If the universe came from nothing

[JonF]

One could say something exists as the compliment of or as opposed to nothing (which does not exist).

this doesn't solve or even address the problem, and neither does out of wack's comment

 

[out of whack]

this doesn't solve or even address the problem, and neither does out of wack's comment

Brevity: A
Effort: D

 

[JonF]

so i take it you're still not going to address the point?

 

[out of whack]

so i take it you're still not going to address the point?

Define the point.

 

[JonF]

JonF said:

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

 

[out of whack]

JonF said:

applying the word "from" to "nothing" in the sense you are using them is a category error.

True. Anything else?

 

[kant]

I still do not know how some one could create a space-time universe by writing down equations.

 

[baywax]

I still do not know how some one could create a space-time universe by writing down equations.

One cannot create a universe with an equation. One composes an equation in the hopes of representing a space-time universe, not creating one. Of course, the original is much more desirable to live in than the on-line or on paper version.

this doesn't solve or even address the problem, and neither does out of wack's comment

Then I'd suggest leaving nothing well enough alone. It doesn't exist .

 

[kant]

One cannot create a universe with an equation. One composes an equation in the hopes of representing a space-time universe, not creating one. Of course, the original is much more desirable to live in than the on-line or on paper version.

i was being sarcastic, genius..

 

[nabuco]

Your conclusion denies existence, which is known to be true, therefore your reasoning is incorrect. The correct conclusion given that something exists (I had not foreseen the need to point this out) is that something came from "something that is something" to use your format

Just to wrap up this discussion for me, I maintain the following points:

- the universe as we know it consists of matter in constant interaction. To the best of our knowledge, the interaction must have started at some point in the past, and must cease at some point in the future (entropy)
- it's possible the universe as we know it had existed before in a state in which we wouldn't recognize it, meaning it wasn't made of matter in constant interaction but of something we never heard of and cannot even imagine.
- the question of "what came before the universe as we know it" can only be answered in one or another variant of "it came from a thing we don't understand"
- it matters little whether we call the thing we don't understand "something", "nothing", "matter in a different state", "causeless cause", "God", whatever. It adds nothing of any significance to our knowledge.
- there is, however, one important consequence of that fact: metaphysics is just a game of semantics. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

That's it for now. See in you another thread!

 

[out of whack]

That's it for now. See in you another thread!

You bet. TTFN!

 

[JonF]

True. Anything else?

You do understand if this question really is a category error we might as well be discussing "Does the blue smell happy tomorrow?"

 

[out of whack]

You do understand if this question really is a category error we might as well be discussing "Does the blue smell happy tomorrow?"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1317432&postcount=9"

 

[kant]

Just to wrap up this discussion for me, I maintain the following points:

- the universe as we know it consists of matter in constant interaction. To the best of our knowledge, the interaction must have started at some point in the past, and must cease at some point in the future (entropy)
- it's possible the universe as we know it had existed before in a state in which we wouldn't recognize it, meaning it wasn't made of matter in constant interaction but of something we never heard of and cannot even imagine.
- the question of "what came before the universe as we know it" can only be answered in one or another variant of "it came from a thing we don't understand"
- it matters little whether we call the thing we don't understand "something", "nothing", "matter in a different state", "causeless cause", "God", whatever. It adds nothing of any significance to our knowledge.
- there is, however, one important consequence of that fact: metaphysics is just a game of semantics. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

That's it for now. See in you another thread!

I am still waiting for you to create a physical universe by writing equations down on a piece of paper.

 

[JonF]

You in post #9 argue he is wrong by contradiction. My point is the question doesn't even make sense.

I really don't know how much more clearly i can spell this out...

 

[out of whack]

You in post #9 argue he is wrong by contradiction. My point is the question doesn't even make sense.

I really don't know how much more clearly i can spell this out...

Your category mistake interpretation makes the premise moot. My self-contradicting interpretation leads to a conclusion. You can pick your favorite.

 

[nabuco]

I am still waiting for you to create a physical universe by writing equations down on a piece of paper

Stop talking nonsense. If I give you a musical score, will you complain it doesn't make any sounds? Give me a break!

(sorry, I tried to ignore you twice but you kept asking for it...)

 

[Castlegate]

You in post #9 argue he is wrong by contradiction.

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

 

[Pi_314XPi]

I think the point of the thread is to come to a conceptual understanding of existence, as it can only be conceptual if it came from nothing. In other word ... existence is the definition of nothing. Thusly we can claim the universe as a geometric representation of nothing. On the fundamental level, the universe is a collection of thoughts displayed in geometric fashion.

 

[kant]

Stop talking nonsense. If I give you a musical score, will you complain it doesn't make any sounds? Give me a break!

(sorry, I tried to ignore you twice but you kept asking for it...)

It is you that suggest we can explain something from nothing. You have the burden of proof.

 

[Pi_314XPi]

It is you that suggest we can explain something from nothing. You have the burden of proof.

I think the chances are equal, that something came from nothing, verses something has always been. One must give each their due. However at some point, one must jump either side, and run with it. To stradle the fence is tantamount to a ball and chain. You can't go very far with this limitation. To expect a proof is an exercise in futility.



You must still be on the fence.

 

[kant]

I think the chances are equal, that something came from nothing, verses something has always been.

I don't think the person that i am replying to say that.

One must give each their due. However at some point, one must jump either side, and run with it. To stradle the fence is tantamount to a ball and chain. You can't go very far with this limitation. To expect a proof is an exercise in futility.

I don t think we can infer that there is something that is always "there" that is eternal and existing in our physical space-time universe, because all evidence seems to suggest that all matter and energy, space-time came from the big bang.

If you are talking about reality, then i concede to whatever you are saying, because i don t know what reality "is".

 

[Moridin]

Why assume that 'nothing' is the default state and that 'something' needs to come from either 'something' or 'nothing'?

 

[Pi_314XPi]

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

One would have to agree here, that's of course if we assume the universe came from nothing. Is this to say that existence must be butressed up against non-existence? Is this how one thing can be differentiated from any other thing? However ... If all things are made of nothing, how can they be differentiated? I take it that you mean conceptually? How does that work?

 

[Castlegate]

One would have to agree here, that's of course if we assume the universe came from nothing. Is this to say that existence must be butressed up against non-existence? Is this how one thing can be differentiated from any other thing? However ... If all things are made of nothing, how can they be differentiated? I take it that you mean conceptually? How does that work?

With the assumption that the universe came from nothing, we must assume that all things in the universe are made of nothing, and if this is true, reality must be a conceptual entity. We can know reality by it's form, in relationship with other forms. We can have conceptual forms of nothing, as representations of reality, and have a ham and swiss for lunch within this context. It is at least doable. A ham and swiss sandwich would be a conglomeration of various forms of nothing, and the plate it sits on is a whole other set of various forms of that same nothing, but in different relationships.
This is very much like an analogy of relationships with marbles, only difference is that the form of the marble contains nothing at all.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

 

[Pi_314XPi]

With the assumption that the universe came from nothing, we must assume that all things in the universe are made of nothing, and if this is true, reality must be a conceptual entity. We can know reality by it's form, in relationship with other forms. We can have conceptual forms of nothing, as representations of reality, and have a ham and swiss for lunch within this context. It is at least doable. A ham and swiss sandwich would be a conglomeration of various forms of nothing, and the plate it sits on is a whole other set of various forms of that same nothing, but in different relationships.
This is very much like an analogy of relationships with marbles, only difference is that the form of the marble contains nothing at all.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

Let's see if I got this right. You are saying that if the universe came from nothing, that all things of the universe are made of nothing, and that all things have form? So what is real to us is the form, and since the universe came from nothing as an assumption, the form is made of a conceptual constituent, like that of a thought?

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of

Believe it or not, I think I understand this, that's of course if I understood the previous correctly. Is this to say, that one is the concept of nothing, and this concept represents form? Form being the 3D aspect of time/space?

 

[Castlegate]

Lets see if I got this right. You are saying that if the universe came from nothing, that all things of the universe are made of nothing, and that all things have form? So what is real to us is the form, and since the universe came from nothing as an assumption, the form is made of a conceptual constituent, like that of a thought?

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

As an example of a thing that comes from nothing, let's draw a circle on a piece of paper. What is within that circle would be nothing, and the line drawn for the circle has no thickness. This is an example of a conceptual reality. Now if we have X number of these realities in the universe, and they all interact in some way, then having a cup of joe in the morning is possible through interaction of these realities.

Believe it or not, I think I understand this, that's of course if I understood the previous correctly. Is this to say, that one is the concept of nothing, and this concept represents form? Form being the 3D aspect of time/space?

Time in this instance constitutes a non-event. An event would be the interaction of forms. A form is the equivalent of one, so when I say (In our universe there are only ones) I'm saying only the form interacts, and it is these forms that exist, while the composition of the forms ( nothing ) does not. With this we have the necessary ingredient for tick and tock, and a continuum for space.

 

[alexsok]

I wonder. The universe indeed seemed to have appeared out of nothing, but what about consciousness coming to life in every human embryo (and in other forms of life where it's a different type of it)? Doesn't it come out of nothing also? Can we correlate them?

 

[Castlegate]

I wonder. The universe indeed seemed to have appeared out of nothing, but what about consciousness coming to life in every human embryo (and in other forms of life where it's a different type of it)? Doesn't it come out of nothing also? Can we correlate them?

Given the assumption that the universe came from nothing, and the likelyhood of conceptual reality as a matter of due course, we can surmise that even a fundamental entity is self aware, and if so, the introduction of consciousness for humans is the collective of fundamentally self aware entities within the form of the human body through interaction, and in another sense, the environment around you is part of your conscience.

 

[alexsok]

Given the assumption that the universe came from nothing, and the likelyhood of conceptual reality as a matter of due course, we can surmise that even a fundamental entity is self aware, and if so, the introduction of consciousness for humans is the collective of fundamentally self aware entities within the form of the human body through interaction, and in another sense, the environment around you is part of your conscience.

So you're embracing a form of panpsychism then.