Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[out of whack]

Whatever is relevant is something. The opposite of that is nothing. Nothing is irrelevant. If it were relevant then it would be defined based on its relevance, which would make it something instead of nothing. Talking about nothing is talking about the irrelevant so making assertions based on 'nothing' is also irrelevant. If the 'nothing' in question is actually something that matters then another word should be used for it, selected according to the characteristics asserted for this 'thing'. Otherwise it's just hot air. Isn't that something?

 

[baywax]

If there is a contradiction by your calculation, it might help to be specific as to what that might be. I might point out that NOTHING is a contradiction by way of it's own definition. I.E. A thing is used to drive it home.

Just give me the definitions I asked for so I might be able to converse about this really inane subject.

 

[castlegates]

Nothing is irrelevant.

If the universe came from nothing, you are sadly mistaken.

If it were relevant then it would be defined based on its relevance

Oh it's relevant all right, as the universe is the definition of nothing.

which would make it something instead of nothing.

And that's the whole idea.

 

[castlegates]

Just give me the definitions I asked for so I might be able to converse about this really inane subject.

I thought that's what I did.

 

[Almanzo]

A statement like "there must be something, because something cannot come from nothing" may miss the point "why is there something instead of nothing?". Why? Because time itself is a "something", or a property of "something".

Suppose that one day a final theory of physics is discovered, which allows one to discriminate between objects which must exist and objects which cannot exist. And suppose that the sole maximal object which can exist turns out to be -- not our universe as it is now, but the entire history of our universe, down to the tiniest detail, such as what I am going to eat for breakfast next tuesday.

In that case one could not truthfully say that the maximal existing object (or "existence", if one likes to call it that) has been generated in time. It would contain time; all of time, like it would contain all of space.

 

[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.