Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

[sd01g]

E-nothing

Hello Royce: I have enjoyed your posts in thread. This is a difficult subject with many

opinions. Perhaps a different slant to the discussion? Consider NOTHING to be a concept with

two different components: Empirical 'nothing' and Rational 'nothing' which have different

meanings. Empirical nothing is what is left when sensory input can detect nothing smaller.
There could be something there which is too small to detect so it is concluded that there is

nothing there. Rational nothing is the 'nothing' which is the opposite to 'something.' This

'nothing' is the absolute of NO THING. There is no thing in this nothing from which anything

can originate. To say that that something comes from 'rational nothing' negates the meaning

of rational nothing. We would do well to consider two different words for these two different

concepts.

Conclusion: Something can originate from E-nothing but no thing can originate from R-nothing.

What do you think? Does it make sense or is it trivial or at worst, nonsensical?

 

[Royce]

Yes it makes sense; and, it may help some see the difference and get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

Absolutely NO-THING What-so-ever! NO-THING material, NO-THING subjective, even NO-THING spiritual. No Cause, No reason, NO-THING.

In other threads a while back I referred it to null-space or a void. Another way to look at it is, if the Universe is everything that exists then nothing is that which is outside of the universe.

The Universal set is the set of everything, the universe. Nothing is the empty set that is not of the Universal set of everything. Something is of the Universal set of everything and not of the set of Nothing.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I've never seen something that can not be divided in my mind in some way or antoher. If nothing is the originator and everything keeps on dividing, how is it that everything is not an eternal entity?

I always like to put things into simple math, which is almost perfect logic.:
When one says that something came from nothing they are saying that 1 came from 0. When we are talking about the material world, I'm sorry, but that just can't happen...

 

[force5]

I voted that there has always been something going on. And, there will always be something going on. Of course, we will not be going along for the ride. In any case, I had to draw on my physics knowledge to come to this conclusion many years ago.

 

[eNathan]

If something came from "nothing" than that "nothing" was really "something" in first place. something has to have ALWAYS been in which there was no begining.

 

[Philocrat]

I have just noticed something about the survey on this thread: There are only two voting options, (1) and (2,3), and (2,3) is running at 100% of the survey?

PROOF:

If Something CANNOT come from Nothing, then it must always come from Something else. This is equivalent to otption (3) in the survey "Something from Alternatives". If something always changes from one thing to another, rather than from nothing to something and vice versa, then something is eternal. It is immaterial whether something never stops changing. It seems therefore as if voting options (2) and (3) are part of the same question, and since no one has yet voted for option (1), the voting option (2,3) being just one voting option is running at 100% of the whole survey.

Or do you guys see this differently? Could it be proved otherwise?

 

[Royce]

Philocrat,, I don't see option 2 and 3 as equivalent. I really don't see #3 as an option at all; but, I put it into give others and out who couldn't accept 1 or 2 and in hopes that someone had and alternative idea. Logically and physically I think something is eternal (2) is the only viable choice. Where this could lead us is antibody's guess, but I do think that the universe was created by and eternal spirit God is just as logical and possible and the universe itself being eternal as incomprehensible as either idea is.
No, this does not prove anything but it does surprise me that the physicalist hear didn't come up with more creative alternatives.

 

[Pi_314B]

I'm in the camp of something from nothing, and that something is nothing. Things amount to the geometric embodiment of nothing. They are not physical entities, but conceptual ones, and act in accordance with conceptual laws. Hence reality comes in forms of nothing. The color yellow comes in a form just as much as the car you drive, and their relationships serve to form other concepts (A yellow car for instance). The key to understanding this is to come to grips with the illusion that you are a physical entity interacting on a physical level.

From this - We can grasp that the only difference between something and nothing is geometric form verses no geometric form at all, and we can safely say that we are the realty of Non-Existence.


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

 

[sd01g]

Something is nothing?

I'm in the camp of something from nothing, and that something is nothing. Things amount to the geometric embodiment of nothing. They are not physical entities, but conceptual ones, and act in accordance with conceptual laws. Hence reality comes in forms of nothing. The color yellow comes in a form just as much as the car you drive, and their relationships serve to form other concepts (A yellow car for instance). The key to understanding this is to come to grips with the illusion that you are a physical entity interacting on a physical level.

From this - We can grasp that the only difference between something and nothing is geometric form verses no geometric form at all, and we can safely say that we are the realty of Non-Existence.


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

Hello Pi 314B: An interesting arrangement of words. If you could produce any rational or empirical evidence to support these assertions, I would appreciate seeing them. Otherwise, it appears that your illusion parameters are too nebulous for interactive scrutiny.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I'm in the camp of something from nothing, and that something is nothing. Things amount to the geometric embodiment of nothing. They are not physical entities, but conceptual ones, and act in accordance with conceptual laws. Hence reality comes in forms of nothing. The color yellow comes in a form just as much as the car you drive, and their relationships serve to form other concepts (A yellow car for instance). The key to understanding this is to come to grips with the illusion that you are a physical entity interacting on a physical level.

From this - We can grasp that the only difference between something and nothing is geometric form verses no geometric form at all, and we can safely say that we are the realty of Non-Existence.


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

I think I understand the gist. Here is a question that would determine where I am right or wrong: If I told you that "Nothing excists until I measure it (see, smell, taste), at which time it comes into being.", would you believe me?

If so, the problem that I immediatly see is: we are constantly guided and controlled by the outside world. Plus, how would all humans be able to relate when the outside world is soo subjective to each person? Personally I believe that that notion is an illusion.

 

[Zlex]

In the field of the vastly unknowable, there are all kinds of possibilities.

1] No Creator, no first cause, Universe always was.

2] No Creator, some kind of anti-nihilistic quantum first cause equivalent to -U + U = 0 so nothing happened in the EBSOT (Even Bigger Scheme Of Things) and two Universes were created for the price of none. Universe(s) wasn't always but is/are now.

3] No Universe; just a Creator who always was; got bored, and imagined a Universe. Got stuck for a minute on the bit about 'How do I create surprise in this Universe and enjoy this imaginary sandbox if I already know every damned thing about it?', then said, "Simple! I just schizoid myself into separate conciousness that doesn't know I know, and let the games begin!" Never had to solve the problem of how the material Universe came about, because it never did; it is all imagined. Would one damned atom shake any differently in this imagined universe? Nope. For those stuck in an imagined box, the box is as real as real can be in this universe. There would be no signicant, detectable, or even actual difference between this imagined universe and what we in the box refer to as the real Universe.

4] Creator who created a material Universe. But, why go to all the bother? If He could imagine, design, and build it, He could just as well, and a lot easier, just imagine and design it. What is harder to accomplish? Being a schizoid, or building something from nothing? Why break a sweat? Why show off like that? Towards what end? Who knows.


"Logically" these can't all be correct; but logically, it might seem at first that at least one of them is correct. We actually have at least 5 cases which only seem to cover all the bases, but then, only with our temporal bias intact:

NO CREATOR, INFINITE UNIVERSE
NO CREATOR, FINITE UNIVERSE
CREATOR, IMAGINED FINITE UNIVERSE
CREATOR, REAL FINITE UNIVERSE

A fifth case, CREATOR, INFINITE UNIVERSE WHICH PRECEDED HIM
seems at first to be logically impossible, but to absolutely say that, I would need to enforce my own Rule for God. Because, I'd need to take my own bias about time into the analysis, and for all I know about time, a Creator might have created in two directions, as part of his own special little -U + U = 0 two for none accounting gimmick.


As a devout secular non-aligned agnostic theist, the best I can come up with in regards to the unknowable is a meek "I don't know." I'd have to leave it to the true religious fanatics to logically claim they did.

 

[Pi_314B]

Hello Pi 314B: An interesting arrangement of words. If you could produce any rational or empirical evidence to support these assertions, I would appreciate seeing them. Otherwise, it appears that your illusion parameters are too nebulous for interactive scrutiny.

The overall evidence used would be the evidence used to describe what we term physical interaction. It's just a matter exchanging the word physical with conceptual. If we derive a universe from nothing - We must accept physical reality as being impossible. To make a physical universe from nothing is tantamount to pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The idea here is to work with what you've got (nothing). You don't change nothing ... you simply give it form. If forms of nothing follow what we term physical laws (conceptual laws from my perspective) how would the universe be any different than the one we percieve?. The answer would be that there would be no difference.

What I am simply saying is that the act of walking up a flight of stairs is not a physical event, but a conceptual one. Use the same equations that are accepted now, with the caveat that it should not be misunderstood under physical terms.

 

[Pi_314B]

I think I understand the gist. Here is a question that would determine where I am right or wrong: If I told you that "Nothing excists until I measure it (see, smell, taste), at which time it comes into being.", would you believe me?

I am not saying that nothing exist. I am saying that the form of nothing does, and it is composed of nothing. As an example: Registering a photon with your eyes. We don't read the nothing it is composed of, but the form of it's composition. Red and yellow are the same breed of animal, as in they would both be forms of nothing. The difference comes in the overall shape of the form. They both give different geometric readings, and once again they are conceptual in nature.

 

[Royce]

NO CREATOR, INFINITE UNIVERSE
NO CREATOR, FINITE UNIVERSE
CREATOR, IMAGINED FINITE UNIVERSE
CREATOR, REAL FINITE UNIVERSE
CREATOR, INFINITE UNIVERSE WHICH PRECEDED HIM

Yeah, that's about the way I see it in my rational analytical mind, though I've never even thought of the fifth alternative. I wouldn't but it in quite those words, but it works form.

Until recently I thought #3 was the way it is, Now I'm more of a #4 man.

What about an ETERNAL CREATOR, ETERNAL UNIVERSE. Does this make the truth table complete now?

 

[Picklehead]

By the Law of the Excluded Middle, the is no third option.

 

[selfAdjoint]

By the Law of the Excluded Middle, the is no third option.

Quantum logic does not have the excluded middle.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I am not saying that nothing exist. I am saying that the form of nothing does, and it is composed of nothing. As an example: Registering a photon with your eyes. We don't read the nothing it is composed of, but the form of it's composition. Red and yellow are the same breed of animal, as in they would both be forms of nothing. The difference comes in the overall shape of the form. They both give different geometric readings, and once again they are conceptual in nature.

Can you explain why you believe that?

 

[Fliption]

I see some here have touched on it but to me the first two options assume the absoluteness of time. If there was a time when time didn't exist (lol) then it is meaningless to talk about eternity. This is why I choose the third option.

 

[sd01g]

What is evidence?

The overall evidence used would be the evidence used to describe what we term physical interaction. It's just a matter exchanging the word physical with conceptual. If we derive a universe from nothing - We must accept physical reality as being impossible. To make a physical universe from nothing is tantamount to pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The idea here is to work with what you've got (nothing). You don't change nothing ... you simply give it form. If forms of nothing follow what we term physical laws (conceptual laws from my perspective) how would the universe be any different than the one we percieve?. The answer would be that there would be no difference.

What I am simply saying is that the act of walking up a flight of stairs is not a physical event, but a conceptual one. Use the same equations that are accepted now, with the caveat that it should not be misunderstood under physical terms.

Great evidence. Just exchange the word physical with the word conceptual. Call physical events conceptual events and the evidence is there. I will leave you in your conceptual world and return to my physical word. Best of luck.

 

[Pi_314B]

Can you explain why you believe that?

This thread gives you three choices, but there really is only two in an inquiry such as this... A beginning to something, or eternally something. One might also say that both choices are true, however this possibility would likely be nothing more than fudging ( The result of a lack of understanding). We can understand the difficulty in dealing with absolutes, such as - nothing, infinity, eternity, it's hard to pin the tail on the donkey, and we most certainly try. As evidence of our lack of understanding, this tread and many more like it show that few come to a complete agreement. I can say without reservation that I don't have a complete understanding, only that my tail has been pinned somewhere on the donkey, and I feel good about it's placement.

As to your question - Can you be more specific? :-)

 

[Pi_314B]

Great evidence. Just exchange the word physical with the word conceptual. Call physical events conceptual events and the evidence is there. I will leave you in your conceptual world and return to my physical word. Best of luck.

Just make sure you don't leave my world when you are in the process of bench pressing 300 pounds, or you could be in for a world of hurt.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

As to your question - Can you be more specific? :-)

Well, you must have compiled some info in your head to come up with that conclusion. I believe you do think logically so I would like to know how you put together information in order to find the "spot on the donkey" :-).

 

[Zantra]

I think we're caught up here on somantics. Nothingness is nothingness, or non existence.

For myself, I can't accept that the universe came from nothingess. As someone stated elsewhere:

"to accept that something came from nothingness is to accept the possibility of the existence of god"

Absolute nothingness in it's conceptualization by it's own nature prevents the creation of something. In order to change from a state of nothing over into something would require interaction with something, which defies it's own nature and render the concept invalid. If something interacts with nothing, then it becomes something. It's a paradox.

Human beings have a "theory" that the universe evolved from nothing. We don't know, and we can't say. Measurement of any sort involves a frame of reference. Time is a human creation, however in our estimation of how time operates, in order for an event to happen that creates the big bang, requires the existence of time. To claim that the universe just "came into existence" without an events to set it in motion would involve divinity, which I can't accept. Therefore I can only conclude that there must have been something before the big bang, because the very nature of absolute nothingness is contrary to existence. I can accept some other form of existence, that we haven't conceptualized yet, but I cannot accept spontaneous existence without causality.

To me, that's like saying " the world must be flat because I look through my telescope and the world just drops off- sure I haven't thought of sailing over there to find out, but I'll just assume it's flat instead of saying I'm not sure because I haven't checked it out yet"

Or am I missing something?

 

[Picklehead]

How can there be a third option besides either there being a 'creation event', what ever actually did the creating be it god or big bang, or random quantum events; or 'no creation event'? An infinite sea of bubble universes? That falls under 'no creation event', even though each specific universe (cosmos) has its own 'creation event'. Either there is an ultimate beginning, or there is no ultimate beginning. Can there be an ultimate half-beginning/half-eternal event without it being subsumed into just a single event in an eternal spacetime?

Quantum logically, I can understand (no I cant, but anyways . . . ) that while 6x4=24, 4x6 might not, ie. there are . . . um . . . symmetries that are not conserved . . . ? . . . oh wait, it doesn't follow regular logics 'if-then' structure . . . ok, but still, how does that apply to the law of the excluded middle in relation to there being a 'creation event', or 'no creation event'?

 

[bola]

so you're saying that time isn't constant?
that there is no rule for how fast particles can move in space?
if this was the case, why do all humans age in the same amount of humanly measured time?
why does summer come 5 months after winter?

it seems to me, time can go faster and slower.
if time was only causal events, aka moving particles, with no time dimension to control them, wouldn't that mean that if we had a device to speed up particles in say, a box, we could make time go faster?

let's say we put a cat in a box, and inside this box, we could make the causal events go much faster. the cat would then age 10 years in a matter of seconds.
even this little experiment tells me that time is not just the movement of particles in space, but also an inherent dimension that controls the speed of the particles.

I again agree with bola, but much more below about time below.

Many, myself included, tend to think of time as if it were flowing from the past into the future and in some mysterious way changing things as it passes, but I think this is demonstrable wrong. Really we never observe time. "Time" need not, and probably does not, exist and this can be demonstrated with mathematical rigor. Now for that demonstration:
What we actually observe is something changing, not time. I'll take a changing observable related to time, the continuously moving hands of a clock, but any changing observable would do. (The mathematical formulation I give is general.) These hands advance in relation to some other change, specifically in the case of a grandfather clock, they correlate with the swings of the pendulum.
Let me now state it more generally: Event "A" is an observable changing function of time, "t" or A(t) = a(t) where the functional form of a(t) could be 15sin(7t) if the observable event A were the oscillatory positions of a pendulum, swinging with amplitude 15 in some system of units. (I use this example, despite its having repetive occurances of "A" because the inverse function has a well know name and that helps in my specific illustration/example.) Likewise some other changing observable event, say B(t), which if you still need specifics you could consider to be the position of Mars in its journey around the sun, but let's be general.
We have two equations:
A(t)=a(t) and B(t)= b(t). Inverting (Solving each separately for "t") we get: t=a'(A) and t=b'(B). As I fear some are already confused, i.e. not with me any longer, I will briefly return to the specific example: This inversion of the equations with the prior specific example: A(t) = 15 sin(7t) leads to 7t = arcsin(A/15) or t= {arcsin(A/15)}/7 which for convenience and generality, I have called a'(A). (The function form of a' ,which was an "arcsin" in this specific example, is only expressible in the general case symbolically and I have chosen a'(A) to represent it.)
Becomeing more general still by considering some othe observable, C, I get:
t = c'(C) etc. for every observable in the universe. Now eliminating time from all equations of the universe (and this is the proof that it is not needed to describe all observables in the universe) we have:
a'(A) = b'(B) = c'(C) = ...
That is every observable in the universe can in principle be related directly to any other observable without any reference to time.

Elimainating time from all physics would be an extremely useless thing to do. It is much easier to describe all event as if they were function of this wonderful, but unobservable construct of man, we call time. But the "passing of time" is not the cause of anything. (Events cause events.) Time is a very convenient invention of man, a parameter in our equations, as I have just demonstrated with mathematical rigor. Becoming specific again to make sure all can follow:

I am not growing older because of the passing of time. I am growing older because of causal events in my body. For example, in my joints small crystals are forming, when my cells divide, their telomares are growing shorter, etc. "Time passing" has nothing to do with my aging. Time causes nothing. Man invented time, but not by any conscious process. It is just the way we tend to think, like we once did that the world was the center of the universe, sun going arround, etc. ("natural assumptions", formed prior to knowledge) Without education, science and math we would still have more of these naturally assumed truths and hold them strongly. Slowly, one by one, man is gaining a more correct view.
Unfortunately, few yet realize (and few will even accept despite the aforegoing mathematical proof) that time is one of these "natural assumptions" of man and not any real thing that flows from the past to the future, making changes as it passes.

Because of this view, which most will find very strange, I can not vote on questions about the nature of something that does not exist or cause anything, anymore than I could vote on a question about the color of elephant eggs (red or blue -you try to vote on their color and you will at least understand why I can not vote on the question of this thread.)

 

[Chronos]

Option 3 is the same as saying something came from nothing. If 'something' is not eternal, 'nothing' must have popped in from time to time. As long as I am complaining, the definitions of 'nothing' thus offered are nothing more than circular logic.

 

[Pi_314B]

Well, you must have compiled some info in your head to come up with that conclusion. I believe you do think logically so I would like to know how you put together information in order to find the "spot on the donkey" :-).

That would be a tough nut to crack ... so I would prefer not to bust a nut. call me lazy.

 

[jrlogan]

original by ROYCE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From what or where then did the singularity originate? As a singularity has no (0) dimensions and infinite mass/energy density it is something, isn't it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is any difficulty to answer;
...from a consciouseness of some sort and without that consciouseness there could be nothing, upon establishing that I realize that I am, I cannot escape the conclusion that there always was, and could never could have there been "nothing". Zero is an imaginary number. An arbitrary starting point
to begin counting from. Without it there could be no number line such as 1,2,3,4,5,...ad.infinitum. There could only be the "infinite one". So it is my beleife that we live in a "virtual reality".

 

[Pi_314B]

Option 3 is the same as saying something came from nothing. If 'something' is not eternal, 'nothing' must have popped in from time to time. As long as I am complaining, the definitions of 'nothing' thus offered are nothing more than circular logic.

I'd like to corner some people by getting specific. It would seem most consider something eternal as the only choice. What is something? Something as opposed to what? Is the universe infinitely compose of somethings? Does nothing play a role in an eternal universe?

 

[jrlogan]

I'd like to corner some people by getting specific. It would seem most consider something eternal as the only choice. What is something? Something as opposed to what? Is the universe infinitely compose of somethings? Does nothing play a role in an eternal universe?

I would have to say "something"in that contxt would have to point to the fact of existence,which is readily proven by the fact that some or something could ask such a question. Logic this then, that "something" that "exists" regardless of whether or not it is a singularity with "no thing(s)" that could refference to there being space/time and more than "one" component of "being", that "something" could not be in our question if it did not"exist",
unless you want to argue that we can use imaginary objects as subjects in questions,which I would have to say that we can indeed, as theoreticals of the imagination of the theorists, which establishes the fact of "existance" of both real and imaginary objects in the mind of the questioners,imaginers,and theorists. If you were to experience your imagination strongly enough,say to the point of it seeming real to you, until that experience changes, who could tell you while you are in the experience that it is not real. "Your experiencing" was real, and if it had not changed,you would never say that it was not real, Your "knowing" establishes "existance". Can you prove that I am not just a figment of your imagination, or that you are not just a figment of my imagination,or are we both just something that "exists" in a "dream" of some other conscious(or maybe unconscious?) "be-ing"?