- #71
out of whack
- 436
- 0
nabuco said:
You bet. TTFN!
If the universe came from nothing
- Thread starter Castlegate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Universe
In summary, this conversation is trying to explore the idea that if the universe came from nothing, then it can't be a physical entity. The author argues that this is not really a change, because concepts such as "physical" are simply relative. They also argue that if everything is a concept, then the concept of "physical" becomes meaningless.
You bet. TTFN!
- #72
JonF
- 621
- 1
You do understand if this question really is a category error we might as well be discussing "Does the blue smell happy tomorrow?"out of whack said:
Last edited:
- #73
out of whack
- 436
- 0
Last edited by a moderator:
- #74
kant
- 388
- 0
nabuco said:
I am still waiting for you to create a physical universe by writing equations down on a piece of paper.
- #75
JonF
- 621
- 1
You in post #9 argue he is wrong by contradiction. My point is the question doesn't even make sense.
I really don't know how much more clearly i can spell this out...
I really don't know how much more clearly i can spell this out...
- #76
out of whack
- 436
- 0
JonF said:
Your category mistake interpretation makes the premise moot. My self-contradicting interpretation leads to a conclusion. You can pick your favorite.
- #77
nabuco
kant said:
Stop talking nonsense. If I give you a musical score, will you complain it doesn't make any sounds? Give me a break!
(sorry, I tried to ignore you twice but you kept asking for it...)
- #78
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
If the universe came from nothing .. contradiction is an absolute requirement, and it is therefore correct.
- #79
Pi_314XPi
- 8
- 0
I think the point of the thread is to come to a conceptual understanding of existence, as it can only be conceptual if it came from nothing. In other word ... existence is the definition of nothing. Thusly we can claim the universe as a geometric representation of nothing. On the fundamental level, the universe is a collection of thoughts displayed in geometric fashion.
- #80
kant
- 388
- 0
nabuco said:
It is you that suggest we can explain something from nothing. You have the burden of proof.
- #81
Pi_314XPi
- 8
- 0
kant said:
I think the chances are equal, that something came from nothing, verses something has always been. One must give each their due. However at some point, one must jump either side, and run with it. To stradle the fence is tantamount to a ball and chain. You can't go very far with this limitation. To expect a proof is an excercise in futility.
You must still be on the fence.
- #82
kant
- 388
- 0
Pi_314XPi said:
I don't think the person that i am replying to say that.
I don t think we can infer that there is something that is always "there" that is eternal and existing in our physical space-time universe, because all evidence seems to suggest that all matter and energy, space-time came from the big bang.
If you are talking about reality, then i concede to whatever you are saying, because i don t know what reality "is".
- #83
Moridin
- 692
- 3
Why assume that 'nothing' is the default state and that 'something' needs to come from either 'something' or 'nothing'?
- #84
Pi_314XPi
- 8
- 0
Castlegate said:
One would have to agree here, that's of course if we assume the universe came from nothing. Is this to say that existence must be butressed up against non-existence? Is this how one thing can be differentiated from any other thing? However ... If all things are made of nothing, how can they be differentiated? I take it that you mean conceptually? How does that work?
- #85
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
With the assumption that the universe came from nothing, we must assume that all things in the universe are made of nothing, and if this is true, reality must be a conceptual entity. We can know reality by it's form, in relationship with other forms. We can have conceptual forms of nothing, as representations of reality, and have a ham and swiss for lunch within this context. It is at least doable. A ham and swiss sandwich would be a conglomeration of various forms of nothing, and the plate it sits on is a whole other set of various forms of that same nothing, but in different relationships.Pi_314XPi said:
This is very much like an analogy of relationships with marbles, only difference is that the form of the marble contains nothing at all.
In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.
- #86
Pi_314XPi
- 8
- 0
Castlegate said:
Let's see if I got this right. You are saying that if the universe came from nothing, that all things of the universe are made of nothing, and that all things have form? So what is real to us is the form, and since the universe came from nothing as an assumption, the form is made of a conceptual constituent, like that of a thought?
Believe it or not, I think I understand this, that's of course if I understood the previous correctly. Is this to say, that one is the concept of nothing, and this concept represents form? Form being the 3D aspect of time/space?
- #87
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
About all you can say about nothing, is that there is one of them. The concept of one constitutes a reality. It is common to all of existence, and form is just another way of saying one. A form of nothing is the same as one nothing, and is for all expressive purposes ... the equivalent of a thing.Pi_314XPi said:
As an example of a thing that comes from nothing, let's draw a circle on a piece of paper. What is within that circle would be nothing, and the line drawn for the circle has no thickness. This is an example of a conceptual reality. Now if we have X number of these realities in the universe, and they all interact in some way, then having a cup of joe in the morning is possible through interaction of these realities.
Time in this instance constitutes a non-event. An event would be the interaction of forms. A form is the equivalent of one, so when I say (In our universe there are only ones) I'm saying only the form interacts, and it is these forms that exist, while the composition of the forms ( nothing ) does not. With this we have the necessary ingredient for tick and tock, and a continuum for space.
- #88
alexsok
- 123
- 0
I wonder. The universe indeed seemed to have appeared out of nothing, but what about consciousness coming to life in every human embryo (and in other forms of life where it's a different type of it)? Doesn't it come out of nothing also? Can we correlate them?
- #89
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
alexsok said:
Given the assumption that the universe came from nothing, and the likelyhood of conceptual reality as a matter of due course, we can surmise that even a fundamental entity is self aware, and if so, the introduction of consciousness for humans is the collective of fundamentally self aware entities within the form of the human body through interaction, and in another sense, the environment around you is part of your conscience.
- #90
alexsok
- 123
- 0
So you're embracing a form of panpsychism then.
- #91
Langbein
- 209
- 0
And what is then nothing ? How can the question if the universe comes from nothing have meaning if the state nothing is not defined ?
- #92
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Langbein said:
With the question of (If the universe came from nothing) as an accepted fact, and a coveat that the state of nothing cannot be defined, we are forced to accept that the universe is an incomplete definition of it. This is to say that the universe is a finite entity, such that x number of units exist now, while x + y units will exist in the next foreseeable instant. In other words - The universe would be an ongoing definition of nothing, by which an eternity would be necessary to complete said definition.
- #93
Langbein
- 209
- 0
But if the state of nothing can not be defined, and from what I can see in some other treads nobody knows what time is, and I guess that the state of what the universe is today is also a bit unclear. ..
Wouldn't it be more clear to ask the question like this:
Has this thing that we dont't know what is "universe" made an transaction trough something we do not know what is, "time" from an initial condition that we also don't know that we call "nothing" ?
Wouldn't the clear and obvius answer be:
"That's up to your faith and belief".
Couldn't one valid answer good as any alternative be: "We are the universe from nothing belivers, and also we believe that the univerce work much like a steam engine, it's just slightly bigger".
Or possibly: "We are the technical thinkers, we have learned thinking from doing some studies on how machinery works, and that this is thinking, that is our religous belief."
Wouldn't it be more clear to ask the question like this:
Has this thing that we dont't know what is "universe" made an transaction trough something we do not know what is, "time" from an initial condition that we also don't know that we call "nothing" ?
Wouldn't the clear and obvius answer be:
"That's up to your faith and belief".
Couldn't one valid answer good as any alternative be: "We are the universe from nothing belivers, and also we believe that the univerce work much like a steam engine, it's just slightly bigger".
Or possibly: "We are the technical thinkers, we have learned thinking from doing some studies on how machinery works, and that this is thinking, that is our religous belief."
- #94
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Langbein said:
This thread is essentially about what must happen if the universe came from nothing. It is very likely in the extreme sense that there is only one roadway out of nothing, if the initial assumption is correct. My contention is that this must be a conceptual path by way of no other alternative. Time and the universe IMO becomes rather understandable down this conceptual road, and all of this propositioning would not be a belief, if one makes logical tracks, from a state of nothing, toward that of something like as our universe.
- #95
Siah
- 12
- 0
How can there be a "state" of nothing?Castlegate said:
- #96
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
By the fact that there must be one of them. This is enough for a condition of "being".Siah said:
- #97
Philocrat
- 612
- 0
Castlegate said:
The problem with this question is that 'Nothing' is an illusive metaphyisical category (that is, it is not a proper metaphysical category, if any). Why? Because, it has neither a causal nor a mutational link with 'Something'. This means that 'Nothing' is irreducible to 'Something' nor 'Something' to 'Nothing'. This irreducibility relation metaphysically and epistemologically excludes 'Nothing' from the reality of 'Something'.
Last edited:
- #98
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Philocrat said:
One point I was making is that all things must be composed of nothing in a universe that came from nothing. Hence we are also forced to conclude that reality is conceptual in nature, also that "nothing" cannot be divorced from "something". This is in direct opposition to what you are saying. "Nothing" would not only be included with the reality of "something", it would be an absolute requirement of all things on any level. "One nothing" is the equivalent of a thing, by which a universe can be made conceptually.
I've read your post a number of times, and some of it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Perhaps you can reword for better understanding.
- #99
octelcogopod
- 560
- 0
The concept of something and nothing is one that I find to be interesting.
The human mind has a concept of nothing because it works in quantities.
But I think in reality, the human mind cannot comprehend nothing, there will always be something, even if just a black void.
The thing is that the mind associates things based on sensory input, for instance an apple can be reduced to its shape, color, form, light, taste, feel of eating and so forth, and the brain has a mechanism that combines all these things into an associative apple. The apple in itself does not exist as we see it in nature, it only exists as these associations that we can reduce into components.
Now, the human mind has also created a symbol for 'space', this can be air in a room, outer space, or anything that we cannot directly see.
Most of our quantified symbols come from our vision, and less from other senses, IMO.
Humans usually equate a single colored white or black space with 'nothing', if there are no shapes, forms or other things to quantify it becomes a space, and seeing as we can't quantify it from our other symbols, we see it as "nothing."
Now finally to my point, the concept of nothing is somewhat meaningless, because all it really is, is an absence of that which we quantify.
It is the absence of anything our sensory system and brain can conjure, and as such it does not exist to us.
When you ask if the universe came from nothing, all you are really asking is if it came from something that we can quantify.
This is where the error lies, because humans always think in terms of shapes, time and quantity.
This leads to such things as infinite regress, primordial physical entity, time problems and a myriad of other logical traps.
The truth for me, is that the consciousness is the primordial cause of the universe.
I say this because I have concluded that everything we do, see, hear, touch, smell and so forth, comes from the brain, as such it is the root of everything that exists to you/us.
Your question immediately brings everyone to see the universe as a big ball of light, with a black space around it, wondering what the heck is in that black space, which is imo the wrong start point to begin with.
Somehow I get the feeling that humans are indeed trapped in consciousness, and that these questions we have will always lead to infinite regress and other things simply because of our brains way of quantifying and arranging associations and patterns.
The human mind has a concept of nothing because it works in quantities.
But I think in reality, the human mind cannot comprehend nothing, there will always be something, even if just a black void.
The thing is that the mind associates things based on sensory input, for instance an apple can be reduced to its shape, color, form, light, taste, feel of eating and so forth, and the brain has a mechanism that combines all these things into an associative apple. The apple in itself does not exist as we see it in nature, it only exists as these associations that we can reduce into components.
Now, the human mind has also created a symbol for 'space', this can be air in a room, outer space, or anything that we cannot directly see.
Most of our quantified symbols come from our vision, and less from other senses, IMO.
Humans usually equate a single colored white or black space with 'nothing', if there are no shapes, forms or other things to quantify it becomes a space, and seeing as we can't quantify it from our other symbols, we see it as "nothing."
Now finally to my point, the concept of nothing is somewhat meaningless, because all it really is, is an absence of that which we quantify.
It is the absence of anything our sensory system and brain can conjure, and as such it does not exist to us.
When you ask if the universe came from nothing, all you are really asking is if it came from something that we can quantify.
This is where the error lies, because humans always think in terms of shapes, time and quantity.
This leads to such things as infinite regress, primordial physical entity, time problems and a myriad of other logical traps.
The truth for me, is that the consciousness is the primordial cause of the universe.
I say this because I have concluded that everything we do, see, hear, touch, smell and so forth, comes from the brain, as such it is the root of everything that exists to you/us.
Your question immediately brings everyone to see the universe as a big ball of light, with a black space around it, wondering what the heck is in that black space, which is imo the wrong start point to begin with.
Somehow I get the feeling that humans are indeed trapped in consciousness, and that these questions we have will always lead to infinite regress and other things simply because of our brains way of quantifying and arranging associations and patterns.
- #100
chrisina
- 71
- 0
I think this discussion boilds down to the way one defines "nothing"
If I pass you an empty plate and ask you, "choose something", you'll reply, "are you crazy, there's nothing in that plate to choose from". I can reply that there is a lot of dust.
What I mean, is, when we use the word "nothing", however we use it, we always imply a certain cut-off scale.
So when you say :
"Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion."
there is no problem with that, because that means that your definition of "nothing" is :
- I pick a time t=o as the beginning of time
- whatever is in the universe before t=0 I define as "nothing"
However, the conclusion :
"If the universe came from nothing. Doesn't this mean that the universe cannot be a physical entity? Are we not forced to assume that the universe is conceptual in nature? That the fundamentals of existence are no more than discrete conceptual geometrics of nothing?"
... is a wrong conclusion. Because, from your own definition of "nothing" (ie what the universe was made of before time t=0), you cannot imply that this cannot be a physical entity. You've just defined a physical entity.
If I pass you an empty plate and ask you, "choose something", you'll reply, "are you crazy, there's nothing in that plate to choose from". I can reply that there is a lot of dust.
What I mean, is, when we use the word "nothing", however we use it, we always imply a certain cut-off scale.
So when you say :
"Assuming that the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact, for the sake of discussion."
there is no problem with that, because that means that your definition of "nothing" is :
- I pick a time t=o as the beginning of time
- whatever is in the universe before t=0 I define as "nothing"
However, the conclusion :
"If the universe came from nothing. Doesn't this mean that the universe cannot be a physical entity? Are we not forced to assume that the universe is conceptual in nature? That the fundamentals of existence are no more than discrete conceptual geometrics of nothing?"
... is a wrong conclusion. Because, from your own definition of "nothing" (ie what the universe was made of before time t=0), you cannot imply that this cannot be a physical entity. You've just defined a physical entity.
- #101
castlegates
Actually there would be no beginning for time, as time would be the nothing that the universe would be composed of, as such, "nothing" in the complete sense" is undefinable in reality. I.E It's full definition is "non-existence", and we happen to be here as a testament to existence, therefore the universe would be an incomplete ongoing definition of nothing, by which existence is secure forever. In other words - We can continue to exist as long as "nothing" remains undefined "in reality". This is like saying that I exist, because I don't exist, but the implicatoin must be carried, if the universe came from nothing as an absolute fact.
- #102
lllll
- 22
- 0
Castlegate said:
Precisely! Though there was no apparition of existence/uni-verse only our evolution of intelligence as a systematized species, or "awakening", and the existence/uni-verse is only an ever ofness (sempiternal interchangable and ever changing energy). All concepts are of absence, immeasurable prsence, eternity, "nothingness", and methematically the concept known as zero or undefined (though even such is conceptually defined).
I'm sorry, I must go, my dog escaped and needs a bath.
Good thoughts!
- #103
sd01g
- 271
- 0
Perhaps we should just conclude that it does not matter (unless God personnally told you it matters) where the universe came from, and, anyway, we will never actually know. It is fun to speculate, but in reality, it is not only unkown but unknowable-- but it is guessable.
- #104
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 23,118
- 6,795
There seems to be a lot of claims that the universe must have come from nothing. There are alternate hypotheses, such as (shoot, what's the term for it - "pulsating" universe?) This does not make use of any nothingness to describe "what was before".
- #105
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 23,118
- 6,795
This will never be an acceptable answer as long as humans draw breath.sd01g said: