something cannot come from nothing on its own

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

Postby PWrong » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:36 am

I was trying to show that Hugh's argument boils down to: "either God created the universe, or he didn't". I guess I failed to do that.

I suppose if you reject causality, anything's possible though.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby bo198214 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:48 am

Causality involves already time. First the cause then the effect.
Mathematical reasoning/logic has nothing to do with causality in this sense. So where applicable I always would demand validity of (mathematical) logic.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Hugh » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:55 am

bo198214 wrote:Causality involves already time. First the cause then the effect.
Mathematical reasoning/logic has nothing to do with causality in this sense. So where applicable I always would demand validity of (mathematical) logic.

I agree bo. In "absolute nothingness" there is no time or change possible, so the universe can't just pop into existence from that.

There is no "potential" for anything to happen either.

So "something" has always had to have existed, and it can't have come from "nothing."
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby bo198214 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:04 pm

Yeah for me its quite mind boggling to imagine non-time.
The mathematical possibility/existence of space-time (including all other physics laws and even chemical and biologic laws ...) is that what "always" existed, I mean what without time and space exists. And so the ideas (and indeed platonic ideas) of every possible world and histories (including our futures) exists, but why I am exactly experience this world ... I have no idea!
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Hugh » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:21 pm

bo198214 wrote:why I am exactly experience this world ... I have no idea!

I think each of us discovers that for ourselves in our own way. That's one of the most interesting parts of life. :)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby papernuke » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:35 am

WEll yes I agree with you, but this should be in religious debates to me :)
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby Hugh » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:10 pm

PWrong wrote:I was trying to show that Hugh's argument boils down to: "either God created the universe, or he didn't".

This isn't exactly correct. This statement implies that God exists. It's possible that God doesn't exist.
Icon wrote:WEll yes I agree with you, but this should be in religious debates to me :)

If the mods want to move it, it's ok with me. :)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby PWrong » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:57 pm

This isn't exactly correct. This statement implies that God exists. It's possible that God doesn't exist.

What statement implies that?
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Hugh » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:05 pm

PWrong wrote:
Hugh wrote:
PWrong wrote:either God created the universe, or he didn't.
This isn't exactly correct. This statement implies that God exists. It's possible that God doesn't exist.

What statement implies that?

Well, if I say that "Either PWrong did it or he didn't.", I'm also saying that a "PWrong" actually exists.
Last edited by Hugh on Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby bo198214 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:09 pm

Though thats a very little bit cunning *ggg*
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby PWrong » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:09 pm

Alright, let me rephrase that. Either the universe was created by God, or it wasn't.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby bo198214 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:10 pm

or it wasnt what? created by God? *lol*
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Hugh » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:11 pm

PWrong wrote:Alright, let me rephrase that. Either the universe was created by God, or it wasn't.

Um, I think that still implies that a God exists, is that what you mean?
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Keiji » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:28 pm

No.

He means either God exists and created the universe, or God doesn't exist and something else created the universe. ;)
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby Hugh » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:47 pm

Rob wrote:He means either God exists and created the universe, or God doesn't exist and something else created the universe. ;)

Then that would imply that the universe was created, and didn't always exist in some form as a "something" as earlier defined. PWrong, do you agree with that?

I'm just trying to clarify my position. PWrong stated that "Hugh's argument boils down to..." and what followed wasn't really what I was saying. Sorry if I sound like I'm splitting hairs here. :)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby PWrong » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:16 pm

Ok, put it this way: "either it's true that there is a God and he created the universe, or it's not true". This is obviously a true statement, like "p or not p". I'm not implying that there is a God or that the universe was created, and I don't believe either of these.

I was implying that your definition of "nothing" and "universe" is so extreme that your conclusion is obvious and means nothing.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Hugh » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:28 pm

PWrong wrote:I'm not implying that there is a God or that the universe was created, and I don't believe either of these.

Okay, so you don't believe in God, or that the universe was created, so does that mean you believe the universe has always existed in some form then?
PWrong wrote:I was implying that your definition of "nothing" and "universe" is so extreme that your conclusion is obvious and means nothing.

Well, I'm glad it's obvious. It means something to me anyways.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Nick » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:31 pm

Hugh wrote:
Rob wrote:He means either God exists and created the universe, or God doesn't exist and something else created the universe. ;)

Then that would imply that the universe was created, and didn't always exist in some form as a "something" as earlier defined. PWrong, do you agree with that?


God is a "something" that is earlier defined in the other option.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby PWrong » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:41 pm

Okay, so you don't believe in God, or that the universe was created, so does that mean you believe the universe has always existed in some form then?

By your definition of "universe in some form", yes. You seem to define the universe as anything that can potentially become a universe, except God. You also seem to effectively define "nothing" as something that cannot potentially become a universe. So under that definition, I have no choice but to believe the universe has always existed. However, I don't agree that your definition is a good one. It's like saying that a human egg or sperm is a fully formed human being.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Hugh » Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:05 pm

PWrong wrote:By your definition of "universe in some form", yes. You seem to define the universe as anything that can potentially become a universe, except God. You also seem to effectively define "nothing" as something that cannot potentially become a universe.

Nothing isn't a something, it's an absolute lack of anything, including potential or time (as bo mentioned).
PWrong wrote:So under that definition, I have no choice but to believe the universe has always existed.

Okay.
PWrong wrote:However, I don't agree that your definition is a good one. It's like saying that a human egg or sperm is a fully formed human being.

Is potential in itself a something? Like potential energy?
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby PWrong » Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:27 pm

Is potential in itself a something?

It is something, but it's not a universe, and you shouldn't call it one.

Potential energy uses the word "potential" in a different context.

<snip> You also seem to effectively define "nothing" as something that cannot potentially become a universe.

Nothing isn't a something, it's an absolute lack of anything, including potential or time (as bo mentioned).

Ok, I take that one back, I can't adequately defend it.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Hugh » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:59 pm

PWrong wrote:
Hugh wrote:Is potential in itself a something?

It is something, but it's not a universe, and you shouldn't call it one.

Okay, I see your point, but we both do agree that "potential" is a something, not nothing.

I think I see how my definition of "universe in some form" as a "something" has created some misunderstanding. Things are probably clearer now, as far as the original idea of the thread was meant; "something cannot come from nothing on its own".
PWrong wrote:Potential energy uses the word "potential" in a different context.

"Potential" as a noun may be defined as "something possessing the capacity for growth or development".

In Physics, it may be defined as "the work required to move a unit of positive charge, a magnetic pole, or an amount of mass from a reference point to a designated point in a static electric, magnetic, or gravitational field; potential energy."

There is a difference, but both definitions are a "something", and non-existant in "absolute nothingness".
PWrong wrote:
Hugh wrote:
PWrong wrote:You also seem to effectively define "nothing" as something that cannot potentially become a universe.

Nothing isn't a something, it's an absolute lack of anything, including potential or time (as bo mentioned).

Ok, I take that one back, I can't adequately defend it.

Okay. :)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Mr. Mojo » Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:37 am

I saw the joke about "Branes can come from nothing", and a comment about how this is good if you can't spell. It made me laugh out loud. I liked it a lot. I forget who the author is now, but hats off to ya dude! You got a lot of people defending Branes, and no one commenting on Brains. I just wanted you to know that at least one dude thought it was a good joke.

As for the whole thread... your minimizing what Hugh started here... he's been trying to say forever (I should be careful with that word in this group) that nothing can't spawn something. He's been argued with, some people nicely, and occasionaly he's been belittled by this group. And through it all he's been nothing but polite through all of his posts. Good job Hugh. I feel as though most of the issues that have happened here are from people who had their beliefs set before they started reading. We can't use our pre-concieved notions to thwart another. We have to look at it form another point of view. He says what nothing is (or isn't) very clearly.

He's not arguing that there is a god, he's been very clear that he personally belives this, but isn't claiming it to be so.

The whole point is that nothing can't come from something. And, Hugh, I still stand behind you on this. Though, I don't think that god did it, i'd take the other side of your fence, and say that 'something' was always there.
Mr. Mojo
Mononian
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:15 am

Postby Hugh » Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:02 am

Mr. Mojo wrote:The whole point is that nothing can't come from something. And, Hugh, I still stand behind you on this. Though, I don't think that god did it, i'd take the other side of your fence, and say that 'something' was always there.

Fair enough, and thanks for the kind words Mr. Mojo. :)

Um, you do mean that "The whole point is that something can't come from nothing" right? :)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby PWrong » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:40 am

I just wanted you to know that at least one dude thought it was a good joke.

I'm glad someone liked it :D.

The whole point is that nothing can't come from something. And, Hugh, I still stand behind you on this. Though, I don't think that god did it, i'd take the other side of your fence, and say that 'something' was always there

I think I agree with Hugh provided that "nothing" is defined as the empty set. Any more than that, and I'm not sure. But saying that "something cannot come from the empty set" is meaningless, because as a few people pointed out, "come from" requires time. Although in a sense the integers do "come from" the empty set, because they are defined in terms of it.
0 = {} (the empty set)
1 = {{}} (the set containing the empty set)
2 = { {}, {{}} }
3 = { {}, {{}}, { {}, {{}} } }
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby bo198214 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:17 am

yes, but thats mathematics.
All mathematical ideas can be considered space and timeless.
Though there is a certain notion of "depends on" in mathematical constructions, maybe this can be considered at mathtime. (Which then is not linear but an acyclic graph and in that sense similar to the multiple worlds time.)
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Nick » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:01 pm

Math doesn't require space and time. You can still count, add and subtract if there is no space; the total will always equal zero, but it can still exist.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby moonlord » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:04 pm

As no information from a moment before Big Bang (if it exists) can reach us, because there is no medium for this, we can't test any hypothesis regarding it. FSM could've created the singularity as well.

I've just had this idea. Unfortunately, this will render the thread dead, if accepted. Any ideas?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Hugh » Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:46 pm

moonlord wrote:As no information from a moment before Big Bang (if it exists) can reach us, because there is no medium for this, we can't test any hypothesis regarding it. FSM could've created the singularity as well.

Even the conjectured FSM is a "something".
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby Nick » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:43 pm

Can we please eliminate God as an option, for the very reason Hugh just stated?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest