Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

  • Thread starter Langbein
  • Start date
377
0
Nothing is irrelevant.
If the universe came from nothing, you are sadly mistaken.
It's not a mistake, it's what "nothing" means. Things that are relevant aren't "nothing". If you want to talk about something that matters then don't call this thing "nothing" because this word stands for what doesn't exist. What doesn't exist doesn't matter; if it did, we would say it exists and we would call it something.

Also, the universe cannot "come from" something that isn't there for it to come "from". You're playing with words. If you read this thread back you will understand why the universe cannot even "come from" at all.

the universe is the definition of nothing.
The universe is not a definition.
 

castlegates

The universe is not a definition.
Since you seem to know what it is not, perhaps you know what it is?
Do you think the universe has always been?
Is the universe infinitely composed?
Whats your take?
 
377
0
Since you seem to know what it is not, perhaps you know what it is?
It's obvious to anyone that the universe is not a definition but it's a bit harder to state what it is. Yet, let me indulge you. The universe is the collection of all that exists, in other words all that matters, all that is relevant.

Do you think the universe has always been?
I've already covered this at great length in this thread. You should read it if you're interested, it's pretty good.

Is the universe infinitely composed?
Whats your take?
I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. It sounds off topic.
 

castlegates

Is the universe infinitely composed?
Whats your take?
I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. It sounds off topic.
Just trying to nail you down.

What I mean by the question is - Is the universe compose on all scales, such that if I investigate things to smaller scales, say beyond quarks, will I find that quarks are compose of smaller things, and find that all these things are made of even smaller things, and so on, and so on infinitely? Same for larger scales. Space would be made of things (parts)?

Certainly there is no room for nothing in your universe, so how is your universe composed?

Do you think the universe has always been?
I've already covered this at great length in this thread. You should read it if you're interested, it's pretty good.
So the universe has been around forever? Which means anything goes, including gramma made this universe, and Abe Bagota destroyed universe number 8738837838762hd89843674.
ANYTHING GOES
 
377
0
Just trying to nail you down.

What I mean by the question is - Is the universe compose on all scales, such that if I investigate things to smaller scales, say beyond quarks, will I find that quarks are compose of smaller things, and find that all these things are made of even smaller things, and so on, and so on infinitely? Same for larger scales. Space would be made of things (parts)?

Certainly there is no room for nothing in your universe, so how is your universe composed?
Who knows? And yeah, that's off topic. Start a new thread on this if you like.

So the universe has been around forever? Which means anything goes, including gramma made this universe, and Abe Bagota destroyed universe number 8738837838762hd89843674.
ANYTHING GOES
Woah. You need more sleep. I suggest decaf. :rolleyes:
 
Have the members here already covered Craigs (PhD ThD) version of the KCA? (I have been gone for a few months).

I use it as a component to build my 'paradigm of everything'. If we accept the 'standard' model of the big bang theory (like the majority of scientists) there is only one universe.

One universe began to exist. Nothing begins to exist without a cause so the universe began to exist because of a 'cause'. This cause was atemporal (because time was created after time zero of the BB), so what is atemporal that can cause a universe to begin to exist?

; }>

Nothing is as it seems, not even me (below)

1VVssmall-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
227
0
He's not a scientist, but Christopher Hitchens made a pretty good point.

The universe is currently expanding very rapidly, and if this expansion does not ever stop, "nothingness" is essentially what is coming. It's the next big thing.

So don't be awed by the fact that we have something, when right before our eyes we can see a process that is reducing all we know to nothing.
 
377
0
One universe began to exist.
There's no proof of that.

Nothing begins to exist without a cause
There's no proof of that either.

This cause was atemporal
What does that mean?

time was created after time zero
That's a contradictory claim. If there could have been a time zero then time already existed, it could not have been created after it.

If the universe (all there is) had a cause then this cause must have been all there was at the time. In other words, such a cause was already the universe (all there is). It simply changed from one form to another, as we see it happening all the time.
 
42
0
It's not a mistake, it's what "nothing" means.
Yeah but you assume the person who defined nothing conceived it correctly, if their is error in the process of defining the new term, then there is errors all the way down, this is the point.

Also, the universe cannot "come from" something that isn't there for it to come "from".
You have misunderstood nothing, this is your problem. The universe has distinctions in it, anything that is distinct is necessarily derived, period. A pure universe would be uniform there would be no distinctions, no particles, no galaxies, just pure uniform mass, our universe is not like that at all, so it is not the whole story. Next human beings potentially only have around 100 years (i.e. each individual life form the time they are born) so they can hardly accumulate much in terms of knowledge before death, everyone has to start at the beginning... it's highly likely everyone (including myself) is ridiculously stupid simply because we are short lived and our minds are insanely small compared to the matter and energy that could be configured into something smarter then we are.
 

castlegates

Just trying to nail you down.

What I mean by the question is - Is the universe compose on all scales, such that if I investigate things to smaller scales, say beyond quarks, will I find that quarks are compose of smaller things, and find that all these things are made of even smaller things, and so on, and so on infinitely? Same for larger scales. Space would be made of things (parts)?

Certainly there is no room for nothing in your universe, so how is your universe composed?
Who knows? And yeah, that's off topic. Start a new thread on this if you like.
Actually it's not off topic at all. Since you propose a universe devoid of nothing, I'm most definitely curious how that works by your accounts, or more so, how I would point out how it can't work by your accounts, and if you don't know how a universe works devoid of nothing, how can you be so darned sure of yourself that our universe is devoid of nothing.


So the universe has been around forever? Which means anything goes, including gramma made this universe, and Abe Bagota destroyed universe number 8738837838762hd89843674.
ANYTHING GOES
Woah. You need more sleep. I suggest decaf.
Yes a universe where you need more sleep would also be included in a universe thats been here forever. The sky is the limit. Anything is possible in a universe thats been forever, and yes, a universe made of decaf is within the realm of possibilities, actually it's a foregone conclusion with a universe being here forever. You seem to be saying from previous post that the universe has always been. Am I wrong to assume this?
 

baywax

Gold Member
1,919
1
"Why does anything exist than rather nothing?"

Because nothing doesn't exist. End of story.
 

sketchtrack

Option one: There is an "Aether" like something even in a "perfect vacuum". And, the universe is infinite. Therefore there is no place for nothing.

Option two: There is an "Aether" like something even in a "perfect vacuum". Yet, there is a boundary, and the universe is finite in size. Outside of that boundary does not exist, but can be conceptualized as something.

Option three: There is nothing in a perfect vacuum. The universe is infinite, nothing does exist in the same way it is conceptualized in option two, but real.

Option four, There is nothing in a perfect vacuum, there is a finite universe, and beyond the universe is something that is double nothing.
 
2,255
6
'beyond the universe' is as meaningless as 'before the beginning'. its a nonsense phrase.
 
377
0
Yeah but you assume the person who defined nothing conceived it correctly, if their is error in the process of defining the new term, then there is errors all the way down, this is the point.
Your approach is backward. It's not up to the dictionary to match what you're hoping to prove. If what you want to say is not what the word means then you should use a different word that means what you want to say.

You have misunderstood nothing, this is your problem. The universe has distinctions in it, anything that is distinct is necessarily derived, period.
Cool, but if you claim that the universe derives from something that isn't there in the first place then you stop making sense. What follows from this false start cannot make sense either.
 
377
0
Actually it's not off topic at all. Since you propose a universe devoid of nothing, I'm most definitely curious how that works by your accounts, or more so, how I would point out how it can't work by your accounts
You're asking me to describe how the universe works. The topic here is why it exists in the first place, a different question.

and if you don't know how a universe works devoid of nothing, how can you be so darned sure of yourself that our universe is devoid of nothing.
Simply by definition of the word. Claiming that "nothing" actually exists shows confusion on the meaning of the word. As I said in a previous post, if you want to talk about something that exists then don't use the word "nothing" because that refers to what doesn't exist.

You seem to be saying from previous post that the universe has always been. Am I wrong to assume this?
I pointed out the obvious: an origin of existence cannot exist. Since existence cannot have an origin then existence must be for all time. Alternative interpretations are self-contradictory.
 

sketchtrack

"what is bothering you?"

"Oh it's nothing"

"Nothing is bothering you?.. "So it does exist"
 
2,255
6
I pointed out the obvious: an origin of existence cannot exist. Since existence cannot have an origin then existence must be for all time. Alternative interpretations are self-contradictory.
certainly thats true. but does time itself have a beginning?
 

sketchtrack

I think the OP wasn't trying to illicit a definition of nothing, I think that by nothing the OP meant something that seams to exist like space, how can we move though space, space must be something or nothing, and if it is truly the absence of anything, then it is both nothing and something.

Another way to view the question is why is there energy rather than no energy.
 

sketchtrack

I pointed out the obvious: an origin of existence cannot exist. Since existence cannot have an origin then existence must be for all time. Alternative interpretations are self-contradictory.
That depends entirely on what it is that is existing. I exist. But, I did not always exist. I am made of things that exist, and I only exist while those things are in me form. A similar example is that a wave exists, but only for a while where as the water than the wave is a form of will long outlive the wave.

Also mass is made of particles of which it is a form of and mass is not everlasting. When we break things down to their most fundamental levels, nothing truly exists except temporary forms of those fundamental things.
 
377
0
but does time itself have a beginning?
As you already said yourself, 'before the beginning' is a nonsense phrase. The premise that time had a beginning assumes that there was time before time, another nonsense.
 
377
0
That depends entirely on what it is that is existing.
Actually it doesn't. The proof is simple: nothing can be the origin of existence if it already exists because then existence would already be a given. Going into specifics as to what types of things exist doesn't change this basic rationale.
 
2,255
6
. The premise that time had a beginning assumes that there was time before time,.
I beg your pardon? that is exactly what it disproves.
'before' requires the existence of time. without time there can be no before. the premise that time had a beginning rules out the possibility of time before that.

its not that there was 'nothing' before that. there was no 'before' that.
everything didnt come from nothing. it came from everything.
 
Last edited:
377
0
I beg your pardon? that is exactly what it disproves.
'before' requires the existence of time. without time there can be no before. the premise that time had a beginning rules out the possibility of time before that.
In that case, what do you mean by "beginning"? As far as I understand the word, if something has a beginning then we must have a situation where the thing isn't there and a change from that into a situation where the thing is there. This change in condition mandates the existence of time. Now, when time itself is what is assumed to begin, since a beginning requires time, we arrive at the absurdity of time before time. The rational conclusion is that time cannot begin.

its not that there was 'nothing' before that. there was no 'before' that.
I agree.

everything didnt come from nothing. it came from everything.
I agree that everything comes from everything on the basis that existence is for all time.
 
2,255
6
In that case, what do you mean by "beginning"? As far as I understand the word, if something has a beginning then we must have a situation where the thing isn't there and a change from that into a situation where the thing is there.

I agree that everything comes from everything on the basis that existence is for all time.
no the beginning is the point where you cant go back any further.

for all time? certainly. but time itself has a beginning.
 

Related Threads for: Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

Replies
248
Views
28K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
51
Views
9K
  • Posted
2
Replies
33
Views
9K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top