Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[castlegates]

You're making up poetic fiction based on nothing, literally.

It's amazing what you can make out of nothing ... isn't it? :-)

 

[baywax]

It's amazing what you can make out of nothing ... isn't it? :-)

Now you're calling brain tissue and how it functions "nothing"?

 

[castlegates]

Now you're calling brain tissue and how it functions "nothing"?

BINGO!

What do you think this sentence means?
In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of. How the brain functions is a matter of interaction of these concepts of one..

 

[sketchtrack]

Nothing is as it seams, or perhaps nothing is as it doesn't seam.

 

[Quincy]

Why is there anything than rather nothing ? - Why is there sometning than rather nothing ?

Why does anything exist at all ?

Why is it like that ?

This question is paradoxical (for lack of a better word) because if nothing existed, then the question wouldn't exist. You can only ask the question if something does exist -- That makes the question dependent on existence, which makes me wonder "Why is this question rather than not this question?" lol

As to answer your question, be more specific. Do you mean something as in space and time or something as in matter?

 

[out of whack]

In our universe, there are only Ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing Ones are composed of. How the brain functions is a matter of interaction of these concepts of one..

That's almost right. Actually there are only twos, two by two, where time is the something twos are not composed of. The brain works by pairing up these twos two concepts at a time, which makes the whole thing nothing. There, I fixed it for you and I'm sure everybody gets it now.

 

[sketchtrack]

That's almost right. Actually there are only twos, two by two, where time is the something twos are not composed of. The brain works by pairing up these twos two concepts at a time, which makes the whole thing nothing. There, I fixed it for you and I'm sure everybody gets it now.

I think you are mistaken. 2=1+1. A two is like the brain in that it is composed on ones.

 

[olliemath]

I can think of a couple of points.. pick them apart at will

1. People have been mentioning time already.. and I'm set on the opinion that time is intrinsic to existence.. if there is nothing then this implies time. As far as I am concerned time started with the universe and does not exist outside it.. I mean suppose you are 'outside the universe', then waay back towards the big bang it gets denser and denser, so AFIK would look infinitely old (like viewing an astronaut going into a black hole - he never seems to get there) - nothing before it!

2. For those of you that don't like 1.. We need not assume that our paltry logic holds outside the universe as we know it. For instance both nothing and something might easily exist at the same time (I also liked the complementary argument earlier, but that's a different matter) - like superimposed wavefunctions - I hasten to add that they would not need to colapse in the presence of observers, although as was said earlier we could litterally create our own universe..

3. If something is logically consistent then I can think of no reason for it not to exist 'somewhere'..of course we could only belong to a nice snuggly universe.. This I suppose is just the anthropic principle?


(p.s. I've purposely skipped around the issue of whether the concept of nothing is logically consistent as that's already been heavily debated)

 

[baywax]

p.s. I've purposely skipped around the issue of whether the concept of nothing is logically consistent as that's already been heavily debated)

The concepts surrounding the idea of nothing have not even been touched. If they had there would be no discussion because "nothing" implies "no concept".

As for the romantic notion of "the beginning of time"; this cliche is nothing more than a description of the first sun dial, or the first human record of a passing season. These accomplishments were the "beginning of time" as we know it. Everything else, was/is/will be "change" or "transformation" and nothing more.

If you look at the universe as 1111111111111111 I think there might be a basis for this being true. However, the value of each of those 1s is different and varied... unless you remove the effect of "scale". 0 can only enter the series when you need "emptiness" for the 1s to exist... however... as soon as "emptiness" or "0" is considered an effect... it becomes a "1".

Dismissing anything at all is always a mistake and leads to worse mistakes. When someone dismisses the brain as "nothing" they probably consider the universe "nothing". This exemplifies someone who has not appreciated the intricacies of neuroscience and who could be experiencing severe depression or a bout of emotionalism such as is found in the nihilistic persona.

 

[castlegates]

A two is like the brain in that it is composed on ones.

At least somebody gets it to some degree. I might add that the ones are composed of nothing at the risk of repeating myself. It is not the composition we need to concern ourselves with, for it doesn't exist, but the form of the composition that puts on the show. All things on all scales are understood through the same process. A baseball, a stop sign, a fundamental unit, a planet, a monitor, are all understood to be things under the same premise. You see a thing..like your monitor and the procedure is - nothing inside it, and infinitely nothing outside it. This is the geometric reality of the monitor (The conceptual understanding of one, and the form of it).

 

[2foolish]

certainly that's true. but does time itself have a beginning?

Time and space are the same thing, they are one single geometric surface (see: relativity, gravitational lensing, etc).

 

[Unthinkable]

Time is a measurement of space. Any number is a measurement; doesn't have to be one or zero.Therefore any number is of space; and therefore space could not exist if it was missing any number; and any number could not exist without space. Space is infinite; and infinity is not a measurement since it has no beginning or beginnings and it has no ending or endings. Space is everything that happens at once; and everything that happens at once is always different than it was before. While time is a measurement and it happens over a period of time; it has "beginning" which is created and it has an ending, time has an order like cause and effect; the order is the beginning before the ending and the effect after the cause.

 

[castlegates]

2. For those of you that don't like 1.. We need not assume that our paltry logic holds outside the universe as we know it. For instance both nothing and something might easily exist at the same time (I also liked the complementary argument earlier, but that's a different matter) - like superimposed wavefunctions

This is about where I stand in the issue. On the fundamental level, reality is reduced to the wave function, buttressed up against non-existence as the necessary contradiction to make the show.
The universe is like the meeting place of zero and infinity, wherein one, or ones if you will, is the sum total of our universe. It represents a battleground of yes and no, where maybe represents the actual battle, as another example. If this is so, the universe is an ongoing process that will never be completed from our finite perspective.

 

[castlegates]

The concepts surrounding the idea of nothing have not even been touched. If they had there would be no discussion because "nothing" implies "no concept".

On the contrary "nothing" can't be anything but a concept.

As for the romantic notion of "the beginning of time"; this cliche is nothing more than a description of the first sun dial, or the first human record of a passing season. These accomplishments were the "beginning of time" as we know it.

So time is an invention of man?

Everything else, was/is/will be "change" or "transformation" and nothing more.

Well which is it, an invention of man, or the sentence above, or both?

If you look at the universe as 1111111111111111 I think there might be a basis for this being true. However, the value of each of those 1s is different and varied... unless you remove the effect of "scale". 0 can only enter the series when you need "emptiness" for the 1s to exist... however... as soon as "emptiness" or "0" is considered an effect... it becomes a "1".

You lost me here. How can the value of each of those ones be different or varied? How is a (one) different from a (one), regardless of scale?

Dismissing anything at all is always a mistake and leads to worse mistakes. When someone dismisses the brain as "nothing" they probably consider the universe "nothing". This exemplifies someone who has not appreciated the intricacies of neuroscience and who could be experiencing severe depression or a bout of emotionalism such as is found in the nihilistic persona.

Hmmm :-)

 

[baywax]

On the contrary "nothing" can't be anything but a concept.

My differing opinion is that the concept of "nothing" is "something" (brain waves)... what the concept attempts to describe is "nothing" (a lack of such things as brain waves).

So time is an invention of man?

No one else has invented measurement systems such as "time" that I know of.

You lost me here.

Ditto.

I think you're using the number "1" in the wrong way. There is no qualitative value to it... only a quantitative value. So, to imagine "1" as a quality such as "energy" may be a misinterpretation... or, at best, a very new way of seeing the number.

 

[2foolish]

Time is a measurement of space. Any number is a measurement; doesn't have to be one or zero.Therefore any number is of space; and therefore space could not exist if it was missing any number; and any number could not exist without space.

Nothign to dispute here really, time is actually a measurement of flows of energy and it's configurations when you get down to it.

Space is infinite; and infinity is not a measurement since it has no beginning or beginnings and it has no ending or endings. Space is everything that happens at once; and everything that happens at once is always different than it was before.

Nope, space can be measured, and it is a part of all other objects, i.e. you cannot have separation of space from matter and energy, they are distinct aspects of the same thing. Space moves, space twists, space bends, space tears, it can't be 'infinite'.

While time is a measurement and it happens over a period of time; it has "beginning" which is created and it has an ending, time has an order like cause and effect; the order is the beginning before the ending and the effect after the cause.

Time is flow of energy within/over/on something on/in space, space and time is the same thing you're very confused.

 

[Unthinkable]

When I said time was a measurement you agreed... Therefore if time is a measurement and space is the opposite; space thus can not be measured. Infinity and space therefore must be the same; and therefore space can not be measured. Space is infinity and infinity is space. Unless you believe that space is finite and in that case I would say that time has the opposite qualities of infinity...And nobody can prove that everything that happens at once has an ending or a beginning and therefore that is just a theory too exept for the bible thumpers.
They weren't searching for time travel they were searching for space travel. But I do not like to use the word travel since travel implies that another dimension exists in the future which we could travel to. And if the future already existed then how could we have free will. And nobody has proved it yet therefore it is just a theory...I like to use the word change instead of travel. I believe that space is what changes. And everything that changes changes at once. We were in the past five minutes ago and we changed with the present which was in the past to the present which is now and five minutes from now we will be in the future which changed from the present to the future. The past was in the present and the future will be in the present. Since it doesn't take any time for everything to change. Everything must be Time travelling. And therefore nothing must be aging. Einstein once said that if you could time travel that you could live forever.

 

[Unthinkable]

Forget everything that you know about time and space for a second. And start with these simple logical deffinitions.
The time that changes.
And a measurement of time.
Both deffinitions are correct.

Now call the time that changes "space" and a measurement of time "time".
Aparrently time does not exist..and that which does not exist can not be made of energy.

 

[2foolish]

Forget everything that you know about time and space for a second. And start with these simple logical deffinitions.
The time that changes.
And a measurement of time.
Both deffinitions are correct.

Now call the time that changes "space" and a measurement of time "time".
Aparrently time does not exist..and that which does not exist can not be made of energy.

Where do concepts come from and what are they made of? Your problem is you're inventing ideas that have no mapping to reality, i.e. logic is nature based, anything you invent that is incongruent with how nature works, is by definition incorrect.

You're assuming you even understand the concepts properly.

Here's the definition of time:

Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.

Time is a measurement of the flow of energy, next you need relativity before you can understand the concept of time.

Einstein said:"Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)"

 

[Unthinkable]

I said the same thing that einstein said only using different words.
People have this misunderstanding about time and space. They are both right but half the people ussually say that if one is correct that the other must not be correct. But I say that one needs the other to exist and could not exist without the other. And most people mix the two of them up saying that one is the other or that the other is one.
I shall use this example which I came up with.

One


One could not exist without infinity. And infinity could not exist without one. One or any number has an order or sequence of events and always has the beginning before the ending, and the ending after the beginning. Infinity has no beginning and it has no ending and therefore is random because it has no order; and therefore infinity could not be in one; but one is of infinity. One has part of infinite in itself. If you take any beginning or any ending out of infinity, infinity will not be complete i.e., a infinite number line in either direction. Positive in one direction and negative in the other direction. The number one or any number takes up a space. Each space for each number has a beginning and an ending in the number line. If you were to take one or any number away from infinity, infinity would have a beginning and an ending and would therefore not be infinite i.e.; starting on the number line in the negative numbers we move towards the positive numbers and we reach zero, and since one does not exist infinity ends, and that which has an ending is not infinite. If we were to continue from zero, on the number line, in the positive direction infinity would begin at two, and that which has a beginning is not infinite. And therefore if infinity had a beginning and an ending it would not be infinite. In order for infinity to exist one or any number had to exist. And in order for one or any number to exist infinity had to exist. One did not exist before or after infinity, and infinity did not exist before or after one or any number. One can not be infinity and infinity can not be one.

Scientists say that there are four dimension. One is time and the other three are space. But that is just a theory. They can mathimatically prove it but they cannot physically prove it. Nobody really has a concrete theory on time.

Think of time as "one" or any number. And substitute space for infinity.

 

[baywax]

Where do concepts come from and what are they made of?

Concepts are a result of brain tissue interacting with the environment.

"Re: Why does anything exist than rather nothing?"

Could someone please produce evidence that "nothing" exists"?

Without that confirmation, the question is null and "void".

 

[castlegates]

Concepts are a result of brain tissue interacting with the environment.

That doesn't answer the question. The question was - What are concepts made of.
I am a firm believer that to exist, one must have form. Any thing else and you may as well be talking about a ghost. My expectation here is three dimensional, and the various shapes of form constitute what would be different concepts, and these forms are composed of nothing at all, wherein the form itself carries the concept, such as an apple verses a rabbit, two diferent forms, two different concepts.

Could someone please produce evidence that "nothing" exists"?

Your expectation seems to be that if nothing exist, that we or anything else cannot exist at the same time. I could never show you the existence of nothing, without first giving it form. The definition of nothing uses a thing to convey the absence of it.
It conveys nothing within the boundry of form. A fundamental entity must be made of nothing. I.E There are no parts.

 

[out of whack]

A lot of nothing is tossed around here. The last page or two show a sore lack of intellectual rigor. I read that what doesn't exist is relevant. I read that physical concepts we can all confirm don't exist. I see gratuitous inferences from vague statements presented as proof. Point them out and you receive a "you don't get it" followed by a repetition of the same idle claims. Reason has left the building. This thread has sunk to downright goofy levels.

 

[baywax]

That doesn't answer the question. The question was - What are concepts made of.
I am a firm believer that to exist, one must have form. Any thing else and you may as well be talking about a ghost. My expectation here is three dimensional, and the various shapes of form constitute what would be different concepts, and these forms are composed of nothing at all, wherein the form itself carries the concept, such as an apple verses a rabbit, two diferent forms, two different concepts.

Your expectation seems to be that if nothing exist, that we or anything else cannot exist at the same time. I could never show you the existence of nothing, without first giving it form. The definition of nothing uses a thing to convey the absence of it.
It conveys nothing within the boundry of form. A fundamental entity must be made of nothing. I.E There are no parts.

At the risk of continuing this goofy topic I'll point out that concepts are "made of" the electromagnetic pulses of neurons during their interaction with their environment. "Their environment" includes the environment of the brain tissue and the other components of what "the environment" means. Simple, really.

 

[2foolish]

A lot of nothing is tossed around here. The last page or two show a sore lack of intellectual rigor. I read that what doesn't exist is relevant. I read that physical concepts we can all confirm don't exist. I see gratuitous inferences from vague statements presented as proof. Point them out and you receive a "you don't get it" followed by a repetition of the same idle claims. Reason has left the building. This thread has sunk to downright goofy levels.

Who are you talking about? Some people sure are not thinking correctly, no doubt about it. But they assume they have knowledge to make informed comments on the matter. If you have beef with someone(s) you have not demonstrated your case. Which word or which statements do you have a beef with and with which posters? Certainly some posters are misinformed, but others are not. You're trying to hit everyone at once, let's see what should be done about this.

Person A makes statement X (the claim is there it exists)
Person B says statement X is false/incorrect, based on faulty notions/definitions, etc, etc.

This means Person B detected, read into his mind the statements and found that they were false, incorrect, misleading, therefore person B has the knowledge to demonstrate to us the error of our ways right away, point out which word or which statement is incorrect. He must also point out the errors themselves. He cannot say "all of it" unless he can demonstrate point by point how each statement or word is incorrect, else he has no valid claim.

Person B does not point out where and demonstrate it for us.

Therefore person B's claims can only be considered once he has pointed out errors, and demonstrated why they are incorrect assuming person B's conceptual understanding and learning is not flawed from the outset.

Concepts are the lenses by which we see and interpret the world -- errors in concepts equals error in judgements, therefore we can go back in the chain to see if the concepts behind the words were conceived properly and question whether or not they were conceptualized from nature coherently.

Therefore person B has no valid claim until he demonstrates his claims against those who he has a beef with.

Every concept you have was derived from previously existing matter and energy, i.e. every thought you can ever think is made of something that pre-existed you, all you are doing is reshaping it, and in the end any thought incongruent with how nature actually is, is by definition incorrect.

 

[Unthinkable]

That doesn't answer the question. The question was - What are concepts made of.
I am a firm believer that to exist, one must have form. Any thing else and you may as well be talking about a ghost. My expectation here is three dimensional, and the various shapes of form constitute what would be different concepts, and these forms are composed of nothing at all, wherein the form itself carries the concept, such as an apple verses a rabbit, two diferent forms, two different concepts.

Your expectation seems to be that if nothing exist, that we or anything else cannot exist at the same time. I could never show you the existence of nothing, without first giving it form. The definition of nothing uses a thing to convey the absence of it.
It conveys nothing within the boundry of form. A fundamental entity must be made of nothing. I.E There are no parts.

I believe that in order to figure out what nothing is that you have to compare it to everything. And everything is the opposite of nothing.
Existing is being present to you and therefore form must be the opposite of existing. Which could lead me to believe that the word form means thought to you. Although I believe that nothing is the partial. And that everything (existing) is infinite or everything that happens at once.
And another question if the present is unpredictable, could the present have form?

 

[out of whack]

If you have beef with someone(s) you have not demonstrated your case.

True. But I plan no such demonstration, I can't possibly pick apart the overabundance of vague speculations posted recently. This is it from me, I'll step away until I see well-founded propositions to address.

 

[2foolish]

True. But I plan no such demonstration, I can't possibly pick apart the overabundance of vague speculations posted recently.

You don't have to pick them apart, you just have to point out anyone error, that is all.

This is it from me, I'll step away until I see well-founded propositions to address.

This is a claim, what is a well founded proposition? who determines which is and which isn't? All the knowledge you were taught was handed down to you, you didn't conceive it yourself, how do you know it was not misconceived?

"It is the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)

 

[Unthinkable]

Most of the stuff I said has been taught to me. But it is the order in which I speak it which makes it sensible. If the order did not make sense then I am sure that I would be wrong. Some of the stuff are my own quotations which I made up myself. And I have found many people who have written many things using other words in different orders to say the things as I have said so I shall not be so bold as to say that am the first to say these things.
I have changed my mind on things before and if anyone can disprove my simple explanations which are not hard concrete arguments then I will be glad to agree.

 

[Moonbear]

This thread has pretty much degraded into complete nonsense, so I'm closing it.