Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[out of whack]

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?

 

[out of whack]

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

 

[out of whack]

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.

 

[merlinsbyte]

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)

 

[Holocene]

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.

 

[out of whack]

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.

 

[2foolish]

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 that's been here forever. The sky is the limit. Anything is possible in a universe that's 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]

"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.

 

[granpa]

'beyond the universe' is as meaningless as 'before the beginning'. its a nonsense phrase.

 

[out of whack]

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.

 

[out of whack]

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"

 

[granpa]

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 that's 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.

 

[out of whack]

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.

 

[out of whack]

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.

 

[granpa]

. 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.

 

[out of whack]

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.

 

[granpa]

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 can't go back any further.

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

 

[out of whack]

time itself has a beginning.

What is your evidence?

 

[castlegates]

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.

And time happens to be nothing.

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.

Not so if time is nothing. A beginning of time is the beginning of tic and toc, these are the markers for time. What I would call the conceptual geometric embodiment of nothing. Remove these markers and we would still have time, it just wouldn't tic or toc.

 

[out of whack]

And time happens to be nothing.

Time is relevant, it matters and it can be measured so you can hardly call it nothing.

Not so if time is nothing. A beginning of time is the beginning of tic and toc, these are the markers for time. What I would call the conceptual geometric embodiment of nothing. Remove these markers and we would still have time, it just wouldn't tic or toc.

You're taking artistic license with words. If time is really nothing then: a beginning of nothing is the beginning of nothing, the marker for nothing. Call it the conceptual geometric embodiment of nothing. Remove these nothings and we would still have nothing, and it would do nothing.

I don't understand your obsession about nothing.

 

[castlegates]

Time is relevant, it matters and it can be measured so you can hardly call it nothing.

Time can only be measured by use of the markers, which can only be conceptual in nature. It is the markers that are real. These markers are not physically real, for they only represent the conceptual geometric embidiment of nothing. Time (nothing) is only relevant when buttressed up against that which exist, as opposed to that which does not. This is to say the existence of non-existence, or the reality of non-existence. Or to put it into words more in step with you. The relevance of non-relevant.

I don't understand your obsession about nothing.

We agree here - You don't understand.
You really can't tell one thing from another witout the use of nothing.
In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of.

 

[out of whack]

Time can only be measured by use of the markers, which can only be conceptual in nature. It is the markers that are real. These markers are not physically real, for they only represent the conceptual geometric embidiment of nothing. Time (nothing) is only relevant when buttressed up against that which exist, as opposed to that which does not. This is to say the existence of non-existence, or the reality of non-existence. Or to put it into words more in step with you. The relevance of non-relevant.


We agree here - You don't understand.
You really can't tell one thing from another witout the use of nothing.
In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of.

You're making up poetic fiction based on nothing, literally.

 

[throng]

Why is there anything than rather nothing ? - Why is there sometning than rather nothing ?

Why does anything exist at all ?

I know very little about a few things and nothing about nothing, so that qualifies me to answer your question.

I don't know.

It is probably inevitable. It could have "willed" existence but to wish it must be.

I think in terms of cause and effect there would be a primary cause.

It must be energy as all effect is energy.

The nature of energy without form isn't known unfortunately.

 

[castlegates]

You're making up poetic fiction based on nothing, literally.

It's amazing what you can make out of nothing ... isn't it? :-)

 

[baywax]

It's amazing what you can make out of nothing ... isn't it? :-)

Now you're calling brain tissue and how it functions "nothing"?

 

[castlegates]

Now you're calling brain tissue and how it functions "nothing"?

BINGO!

What do you think this sentence means?
In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of. How the brain functions is a matter of interaction of these concepts of one..

 

[sketchtrack]

Nothing is as it seams, or perhaps nothing is as it doesn't seam.

 

[Quincy]

Why is there anything than rather nothing ? - Why is there sometning than rather nothing ?

Why does anything exist at all ?

Why is it like that ?

This question is paradoxical (for lack of a better word) because if nothing existed, then the question wouldn't exist. You can only ask the question if something does exist -- That makes the question dependent on existence, which makes me wonder "Why is this question rather than not this question?" lol

As to answer your question, be more specific. Do you mean something as in space and time or something as in matter?

 

[out of whack]

In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of. How the brain functions is a matter of interaction of these concepts of one..

That's almost right. Actually there are only twos, two by two, where time is the something twos are not composed of. The brain works by pairing up these twos two concepts at a time, which makes the whole thing nothing. There, I fixed it for you and I'm sure everybody gets it now.

 

[sketchtrack]

That's almost right. Actually there are only twos, two by two, where time is the something twos are not composed of. The brain works by pairing up these twos two concepts at a time, which makes the whole thing nothing. There, I fixed it for you and I'm sure everybody gets it now.

I think you are mistaken. 2=1+1. A two is like the brain in that it is composed on ones.

 

[olliemath]

I can think of a couple of points.. pick them apart at will

1. People have been mentioning time already.. and I'm set on the opinion that time is intrinsic to existence.. if there is nothing then this implies time. As far as I am concerned time started with the universe and does not exist outside it.. I mean suppose you are 'outside the universe', then waay back towards the big bang it gets denser and denser, so AFIK would look infinitely old (like viewing an astronaut going into a black hole - he never seems to get there) - nothing before it!

2. For those of you that don't like 1.. We need not assume that our paltry logic holds outside the universe as we know it. For instance both nothing and something might easily exist at the same time (I also liked the complementary argument earlier, but that's a different matter) - like superimposed wavefunctions - I hasten to add that they would not need to colapse in the presence of observers, although as was said earlier we could litterally create our own universe..

3. If something is logically consistent then I can think of no reason for it not to exist 'somewhere'..of course we could only belong to a nice snuggly universe.. This I suppose is just the anthropic principle?


(p.s. I've purposely skipped around the issue of whether the concept of nothing is logically consistent as that's already been heavily debated)

 

[baywax]

p.s. I've purposely skipped around the issue of whether the concept of nothing is logically consistent as that's already been heavily debated)

The concepts surrounding the idea of nothing have not even been touched. If they had there would be no discussion because "nothing" implies "no concept".

As for the romantic notion of "the beginning of time"; this cliche is nothing more than a description of the first sun dial, or the first human record of a passing season. These accomplishments were the "beginning of time" as we know it. Everything else, was/is/will be "change" or "transformation" and nothing more.

If you look at the universe as 1111111111111111 I think there might be a basis for this being true. However, the value of each of those 1s is different and varied... unless you remove the effect of "scale". 0 can only enter the series when you need "emptiness" for the 1s to exist... however... as soon as "emptiness" or "0" is considered an effect... it becomes a "1".

Dismissing anything at all is always a mistake and leads to worse mistakes. When someone dismisses the brain as "nothing" they probably consider the universe "nothing". This exemplifies someone who has not appreciated the intricacies of neuroscience and who could be experiencing severe depression or a bout of emotionalism such as is found in the nihilistic persona.

 

[castlegates]

A two is like the brain in that it is composed on ones.

At least somebody gets it to some degree. I might add that the ones are composed of nothing at the risk of repeating myself. It is not the composition we need to concern ourselves with, for it doesn't exist, but the form of the composition that puts on the show. All things on all scales are understood through the same process. A baseball, a stop sign, a fundamental unit, a planet, a monitor, are all understood to be things under the same premise. You see a thing..like your monitor and the procedure is - nothing inside it, and infinitely nothing outside it. This is the geometric reality of the monitor (The conceptual understanding of one, and the form of it).

 

[2foolish]

certainly that's true. but does time itself have a beginning?

Time and space are the same thing, they are one single geometric surface (see: relativity, gravitational lensing, etc).

 

[Unthinkable]

Time is a measurement of space. Any number is a measurement; doesn't have to be one or zero.Therefore any number is of space; and therefore space could not exist if it was missing any number; and any number could not exist without space. Space is infinite; and infinity is not a measurement since it has no beginning or beginnings and it has no ending or endings. Space is everything that happens at once; and everything that happens at once is always different than it was before. While time is a measurement and it happens over a period of time; it has "beginning" which is created and it has an ending, time has an order like cause and effect; the order is the beginning before the ending and the effect after the cause.

 

[castlegates]

2. For those of you that don't like 1.. We need not assume that our paltry logic holds outside the universe as we know it. For instance both nothing and something might easily exist at the same time (I also liked the complementary argument earlier, but that's a different matter) - like superimposed wavefunctions

This is about where I stand in the issue. On the fundamental level, reality is reduced to the wave function, buttressed up against non-existence as the necessary contradiction to make the show.
The universe is like the meeting place of zero and infinity, wherein one, or ones if you will, is the sum total of our universe. It represents a battleground of yes and no, where maybe represents the actual battle, as another example. If this is so, the universe is an ongoing process that will never be completed from our finite perspective.

 

[castlegates]

The concepts surrounding the idea of nothing have not even been touched. If they had there would be no discussion because "nothing" implies "no concept".

On the contrary "nothing" can't be anything but a concept.

As for the romantic notion of "the beginning of time"; this cliche is nothing more than a description of the first sun dial, or the first human record of a passing season. These accomplishments were the "beginning of time" as we know it.

So time is an invention of man?

Everything else, was/is/will be "change" or "transformation" and nothing more.

Well which is it, an invention of man, or the sentence above, or both?

If you look at the universe as 1111111111111111 I think there might be a basis for this being true. However, the value of each of those 1s is different and varied... unless you remove the effect of "scale". 0 can only enter the series when you need "emptiness" for the 1s to exist... however... as soon as "emptiness" or "0" is considered an effect... it becomes a "1".

You lost me here. How can the value of each of those ones be different or varied? How is a (one) different from a (one), regardless of scale?

Dismissing anything at all is always a mistake and leads to worse mistakes. When someone dismisses the brain as "nothing" they probably consider the universe "nothing". This exemplifies someone who has not appreciated the intricacies of neuroscience and who could be experiencing severe depression or a bout of emotionalism such as is found in the nihilistic persona.

Hmmm :-)

 

[baywax]

On the contrary "nothing" can't be anything but a concept.

My differing opinion is that the concept of "nothing" is "something" (brain waves)... what the concept attempts to describe is "nothing" (a lack of such things as brain waves).

So time is an invention of man?

No one else has invented measurement systems such as "time" that I know of.

You lost me here.

Ditto.

I think you're using the number "1" in the wrong way. There is no qualitative value to it... only a quantitative value. So, to imagine "1" as a quality such as "energy" may be a misinterpretation... or, at best, a very new way of seeing the number.

 

[2foolish]

Time is a measurement of space. Any number is a measurement; doesn't have to be one or zero.Therefore any number is of space; and therefore space could not exist if it was missing any number; and any number could not exist without space.

Nothign to dispute here really, time is actually a measurement of flows of energy and it's configurations when you get down to it.

Space is infinite; and infinity is not a measurement since it has no beginning or beginnings and it has no ending or endings. Space is everything that happens at once; and everything that happens at once is always different than it was before.

Nope, space can be measured, and it is a part of all other objects, i.e. you cannot have separation of space from matter and energy, they are distinct aspects of the same thing. Space moves, space twists, space bends, space tears, it can't be 'infinite'.

While time is a measurement and it happens over a period of time; it has "beginning" which is created and it has an ending, time has an order like cause and effect; the order is the beginning before the ending and the effect after the cause.

Time is flow of energy within/over/on something on/in space, space and time is the same thing you're very confused.

 

[Unthinkable]

When I said time was a measurement you agreed... Therefore if time is a measurement and space is the opposite; space thus can not be measured. Infinity and space therefore must be the same; and therefore space can not be measured. Space is infinity and infinity is space. Unless you believe that space is finite and in that case I would say that time has the opposite qualities of infinity...And nobody can prove that everything that happens at once has an ending or a beginning and therefore that is just a theory too exept for the bible thumpers.
They weren't searching for time travel they were searching for space travel. But I do not like to use the word travel since travel implies that another dimension exists in the future which we could travel to. And if the future already existed then how could we have free will. And nobody has proved it yet therefore it is just a theory...I like to use the word change instead of travel. I believe that space is what changes. And everything that changes changes at once. We were in the past five minutes ago and we changed with the present which was in the past to the present which is now and five minutes from now we will be in the future which changed from the present to the future. The past was in the present and the future will be in the present. Since it doesn't take any time for everything to change. Everything must be Time travelling. And therefore nothing must be aging. Einstein once said that if you could time travel that you could live forever.

 

[Unthinkable]

Forget everything that you know about time and space for a second. And start with these simple logical deffinitions.
The time that changes.
And a measurement of time.
Both deffinitions are correct.

Now call the time that changes "space" and a measurement of time "time".
Aparrently time does not exist..and that which does not exist can not be made of energy.

 

[2foolish]

Forget everything that you know about time and space for a second. And start with these simple logical deffinitions.
The time that changes.
And a measurement of time.
Both deffinitions are correct.

Now call the time that changes "space" and a measurement of time "time".
Aparrently time does not exist..and that which does not exist can not be made of energy.

Where do concepts come from and what are they made of? Your problem is you're inventing ideas that have no mapping to reality, i.e. logic is nature based, anything you invent that is incongruent with how nature works, is by definition incorrect.

You're assuming you even understand the concepts properly.

Here's the definition of time:

Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.

Time is a measurement of the flow of energy, next you need relativity before you can understand the concept of time.

Einstein said:"Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)"

 

[Unthinkable]

I said the same thing that einstein said only using different words.
People have this misunderstanding about time and space. They are both right but half the people ussually say that if one is correct that the other must not be correct. But I say that one needs the other to exist and could not exist without the other. And most people mix the two of them up saying that one is the other or that the other is one.
I shall use this example which I came up with.

One


One could not exist without infinity. And infinity could not exist without one. One or any number has an order or sequence of events and always has the beginning before the ending, and the ending after the beginning. Infinity has no beginning and it has no ending and therefore is random because it has no order; and therefore infinity could not be in one; but one is of infinity. One has part of infinite in itself. If you take any beginning or any ending out of infinity, infinity will not be complete i.e., a infinite number line in either direction. Positive in one direction and negative in the other direction. The number one or any number takes up a space. Each space for each number has a beginning and an ending in the number line. If you were to take one or any number away from infinity, infinity would have a beginning and an ending and would therefore not be infinite i.e.; starting on the number line in the negative numbers we move towards the positive numbers and we reach zero, and since one does not exist infinity ends, and that which has an ending is not infinite. If we were to continue from zero, on the number line, in the positive direction infinity would begin at two, and that which has a beginning is not infinite. And therefore if infinity had a beginning and an ending it would not be infinite. In order for infinity to exist one or any number had to exist. And in order for one or any number to exist infinity had to exist. One did not exist before or after infinity, and infinity did not exist before or after one or any number. One can not be infinity and infinity can not be one.

Scientists say that there are four dimension. One is time and the other three are space. But that is just a theory. They can mathimatically prove it but they cannot physically prove it. Nobody really has a concrete theory on time.

Think of time as "one" or any number. And substitute space for infinity.