Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

[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"?

 

[Canute]

In the non-dual view (Taoism etc) the universe originates with 'something' that cannot be said to exist or not-exist. This sounds ridiculous to some I'm sure, but note that at least it solves the problem. The trick to understanding this view lies in analysing exactly what we mean by 'exist'.

Similarly, in this view, the universe is neither caused or uncaused but is said to arise from a 'causeless cause'. Again, this sounds ridiculous, but again, the trick is to analyse exactly what we mean by 'cause'. At least it is no more ridiculous than saying that the universe was caused or was not caused.

Whether or not one agrees with this view it at least resolves the problem of all those metaphysical questions which cannot be answered. They cannot be answered because both answers to them make no sense, as many people here have pointed out and as all philosophers have concluded. One solution would be a divine miracle, but this solution also contradicts reason when it comes down to it. So this other view,in which both answers to such metaphysical questions are bound to make no sense because both of them are wrong, has quite a lot going for it.

Just to make it seem even more counterintuitive the 'something' from which, in this view, the universe arises, is the only 'thing' that is real and all the rest is epiphenomenal. Once again that may seem ridiculous. Yet so far, despite the extreme age of this view, this claim remains not only consistent with the scientific evidence but is becoming increasingly close to the scientific view as that view evolves.

 

[jrlogan]

I wonder if there is another clue in that we can use the word 'experience' in reference
to subjective happenings as well as to events in space/time which we can also call objects. Even if we were to know the answer to the question of existence it would not be of much relavence to very many of us unless that understanding leads to our having
more controll/power over the physical world that we are so bound to and/or gaining a broader, more meaningful range of experience. There are and have been ways of acheiving both. It is a blessing that those doors are not easily opened. Due to some peoples psychological nature, Earth could become a nightmare.

 

[RoboSapien]

Ok this something exist but

what decided that it will be in the quantity that it is ? ( If the universe is finite. )

 

[Pi_314B]

Is something a physical entity? If so ... What contitutes physical? Break it down so as to create no confusion. Get specific.

 

[Royce]

I have tried to make it as clear and concise as I can within my limitations of language and the limitations of the language itself.

I am writing in absolute terms.

Something can be a god/creator, another universe, this universe, a singularity, branes, energy, thought, consciousness and/or anything, anything that you may want to consider.

Nothing or NO-THING is just that absolutely nothing.

Nowhere is time considered or referred to, nor does the word eternal as I am using it contain or imply the concept of time as we usually think of it. It simply means without beginning and without end, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Fliption]

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 disagree. The problem that many seem to be having is that we are so accustomed to living in "time" that we cannot imagine existence without it. Just because something is not eternal doesn't mean that something came from nothing. Theoretically, something could exist without time. In this case it doesn't make sense to talk about this thing being eternal.

If you insist that something could not exists without time then you are essentially saying something came from nothing because it is commonly theorized that time was created in the big bang. And since nothing can exists without time, then obviously there was nothing before the big bang.

Forget all this. Imagine existence without spacetime and rid yourself of these questions. They are only paradoxical because you're inside the box trying to understand the machine that makes boxes.

 

[Fliption]

Nowhere is time considered or referred to, nor does the word eternal as I am using it contain or imply the concept of time as we usually think of it. It simply means without beginning and without end, nothing more nothing less.

I understand what you're saying. I have been using the term eternity to be a concept of time and therefore have argued that nothing is eternal since time has not always been. But this does not mean that something did not exists prior to time being created. "Something" created time imo. Because of my use of the word eternity, I just can't label such a thing as eternal.

But if I see the intent of your use of the word "eternity" then yes this thing would be eternal. I caution against using that word though because people inevitably link it to time and then start coming up with all sorts of paradoxical questions about something existing in time forever. Some even start arguing that a creator can't possibly be realistic because think of how bored he would be! Obviously this is "inside the box" thinking and you have to choose your words very carefully to deal with it. I'm not advocating a creator by any means. I just think we have very little to say about the nature of anything that exists without time. It's like trying to imagine what it's like inside a black hole.

 

[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" :-).

I would be remiss if I didn't at least take a stab at this.

From a something from nothing perspective.
Imagine all of Existence being removed. What is left which cannot be removed?

(nothing)

Therefor nothing is eternal and we can expect something from nothing for lack of any other choice. After all ... We are here.

 

[Royce]

Fliption et al, I'm sure that you have a good idea of what I'm saying. I'm not sure that something being eternal is the same as eternity. Eternity to me means time without beginning or end while something being eternal means, as I am using the word as being without beginning and without end.

Beginning and end contain and imply sequential time and cause preceding effect.

Eternal meaning without beginning and without end contains and implys without time.

Yes this takes abstract thinking and its hard to get our minds to wrap itself around this concept even if we can never completely understand it.

 

[Philocrat]

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.

Somthing(Fish, Bird, stone, Animal, Insect, planet etc)

Fish (Tilapia, cat fish, prawn, etc)

Bird (Eagle, Sparrow, Crow, Hen, etc)...and so on.

As shown here, Something in this very sense is a universal category that has no relation to any other universal category that I personaly can point my finger at. The metaphysical and epistemological blunder is the assumption that 'Nothing' or 'Nothingness, is not only a potential and actual metaphysical category of a universal knind but also that its has a CAUSAL RELATION with 'Something'. As far as I am concerned this amounts to what is called in Metaphysics 'Category Mistake'.

Infact even if we could succeed in showing that 'Nothingness' is another universal metaphyical category that coexist with Something, I still cannot figure out how we can precisely prove that both are causally linked or that one is reducible to the other. As far as I am concerned there is no such causal link.

On the issue of there being other possible 'Alternatives', I personally want to know what they are at the metaphysical (universal) level. Are these so-called 'Alternatives' genuine Metaphysical Categories that can neatly and genuinely equate Something at the universal level? I am curious.

 

[jrlogan]

a bored God?

that a creator can't possibly be realistic because think of how bored he would be! Obviously this is "inside the box" thinking and you have to choose your words very carefully to deal with it. I'm not advocating a creator by any means. I just think we have very little to say about the nature of anything that exists without time. It's like trying to imagine what it's like inside a black hole.

You might be right. Possibly 'God' was extremely bored and went to sleep and dreamed it all, the universe as we know it. when he fell asleep he became unaware that he 'was' and that is the 'nothing' that everyone seems to wonder about before the universe was born. =-JL
-----------"In my mind is a universe"---Yoko Ono

 

[Zantra]

I'm pretty clear on the concept of something and nothing. Science teaches us that everything is causal. That everything that happens is a result of another action. So the concept of the universe spontaneously springing into existence without influence of some sort just doesn't fit. That's like saying 1+1=2 except on July 10 1986, when 1 + 1 = 3.

I do feel that that "something" may be something inconcievable to us. That it may be a form of existence that we haven't even yet contemplated yet. But it's something. I'm familiar with the concept of "nothing" and it would not fit into the concept of the universe as we know it.

 

[Canute]

On the 'eternity' thing - Christian mystics take it to mean not endless time but the simultaneous presence of all time. Not sure that helps much, but it avoids the idea of 'eternity' as being a long period of time, which is, as Fliption says, a bit of an oxymoronic idea.

 

[Pi_314B]

I'm familiar with the concept of "nothing" and it would not fit into the concept of the universe as we know it.

I am doubtful you have considered a universe made of nothing.

 

[Pi_314B]

On the 'eternity' thing - Christian mystics take it to mean not endless time but the simultaneous presence of all time. Not sure that helps much, but it avoids the idea of 'eternity' as being a long period of time, which is, as Fliption says, a bit of an oxymoronic idea.

In my model of the universe all things are made of nothing, and time passes as nothing (Nothing is time). If we begin with nothing all of time is present and accounted for.

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

 

[Zantra]

I am doubtful you have considered a universe made of nothing.

Then maybe we have different concepts of nothing. Nothing is just that- it doesn't exist. Therefore a universe of nothing does not exist.

I think you conceptualize "nothingness" as an entity, a form of existence. But if nothing exists as an entity that renders it as something.

If it's more comfortable to think of the unknown or some form of existence incomprehensible to us as nothing, then I don't have an objection to it. At one time or another we called all existence outside of the known world "nothing". All I'm saying is that I have trouble with giving form to non existence, or calling an alternative existence nothing, because of what the word nothing represents. In our concept of nothing, it makes casuality impossible. But I suppose if we wanted to throw out physics we could say that the universe just sprang from nothingness spontaneously.

I'm not claming to be an expert, I just don't get these concepts that don't follow logic.

I've seen dicusssions on this before. Believing that the universe just sprang to life from "nothing" would require a leap of faith. Is it possible that the nothing theory is correct? Of course. But arguing in favor of a concept that goes against causality and laws that we know to be true in our known universe is difficult. Of course it's like God- I can't prove he doesn't exist anymore than you can prove that he does.

EDIT: after reading some of your posts I see where you're going with this. What I'm saying from my POV is that my concept of nothing means that existence or the possibility of existence is not possible because no event can happen inside of non existence. Time does not exist, matter does not exist, form in any function does not exist- it is the end of all endings. Nothing may can come into being from nothing, because it is nothing and has no starting point, nowhere from which to spring. It is not however the beginning.

Something brought the universe into existence, and I don't know what to call it, but I do know what I wouldn't call it. And would ask for anyone who does believe in nothing to present a counter to this argument. Something to support the doctrine of the existence of nothingness in all its paradoxical glory. Even a black hole has "something". It has gravity.

 

[Pi_314B]

Then maybe we have different concepts of nothing. Nothing is just that- it doesn't exist. Therefore a universe of nothing does not exist.

It is not nothing that I say exist, but the concept of it that does. Let's break it down so as to reach an understanding of what I mean. Imagine an egg...imagine the contents removed. I.E. An eggshell with nothing in it. Now imagine the eggshell without any thickness. Whats left here is the concept of nothing, what I like to term The Reality Of non-Existence. Reality is no more than a thought and that thought has form. The form of an egg is just that ... An egg...regardless of it's composition. These concepts have no physical stature. They act in accordance with conceptual laws, what we term physical laws.

I think you conceptualize "nothingness" as an entity, a form of existence. But if nothing exists as an entity that renders it as something.

There is no other avenue open for nothing in it's naked state other than to conceptualize it into discrete geometrical entities that constitute the form of Existence. These entities represent the definition of nothing (Non-Existence). They are however an incomplete definition. Hence the universe is in process of defining. At one instant there are X number of units that make up the universe as per the definition of nothing. In the next instant there are X + Y units. This is so because (nothing) as a whole is undefinable in reality, there being an eternity necessary to do so.

In our concept of nothing, it makes casuality impossible.

I have a postulate that time is nothing. This would entail that (nothing) represents all of time. Under this condition nothing is complete ( The equivalent of saying I AM ), and that in itself is (cause) for celebration. :-)

Time does not exist in a Non-Existent state

I would only say that time does not tic or toc without representation. That is why I say that in our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of. This is to say that the form of nothing represents the marker for time (nothing).

 

[Royce]

Pi_314B,
Every time you try to define your "nothing" universe you consistently refer to something with prior existence. Get outside the box and start from absolute nothing and reach a state of something without prior existence, cause or reason, physically, abstractly or spiritually. Nothing is and means absolutely nothing.

Zantra,
Yes, I think that you have a good idea of what we are talking about. the thing is that if something came from nothing it would have to be also without reason or cause, i.e. the first cause or the uncaused cause without time or again reason. It just happened as evidenced by the fact that we are here.

The other option is that something is eternal which includes Canute's concept of one eternal moment, eternity. This is not time as time is part of this physical universe. The eternal something may or may not be physical, abstract of spiritual or as you mentioned some category of existence that we haven't even considered yet.

Option #3 would somehow include a state between nothing and something that we have yet to conceive of, as even thought or cause is something or originates from something.

So far, I don't think anyone has given a valid case for something else. Nor has anyone really grasped the idea of something from nothing. This leaves us with the concept that something is eternal whether it be physical or non physical, temporal or non-temporal, caused or un-caused. It remains undefined and may so remain forever but I think that we are left with only one logical, reasonable choice; that something is eternal.

 

[Zantra]

So far, I don't think anyone has given a valid case for something else. Nor has anyone really grasped the idea of something from nothing. This leaves us with the concept that something is eternal whether it be physical or non physical, temporal or non-temporal, caused or un-caused. It remains undefined and may so remain forever but I think that we are left with only one logical, reasonable choice; that something is eternal.

I think that pretty much sums up my feeling on this topic. IOW:

"every new beginning comes from some other beginnings end" etc etc

Call it a gut instinct, but I feel that the universe is not the end all be all of existence. There are concepts of branes and planes and automobiles (ok 2 out of 3). But it all points to the concept that we may not be the highest link in the food chain. The ant farm existence is just too ironic not to have some merit. How far out would one need to zoom in order to see the big picture?

but I digress..

 

[Pi_314B]

Every time you try to define your "nothing" universe you consistently refer to something with prior existence. Get outside the box and start from absolute nothing and reach a state of something without prior existence, cause or reason, physically, abstractly or spiritually.

As stated in my previous post (Nothing is undefinable in reality). It is only definable from a Non-Existent sense. I cannot fathom all of time (NOTHING) from my state of Existence. I can only form a postulate.

In an attempt to bag this animal called nothing, one could imagine a lack of physicality, but would be hard pressed to remove conceptual reality, and thusly have a complete definition of that which does not exist. I can't expect to go there, let alone come back, and then give you a synopsis. In a nutshell ... I can't remove myself. This does not remove the possibility that I can be made.

Nothing is and means absolutely nothing

This statement requires prior knowledge of a thing. You are not given the luxury of something before nothing. Thats like pulling the cart before the horse.


To add to this discussion - Contradiction is at the cornerstone in this model. Suffice to say ... A thing is equally dependent on what it is not. I exist because I don't exist as a necessary statement. I.E. 0 and 1 ... pure contradiction.

 

[Pi_314B]

So far, I don't think anyone has given a valid case for something else. Nor has anyone really grasped the idea of something from nothing. This leaves us with the concept that something is eternal whether it be physical or non physical, temporal or non-temporal, caused or un-caused. It remains undefined and may so remain forever but I think that we are left with only one logical, reasonable choice; that something is eternal.

I don't get the reasoning here. You toss the something from nothing possibility because it isn't understood, therefor it must be something eternal because it isn't understood?


Did I get that right?

 

[Zantra]

I don't debate the existence or concept of nothing. What I have issue with is it's place in the universe. Nothing to me is an ending, not a beginning. Nothing is a valid concept, but to say that the universe sprang from nothing is to say that nothingness is not an absolute state

For example, let's take absolute zero- It is a state at which molecules no longer move. It's as if we said that we've found that some form of life exists at absolute zero. This means that it is no longer "absolute". It's the same with nothing. If we find that the universe sprang from nothing, then we can assume that some reaction or event was necessary, and therefore we have to accept that nothing is not an absolute state. This means the definition of nothing must be changed, or that we must accept that the universe came into being as a result of something.

 

[Pi_314B]

I don't debate the existence or concept of nothing. What I have issue with is it's place in the universe. Nothing to me is an ending, not a beginning. Nothing is a valid concept, but to say that the universe sprang from nothing is to say that nothingness is not an absolute state

.

The conceptualization of nothing does not change the absoluteness of it. It forever remains Non-Existent.
It is the concept of it that is real, and that concept takes form, and I must repeat - the form is not physical. Existence and Non-Existence are inseparable in that they constitute one nothing. The ingredients for the universe are already there.

 

[Royce]

I don't get the reasoning here. You toss the something from nothing possibility because it isn't understood, therefor it must be something eternal because it isn't understood?


Did I get that right?

I mis-stated my post. I should have said that the majority of those who responded choose "Something is eternal."

I still don't understand your reasoning. I agree that nothing cannot exist as the statement "nothing exists" is at least semantically an oxymoron. However nothing is. It is what is outside the Universe, a/the void into which the universe is expanding.
To say that nothing is a concept that does not have physical existence yet is a form and thus has existence a la Plato's forms (if this is the form you refer to) then this form while not having physical existence is still something, an abstract thought at least. This is still something coming from something and not nothing. A form that has existence is something as is a spirit, a thought, an intent, a purpose as well as a god, creator and/or universe.
This is why I keep saying that nothing is absolute, absolutely nothing regardless of physical, mental, abstract or spiritual existence is considered

But I suppose if we wanted to throw out physics we could say that the universe just sprang from nothingness spontaneously.

I agree with this statement completely. If something sprang from nothing it would have to be spontaneous without reason or cause. Any other way would preclude a necessary something to cause something coming from nothing which would mean that the something that caused this event (God for instance) had prior existence and thus something did not come from nothing but something is eternal.

 

[Fliption]

On the 'eternity' thing - Christian mystics take it to mean not endless time but the simultaneous presence of all time. Not sure that helps much, but it avoids the idea of 'eternity' as being a long period of time, which is, as Fliption says, a bit of an oxymoronic idea.

I like this idea of simultaneous presence of all time. It has always had intuitive appeal to me. But intuition is all I have at this time. Pardon the pun

 

[Canute]

Option #3 would somehow include a state between nothing and something that we have yet to conceive of, as even thought or cause is something or originates from something.

So far, I don't think anyone has given a valid case for something else. Nor has anyone really grasped the idea of something from nothing. This leaves us with the concept that something is eternal whether it be physical or non physical, temporal or non-temporal, caused or un-caused. It remains undefined and may so remain forever but I think that we are left with only one logical, reasonable choice; that something is eternal.

If one concludes that the universe cannot arise from something or nothing without it contradicting common sense, which seems to be the case, then your option 3 seems to be the only credible alternative. However, having noted that there is this option you then dismiss it and say that the only reasonable choice of fundamental 'substance' is something eternal. Why do you dismiss the possibility of option 3? Given that nobody has ever made sense of options 1 and 2 is it not the only reasonable answer?

 

[Royce]

If one concludes that the universe cannot arise from something or nothing without it contradicting common sense, which seems to be the case, then your option 3 seems to be the only credible alternative. However, having noted that there is this option you then dismiss it and say that the only reasonable choice of fundamental 'substance' is something eternal. Why do you dismiss the possibility of option 3? Given that nobody has ever made sense of options 1 and 2 is it not the only reasonable answer?

I agree that your statement above is true; but, most choose that something must be eternal and that something cannot come from nothing. I don't remember anyone saying that the universe cannot arise from something. I dismissed choice 3 because I can't conceive of a state between something and nothing that is not one or the other and a number of people said that #3 was not a valid option. However as you said if one cannot accept the possiblity of option 1 or 2 then 3 is only other option viable or not. No one gave much or any support for 3 except Pi_314B who equated something and nothing, made staements but did not support them in any way that I could follow.
Tell me, Canute, can you give any support to 3? Can there be a state when speaking in absolutes that is neither something or nothing. I seems to me logically that if it is not nothing then it must be something.

 

[Pi_314B]

Noone in the history of man has ever made sense of any of the options available. All that one can do at this point, is choose an option and run with it as if it were true. Your option must fit with what makes up our universe. At this writing I can say with little reservation, that I have chosen well. I can now understand how it is possible to fit a billion galaxies (made of nothing) into a space the size of a briefcase.:-)

How is it that the option of (something eternal) not have a cause?
How can option 3 be the only option with no option available at this time?

I have no problem with saying that (nothing) is a rebel without a cause, and I have no problem with (nothing) defining itself, providing that something is nothing, and have no problem with that something of nothing creating somethings of nothing within that something of nothing, wherein those somethings of nothing create something made up of somethings of nothing. I hope you followed this because I really believe this to be true. :-)

 

[Royce]

Huh? I have trouble with all of it. Your post above and all three options in the original post.

How is it possible, logically or reasonable possible for something to be eternal, without beginning or end, without cause or being caused?

How can it possibly be possible for something to come from nothing without cause or reason?

How can it be possible, semantically or otherwise, for a state to exist that is neither something or nothing?

 

[Zantra]

I have no problem with saying that (nothing) is a rebel without a cause, and I have no problem with (nothing) defining itself, providing that something is nothing, and have no problem with that something of nothing creating somethings of nothing within that something of nothing, wherein those somethings of nothing create something made up of somethings of nothing. I hope you followed this because I really believe this to be true. :-)

So if I have this right, what your basically saying is that if you call something a nothing, it fits for you right?

Hey you can call it mr potato head's brain if you want, but somantics don't change the fact that something cannot come from nothing, as it is a self defeating paradox=)

 

[Pi_314B]

So if I have this right, what your basically saying is that if you call something a nothing, it fits for you right?

Hey you can call it mr potato head's brain if you want, but somantics don't change the fact that something cannot come from nothing, as it is a self defeating paradox=)

I suppose the idea here is that nothing does not exist, but the concept of it must.

 

[Pi_314B]

How can it possibly be possible for something to come from nothing without cause or reason?

I think you might agree that nothing would need no cause. Getting you to agree that the concept of nothing needs no cause either might be a tough nut to crack, or maybe you agree?

 

[Canute]

Tell me, Canute, can you give any support to 3? Can there be a state when speaking in absolutes that is neither something or nothing. I seems to me logically that if it is not nothing then it must be something.

I hope you don't mind but I've posted a few relevant quotes. I thought they would be more interesting than any reply I might make.

Someone said earlier that nobody had solved the paradox of the three options you listed as answers to our origins. This is not actually the case. The situation is that while nobody can make sense of options 1 and 2 (although see Alan Guth below) many people assert that option 3 is the right one, although on the whole 'western' thinkers tend not to take such people seriously.

----

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities."

C. G. Jung
D. VII Sermones ad Moruos
In S. A. Hoeller, The Gnostic Jung and the
Seven Sermons to the Dead
Theosophical Publishing House, Illinois(1982) (pp 44-58)

(In its view of the ultimate 'substance' Gnosticism is the same as Essenism, Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Theosophy, Sufism, etc.)

---

In this next extract it's best to read 'demons' as meaning 'thoughts'. You may find it too 'religious' or too psychological but, true or not, note the subtlety in this view of the the relationship between something and nothing. ('Samadi' is a state of consciousness. The phrase 'screens his Bodhi nature' means, very roughly, 'hides the truth about his (our) fundamental nature'.)

"Further, in his cultivation of samadi which, as a result of his pointed concentration of mind, can no more be troubled by demons, if the practiser looks exhaustively into the origins of living beings and begins to differentiate between views when contemplating the continuous subtle disturbance in this clear state, he will fall into error because of the following four confused views about the undying heaven.

i. As he investigates the origin of transformation, he may call changing that which varies, unchanging that which continues, born that which is visible, annihilated that which is no more seen, increasing that which preserves its nature in the process of transformation, decreasing that whose nature is interrupted in the changing process, existing that which is created, and non-existent that which disappears; this is the result of his differentiation of the eight states seen as he contemplates the manifestations of the fourth aggregate. If seekers of the truth call on him for instruction, he will declare,: ‘I now both live and die, both exist and do not, both increase and decrease,’ thus talking wildly to mislead them.

ii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he finds that each thought ceases to exist in a flash and concludes that they are non-existent. If people ask for instruction, his answer consists of the one word "Nothing," beyond which he says nothing else.

iii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he sees the rise of his thoughts and concludes that they exist. If people ask for instruction, his answer will consist of the one word "Something," beyond which he says nothing else.

iv. The practiser sees both existence and non-existence and finds that such states are so complicated that they confuse him. If people ask for instruction, he will say: "The existing comprises the non-existent but the non-existent does not comprise the existing," is such a perfunctory manner as to prevent exhaustive enquiries.

By so discriminating he causes confusion and so falls into heresy which screens his Boddhi nature. The above pertains to the fifth state of heterodox discrimination (samskara) which postulates confused views about the undying."

The Buddha
Surangama Sutra
Trans. Lu K’uan Yu
B. I. Publications, New Delhi, 1966 (p. 222)

---

This next one refers to Spencer-Brown's mathematical representation of this 'non-dual' view (of something and nothing) as given in the Surangama Sutra, although Brown usually refers back to Lao-Tsu and to Taoism rather than to Buddhism. (However he asserts that he is a Buddha).

The crucial feature of Brown's calculus, to state it clumsily, is that it is a system of logic which allows for imaginary values. This allows, for instance, something and nothing to be represented as (ultimately) the same thing, without causing disallowed contradictions in the system.

"Anyone who thinks deeply about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two "laws" that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that preceeds distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges."

Robin Robertson
'Some-Thing from No-Thing:
G. Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form'
Online

---

Cosmologist Alan Guth assumes that the universe begins with either something or nothing. He is therefore forced into this corner...

"In our everyday experience, we tend to equate empty space with "nothingness". Empty space has no mass, no colour, no opacity, no texture, no hardness, no temperature – if that is not "nothing", what is? However, from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something. According to general relativity, space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist, and flex. This bending of space is the way that a gravitational field is described. In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space seems no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from."

Alan Guth
The Inflationary Universe (p 273)


"While the attempts to describe the materialisation of the universe from nothing remain highly speculative, they represent an exciting enlargement of the boundaries of science. If someday this program can be completed, it would mean that the existence and history of the universe could be explained by the underlying laws of nature. That is, the laws of physics would imply the existence of the universe. We would have accomplished the spectacular goal of understanding why there is something rather than nothing – because, if the approach is right, perpetual "nothing" is impossible. If the creation of the universe can be described as a quantum process, we would be left with one deep mystery of existence: What is it that determined the laws of physics? "

Alan Guth
‘The Inflationary Universe’ (p 276)


It is important to note that the intractible metaphysical paradoxes arising from the something/nothing distinction that Guth is struggling with here do not exist in 'Eastern' philosophies and never have. To distinguish (ontologically) between them is considered to be dualism, an error which prevents comprehension of what is actually the case.

I'd be very interested to hear your comments on these extracts, particularly on the plausibility of 'option 3' in the light of the first three. Do they seem to you to offer a possible way out of the dilemma, or do they seem just mystical/religious claptrap?

 

[Pi_314B]

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities."

Can't disagree with this.

"Anyone who thinks deeply about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two "laws" that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that preceeds distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges."

Seems like this guy is on the right track.

 

[Royce]

I think you might agree that nothing would need no cause. Getting you to agree that the concept of nothing needs no cause either might be a tough nut to crack, or maybe you agree?

Not only does nothing not need a cause; it can have no cause.

I'm not sure what you mean that the concept of nothing needs no cause either. I don't see any concept as needing a cause. I really don't think that we are on the same page, probably not even in the same book. Please explain.

 

[Picklehead]

There is no third option.

In my opinion, saying that there is a third option is like saying, when it comes to the natural numbers, that there is neither a finite number of them, nor an infinite number of them, but 'something else' in between. Or, conversely, that there is both an infinite number of them, and a finite number of them, and that is 'something else'. Can the possibilities for that 'something else' even be coherently described without calling it something blatently contradictory like 'there is a finite number of natural numbers that never end' or, 'there is an infinite number of natural numbers that eventually comes to an end'?

Or consider two lines (on a plane, a sphere, or a torus, it doesn't matter) . . . either they intersect, or they dont. As far as I know there is no possible exception to that.

Or how about a bit . . . either 1 or 0 . . . on or off. That has little to do with the topic, I know, but I think I made my point that suggesting that there is a third option to the universe being either temporal/finite or eternal/infinite is like suggesting that there is a third digit in base 2 arithmitic.

Eh?

 

[Royce]

I hope you don't mind but I've posted a few relevant quotes. I thought they would be more interesting than any reply I might make.

Someone said earlier that nobody had solved the paradox of the three options you listed as answers to our origins. This is not actually the case. The situation is that while nobody can make sense of options 1 and 2 (although see Alan Guth below) many people assert that option 3 is the right one, although on the whole 'western' thinkers tend not to take such people seriously.

I don't mind the quotes at all. In fact I enjoyed them and found them interesting. I was trying to keep this thread in the more western line of thought and writing in a physical sense rather than a mystical or spiritual line of thinking. I had in mind starting another thread with the obvious next question; "Since most of us agree that something is eternal, is the universe eternal or was it created by an eternal something, entity?" Then getting into more eastern thinking which I do not think is religious/mystical claptrap. But, since you brought it up here, we might just as well go into it here.

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities."

C. G. Jung
D. VII Sermones ad Moruos
In S. A. Hoeller, The Gnostic Jung and the
Seven Sermons to the Dead
Theosophical Publishing House, Illinois(1982) (pp 44-58)

(In its view of the ultimate 'substance' Gnosticism is the same as Essenism, Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Theosophy, Sufism, etc.)

The term that I kept running into when studying Buddhism and Zen was "the void." I am assuming that this is what Jung is talking about rather than the physicalist "nothing" I found the void to be a misnomer as to me it was, while empty of anything physical, completely full of consciousness, knowledge and wisdom. It, to me, was and is full beyond measure of wisdom, oneness and what I can only call spirit. It was while meditating and in the void that I first became aware of this oneness of consciousness and at the same time the presence of another greater than all else. This void is completely different from the physical nothing of which I was talking about before in this thread.

"Further, in his cultivation of samadi which, as a result of his pointed concentration of mind, can no more be troubled by demons, if the practiser looks exhaustively into the origins of living beings and begins to differentiate between views when contemplating the continuous subtle disturbance in this clear state, he will fall into error because of the following four confused views about the undying heaven.

i. As he investigates the origin of transformation, he may call changing that which varies, unchanging that which continues, born that which is visible, annihilated that which is no more seen, increasing that which preserves its nature in the process of transformation, decreasing that whose nature is interrupted in the changing process, existing that which is created, and non-existent that which disappears; this is the result of his differentiation of the eight states seen as he contemplates the manifestations of the fourth aggregate.

For some reason I never fell into this pit, probably because I had already seen that there is only the one eternal moment, no-time and than all that has ever been alway was is and will be. There is no beginning and end. There is only endless change. Essentially if one accepts no-time or The Moment then one must accept that all that is, is eternal in the sense of the word as I use it here in this thread. This includes creation and change. There is no dualism there is only one and consciousness is in a sense all that there is and all that is is conscious.

The crucial feature of Brown's calculus, to state it clumsily, is that it is a system of logic which allows for imaginary values. This allows, for instance, something and nothing to be represented as (ultimately) the same thing, without causing disallowed contradictions in the system.

"Anyone who thinks deeply about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two "laws" that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that precedes distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges."

Either I am reading this wrong or this is not a good or over simplistic quote.
circular reasoning to me. Consciousness is required to make an act of distinction to differentiate the undifferentiated to create space time in this matter so how could consciousness emerge when consciousness is required to begin the process.

It may be metaphysically correct is describing the act of creation by consciousness but it is not physically correct as space/time is a property of mass/matter. Space/time emerges because of the presence of energy/mass. The Big Bang had already begun before the Higgs field formed and allowed space, time and matter to form from the energy/mass as it expanded and cooled. But that is physics or at least physical speculation.

The point is, as I see it, is first and foremost is consciousness. Without consciousness there can be only nothing. Is is a very awkward way of putting it and I have really thought it through adequately yet; but, this is the way that I am beginning to see it. This is also why we have so much trouble defining and getting a handle on consciousness. We still think of it as an emergent effect rather than as a or the prime, first cause and source.

Cosmologist Alan Guth assumes that the universe begins with either something or nothing. He is therefore forced into this corner...

"In our everyday experience, we tend to equate empty space with "nothingness". Empty space has no mass, no colour, no opacity, no texture, no hardness, no temperature – if that is not "nothing", what is? However, from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something. According to general relativity, space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist, and flex. This bending of space is the way that a gravitational field is described. In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space seems no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from."

Alan Guth
The Inflationary Universe (p 273)


"While the attempts to describe the materialisation of the universe from nothing remain highly speculative, they represent an exciting enlargement of the boundaries of science. If someday this program can be completed, it would mean that the existence and history of the universe could be explained by the underlying laws of nature. That is, the laws of physics would imply the existence of the universe. We would have accomplished the spectacular goal of understanding why there is something rather than nothing – because, if the approach is right, perpetual "nothing" is impossible. If the creation of the universe can be described as a quantum process, we would be left with one deep mystery of existence: What is it that determined the laws of physics? "

The obvious answer, to me, whether acceptable or not, is that the physical laws were made by the same consciousness that made everything in the first place.

In light of what I said above about the moment and everything that is, being by necessity eternal, the laws and the physical universe are also eternal as is the consciousness that created, is creating and always will be creating the universe and all that is. This may go against traditional thinking, even eastern thinking; but, being forced to use human linear sequential language to talk about these things is what creates the paradoxes and make it seem so non-sensible.

I'd be very interested to hear your comments on these extracts, particularly on the plausibility of 'option 3' in the light of the first three. Do they seem to you to offer a possible way out of the dilemma, or do they seem just mystical/religious claptrap?

Well there you have then in the raw, unorganized, un-thought-out, off the cuff. I hope that you and all the other can follow my rambling.

 

[Pi_314B]

Or how about a bit . . . either 1 or 0 . . . on or off. That has little to do with the topic

Actually it has everything to do with this topic. One and zero is the minimal set. One being the concept of nothing.

 

[Pi_314B]

I really don't think that we are on the same page, probably not even in the same book. Please explain.

It would be important to maintain the idea that all of reality is not physical. Reduce what you see, feel, hear, taste, and smell to simple geometric expressions, and not like they were beating you over the head in ball peen hammer style. The concept of nothing is a geometric expression of nothing. This is to say that (zero ... nothing ... a quality) cannot be divorced from (one ... something ... a quantity).

 

[Canute]

There is no third option.

In my opinion, saying that there is a third option is like saying, when it comes to the natural numbers, that there is neither a finite number of them, nor an infinite number of them, but 'something else' in between.

Is a wavicle a particle or a wave or is there a third option? Generally people think that there is, which is why the mathematics of QM is closely similar to Spencer-Brown's calculus and the epistemology of Taoism. It is not hard to extend this principle to the natural numbers - for instance, to the question of whether zero or one one is the first number on the number line, a question to which Brown would say both or neither, depending on how you look at it, but not one or the other.