their collision would cause their mutual annihilation, not just a conversion.

There's no such thing as "true annihilation"...First Law of Thermodynamics, right?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
There are few possiblities regarding the existence of the universe.
1) A beginning and an end.
2) No beginning and no end.
3) A beginning and no end.
4) No beginning but has an end.

We must accept something from nothing, or something in nothing if the universe had a beginning.

Mentat seems to be in the no beginning camp. Meaning the universe has been here forever, and not a day less. We must accept a no beginning scenerio because Mentat says that no thing can come from nothing.

Actually, UltraPi1, I'm all for the Universe's having a beginning (QM does indeed allow it to come about without coming "from" anything), but it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion of what the term "nothing" refers to.

Apparently the choices are narrowed down to two, but really it's just one choice (No beginning and no end), because the universe has been around forever, and yet here we are. Since Mentat is correct with absolute certainty. We must stop this nonsense of discussing the possibility of something from nothing, and anything related to a beginning to the universe.

Thanks Mentat ,,,,,,,,It's all so clear to me now. I wish somebody would tell all the great minds of our time that they could have come to you for all the answers.

I honestly couldn't tell if there was sarcasm intended here (this isn't the best medium for it, and it's not helpful to a rational discussion anyway). Anyway, the existence of the Universe doesn't seem relevant to the discussion of nothing...why, exactly, did you mention it?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Because the best evidence we have suggests it did. Why?

What evidence?

create: To cause to be
creator: That which causes to be

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
There's no such thing as "true annihilation"...First Law of Thermodynamics, right?

I certainly agree, that is why I think the term anti-matter is a misnomer.

What science terms 'matter and anti-matter' are not two countervalent qualities any more than nitrogen and tolulene...they are just two substances which go 'boom' when exposed to each other.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
What evidence?

create: To cause to be
creator: That which causes to be

Just don't use the word "create", and you've solved your problem. Pure semantics.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
I certainly agree, that is why I think the term anti-matter is a misnomer.

What science terms 'matter and anti-matter' are not two countervalent qualities any more than nitrogen and tolulene...they are just two substances which go 'boom' when exposed to each other.

But this is relevant to the discussion of the word "nothing", how?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Continue this charade with humans to germs, and do this ad infinitum with anything else you come up with beyond germs, because that's the choice you came up with. Theres always something. Perhaps when you have taken the universe back a trillion years, times a trillion times a trillion, I'll come runnin to your camp, or maybe I won't, because you have'nt even touched the surface of how long an infinity of time is.

Actually I only intended to take this as far as human beings are concerned, to illustrate the possibility, but not necessarily carry it over to the creation of the Universe, because I myself don't know what happened?

 

[UltraPi1]

Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'? Why do you presume the phenomonon of existence is explained by a process i.e. creation?

Obviously not everyone assumes this. My preference at the moment is that the universe had a beginning, and that there was a creator. That nothing is all that is necessary for the creation of the universe.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
But this is relevant to the discussion of the word "nothing", how?

Relative to our finite world, size and position matter.

Relative to the infinite universe, they do not.

In the realm of finite elements, 'the equivalent of nothing' exists within whatever volume a quality and a countervalent quality may occupy.

Relative to the Universe; however, that volume is a point with no relative size - and 'NOTHING' exists at that point.

Equivalence IS relevant to the issue of "nothing"

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Relative to our finite world, size and position matter.

Relative to the infinite universe, they do not.

In the realm of finite elements, 'the equivalent of nothing' exists within whatever volume a quality and a countervalent quality may occupy.

That is not the "equivalent of nothing" (per E.i.N.S. --> That is not "not the equivalent of anything"...or, minusing double-negatives: That is the equivalent of something), it is the equivalent of a quality and a countervalent quality, clearly something since I'm referring to them, right?

Relative to the Universe; however, that volume is a point with no relative size - and 'NOTHING' exists at that point.

Equivalence IS relevant to the issue of "nothing"

Not if you realize that canceled out quantities have, in reality, more entities involved than just the original quantities, since you had to add something to reach the new equilibrium.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is not the "equivalent of nothing" (per E.i.N.S. --> That is not "not the equivalent of anything"...or, minusing double-negatives: That is the equivalent of something), it is the equivalent of a quality and a countervalent quality, clearly something since I'm referring to them, right?

(+1)+(-1) is the equivalent of Ø

Originally posted by Mentat
Not if you realize that canceled out quantities have, in reality, more entities involved than just the original quantities, since you had to add something to reach the new equilibrium.

?!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
(+1)+(-1) is the equivalent of Ø

How'd you make that symbol? Anyway, the empty set is something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define it (please note my use of the word "it" to refer to it).

?!

It's quite simple, really (or, it seems simple to me): if I have one particle - say, an electron - then I introduced another particle - say, a positron - then I have a particle and its antiparticle, which equals 2 particles.

If I take the numbers 1 and -1, I have referred to two numbers, even if adding them together produces only one number (zero).

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
How'd you make that symbol? Anyway, the empty set is something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define it (please note my use of the word "it" to refer to it).

Alt 0216 = Ø
Yes - the difference between 'nothing' in the abstract connotation and 'nothing' in the logical connotation is that one is fictitious and the other exists. The problem most people have is in trying to reconcile the two - which cannot be done because only one exists.

Originally posted by Mentat
It's quite simple, really (or, it seems simple to me): if I have one particle - say, an electron - then I introduced another particle - say, a positron - then I have a particle and its antiparticle, which equals 2 particles.

If I take the numbers 1 and -1, I have referred to two numbers, even if adding them together produces only one number (zero).

Yes, but we are talking QUALitative, not QUANtitative. Positive and negative are qualities '1' is a quantity.

For every positive integer '+x' there exists an equal and opposite integer '-x'
For every positive quality '+apple' there exists an equal and opposite quality '-apple'.
Get the pix??

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Alt 0216 = Ø
Yes - the difference between 'nothing' in the abstract connotation and 'nothing' in the logical connotation is that one is fictitious and the other exists. The problem most people have is in trying to reconcile the two - which cannot be done because only one exists.

Look, I wouldn't have a problem with what you've been saying if you'd just stop using the word "nothing" wrongly. Can't you just say "empty set" or something? After all, if "nothing" is supposed to have one semantically correct use, then it only serves to confuse people if you use it for something else.

Yes, but we are talking QUALitative, not QUANtitative. Positive and negative are qualities '1' is a quantity.

For every positive integer '+x' there exists an equal and opposite integer '-x'
For every positive quality '+apple' there exists an equal and opposite quality '-apple'.
Get the pix??

Of course I do. Really, all I ask is that you not use the word "nothing" to refer to anything (which is logical, since "nothing" cannot refer to anything, otherwise it wouldn't be nothing), including empty sets or the number 0.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Look, I wouldn't have a problem with what you've been saying if you'd just stop using the word "nothing" wrongly.

Ah - but
"The empty set" = 'Nothing' = Ø
"That which does not exist" = '         ' =          !

That which does not exist lacks everything, it has no properties or attributes, not even a definition or a name...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Ah - but
"The empty set" = 'Nothing' = Ø
"That which does not exist" = '         ' =          !

That which does not exist lacks everything, it has no properties or attributes, not even a definition or a name...

Wrong, the whole point rests on this: there is no thing that does not exist[/color]

From this it can be deduced that the word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything at all, but is simply another way of saying "not anything", and is used for convenience.

That's the whole point of the exercise in nothing semantics.

As to the empty set (I still can't seem to make that symbol...is it:  ?), "nothing" doesn't refer to the set (which is clearly something), but refers to that which is within that set...and, of course, there isn't anything within the set. Am I right?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
As to the empty set (I still can't seem to make that symbol...is it:  ?), "nothing" doesn't refer to the set (which is clearly something), but refers to that which is within that set...and, of course, there isn't anything within the set. Am I right?

Yes - that is one connotation.
My point is that there are at least two connotations...possibly MORE.

So far we have
"Nothing" - the empty set - Ø (hold down the alt key and enter the number 0216 simultaneously) the only logical definition
and
"Nothing" - That which does not exist - A fiction

How 'bout -
"Nothing" - That which neither HAS nor LACKS existence -

OR -
"Nothing" - a viable presidential candidate for the Democrat party

I could go on...and on...and probably will...

Jack

 

[UltraPi1]

Here is a depiction of nothing as a conceptual thing. The circle in the pic is 2D, but think of it as in 3D. Like a balloon.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
What is inside the sphere is nothing. What is outside the sphere is nothing. The (concept) circle itself, or rather the balloon has no thickness. In other words - It is not physical. An example of this would be - Close your eyes and imagine a defined area within the darkness.

On the physical level - What we understand as physical is in reality ... a thought that acts in accordance with what we term physical laws.

If you think it's real - It is.....But not really.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Yes - that is one connotation.
My point is that there are at least two connotations...possibly MORE.

So far we have
"Nothing" - the empty set - Ø (hold down the alt key and enter the number 0216 simultaneously) the only logical definition

Again, it's not that I don't think the empty set is the "right" definition of "nothing", it's that I think it just plain doesn't fit at all. What is inside the empty set? Nothing, right? However, the set itself is something, much like the word "nothing" is also something. This is the only way to remain semantically accurate.

and
"Nothing" - That which does not exist - A fiction

A fiction is something. If there isn't anything there, then there is nothing there (that is a redundant statement). However, if there is something, anything, (a word, a set, a belief, a story, anything) then it is not logical to say that "there is 'nothing' there". You need to stick within the bounds of proper semantics (and that shouldn't be so hard, since the word "nothing" is so obviously a compound of the words "no" and "thing"), otherwise there's no way to converse, since I will have a different definition of the words being used than you will.

How 'bout -
"Nothing" - That which neither HAS nor LACKS existence -

There is no such thing. You cannot say "that which" unless you are referring to something. "That which neither has nor lacks existence" (that which doesn't have existence, ITFP, for that matter) is completely meaningless.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Here is a depiction of nothing as a conceptual thing.

"Nothing" as a conceptual what?

 

[UltraPi1]

"Nothing" as a conceptual what?

Thing

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Thing

Then why did you call it "no...thing" if it's actually "some...thing"?

 

[UltraPi1]

Then why did you call it "no...thing" if it's actually "some...thing"?

Because that's what it is [One thing of nothing].

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because that's what it is [One thing of nothing].

Find another name for it, the word "nothing" is taken.

 

[UltraPi1]

Find another name for it, the word "nothing" is taken.

Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.

It is taken to be the word that doesn't refer to anything. Look it up. Find it's etymological roots (though I don't see why all this is necessary, since the word "nothing" is very obvious in its roots: "no" and "thing", ergo there cannot be a thing being referred to if one uses the term "nothing").

 

[UltraPi1]

there cannot be a thing being referred to if one uses the term "nothing").

I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.

Then why did you say "the 'thing of nothing'"?

 

[UltraPi1]

Then why did you say "the 'thing of nothing'"?

Because that's what it is. I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.

Back to the circle.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Your perspective is important here. Outside the sphere, inside the sphere, or the (concept) sphere itself. Which angle are you looking at?

 

[wolram]

how about trying another way, if one states that if something
has existed then it is possible for other things to exist.
or if existence is imposible then existence cannot exist.

 

[Messiah]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

[Messiah]

(Had 'nothing' to say, but made an error and had to correct it - WEIRD!)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because that's what it is. I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.

Listen, UltraPi1. It may be funny, but your being illogical. To be completely rational, you must choose: Is it something, or is it nothing?

If it is something, then it becomes irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of the word "nothing".

If it is nothing, then you can no longer refer to it as "a thing of nothing" since that is self-contradictory.

Back to the circle.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Your perspective is important here. Outside the sphere, inside the sphere, or the (concept) sphere itself. Which angle are you looking at?

I still don't see the relevance of this illustration.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
(Had 'nothing' to say, but made an error and had to correct it - WEIRD!)

No need to use the scare-quotes in this case, Messiah. You really had nothing to say. As per E.i.N.S.--> "You didn't have anything to say".

Semantically equal, and perfectly logical.

 

[Messiah]

Nothing cannot exist - only its equivalent is permitted to exist within the realm of reality and logic.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Nothing cannot exist - only its equivalent...

Only what's equivalent? When will you realize that these statements are completely non-sensical (semantically and logically)?

Let's go through the motions again: E.i.N.S. --> "There isn't anything that cannot exist - only its equivalent".

I don't mean to sound offensive, I'm just pointing out the utter futility of any debate that misuses the words therein.

 

[Messiah]

Sorry - should have read "only an equivalent"
Some 'thing' comprised of countervalent sub-properties

 

[UltraPi1]

Listen, UltraPi1 - Is it something, or is it nothing?

It's both. What do you think I've been saying all along?

And there is no contradiction whatsoever.

Perhaps you are confusing this with some kind of physical representation. I'm also saying that reality is not physical, but conceptual.

I still don't see the relevance of this illustration.

http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg

It's just a representation of a fundamental entity. The circle (sphere) you see is not physical. Whats outside the circle is not physical. Whats inside the circle is not physical. There is'nt anything there accept for the concept (thought) of a thing. I fail to see why this is so hard for you to understand.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Sorry - should have read "only an equivalent"
Some 'thing' comprised of countervalent sub-properties

An equivalent to what?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
It's both. What do you think I've been saying all along?

And there is no contradiction whatsoever.

Yes there is. Are you, or are you not, referring to something?

If you are, then you are referring to a thing, not nothing. "Nothing" (the word) means "not a thing" it is a the compounding of the words "no" and "thing", and thus cannot be used to refer to a thing.

If you are not referring to something, then you are not referring, since reference is a way of pointing something out.

Perhaps you are confusing this with some kind of physical representation. I'm also saying that reality is not physical, but conceptual.

Well, it had nothing to do with physicality, but now that you bring it up, what is the difference between the "physical" and the "conceptual"?

http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg

It's just a representation of a fundamental entity. The circle (sphere) you see is not physical. Whats outside the circle is not physical. Whats inside the circle is not physical. There is'nt anything there accept for the concept (thought) of a thing. I fail to see why this is so hard for you to understand.

Actually, everything that I saw was physical. Photonic emission (aka, "Light") from the monitor screen was interpreted in the CNS (central nervous system) to illicit a similar experience as when I see a circular object. What's so "non-physical" about this?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
An equivalent to what?

An equivalent to "          " - of course

 

[UltraPi1]

Yes there is. Are you, or are you not, referring to something?

The reference is to nothing.

If you are not referring to something, then you are not referring, since reference is a way of pointing something out.

It is the concept that references to the form of nothing. The concept is not a thing, but a thought. Such as a thought of a thing. So far - I don't see a hint of anything physical at all accept for the concept of a physical thing.

what is the difference between the "physical" and the "conceptual"?

There is no difference, because what you think of as physical - Is actually conceptual. The result is the exact same reality though. The universe is not physical at all - There is no such animal as physical, but for the concept of it.

Actually, everything that I saw was physical. Photonic emission (aka, "Light") from the monitor screen was interpreted in the CNS (central nervous system) to illicit a similar experience as when I see a circular object. What's so "non-physical" about this?

It sure looks physical doesn't it? All your thoughts say it's physical ... right?
Think of it as a thought of physicality as opposed to an actual physical thought.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
An equivalent to "          " - of course

And yet I haven't been answered...you didn't say anything that it was equivalent to.

You know, I think another problem is that you've equated being about to refer to something but not doing so with referring to "nothing". This is also not the case, but is much closer to correct. You did indeed refer to nothing (=you didn't refer to anything) but you are no closer to finding what the word "nothing" refers to then you were to begin with. " " isn't nothing, it's two quotation marks around and empty space (the empty space itself being something).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
The reference is to nothing.

"The reference is to nothing" is precisely equal to "The reference isn't to anything" (this cannot be disputed, it is semantically true) which is equal to not referencing at all (also semantically true).

It is the concept that references to the form of nothing. The concept is not a thing, but a thought. Such as a thought of a thing. So far - I don't see a hint of anything physical at all accept for the concept of a physical thing.

But what does physicality have to do with this subject? Besides, there can be no "form of nothing" since form refers to a state that something is in. "Form of nothing" is semantically equal to "that which isn't a form" or "the form of that which doesn't exist, and thus has no form..." making the statement non-sensical. If you'd just pay attention to what I'm telling you, you might finally get it. If you keep responding exactly the same no matter what I say to you, then you're being closed-minded and irrational, and I will have nothing left to say to you.

There is no difference, because what you think of as physical - Is actually conceptual. The result is the exact same reality though. The universe is not physical at all - There is no such animal as physical, but for the concept of it.

Prove it.

It sure looks physical doesn't it? All your thoughts say it's physical ... right?
Think of it as a thought of physicality as opposed to an actual physical thought.

Why should I think of it this way?