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 moonlord » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:06 pm

Hugh wrote:
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".


So what? I just said something I now bolded.
"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 5:34 pm

moonlord wrote: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.

We can't test any hypothesis regarding "absolute nothingness" at all. All we can use is our logic.

If there was ever "absolute nothingness", there wouldn't be any singularity, time, or potential existing at all, thus something could not have "come from" it, including us.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:47 am

How do you know logic functions out there?
"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 » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:26 pm

moonlord wrote:How do you know logic functions out there?

It's all we have left to use in contemplating "absolute nothingness". There isn't even an "out there", it's nowhere, nothingness, no potential for anything to happen to anything.

If there is absolutely nothing, how can anything happen? You can choose to believe that everything originally came from absolute nothingness but you have to suspend your logic to do so.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby PWrong » Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:34 pm

You can choose to believe that everything originally came from absolute nothingness but you have to suspend your logic to do so.

I don't think so. You claim that something cannot come from nothing. This sounds like a physical, or at least metaphysical law. Now as we said before, there may be physical laws that do allow something to come from nothing. Your argument against this would be that nothing means "not even physical laws". But if that's the case, it's also true for your law that says "something cannot come from nothing". And without that law, your argument disappears, and it's entirely possible that something can come from nothing.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Hugh » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:07 pm

PWrong wrote:it's entirely possible that something can come from nothing.

I'd say that in "absolute nothingness" there are no potential possibilities as well.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby PWrong » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:53 pm

I'd say that in "absolute nothingness" there are no potential possibilities as well.

You could also say that in absolutely nothingness, the truth of that statement doesn't exist.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Hugh » Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:06 pm

PWrong wrote:
I'd say that in "absolute nothingness" there are no potential possibilities as well.

You could also say that in absolutely nothingness, the truth of that statement doesn't exist.

But logically, which comes first?
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby bo198214 » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:36 pm

*nudges Hugh and PWrong*
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Hugh » Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:26 pm

Possibility: noun. A future prospect or potential. Something that is possible.

In "absolute nothingness" there is no future because there is no time. There is no potential. There are no somethings at all.

It's part of the definition of "absolute nothingness" that "something cannot come from nothing" in any way whatsoever.

Any way that you might think that it might happen isn't possible at all.

That's why "something" had to have always existed.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby houserichichi » Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:15 pm

So then would it be safe to say, Hugh, that through your argument (assuming the same logic applies beyond out universe) you have concluded that 'something', whatever it is, exists beyond the boundary of what contains us? That is, there is some sort of higher universe that ours is emmersed in?
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Hugh » Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:37 pm

houserichichi wrote:So then would it be safe to say, Hugh, that through your argument (assuming the same logic applies beyond out universe) you have concluded that 'something', whatever it is, exists beyond the boundary of what contains us? That is, there is some sort of higher universe that ours is emmersed in?

My point is that something had to have always existed.

From there one can wonder what or where or how or why it has always existed and find logical reasons to support those thoughts on their own.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby batmanmg » Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:18 pm

this is the second time i had to write this... damn F5


ok i've never really reaserched anything. my dealings with the fourth dimension, quantum mechanics, time, the beginning of existance have all been conducted within my mind and the foundations of any of my theories are based soley on my imagination...

im not saying this is how things work... just rationalizing an irrational line of thinking

if you think of the universe as a balanced equation of existance and antiexistance then what happens when the equation is solved and simplified down to zero.. in essence existance and its opposite antiexistance collapsing into eachother and creating nothingness... does is remain nothingness? or does it oscilate into the opposite equation of antiexistance balanced by existance?

if you think it stays nothing then you must consider the opposite to be true. If nothingness can be reached after somthingness than somethingness can be reached after nothingness... funny to thing of a consious entity of nothing thinking to itself... was there always nothingness, or could nothingness have come from somethingness...

i think you bend more towards oscilation... that means you consider existance to be more like a wave... its nice to think that at some point in time the universe exists the most. well what does that mean about something comming from nothing... well it means for one thing that nothingness exists at a point in time.. to go from one side to the other you have to travel through that zero... the other part of the story is that time is the medium existance travels through... NOW we get to the good stuff... well if you want to figure out where existance began... picture your tipical wave on a graph.. first we need to determine weither time had a begining or not... it either spreads out infinitly, has finite endpoint(s), or its circular. for arguments sake lets say that its not circular becuase we'd end up chasing our tails... that and i didn't like k'pax or whatever that movie was called.
OH my i think this is where my brain has to leave off... cuz i don't know to much about the origins of time. i can leave you with the idea that if its finite aka relative to motion then you need to find weither time started with existnace in a peek or traugh or if it started with a 0 existance. if its infinite then im out of conversation cuz i never got the hang of dealing with inifinities.. that and my brains fried right now...

ok tell me ... does anything i said make sense or have the slightest bit of solidarity?
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby batmanmg » Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:01 am

ooops never really got to the punch... that whole times begining bit was kinduf foolish... i assume that time is like anything else and stretches to the infinities. + and - infinity.

the only question now is actualy weither that oscilation through time has anything to slow it down.. like time friction or something..

i was about to go on when i realized the mathmatical absoluteness that the you can't get something from nothing... 0 x ~ = 0
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby gerren » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:03 pm

god is not bound by time. he has always existed and has not come from this universe-he made it. They coexist. As far as something originating from nothing, when God supposedly created the heavens and the earth, obviously something didnt just supposedly "pop up" because God supposedly created it with his "supernatural powers". There clues about where God exists (if God has existed forever), such as time never actually beginning in his "realm", if you will, but rather always existing
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:12 am

Obviously, something was put into the nothingness (by God/Creator) rather than something originating from the nothingness.
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby Nick » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:11 pm

Obviously :roll:
Did you read the whole thread?
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 gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:51 pm

Haha no i didnt care to.
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

No imagination necessary.

Postby Russ1953 » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:22 pm

Poor little plant. Seedling landed in the shadow of tall grasses, leaves, rocks and trees. Knows it must grow. When will it get its break to flourish. It knows the warmth of the sun is just above the surface. It draws upon the warmth of the soil. It swells and germinates. But, it knows it must push past the debree above its head to reach the light. It must not relent. Slowly it scours the surface blocking its path to the surface and just swells with hope. The day of its surfacing is its hope. To bathe in the light. To stake its claim to water and molecules it pushes. Just to flourish. Loving a lifeform, gives it a chance and all can be nourished by its success. Nice plant, innocent, sweet and tender. Have you come this far to be a thorn to protect your nectar. What you tried to protect so much grows easier and more abundant then those who need help. Because you are so strong, you don't need help. I love the ones that do.
Russ1953
Dionian
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am

Postby gerren » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:04 am

wtf is your point??? are u some kind of hippie?
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby papernuke » Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:29 am

He probably is. :D
"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 Nick » Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:15 pm

You guys are very mean, calling him a hippy like that! Hippies everywhere are insulted. This guy is definitely a troll.
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 gerren » Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:28 pm

no, no, no, no...hes god...ya thats what he is...jebus himself
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Re:

Postby zero » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:03 pm

Hugh wrote:Well, I'm attempting to say that logically there couldn't have ever been "nothing" to begin with, what do you think?

I think this is a pointless attempt to apply words that have meaning in one context to a wildly different context so far outside our experience that the same words just aren't applicable any more. One might as well try to determine the correct color of a euclidean triangle, or wonder what you get when you raise two to the power of happiness.
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Re: something cannot come from nothing on its own

Postby mghtymoop » Wed May 14, 2008 2:32 am

define nothing, as soon as you define it, you attribute propeties to it and it is no longer nothing, by its very definition nothing becomes something, if it is in anyway different to anything else we can define it also becomes something, nothing cannot be empty nor can it be full, it cannot be a single 1D point or and infinateD expance, nothing is a concept that exists within our minds only and the only way to even attempt to describe it is what exists from our point of view before we exisited, that is as close as it gets. therefore logically at the point in which we begin to exist something has been created from nothing.
mghtymoop
Dionian
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:19 am

Re: something cannot come from nothing on its own

Postby papernuke » Sat May 17, 2008 4:37 am

Hugh wrote:If there was ever a time that "nothing" existed, then something could not have come from it. So I'm thinking that either the universe, or a creator; God, has always existed.
in the case of the big bang, then i beleive that the entire universe was a minscule spec.
and the spec was extremely hot. then, the "universe" (the dot) exploded, and the universe expanded (not created) to an infinitly immense size.
this is simply a restatement of the evolution of the universe, which i do beleive in.

if there were always a creator, god, then before he created the universe, what would he have resided in?...


God, or the universe, could not have created themselves from "nothing", so either has always existed. If both have always existed, then God is in more of an "overseer" role, but it is possible that there is no God.

If God created the universe from nothing, then he would not have been able to exist.
if god created the universe from nothing, then he would defeat the phrase "created from nothing" because he, himself would have been something.

What is impossible is that there could ever have been a time that neither existed.

i agree, if neither existed, then simply nothing existed, and we would not exist either, becuase "something" may not be created from "nothing".

Some easily believe that God has always existed, but don't think it's possible that the universe has. To me, either possibility exists.

if god has always existed, then what did he exist with?
with himself in a universe the size of his body?
"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

Re: something cannot come from nothing on its own

Postby Nick » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:00 pm

This video just came out on youtube, I thought it fit this thread perfectly (after the first couple minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ka-D5UMr0
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

Re: something cannot come from nothing on its own

Postby monaroman » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:10 am

right, heres the deal. i stand behind Hugh, Mr Mojo, etc. Something must of always been no where otherwise nothing wouldve happened. in my case, i think there is a god, and he resides in the the fourth spatial dimension. but thats not what i am arguing. I am arguing that *something* must have always been there otherwise there would be nothing now, which is impossible because there is no time in absolute nothingness, which means something can't just create it self, because that takes time. The idea of singularity creating the universe is also a no no because as someone mentioned, there is no time around a singularity so even if there it has been there forever it needs time to expand

Also a definition on absoulute nothingness which i hope will help. nothing is something because there is a space, or container which contains the nothing. absolute nothing is no where because the no where doesn't exist to be absolutely nothing. the very fact that there is nothing makes it something, so you need to go beyond that achieve absolute nothing.

any comments on that? :?:
monaroman
Mononian
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: something cannot come from nothing on its own

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:43 pm

monaroman wrote:right, heres the deal. i stand behind Hugh, Mr Mojo, etc. Something must of always been no where otherwise nothing wouldve happened. in my case, i think there is a god, and he resides in the the fourth spatial dimension. but thats not what i am arguing. I am arguing that *something* must have always been there otherwise there would be nothing now, which is impossible because there is no time in absolute nothingness, which means something can't just create it self, because that takes time. The idea of singularity creating the universe is also a no no because as someone mentioned, there is no time around a singularity so even if there it has been there forever it needs time to expand

Also a definition on absoulute nothingness which i hope will help. nothing is something because there is a space, or container which contains the nothing. absolute nothing is no where because the no where doesn't exist to be absolutely nothing. the very fact that there is nothing makes it something, so you need to go beyond that achieve absolute nothing.

any comments on that? :?:


Here's why that makes less sense (in my opinion):
1. We know for a fact that the Universe was, at one point, a singularity.

2. The Universe could not have been around forever; it must have started at some point.

3. Nothing can exist before the universe, since the Universe is nothing but time and space. Everything that exists must take up time and space. If god existed, he would have to take up space, which still leaves the problem of him having to pop into existence somehow. Saying that god can exist "outside" time and space is making an argument against god's existence, since timeless and massless are properties if non-existence.

4. We are left with two options: either a singularity somehow popped into existence, or a god somehow popped into existence. God is immensely complex; by definition, he is more complex than the entire Universe as it is now; it goes without saying that he's more complex than an infintessimal ball of simple energy.
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

Re: something cannot come from nothing on its own

Postby gerren » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:55 am

If you are an atheist, then indeed, something came from nothing on its own. Im an agnostic, so i have an atheistic side...and well some other things that keep me ambivalent. Can something come from nothing on its own? No. Of course not-that statement is nonsense. Now, can life come from particles spontaneously? Its highly improbable, but still extremely possible.

Another thing-i see the questions about if there is a god, then when did he/she/they begin to exist? I would think that deists would say that god has existed forever--even before the big bang. That would make sense because most people say that god has existed forever and will continue to exist forever (i consider before time being created forever). In our sense of the word time, things get old-they change, they stay the same, and in essence at the sub-nuclear level time is just the changes observable in elements and so on. So, would anyone agree with me if i said that there has always been time? Something cant come from nothing, so there must have always been that little spec before the big bang occurred. Theorists more knowledgeable than I say that time began at the instant of the big bang. I have already defined time as the changes at the sub-nuclear levels, so even if we cant see changes, then does that make time obsolete? Something must have been changing before the big bang ever occurred for it to even occur, so I personally think time has always existed.

In conclusion, the big bang, didnt happen for nothing-something changed and BAM, huge explosion. So, change=time, and if change happened then i think time has always "happened" if you will. I hope this made sense....
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest