How can anything come from nothing

[Mentat]

Originally posted by bandonrun
I'm short on time here. That means I have a plethora of (ones) coming my way from other sources. That also means that I will be sending lots of (zeros) yer way. I'll be sending you (ones) when I have more (zeros) to play with. For the time being - I don't exist to you, but for the memory of it.

bandonrun, I feel it only right to inform you that words put in parantheses, as per English grammar, are supposed to be regarded as supplementary to the actual information of the sentence (meaning that you can get the sense of the sentence without them).

 

[amp]

I'm addressing Zantra's question from page one

Zantra opening this from the point of view that there is a multiverse(possibly an infinite number of them) then I submit that the areas/spaces/points/volumes between these multiverses constitute the absence of anything referred to as 'nothing'.
And since it cannot be disproved, I'll state that I believe before the BB or manifestatation of any of the multiverses, there existed only a being I refer to as the One and many call 'God'

 

[bandonrun]

bandonrun, I feel it only right to inform you that words put in parantheses, as per English grammar, are supposed to be regarded as supplementary to the actual information of the sentence (meaning that you can get the sense of the sentence without them).

The parentheses are there to emphasize form, and that a (zero) is the same as a (one). The difference is that a (one) registers, and a (Zero) does not. I.E - A (one)that passes like a ghost .. is a (zero). A (one) that acts upon you is a (one).

Didn't you know that it's somewhat taboo to mention errors in grammar, just as it is for spelling. Otherwise we would waste our time telling each other that we can't spell parentheses.


Back to nothing.
If we can accept (zero) as being time as I have explained it. We can accept that nothing (not anything) has an infinity of time to be defined. Upon the completion of this definition ... a marker (form) is placed. This is the conceptual equivalent of what nothing is (one nothing). The size of this form is irrelevant. There would be an infinity of these forms possible in nothing. In essence - Something doesn't come from nothing. It is nothing, and over the course of an infinity of time - everything is nothing.

Time
In order for time to be sensed - motion must come into play. Without motion ... time would not pass. All fundamental things move at C - When I say things ... I mean each thing of nothing. When a thing of nothing registers - It constitutes a marker (a one). When a thing of nothing passes you like a ghost - It represents a (zero). This is your sense of time (nothing as a thing) passing you by in the literal sense.

I don't see how any of this discussion of conceptual fundamentality has anything to do with the issue of what "nothing" (the word) refers to, except when you mentioned this...

Nothing .. the word .. by definition ... refers you to a thing (not anything) period. In regards to conceptual fundamentality - I will say that all things are conceptual, and they are as real as a bean ball in baseball.

Nothing is a ball buster. Being that nothing is a thing. Ouch!
I cleared a high hurdle about six months ago, and never looked back. There are still plenty left to jump, and many of those are going to hurt. I know in the end I will have (nothing) to look forward to.

I wish I had more time to be more specific. The (ones) in my life leave me no other choice.

 

[wolram]

Nothing is a ball buster. Being that nothing is a thing. Ouch!
I cleared a high hurdle about six months ago, and never looked back. There are still plenty left to jump, and many of those are going to hurt. I know in the end I will have (nothing) to look forward to
-------------------------------------------------------------------
well done ,it always gives one a good feeling when a goal has
been reached, maybe if you alter your stile of jumping you wont
hurt yourself to much
-------------------------------------------------------------------
nothing+time=something? i haven't seen this equation before, i
think i will leave it to the mathamaticians to solve.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by bandonrun
Back to nothing.
If we can accept (zero) as being time as I have explained it. We can accept that nothing (not anything) has an infinity of time to be defined. Upon the completion of this definition ... a marker (form) is placed. This is the conceptual equivalent of what nothing is (one nothing). The size of this form is irrelevant. There would be an infinity of these forms possible in nothing. In essence - Something doesn't come from nothing. It is nothing, and over the course of an infinity of time - everything is nothing.

You are making new assumptions, violating Occam's Razor in favor of a practically ad hoc argument

It is for this reason that this will be the last post on this thread that I will respond to.

I feel it right to inform you that the above (quoted) doesn't make sense, though any reasoning I give on the matter will probably be completely ignored by you. You have a set paradigm, and I don't think you've been listening to anything outside of it. You speak of "one nothing". That means (as per the very meanings of the WORDS BEING USED[/color]) "not anything", or one of the things that aren't things, which is self-contradictory and irrelevant to rational conversation.

The sentence "not anything has such-and-such property" doesn't even begin to make sense. If "not anything" is something to be referred to, then it should be called "not anything".

Time
In order for time to be sensed - motion must come into play. Without motion ... time would not pass. All fundamental things move at C - When I say things ... I mean each thing of nothing.

Each thing of that which isn't a thing, isn't a thing. So, why do you refer to a thing, if you aren't talking about anything?

When a thing of nothing registers - It constitutes a marker (a one). When a thing of nothing passes you like a ghost - It represents a (zero). This is your sense of time (nothing as a thing) passing you by in the literal sense.
Nothing .. the word .. by definition ... refers you to a thing (not anything) period.

BS. Nothing, the word, by definition doesn't refer to anything. If it referred to something, it wouldn't be called "nothing" (which holds it's (ever so obvious) etymological roots in "no" and "thing").

Nothing is a ball buster. Being that nothing is a thing. Ouch!
I cleared a high hurdle about six months ago, and never looked back. There are still plenty left to jump, and many of those are going to hurt. I know in the end I will have (nothing) to look forward to.

Yes, you are destined to a life with nothing to look forward to, if you constantly create ad hoc arguments, and still pretend like your being rational. As to nothing being a thing, the sentence "nothing is a thing" (by definitions) means "There isn't anything that is a thing". If you want to check for accuracy, think of being asked "What is there that can be called a thing", if one receives the answer "nothing", then one has been told that there are no things that can be called "things".

I pity the runner who thinks he's jumped a hurdle, when he's really been knocked unconscious after having tripped on the biggest hurdle of them all.

Again, this is the last response I will make in this thread, since you are just wasting my time (of which I don't have much...one hour on-line per day) with irrationalities that I've refuted much too many times for me to keep on trying. I'm "kicking a dead horse", in the words of my good buddy, Royce, so I'm done here.

 

[Fliption]

I feel you are very wrong about one thing Mentat. I can't believe no one has seen the flaw. I have to go right now but I'll be back later.

 

[Messiah]

Much Ado About Nothing

The existence of nothing is the only natural phenomenon which requires no logical justification.

Nothing is - in fact - the only manifestation which does exist ... always has, always will. Most people just do not know how to recognize or define it.

Theory of Reciprocity

 

[UltraPi1]

As to nothing being a thing, the sentence "nothing is a thing" (by definitions) means "There isn't anything that is a thing". If you want to check for accuracy, think of being asked "What is there that can be called a thing", if one receives the answer "nothing", then one has been told that there are no things that can be called "things".

I see no problem here in terms of accuracy of what Bandonrun is saying. I think your problem here is the inability to conceptually understand it as Bandonrun expects you to do. That your physicality is only conceptually understood as being so, and by this reference, all things of nothing act in accordance of this understanding.

He is saying that if you begin with nothing, that the only way to existence is conceptually. Creation is but one thought.

ONE NOTHING

He is saying you only think you are real.
You are saying you are real.

Both are correct, for both will foster the same effect.
The difference comes from whether there is a beginning, or a no beginning scenerio. On this you can agree to disagree.

 

[UltraPi1]

The existence of nothing is the only natural phenomenon which requires no logical justification

To exist {{{{ONE Must be Justified}}}}
At first glance I would agree, but for nothing to exist, we must expect a logical foundation of {{{{One Nothing}}}}

 

[Messiah]

'Nothing' has two connotations.

In logical terms - it is the value 'Ø' or the 'Empty Set'.

In the abstract, 'Nothing' is "that which does not exist".

But, "that which does not exist" does not exist. It is not the empty set - it is not a set at all. It has no properties or attributes, it lacks everything - including a definition. To consider 'Nothing' would be not to consider. To perceive 'Nothing' would be not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' would be not to understand. Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space.

Logic requires definition.

In the abstract, 'Nothing' is undefined. It is 'fictitious' and has no physical manifestation in the Universe.

The only definition of 'Nothing' which applies to logic and reality is the value 'Ø'. It is 'real' and HAS physical manifestation in the Universe.

The size of any finite body compared to infinity has a relative value of Zero.

Using any given point in space as an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of polar coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, in a relative context every point in the cosmos is its center - i.e. has a differential positional value of Zero.

If every QUALitative value in the Universe is offset by an equal and opposite value, then quantitatively, qualitatively and positionally (the three axes of logic) the logical equivalent of 'nothing' does, indeed exist.

Once you get over the hurdle of understanding 'Nothing', the rest falls into place and the phenomenon of existence is reconciled with the principles of logic.

Elucidation at -
Theory of Reciprocity

 

[wolram]

so is it logical to say "something", has always existed?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
'Nothing' has two connotations.

In logical terms - it is the value 'Ø' or the 'Empty Set'.

Man, I wish I could just let this be, but this was already handled in another thread, and somehow Messiah seems to have missed the conclusion. Your second connotation of "nothing" is the only one that the word is supposed to have (ever). It's etymological and epistemological roots require nothing more and nothing less.

As I said in the other thread, and empty set is still a set, and thus it is still [multiple choice...a)something; b)nothing; c)undecided]. The answer we ended up with is that, just as the word "nothing" is something, so the empty set is itself something - while there is no concept that word is referring to and there is nothing inside the empty set - the word and the set are both something.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
I feel you are very wrong about one thing Mentat. I can't believe no one has seen the flaw. I have to go right now but I'll be back later.

Go ahead, Fliption, I can't leave this thread alone with all the new people joining it anyway...but I still think some of you are either intentionally wasting my time, or not paying any attention to my responses and therefore not realizing that I've already addressed your arguments.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wolram
so is it logical to say "something", has always existed?

Yes...as much as it is logical to say that something exists right now. As per QM it appears that there isn't anything that definitely exists, but it's all a matter of probability. Therefore, everything you know to exist both does and doesn't exist at some level.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Man, I wish I could just let this be, but this was already handled in another thread, and somehow Messiah seems to have missed the conclusion. Your second connotation of "nothing" is the only one that the word is supposed to have (ever). It's etymological and epistemological roots require nothing more and nothing less.

As I said in the other thread, and empty set is still a set, and thus it is still [multiple choice...a)something; b)nothing; c)undecided]. The answer we ended up with is that, just as the word "nothing" is something, so the empty set is itself something - while there is no concept that word is referring to and there is nothing inside the empty set - the word and the set are both something.

Exactly my point -

Abstract 'Nothing' is UNdefined.
Logical 'Nothing' IS defined.

The value (+1) added to the value (-1) is the logical equivalent of ZERO or 'Nothing'. The existence of 'nothing' requires no logical justification.

If you draw a white line and assign it the definition of 'positive' quality then draw an equal and opposite black line representing 'negative' quality, the qualitative balance is Zero. The Universe is infinite and doesn't care if the line has size or position. Relative to infinity, if the lines are finite, their size has a relative value of ZERO compared to infinity - and every point within the lines - compared to infinity - is the 'center of the Universe' i.e. they have a positional differential of ZERO.

The relative value of Zero is an existential point of balance from which all physical attributes and properties are derived. It is that necessary but indefinite element called ‘nothing’ which requires no justification and whose presence intrinsically complies with logic. It is a principle - the simple balance of nature - which justifies the phenomenon of existence, not an inexplicable spontaneous process or mystical event spawned from some abstract void.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Exactly my point -

Abstract 'Nothing' is UNdefined.
Logical 'Nothing' IS defined.

But there is no "logical 'nothing'". That was my point. If there is a set that doesn't contain anything, then it is an empty set, but an empty set is still something - not nothing.

The value (+1) added to the value (-1) is the logical equivalent of ZERO or 'Nothing'. The existence of 'nothing' requires no logical justification.

"1 + -1 = 0" is an equation. And equation is something. "Zero" is a real number, and is thus something. The word "nothing", OTOH, doesn't refer to anything at all.

If you draw a white line and assign it the definition of 'positive' quality then draw an equal and opposite black line representing 'negative' quality, the qualitative balance is Zero. The Universe is infinite and doesn't care if the line has size or position. Relative to infinity, if the lines are finite, their size has a relative value of ZERO compared to infinity - and every point within the lines - compared to infinity - is the 'center of the Universe' i.e. they have a positional differential of ZERO.

Sure they do, but that doesn't make them stop being something, it just makes that particular "something" irrelvant.

 

[Messiah]

What scientists call 'matter' and 'anti-matter' are not really countervalent qualities. When matter and anti-matter collide, energy is produced and mass is destroyed. Energy and mass are two properties of existence. A collision between bodies of matter and 'true' anti-matter would theoretically cause their mutual existences to cease and all properties would be annihilated, not just converted. There would be no energy and no mass.

Assume you have a bundle of matter and a bundle of 'true' anti-matter. When they collide, they are annihilated and an actual and very real manifestation of 'NOTHING' remains.

Those two bundles are the logical equivalent of 'NOTHING'.

 

[quartodeciman]

Assume you have a bundle of matter and a bundle of 'true' anti-matter. When they collide, they are annihilated and an actual and very real manifestation of 'NOTHING' remains.

Those two bundles are the logical equivalent of 'NOTHING'.

You forgot the photons produced.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by quartodeciman
Assume you have a bundle of matter and a bundle of 'true' anti-matter. When they collide, they are annihilated and an actual and very real manifestation of 'NOTHING' remains.

Those two bundles are the logical equivalent of 'NOTHING'.

You forgot the photons produced.

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.

 

[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. 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.

 

[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.