What is the Origin of Everything?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I recommend you check into the "hotel paradox" of infinity.

Do you mean Hilberts hotel?

 

[wuliheron]

Exactly. Essentially you are asserting the paradoxical position that Change is the only constant. If you attempt to work your way around this by piling one infinity on top of another, you run into Hilbert's Hotel paradox which just leads to more absurdities.

Bottom line, all of logic is based upon reductio ad absurdum. This is what I call the "backdoor" approach. Instead of proving something directly, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are absurd. In the case of the paradox of existence, like the liar's paradox, every explanation is absurd as Zeno and others have repeatedly demonstrated for thousands of years.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Huh... What's "Hilbert's Hotel" ?

Originally posted by heusdens
Anything IN the universe obeys causal principles (at least to some extent, QM may tell a different story however) but not the universe as a whole.

Oh... really ? Prove it.
The Universe is a system - it is two or more
components with some kind of connection between
themselves. The rest (components & connections)
are probabalistic assumptions.

Originally posted by heusdens
Suppose we have a box with coines in them. I make the following statement about this box of coins. I say: "everything in the box weights less then 1 kilogram".
Now the fact shows up that the coin with the maximum weight is exactly 100 gram. However the weigt of the box of coins minus the weight of the box itself is 2 kilograms, so the coins together weight 2 kilograms.

Is my statement true or not?

You can argue it is true because there is no coin which weights more then 1 kilogram. Each coin weights less then 1 kilogram.
And you can argue that it is false because the weight of all the coins together is more then 1 kilogram.

This is an introduction to the slippery use of language, which is used in the statement "everything came from nothing".

The statement has double meaning, it can either mean that every individual thing came from nothing, i.e. the statement says that is is true for every individual thing that it came from nothing, i.e. it did not come from anything.
Or, alternatively, it can mean to say that everything in totallity came from nothing, i.e. it didn't come from anything.

The first statement is of course false, because of the law of causal effect. The second statement is however true.

This may seem contradictional, but you have to consider that the truthvalue of a statement about all members of a group is not necessarily the same as the truthvalue of a statement about the group itself.

For instance, we can say that every member of a football team has a parent. But the football team itself does not (necesarily) have a parent.

This type of argument, based on this confusion, is often used in defending the existence of a "creator", which in simple forms is the following line of argument: Everything has a cause. The world exists. So, it must have a cause, or been caused by something. Hence, a creator is needed (no creation without creator).

Hmm... What ?!

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well your intitial statement "everything came from nothing" is a typical example of flawed use of language expressions. It should have been stated like "The universe is uncaused". (we can for reasons of avoiding ambiguity not use the term "everything" for "universe")

I didn't say "everything came from nothing"! That was Eyesee.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Question

Why do we chase our tails?

 

[wuliheron]

We chase our tails because existence is demonstrably paradoxical. What else would you have us do? :0)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Why do we chase our tails?

What are you talking about?

 

[Eyesee]

If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

Whoah, hold the phone. Why does "existence is eternal" = "'things' can't come into existence"?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say "everything came from nothing"! That was Eyesee.

I see. Well I meant to say The initial statement of this thread. Sorry.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Whoah, hold the phone. Why does "existence is eternal" = "'things' can't come into existence"?

Well, the saying is "from nothinh comes nothing" which means that the existing world didn't come from nothing. So, there was no 'begin' to existence, and therefore existence is eternal.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?

The implications are merely "philosophical". A point of view taken in by Idealist (and Religion) is mostly that there was a definite beginning to the world ("creation"). Materialist however claim there was no beginning.

OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

What do you mean "came into existence"? A causal effect. So, the world itself is the effect of ... yes, of what then? If there was no previous cause, which must be a previous world in whatever form, then how can there be an effect?

So, in fact you didn't resolve the question of existence, but made it into a miracle (the world popping up out of nothing).

The way the world exists is that the world is the effect of the world itself, by way of motion and change that takes place in the world.
The world is ever in motion, is ever reshaping itself, and this goes on without end.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly. Essentially you are asserting the paradoxical position that Change is the only constant. If you attempt to work your way around this by piling one infinity on top of another, you run into Hilbert's Hotel paradox which just leads to more absurdities.

The world is changing always, yes. But is that a paradox?
I don't think that Hilbert's Hotel is a paradox, it is more a description of the properties of infinity (namely infinity plus any number = infinity, etc).

Bottom line, all of logic is based upon reductio ad absurdum. This is what I call the "backdoor" approach. Instead of proving something directly, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are absurd. In the case of the paradox of existence, like the liar's paradox, every explanation is absurd as Zeno and others have repeatedly demonstrated for thousands of years.

The paradox of Zeno ( the paradox of movement) is fully resolved with infinitesimal calculus.

What kind of direct proof are you referring to? Proof of existence?
What proof do you want or suggest?

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
The implications are merely "philosophical". A point of view taken in by Idealist (and Religion) is mostly that there was a definite beginning to the world ("creation"). Materialist however claim there was no beginning.



What do you mean "came into existence"? A causal effect. So, the world itself is the effect of ... yes, of what then? If there was no previous cause, which must be a previous world in whatever form, then how can there be an effect?

So, in fact you didn't resolve the question of existence, but made it into a miracle (the world popping up out of nothing).

The way the world exists is that the world is the effect of the world itself, by way of motion and change that takes place in the world.
The world is ever in motion, is ever reshaping itself, and this goes on without end.

Yes, something from nothing is a miracle, but existence is a miracle, anyway you look at it. The more interesting questions are the characteristics of existence, imo. Like, is existence intelligent? Is it evolving? Is it moving towards a goal? Is it just mechanical parts moving randomly?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Yes, something from nothing is a miracle, but existence is a miracle, anyway you look at it. The more interesting questions are the characteristics of existence, imo. Like, is existence intelligent? Is it evolving? Is it moving towards a goal? Is it just mechanical parts moving randomly?

Material existence is evolving, it is historical. And the way it evolves is far from randomly, otherwise we would not have discovered forces like gravity, and so. Gravity determines the way matter moves in a structured way. A randomly moving world would be uncausal, it would not provide for any structure, neither for any progress in the world. There is of course randomness in the world, but not total randomness. Things are chaotic but at the same time we can discover patterns and establish laws that govern the evolution of material existence.

The way material existence is evolving, can be called progressive.
This is true for the complexity of the universe (the formation of large scale structures, stars, planetary systems), for life forms (macromolecules able of self-reproduction, one-celled life forms, complex life forms, etc.), and for human society (society of hunters and gatherers, to a society performing space traveling and science).

Hence the term used for this property of the material world: historic.
A randomly moving material world, would not be historical, cause there would not be a difference between paste and future.

For further reading, see:
- Historical Materialism
- Dialectical Materialism

 

[wuliheron]

Hence the term used for this property of the material world: historic.
A randomly moving material world, would not be historical, cause there would not be a difference between paste and future.

The bottom line is that both views are useful, and for the last century what has proven the most useful is the random view. What you are calling "historical" is more commonly called "causal". As useful as Relativity and other causal views have proven to be, QM randomness is by far the most useful yet discovered.

Whether or not everything is ultimately random or causal may be a moot point and, in the final analysis, unprovable. In the name of order, beauty, and dignity Plato burned all of Democritus' books, but he had the last laugh anyway.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The bottom line is that both views are useful, and for the last century what has proven the most useful is the random view. What you are calling "historical" is more commonly called "causal". As useful as Relativity and other causal views have proven to be, QM randomness is by far the most useful yet discovered.

Whether or not everything is ultimately random or causal may be a moot point and, in the final analysis, unprovable. In the name of order, beauty, and dignity Plato burned all of Democritus' books, but he had the last laugh anyway.

I do not agree on this. Of course, QM shows us that at the lowest level of matter, the material world seems totally random.
On the large scale however, we can see that the world is evolving progressively, and that even when there is randomness on lower levels, distinguished patterns can be found.

If the material world was truly random, we could have never discovered the law of gravity, and other laws of nature. Even worse, the world would not provide for any progressive evolution, and a universe like we see now that provides for life forms to emerge, would be far too hostile to produce any large scale structure.

No matter where you look and what you investigate, everywhere in nature you find development, and certain laws governing this development. This is true for the formation of stars, star systems, planets, living organisism, human society, and the universe as a whole.

In a truly random material world, this kind of progress would not be found for certain.

 

[wuliheron]

No matter where you look and what you investigate, everywhere in nature you find development, and certain laws governing this development. This is true for the formation of stars, star systems, planets, living organisism, human society, and the universe as a whole.

Is it live, or is it memorex? Do we exist or not? Is everything ultimately random or ordered? Is randomness just an indication of our perceptual limitations, or does order arise from randomness?

Such questions are just so much silliness from my point of view. You might as well ask how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They are the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical. That is the bottom line.

From this bottom line we can either build meaningful lives or run in circles screaming and shouting. :0)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Is it live, or is it memorex? Do we exist or not? Is everything ultimately random or ordered? Is randomness just an indication of our perceptual limitations, or does order arise from randomness?

Such questions are just so much silliness from my point of view. You might as well ask how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They are the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical. That is the bottom line.

From this bottom line we can either build meaningful lives or run in circles screaming and shouting. :0)

I don't think they are silly, cause on macroscopic (time/space) scales and microscopic (time/space) scales we see this overall progress and ordering.

Don't you think they are usefull concepts?

If you would imagine the evolution of the Earth from the begin to now, wouldn't you agree on that there occurred some progressive development?

Or take the human history from the last 100 years, wouldn't you agree there wasn't progress?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Random thoughts...

Randomness and order are not mutually exclusive. To compare them, however, is like comparing apples and oranges, because one it a "tool" while the other is a "product".

I speculate that randomness is BUILT INTO the system of the Universe as the lynch-pin from potentiality to reality. What triggers the lynch-pin (and we're talking about an infinite number of lynch-pins) might be INTENTION...the INTENTION to bring things into functional coherent chuncks.

As a simple example: flying squirrels. There was probably a time when they didn't have those flaps of skin that kept them in the air a little longer. Now some would say that randomness of genes produced those flaps of skin on some, and these squirrels were more "fit" to survice and you know the rest...

I say that evolutionists might be missing an essential ingredient, which is the SQUIRRELS OWN INTENTION to grow some skin. I think INTENTION acts on randomness within the "sea of infinite possibilities" in which we -- and everything else - swims.

Another example has to do with synchronicity -- meaningful coincidences, that many shrug off ...like swine stepping on pearls.

An example: for three weeks I visited Yahoos "Physics" chat rooms...and a more vacuus collection of cretins you will never find. Then, last Sunday I think it was, I followed a book review to a site that referenced three other sites, one of which was this one.

I say it was my INTENTION to find such a forum that led me here via what seemed at the time a random meandering.

And that is why I speculate that RANDOMNESS in the Universe is a natural component of the System which is ACTED UPON by INTENTION which leads to ORDER.

 

[Messiah]

Nothing Rules

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, itself, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

For every left there exists a right. For every to, there is a fro. For every up, there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. Sir Isaac Newton captured this essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. As it applies to physics from simple inertia to the relativity between mass and energy, the law of natural balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey. It is no coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Without that symmetry, logic, itself, would not exist. Natural balance is demonstrably the most fundamental attribute of the phenomenon of existence.

Could Newton’s law be a reflection of a deeper, more fundamental truth? If we apply his template to the underlying phenomenon of existence, it would suggest that for everything in the Universe there must exist an opposite equivalent. It would imply that for every value in the Universe there must exist a reciprocal such that for every value in the Universe there exists a countervalent reciprocal.

In short, the logical equivalent of NOTHING exists, and such must have always been and will continue to be the case.

Existence was not conjured by a mystical process. It is based upon a fundamental principle.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think they are silly, cause on macroscopic (time/space) scales and microscopic (time/space) scales we see this overall progress and ordering.

Don't you think they are usefull concepts?

If you would imagine the evolution of the Earth from the begin to now, wouldn't you agree on that there occurred some progressive development?

Or take the human history from the last 100 years, wouldn't you agree there wasn't progress?

Of course they are useful concepts. Wuhileron's explanation for everything that he doesn't understand is that :it's a paradox.
Though the existence of existence is paradoxical, the nature of
existence (i.e. its characteristics), is quite comprehensible,
I don't think wuhileron is making a distinction between the two.

It may not be of much practical use to question the existence of existence but it is of utmost importance to understand the nature (i.e. characteristics) of existence. That's what all of science is about and look how much we have progressed in such a short period of time. I definitely don't think the universe is just a mindless mechanical system whose parts are acting in total randomness. If so, probability would predict that the origin of life can never happen. Or if by some miracle it did, more miracles would be needed for every time one species mutated to give rise to another.

There are some "hidden variables". Else, probability math is garbage.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, itself, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

For every left there exists a right. For every to, there is a fro. For every up, there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. Sir Isaac Newton captured this essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. As it applies to physics from simple inertia to the relativity between mass and energy, the law of natural balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey. It is no coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Without that symmetry, logic, itself, would not exist. Natural balance is demonstrably the most fundamental attribute of the phenomenon of existence.

Could Newton’s law be a reflection of a deeper, more fundamental truth? If we apply his template to the underlying phenomenon of existence, it would suggest that for everything in the Universe there must exist an opposite equivalent. It would imply that for every value in the Universe there must exist a reciprocal such that for every value in the Universe there exists a countervalent reciprocal.

In short, the logical equivalent of NOTHING exists, and such must have always been and will continue to be the case.

Existence was not conjured by a mystical process. It is based upon a fundamental principle.

Yes, good one. But I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

Sorry, but the idea the universe came from nothing is no more complete or rational than the idea it all originated from dill pickles, infinity, or whatever. Bottom line, they are all patently irrational explantions and semantics is just one of many issues.

You don't need wildly abstract theories, hard scientific evidence, or anything like that to appreciate the situation. All you need is an open mind and, for that, all that is required is acceptance. If you need someone to debate the semantics of acceptance, then you need serious help.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of nothing...

From here on, your argument is flawed, because it refers to "nothing" as though it were something that exists.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Yes, good one. But I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

That which does not exist...well...uhhhh...well...it doesn't exist. It HAS no definition for by its very nature it is undefined. Mathematically, it is not the 'empty set' - it is not a set at all. To understand nothing is NOT to understand.

If you want to discuss the LOGICAL definition of nothing, I can tell you that the ONLY logical definition of nothing is the empty set - or Ø (keystroke ALT+216) or Zero.

If you want to discuss the ABSTRACT definition of nothing, all I can say is " ".

Understand??

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but the idea the universe came from nothing is no more complete or rational than the idea it all originated from dill pickles, infinity, or whatever. Bottom line, they are all patently irrational explantions and semantics is just one of many issues.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the phenomenon of existence arose from a process. It didn't. It is based on a physical principle - natural balance. Processes are governed by principles - laws of nature. Cause and effect is a process. Existence is NOT a process. It is a principle of nature. And that principle seems to indicate that Sum v(u)=Ø or the sum of all value in the Universe = Ø (keystroke ALT+216). It is Newton's principle (3rd law) taken to a more basic level.

Compared to infinity, any finite element has a size of Ø. From a given point one may extend infinite lines to infinity in all the XYZ coordinates. This inscribes a sphere. The sphere encompasses the Universe. By definition the center of the sphere is the center of the Universe. The same can be done for all points in the Universe; hence there is no (Ø)relative differential compared to infintiy.

If for every quality in the Universe there is a reciprocal, the point that Sum V(U)=Ø is complete. Matter and anti-matter is too simplistic. There is a more logical approach -

Theory of Reciprocity

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
From here on, your argument is flawed, because it refers to "nothing" as though it were something that exists.

Ok...ok...

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

 

[wuliheron]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the phenomenon of existence arose from a process.

No, I'm not stuck on the idea of existence as a process. I'm stuck on the idea that words have specific meanings. The universe may be eternal, without beginning or end, for all I know. However the concept of eternity is illogical, irrational, and paradoxical.

Zeno of Elias was the first famous western philosopher to point this out. He asserted existence is in actuality indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. Talk about a view of existence that doesn't require process! What it does require is paradox as all explanations do.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Messiah...

Although current evidence suggests that the Universe will expand forever, might there still be an as-yet undiscovered/un-though-of countervaling force that may pull it in?

I want to put my hat in the ring and say that -- although I have no evidence -- I think that the Universe will eventually collapse into a singularity which, in turn, will burst forth into ANOTHER so-called "Big Bang".

For the sake of discussion, let us dispense with an "outside Creator" "who" needed to be CREATED itself before it could "create the Universe." Let's just say that the Universe ITSELF is an eternal entity of energy that expands and contracts through infinate incarnations.

Thus, the Universe didn't pop out of a void, but popped out of ITSELF...from it's last collapsed singularity from its last incarnation.

The portion of one of your posting regarding using Newton's law as a template suggests that the expansion of the Universe might eventually be reversed.

Meanwhile, will someone please tell me how to capture quotes?