Mark_Chid

no I haven't

Maybe if nothingness ever exists for an instant it will always be replaced by something, because there are no laws and no limitations, hence anything can happen

Radcliffe Emerson

I think it makes more sense to just try to make it work now and stop all the hatred and killing around the world, rather than look for some mystical reason why anything is here.
This is the only time we have on the planet, we need to respect each other as humans and just live.

Jonesy

I agree to some extent. If there was initially 'nothing' then we simply KNOW that whatever 'sprang up' from this state of nothingness was very different and it was 'something'. It would make sense to say that at the stage when there really was 'nothing' - there were no laws and no limitations - and as such, the appearance of 'something' could have been based on principles totally unknown to us today. But we can speculate. It may take a long time. For me, this is the 'holy grail'. Knowing there was a 'nothing' before 'everything' can provide for a lifetime of thinking about how, in the state of 'true nothing' , there happened something that 'spurred' everything.

My current understanding is that since we have the physical world and the consciousness or 'spiritual' world - and since before 'everything' came from the 'nothing' there was no physical things of any kind - then the process of getting from the initial 'nothing' to 'something that is not nothing anymore' had to happen in the 'spiritual' or 'non-material sense/stage'.

It could well be, and I forgot where I read this, that 'awareness developed in the nothing' or ' "nothing" ITSELF became aware of itself' and this 'awareness of the Nothing' started to get smarter.

Then you could have had zillions upon zillions of human years of this awareness developing itself IN the nothing (well, you could say, the 'awareness of nothing itself, as I said above), and then 'things happened' (also open to speculation) that cause this awareness to be so developed that it maybe imagines 'physical' things and designs and initiates the Big Bang.

We must find some way to logically explain the Big Bang and the way all physical matter was created this way - so, to me, my best guess is the above scenario.

There had to be a non-physical 'something' before the 'physical big Bang'. And this 'non-physical something' had to 'somehow' (the biggest 'somehow' question of my life probably) start from a 'true' Nothing.

Biggest question: how do you get Nothing itself (that had to exist before Everything) to start being aware of itself???????

Even though, as someone's post read, we should concetrate on life now and don't worry about the 'start' time and why we are alive - these questions won't go away, no matter what we read in all the books on Earth. And since such questions won't go away - it makes sense to sometimes ponder them.

Infinity Lover

Nothing doesn't exist. There's never nothing; there's always something. Nothing doesn't contain anything. Everything can't come out of noting, something can't come out of nothing, NOTHING can come out of nothing.

You can only try to make something out of nothing, and lose yourself over nothing!

----(from my "puzzled by illogicality" post)----
If I'm oversimplifying things here, due to 'lack of insight', couldn't it on the other hand not also be said, that straying from basic logic based on the hypothesesis that it doesn't truelly apply to reality the way one might be inclined to 'assume' it does, is pretty much the same as claiming there's a realm of incomprehendable illogicality beyond the logic we're familliar with, rather than admitting there are aspects of currently held theories that simply don't make any sense, hense validating the indulgence of irrational garble as scientificly viable.

---------------------------------
Ultimately the only thing that can be physicly proven, is the ongoing expansion. Besides that there's the theory about what happened while we weren't watching, based on another theory (relativity) that's starting to show the first signs of plausibility-fatigue (an Australian university, N.S.Whales if I recall correctly, has already taken the first steps in showing that the speed of light in a vacuum isn't quite as absolute as preceived) and registered phenomena that might tie in with the notion of a primal bang.

Is this a topic that we should bust our nuts on, considering there's plenty of other things we should be worrying about? Simply put, there's an obligation for science to be true to itself in general.
Considering we're still dealing with a theory based on a theory, there is a lot of effort and money being invested in something, that could turn out to be a dead end street, but a dead end that might never be truelly reached. So it could boil down to a blatant breach of basic logic that's being overlooked, but science is reluctant to accept because it's already come so far. Thus the nessecity to keep the topic alive.

As far as the problems of this world go; a scientificly viable conclusion, with sufficient public support, that there's an absolute lack of beginning would put a perminent end to the alledged existence of a creator. That would, in more than one sence, make a world of difference. So perhaps that's a hypothesis that should be given more attention, and serious thought.

But that's just the opinion of that oddball known as Infinity Lover.

Who also says uniting is dividing, and thinks we're here to be... together!

Something the less 'odballish' remainder of the world, isn't likely to get through its appearantly less thick skulls, in the forseeable future.

eh

The contradiction comes from the the context of your sentence, when you say: Perhaps because 'nothing' has infinite potential

Taken literally, this would mean there isn't anything that has infinite potential. You see, nothing is merely the negation of things. But if we take 'nothing' to be an actual something that has infinite potential, there is a contradiction. When you say nothing in that context, you saying 'nothing' is/or was real, while the definition of the word says otherwise.

If this isn't making sense, try replacing the word nothing with no-universe. Now try using that word in the same context. Does no-universe have infinite potential? Did our universe pop out of no-universness?

eh

Another example:

Biggest question: how do you get Nothing itself (that had to exist before Everything) to start being aware of itself???????

This is a contradiction as well. Not anything itself? And this not anything, had to exist, even though the very defintion of the word means non existence?

Or do you not suppose saying 'non existence exists' is a contradiction?

Jonesy

not necessarily, because all non-existence means is just that - there is nothing. But my point was that there 'HAD TO BE' NOTHING, before 'something'. In other words - the existence of anything AT ALL implies (to me) a 'beginning' - and as such, as with all beginnings - there must have been the FIRST BEGINNING. My deepest puzzle is and will always be: how did did 'first beginning' happen? I have to point out that, in my opinion, talking 'contradictions' regrading that 'first beginning' is not quite appropriate, since this 'first' beginning clearly had to occur based on different circumstances than all of the beginnings of anythings AFTER that first beginning. So, I would say that it was not a contradition to say that 'something came out of nothing' - when you consider we are talking about the VERY FIRST BEGINNING. The 'beginnings of any things' after that first event - these must have happened as a result of something already in existence;

but the first beginning - well, there was nothing for it to begin out of, EVEN THOUGH such a beginning must have occurred. And that's the millior doller question - how did the first beginning develop; how did NOTHING get transformed from itself?

because clearly, the very existence of 'anything' or 'something' implies that at some point this 'something' (like the Universe) did not exist. it started sometime. And once people realize this, then they can focus on the major question of 'how' and possibly 'why' 'everything' started sometime. (since it clearly had to at some point)

Ernest Sparks

...first...beginning must have occurred...
why?

clearly, the very existence of 'anything' or 'something' implies that at some point this 'something' (like the Universe) did not exist.
clearly? why?

it started sometime.
Did it really START, or perhaps just come into visibility and tangibility?

(since it clearly had to {start} at some point)
Clearly? For example, Big Bang might have been BIG, but not necessarily totally universal.

eh

Non existence means there is not anything. But we cannot speak of a 'there', time, or state when there is nothing. This is because time, state and what not are properties or descriptions of existence.

By defintion, there can be no 'before' something, since time is the measure of change in something that exists. Tell me how you justify talking about a 'before' existence then?

But general relativity allows the universe to have a beginning (and possibly and end) and still be eternal. If you think of the whole history of the universe existing as a singular entity (which GR allows us to do) then you can expect to find a minimum (beginning) and maximum (end) amount of time. Thus, the universe as a whole would simply be, as an eternal 'thing'

This is similar to how many theists view God as a timeless universal mind. There is no need to speak of a before 'God', but you can also say that time itself is finite.

I think this ties into the greater question of why anything exists at all. You are looking for ontology here. Just remember that nothing is not a thing, nor a thing that doesn't exist. It is merely a statement that denies existence.

I have no idea what you're saying here.


No, it is not a contradiction to say something came from nothing. That statement, is true. That is, something came from nothing means, the first something did not come from anything. The contradiction comes when you reify 'nothing' into something, and is more so when you make it a something with infinite potential.

Which brings us to the first cause argument again. We clearly need something uncaused to created our familiar universe filled with stars, galaxies, planets, life and art. There are several candidates for this. Quantum mechanics might be a good place to look.

Again, saying nothing is a thing, is a contradiction. Nothing itself is a logical absurdity that makes absolutely no sense.

But in answers to your question - it would seem something is eternal, and without a creator. If you say there is nothing before the big bang, you are effectively saying there is no before the big to speak of at all.

You can't have time without existence, so this statement makes no sense. You're just arguing from pure intuition, and that's where the confusion comes from.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

Ernest Sparks

Language betrays.

'nothing' is 'NO thing', and the 'NO' goes to whatever verb is involved.

'I got plenty of nothing'='I don't got plenty of anything'

'Nothing itself': what kind of 'it' can this phrase involve?

A: Which is better: happiness or a ham sandwich?
B: Easy. A ham sandwich.
A: Why?
B: Nothing is better than happiness.
A: OK.
B: A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
A: OK.
B: Draw a conclusion!