Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

[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=)