They theory is fairly simple. Infact I thought about it last night and felt the need to post it on these forums. I would like you all to respond to this theory and give me your thoughts on it. I do not wish for any vulgar statements or profanity so if my theory offends or maddens you in any way, then make your own thread where you can curse as much as you want. I haven't thought over this to much so stick with me as I may change my theory as time progresses.

Now on to my theory:

Like i said my theory is simple and doesn't require that much explanation. Every element and term can only exist if it has an opposing element and or term. For example "Infinity and Finity". Now before the universe was created there was nothing. Nothing is basically the absence of "something". Now nothing can only exist if there was something to oppose it. Without this something, nothing would be non existance, it wouldn't have a definition or a meaning. But without nothing there must be something. Therefore a small concentrated ball of matter was formed, so this "nothing" could exist. With this ball of matter laws were made, since the absense of laws cannot be so without the presence of laws. Everything took form with this concept. For example. There is life, since there is death. There is wellbeing since there is illness etc etc etc. I would explain myself more but i would rather hear what you have to say about what you've heard so far.

i doubt something just came becuase there has to be an opposite to nothing.
Look at the number 0 for example. -1 is the opposite of 1and (-inf,+inf)

but 0 has no opposite. and does grey have an opposite?

Precisely, the belief in opposites is a sign of intellectual laziness or lack. 'Opposite' is simply a convienent label used by those whose philosophical knowledge is confined to "Daoism for Dummys" In reality, there are no opposites - we simply construct them because our puny minds cannot comprehend the madness of Azathoth.

For example "Infinity and Finity". Now before the universe was created there was nothing. Nothing is basically the absence of "something". Now nothing can only exist if there was something to oppose it.

That's ridiculous - first, nothing is simply nothing. In fact, talking about what nothing is is self defeating.

Now...are you seriously proposing that our universe exists because of faulty logic?

i doubt something just came becuase there has to be an opposite to nothing.
Look at the number 0 for example. -1 is the opposite of 1and (-inf,+inf)

but 0 has no opposite. and does grey have an opposite?


To answer your question your gonna have to tell me what 1 and 0 are.

That's ridiculous - first, nothing is simply nothing. In fact, talking about what nothing is is self defeating.

Now...are you seriously proposing that our universe exists because of faulty logic?


Im not going to even both replying to your previous statement. Like I said I would appreciate it if you left such comments out or made a thread for yourself to made such comments.

Now why do you propose nothing is simply nothing? We only define something as being nothing when it lacks something in general. For example we consider space nothing because of it's lack of atoms, matter etc etc. Notice i said space not universe. Nothin can infact be defined and it is only defined when you compare it to something that exists. I seriously don't understand how this would negate my theory.

Im not going to even both replying to your previous statement. Like I said I would appreciate it if you left such comments out or made a thread for yourself to made such comments.


Well, scrappy, she didn't post "any vulgar statements or profanity". She simply stated it is ridiculous. Furthermore, she gave a reason[s] why she finds your theory to be specious. So, vis-a-vis your crying and indignation, you have no right to do so, as she has yet to go against your initial wishes of not posting "any vulgar statements or profanity".

And come on now, when you post such a theory as this one, you're going to get a lot of constructive criticism and flak, and many who will be quick to impugn. Whilst I agree that censorious remarks should be checked at the door when entering this thread, but it's only right for others to impugn. That's what makes congregating so productive, the contructive criticism. Use it to your advantage, to help tweak the fibres and bits of your theory.

Well since i have the majority going against me (no matter how small the majority is), i will aswer to his/her statement.

Precisely, the belief in opposites is a sign of intellectual laziness or lack. 'Opposite' is simply a convienent label used by those whose philosophical knowledge is confined to "Daoism for Dummys" In reality, there are no opposites - we simply construct them because our puny minds cannot comprehend the madness of Azathoth.


I disagree with you fully on that, i believe every inanimate substance/object has an opposite. I DONOT THINK LIVING THINGS HAVE OPPOSITES. Living things have a small complex form of free will, I believe this free will or atleast knowledge is what keeps living beings from having an opposite, but not necesarily terms, objects and every other non living substance. Prove to me that these things do not have an opposite and i may consider your attempt to regard my theory as junk.

The fact that you believe there is something is your first prejudice.
The second out of politeness I will not mention.

Cause and effect, opposites is the way the mind organizes things.It is a human prejudice with little trascending meaning.

Try figuring out what to do with your life and what a good life consists of before you tackle the unknowable.

This is eactly the way I think.... even though its nothing really new. its called Yin and Yang. one thing cannot exist without its counterpart or opposing force. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction..........This is a very simple concept and sometimes simple is best. I have yet to find a conflict with this ideology. I see that other dont seem to agree with this yin and yang approach. There are many examples in life and this world that live by yin and yang. For example, Magnets have positive and negative poles, think about what would happen if there was no negative pole, there would be no positive pole because the negative pole is what makes the positive pole possible. This ideology cant be changed or taylored to control things its just helps one understand how things work. To say this is lazy thinking may be correct but being opposed to thinking thats not lazy which most of the time tends to be the mind OVERTHINKING things and turning a simple idea into something so complex the origional purpose of understanding is defeated and in the end he who over thinks is just left with more questions. Now to say that this theory Vortex came up with is how the universe was created is simply a Theory nothing more, he has found an ideology that seems to work for almost everything and applied it to the creation of the universe. Hes not saying thats what caused the creation of the earth its just a though for discussion. Everyone should try to understand what he is saying before giveing their 2 cents.

The fact that you believe there is something is your first prejudice.
The second out of politeness I will not mention.

Cause and effect, opposites is the way the mind organizes things.It is a human prejudice with little trascending meaning.

Try figuring out what to do with your life and what a good life consists of before you tackle the unknowable.

Ok you mentioned the first one, so what about the second?

Opposites maybe a way our mind organizes things, but it doesn't mean that existing elements do not have opposites. For instance water and fire are opposing elements whether or not you believe that its all just part of a mental pattern doesn't necesarily mean that these 2 elements are not opposing. Their effects on each other also proposes the idea of them 2 being opposites. Or maybe you simply do not understand what opposites are...If that is the case pick up and dictionary and find out.

As for figuring out what to do with my life... you have no need to worry about that. I won't let my life go to waste like so many have.

This is eactly the way I think.... even though its nothing really new. its called Yin and Yang. one thing cannot exist without its counterpart or opposing force. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction..........This is a very simple concept and sometimes simple is best. I have yet to find a conflict with this ideology. I see that other dont seem to agree with this yin and yang approach. There are many examples in life and this world that live by yin and yang.

Thank you. While i never heard of Yin and Yang i really do believe that every non living aspect has an opposing element. Another example is good and evil very simple. Now sly1, if you put this Yin and Yang theory with my theory you will see if fits. Nothing cannot be possible unless there is something to define it, just as positive would not be possible unless there was a negative to define it as well.

QUOTE NEUROCOMP2003

"i doubt something just came becuase there has to be an opposite to nothing.
Look at the number 0 for example. -1 is the opposite of 1and (-inf,+inf)

but 0 has no opposite. and does grey have an opposite?"

Sorry for my inability to quote like you all do im not quite sure how to do that so I had to do it the cut and past way.......

First of all this is easy to explain 0 has no opposite because it is the combination of opposites, like -1 and 1, Grey has no opposite because it is a combination of opposites like black and white.

That was fairly simple question to answer, i dont think you understand what opposites are..........

Sly1 : To doe quotes you have to press the reply button at the buttom right of their post, it's a link that says reply. it will automatically quote their whole message, all you need to do is deleate whatever you don't want in your post.

Again I still want Neurocomp2003 to answer my previous question, what exactly is 0 and -1?

As for the grey having an opposite, of course it does, but you have to think more scientifically than thinking of grey as a thing. colors are simply how much light is reflected off a material and how much light is absorbed into the material. The more light that is more absorbed into the material gives ther material a darker look than materials that reflect more light, this is do to pigment inside the materials. To get the opposite of grey you simply need to find the exact distance between middle to grey on the light spectrum, then do the same on the opposite side of the spectrum to get the opposite. Just like reflections. to get the opposite of a line you have to make either Y or X a negative and it matters on what axes you are reflecting. Same thing applies here. If you make absorption or reflection (matters on the governing element)a negative then you will get the opposite. Just like black and white since they are they are at the exact opposites of the spectrum and so definied it isn't complex.

I know that grey has an opposite im going for my major in graphic art. I guess I was trying to keep what i was saying on a level he would understand. I didnt want to start rambling on about what it means to invert the colors of an image or thing and the color spectrum and even then if he knew what the opposite color of grey was he wouldnt believe it because you cant find it useing logic. If you try hard enough you can find an opposite to anything no matter how simple or complex.

Ohh and thanks on how to do quotes ;)

For instance water and fire are opposing elements whether or not you believe that its all just part of a mental pattern doesn't necesarily mean that these 2 elements are not opposing.

Maybe in Final Fantasy, but not in real life. Water puts YOU out the same way it puts out fire, by depriving it of air. Does that mean that you are the opposite of water? Does that make you fire?

Look, when they teach you about opposites in school it helps you practice your abstract thought, but surely this kind of Opposites Day philosophy was explored when you did that unit in Grade 3 or whatever. Let's think of some examples of opposites that they tend to use in school:
Black and white
Tall and short
Near and far
Loud and quiet
All of these represent two sets of measures in the same context - reflectivity, height, distance, amplitude. So how are they opposites, when they are the same thing?

Finally, when you had Opposites Day - when everyone does the opposite of what they do every other day, or however your teacher chose to word it - there was always the one guy who didn't change anything, because he was doing the opposite of what everyone does on opposites day. Right?

Right?

Maybe they don't anymore, but when you get into this kind of logic you're going to have to answer some pretty serious questions, like what is the opposite of:
Hamlet?
Rice?
Mathematics?

The opposite of light, which we would assume to be darkness by your foregoing logic, would also tend to produce light by the same logic. This is, of course, unless there is some kind of universal context detector which tells opposites when they have the right to spontaneously come into being.

Sly1: Grey doesn't have an opposite in the sense of a logical complement the way Votorx is describing, it has a colour complement in the context of our visual spectrum. This is a very human-centric definition, hence not proof of anything except the nature of our own ideas.

Try figuring out what to do with your life and what a good life consists of before you tackle the unknowable.


No truer words have ever been enunciated.

Every element and term can only exist if it has an opposing element and or term.

this is actually a half-truth, the definition is what creates the opposite. In actuality, there are no opposites. Light is not the opposite of dark, light and dark are human-defined aspects of the same thing. The important thing about the concept of yin-yang is not the black and the white, but the circle around them, signifying the essential unity of opposites, or the illusion of opposition.

awareness of polarity. "This is the vivid realization that states, things, and events which we ordinarily call opposite are interdependent, like back and front or the poles of a magnet. By polar awareness one sees that things which are explicitly different are implicitly one: self and other, subject and object, left and right, male and female--and then, a little more surprisingly, solid and space, figure and background, pulse and interval, saints and sinners, and police and criminals, ingroups and outgroups."-Alan Watts -Does It Matter?, published 1970, (pg.83.)


Now before the universe was created there was nothing.
I object to the terms "before", "created", and "nothing".
Nothing/something always existed concurrently. A universe without nothing/something would be permanent, because there would be no causes, and no effects, and I would not be writing this sentance. More likely, the universe is cyclical, and the cause of our big bang was a collision with another, unobservable universe.

Unfortunatelly the theory you propose doesn;t answer the fundamental question of how this ball of matter came into existance from nothing.

It presupposes that nothing responds to the theory of opposites but of course nothing can not respond to anything.

This theory rerminds me of another similar that puts forward the notion that everything was created eternal both forward in time and backward therefore no begining and no end so the logic carries that the universe was never created but has always existed.
This theory is fine but unfortunately flies in the face of current physics thinking. IN that it fails to allow for entropy etc.

I might add that it is all well and good to suggest theories but to prove them of course is another matter.

I do admire your attempt though.

No truer words have ever been enunciated.

Wanderer's imperative statement can't be true or false; only a good suggestion or a bad one, which has nothing to do with truth.

Votorx, your theory, although not what i think created the universe- is a good one. Your ideals are true in that there exists oppisites. But there are some faults in your words, let me expand on some of this.
Firstly, there are opposites all around us, but they aren't just OBJECTS...
you said, you don't believe LIVING things have opposites, only OBJECTS. not true.
what carries the "positivity" or "negativity" or (a new term i coined) "oppositity" is not the OBJECTS or HUMANS, but rather the ENERGIES within them, around them, and inside of them. most dont realize this but everything has its own energy, or "vibes" as some others call it. other names for this are Waves(when speaking about feelings) and Auras (when speakin specifically about the person)
See, the Objects carry their "polarity" and it doesnt change much. People, on the other hand, shift in their 'polarities' for example: Good moods, bad moods.

Now, although i dont believe that this is the directly related to how the universe was born, it doesnt mean you're wrong. But perhaps you should consider looking into the Yin-Yang theory it seems right up your alley.

some other points i wanted to touch:
1)it was said soemwhere here that "For example we consider space nothing because of it's lack of atoms, matter etc etc. "
i must object to this statement indefinetely- just because its black up there doesnt mean there's nothing there. there is MUCH activity in space and even in the voids that u claim to be nothing. infrared and spectral analysis bring up the most BEAUTIFULLY coloured space-scapes i've ever seen, and its in the blackest of space (to the naked eye). as an added plus, theres also black holes, wormholes, and quantum foam likely to be in this "empty space"

2) someone else said here that opposites are made-up human definitions for differentiating similar objects. This is Totally True. it is the only reason opposites exist, or to re-word more accurately:
it is the reason we call them opposites. its all for our minds, to realize and KNOW where things belong, how they relate, or how they are different.

but with that aside, lets stop for a minute and consider the King James version of the Bible and what it said about the creation of the universe.
supposedly there was a God, and he created the earth(something) from nothing. there is your first example of oppisites. God creates man. Then he creates Woman (for man). Theres your second example of opposites. Everything was 'Good' until the snake(bad) came and deceived adam&eve. theres #3. As you can see your theory is universal, it can apply to nearly anything, if not everything.

now, let me drop one of my theories so that you can compare and contrast:
there is an infinete network of energies being transmitted and transferred at any given point in time and space. on ANY SCALE. example: on the universal scale you have stars producing energy that powers planets and even life. you've got comets zooming around from place to place, youve got black holes doing whatever it is they do(this is another theory- i'll post it in time!) and you've got all kinds of elements and stellar nurseries giving birth to even new ones. on a global scale you have countries sending troops across lands, companies producing products endlessly, and people having sex producing energy as well (synergy). on a electronic scale, you have one's and zero's ZOOMing in and out to different chips and computers sending voltage thru wires and transmitting their messages. on a microscopic scale you have nerves shooting electrical energy over to its opposite dendrils, giving your body the energy to lift its arm, move its leg, or open its mouth. it takes energy to do all of these things.
NOW, just as all these examples i mentioned above, they carry polarity- although for the most part most of them are neutral or not really charged in either way. (like the computer data for example) BUT- living objects on the other hand, tend to associate feelings and emotion to everything, so objects tend to become positive or negative. FURTHERMORE- humans themselves also carry their own ENERGY, which can be very positive or even very negative. These vibes are all around us as people, and they can even rub off onto others. you guys ever heard the saying "negative energy creates negative energy" ? it is very much true.

So- trying to aim back towards your original post&idea:
you say something only exist because of nothing. not entirely true. what i think is that with all the energies everywhere, there does exist a faint line that seperates the good from the bad. these two sides are always fighting against each other, like the Yin and the Yang- i've heard people say the symbol is two fish, each one always trying to catch the other one's tail. since they are both always trying to catch each other, the process never ends. this is what i believe to be closest to the true nature of our universe.
So, its sort of like competition. take this into consideration:
before alexander graham bell, there was no telephone. then, he invented it, and now there is. that can be seen as oppositity(c) at work. Now, Bell creates a telephone company and is doing Good with his ground-breaking discovery- BUT WHAT HAPPENS?? the oppositity of this new, GOOD, business causes someone else to OPPOSE them and create their OWN PHONE COMAPANY, hence they are now the opposite side of the entire equation.

my conclusion: although it is not always entirely true, forces of energy tend to oppose each other. if not instant, over time.
sorry for the long post

Votorx,

Nothing is basically the absence of "something".

Impossible. If something is absent then it exists. "Nothing" cannot exist.

Without this something, nothing would be non existance,

On the contrary wouldn't you say?

But without nothing there must be something.

That's about right.


Therefore a small concentrated ball of matter was formed, so this "nothing" could exist.

Two points;

a) how is it possible for "nothing" to exist, where would it reside??
b) what/who could have possibly "formed" a ball of matter in the midst of nothing.

With this ball of matter laws were made,

By what/whom, and if it was a natural phenomena, why are the laws so stringent?

Jan Ardena.

wow. it just made sense to me.

why did they create the universe? because there wasnt one.

how amazingly simple!
is this what you're trying to say votorx?

Which "they" is that, zonabi?

another thing to consider is that when dealing with opposites say the words "to fall"
normally the opposite is not to fall however if you go alittle deeper the opposite is indistiguishable for instance the opposite to fall could be tree or cloud or the colour puce.
Opposite but not in similar meaning. The point is that we think of opposites in a linea fashion. White and black are opposite "Colors". White and tree may be opposite precepts etc etc.

Every element and term can only exist if it has an opposing element and or term.

Funny. My theory is that every element and term can only exist if it does'nt have an opposing element or term. Well, mabye your right then......

A state of balance is achieved by the opposites neutralising each other, (-1)+(+1)=0

yes. just like in the matrix, with neo and agent smith.

Sry I haven't been able to post here I'v e been a bit busy But anyways.

Impossible. If something is absent then it exists. "Nothing" cannot exist.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I said nothing is when there is no something. Whether is it in small or large regions. I simply used the word absence because it was convineint and easy to understand.

Now lets take what you just said. Nothing cannot exist but it does when there is no something. Without there being something then there cannot be any nothing. You simply took a part of my theory and restated it.

a) how is it possible for "nothing" to exist, where would it reside??
b) what/who could have possibly "formed" a ball of matter in the midst of nothing.

A) It would reside in itself. Don't think of nothing as a thing but rather as everything that doesn't have a "something".
B) Once again u misunderstood my theory/topic. Read the topic and look at your question.

wow. it just made sense to me.

why did they create the universe? because there wasnt one.

how amazingly simple!
is this what you're trying to say votorx?

I suppose that's one way to put it, but whos the 'they'?

another thing to consider is that when dealing with opposites say the words "to fall"

If you take something like infinite and finite, these can be applied to objects outside of your mind like the infinite space and time. Now if you were to apply the words "to fall" to an actual thing then you should be able to conceive the opposite of "to fall" by negating it. Basically take an object, make it fall. Then take the object again and don't let it fall. There is your opposite. There wouldn't be any "falling" unless there was a possiblity of it not falling at all.

The point is that we think of opposites in a linea fashion. White and black are opposite "Colors". White and tree may be opposite precepts etc etc.

why would they be opposite precepts? You must have left something out from my theory. I explained that no living thing has an opposite due to many factors. Technically a tree is living white is not. The reason why things are living is because there is death.

what exactly is 0 and -1?
Neurocomp2003 I am still waiting for your answer. Maybe someone else will want to answer for him. But try and keep it in the topic.

votorx: I understand your theory. I've had exactly the same one.

It all comes down to justification. For justice to exist, something must exist, since nothing is. Everything cancel eachother, thus nothing is but do not exist.

God was made because of everything that wasn't. He created everything by describing Himself.

We were made with a feeling of nothing - otherwize we couldn't be aware, we were nothing, we had to be able to identify ourselves, and realize that it was wrong. Don't want to go back there.

The first principle must be very simple, but to compensate for nothing it must make something so unimaginable and BIG, the opposite of nothing is not everything but something (the possibility).

The first, God, was infinitly true, cause it was the only thing that existed. He didn't have anything to follow. He followed the truth, it was the only way that existed, it had to be the only way, cause it was the first way, the first thought, the first.

We create meaning where it isn't, and fail to see the meaning which is.


What is the opposite of grey? The bible say, it would be nice if everyone was either warm or cold, but those who are neither I spit out of my mouth.

What is 0 and -1?
Mathematical constructions, that has no meaning outside of it's scope.

You can take a box, and everything inside the box have rules which makes the other things inside true, but as soon they get outside the box they fade away, cause they didn't match the rules of the outside.

One thing that is true, is that something was and because of that something something else had to be (and so on...). More and more was created to compensate for something else. Not sure if I'm talking about the universe or the mind though...

Votorx,

Maybe you misunderstood me. I said nothing is when there is no something.

Then the "nothing" is something. if even just a sort of vessel for the impending "something".

Whether is it in small or large regions.

This would imply mass and dimension, also space outside and/or inside, which implies a source of energy.
"Nothing" basically means no-thing, none of the above or time.

Nothing cannot exist but it does when there is no something.

So are you saying that "nothing" is what "you" cannot comprehend in any way?

Without there being something then there cannot be any nothing. You simply took a part of my theory and restated it.

Maybe i did. I thought you were talking about complete nothingness.

A) It would reside in itself. Don't think of nothing as a thing but rather as everything that doesn't have a "something".

I'm not interpreting "nothing" as a thing, on the contrary. In fact i fail to see how "nothing" exists at all, and the idea of "nothing" being everything that doesn't have a something makes no sense. I would like for you to explain what "nothing" is.

B) Once again u misunderstood my theory/topic. Read the topic and look at your question.

I find your advise slightly condescending, and i hope i'm wrong, but i have read the topic, and am now testing your theory.

Jan Ardena.

Zonabi haven't you heard of conservation of mass and energy. Stars or anything for that matter don't produce energy really, they just convert it from one form to another. Vortex why must everything have an opposite. Then there is fact that your theory violates the above law. Not everything must have an opposite or create an opposite, it just happens that our universe is symmytrical with its particles. Even then opposites are just something we create in our mind, it is no law. For every glass of milk you pour, does one unpour or do get a glass of antimilk along with it somewhere in the universe.

0 and -1 as in the numbers used in mathematics... or do you mean in philosophical terms.

and grey doesn't have an opposite (graphics-> grey is the middle colour on
the RGB colour cube or whatever that cube is.
and 0 is the middle number in intergers
therefore you claim that everything has an opposite is flawed
SLY: even if they are compositions of opposites..his claim was that everything has an opposite so they should too

also your theory is relative...
back to my number example. all integers have opposites except 0.
However if you limit your range to just natural numbers, they will only have opposites(modular opposites) if your set if finite.

SO it depends on what set of concepts you are talking about.

also how do you know that the space we call universe was once empty before?
We do not know that...our "space" could have always something in it.

and what is the opposite of water? ice? then where does mist play into this concept.
and does a sphere have an opposite?

And if you play your card that nothing is the opposite of everything...thats just ridiculous.

"Nothing is dependent on everything being dependent on everything"
Nothing only exists by default.

Ok ok. So maybe the idea of there being opposites are wrong. Like I said in my begginning post I haven't thought much of it and felt like I should post my idea and see what your views were on it. While everything single thing in the universe may not have an opposite there are still aspects in this universe that DO have opposites. And yet at the same time everything may still have an opposite yet we can't conceive this. The definition of opposite is this: Altogether different, ex. nature, quality, or significance. According to this definition everything about that object must be negative for it to be opposite. Yet Everything has something similar and that is that everything exists.

Now as above an opposite of something is completely different from that other thing. This would have to include existance and non-existance. The only opposites of everything in this world are non-existant, therefore we would probably never know what the opposite of anything was. But how is "nothingness" an existant? It can't be. Yet, no one has a valid diffention of existance. Many believe existance is something that lives, something that can be seen, smelt, heard, touched, tasted. I believe that existance is just an atom. No atom = no existance. So insanely stupid sounding yet this is what i believe. Nothing can exist unless consists of 1, just 1 atom. But space, a void doesn't have this 1 atom. it has no matter, has basically nothing. And nothing is the absence of these similarities. So why would nothingness or space exists? Because we think we can see it? But we can't see it, we have the illusion that we can see it because of the absence of light giving it the sense of blackness, yet in reality, we don't see a thing out in space other than the stars/planets existanting in space. We can't smell it, can't taste it, can't see or hear it, and we can't feel it, it has no atoms or matter in it discluding planet and stars, it doesn't even have gravity. It doesn't fit any definition of existance so why would it exists?

To summarize it all basically, nothing is nonexistant, space is nothing. Since it is nonexistant it can be included as an opposite. Yet for it to be itself it must have an existing opposite. That may be why the universe was created.

Of course if these definitions are wrong then my theory could wrong. It was just something i thought up.

P.S - I have another theory of "how the universe was formed". I call it universal cicurlatory. It accepts the idea of infinite smallness and infinite bigness. I might make a thread about it later if, only this time i'm going to think about it more this time.

yes but nothing may not be the opposite something. As you said yourself
maybe we haven't found teh opposite of something. Perhaps its antisomething like in our existence physicists believe in the antimatter/antiparticle which cannot coincide with its counterpart.
Thus in our world one is stable and the other is not. But in the opposite world the anti matter is stable and our world is not
and thus nothing is analogous to grey and 0 as the middle ground or stable
state. Thus if nothing wasn't there then it would persist throughout all "time"

I do not disagree that your idea of opposites holds some ground....but i believe that it is more in terms of relative scales.

just realized i used a double negative
its shoudl read "if nothing was there then..."

No, I still believe that something is the opposite of nothing. Or rather lets use a different word this time. The universe is the opposite of nothing. Within the universe hold all the existence, every existing object is held within the universe. Meanwhile, every nonexisting opposite is held within nothingness or rather space. FYI, I hold the universe as an altogether different thing than space. So wouldn’t that be the opposite right there? The meaning of nothing/space is to hold or represent nonexistent, and vice versa for the universe. So for nothing to exist or rather “be”, there would have to be an existing opposite which would be the universe would it not?

then how would you hold your statement that infinite is the opposite finite
using the analogy that infinite is your universe and nothing is the opposite of universe than infinite is the opposite of 0.

What? you're going to have to explain yourself there.

alright i'll try and answer you question even if i don't understand it.

Infinity is...non existent. Nothing is infinite (im being literal). Everything is finite or rather everything in existence. But there are some exceptions. Such as numbers and time. Yet numbers aren't anything...infinite numbers in our minds are simply continous integers the represent some object in existence. At some point, the object this number is representing will end, yet the number can go on only in our thought process rather, not in reality. In reality, outside our mind, nothing or space is infinite and everything including the universe is finite.

No infinite is not the universe but rather the nothing that's opposing the universe. Infinite does not exist, only finite and that is what's present in this universe. So, relatively, finite would be the opposite of 0. But like I said, numbers are just our thought process, and unless you can apply these integers to reality, then you cannot say that there is such a thing.

I haven't read the entire thread, but was intrigued by you original post because I have thought along those very lines although not quite in the same way. My reasoning was more about the lack for a need of a creator of the universe. I have no physics background whatsoever, so I won't pretend to know details of Big Bang theory or understand anything about cycles (if there are any) of our universe.

But it goes something like this-

Assuming there is "something" because to all of we Earthlings there appears to be plenty of it- there are only 3 states I can imagine for our universe.

Either there has always been "nothing" which appears not to be the case, or there was "nothing" until "something" was manifested or there has always been "something".

It seems folks are mostly hung up on this issue because they assume that there had to be Nothing before there was something, thus a creator was needed for the transition. I don't see why there can't always just have been something. It seems that removing the creator seneario, there would be only two possibilities left, something and nothing, which as far as I am concerned, one would have just a good a chace as the other.

Please read my revised theory which is a few posts before this and think about that before you repost here.

Well now no one is posting, is this because u've accepted my theory or simply have nothing more to say?

Votorx,

Maybe you are taking the wrong approach to the "oposites" point of view.
The opposites are just ways to categorize things. It is like the 24 hour sytem. If we say that an hour is 120 minutes, then the day would have 12 hours. It is just a matter of scale.

Is there anything that you would like to point out on this fact...?

Votorx,

Maybe you are taking the wrong approach to the "oposites" point of view.
The opposites are just ways to categorize things. It is like the 24 hour sytem. If we say that an hour is 120 minutes, then the day would have 12 hours. It is just a matter of scale.

Is there anything that you would like to point out on this fact...?You are right, cold is absence of hot, dark is absence of light.

Though the opposites still exist, in magnets and in "particles and anti-particles", "matter and anti-matter" etc.

Qorl, can I ask you why you chose the handle Qorl?
What does it mean?

Qorl - please don't post your arguments to other threads. I know your thread's been shut down, but threats of divine retribution are way off topic here. If you really want to have a fight with Votorx, send him a private message.

Quantum Quack;
My handle Qorl sounds very good to me, the same as yours to you.

Qorl,

Are you "Jesus"...? :D
i would like to interview (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32853) ya... ;)

Yes Qorl, I understand that, but that wasn't the main point of your post.

Thoughts have their own physical representation and don't relate to the thing except in our own context.

my posts keep going missing...you once said that infinite is the opposite of finite. Now you say that finite is the opposite of nothing/0. SO does that mean your reference to infinite/finite involves nothing.

And in physics if to opposite matters interact they go to nothing
but nothing cannot befored to something...that is energy cannot just arise.

Karl or Qorl, What is it that makes you so confident that you are who you think you are? What abilities do you possess that makes you think you are Jesus?

Neurocomp2003. What I believe is that for something to be an opposite of something else every single attribute of that thing has to be negative. This includes existence and non-existence. For something that exist in this world, it’s opposite is nonexistent. We know that finite is existing and present in many if not all things in the universe. Yet as Quantum Quack suggested in a previous post, there are no infinites outside the boundries of our mind. So does this make infinity non-existent? Well if Quantum Quack and the other’s whom agreed with him are right, then infinity is non-existent, the exact opposite of finite. Now, I believe nothing is non-existent, since it is basically the absence of an existent. So why could this not be the opposite of a something or rather the universe? Wherever you heard me say finite was the opposite of nothing then I made a mistake or you have made a mistake. I’m basically saying (with the risk of sounding science fictional), that nothingness is the “realm” of non-existents, and the universe is the realm of the existents. All opposites of the universe dwell in nothingness, or something similar to that effect.

Now, as I suggested before, everything must have an opposite for it to "be" (notice i didn't use the word exist). There must be an opposite of nothingness for there to be nothing...so something must be created to uphold this nothingness. For every negative there's a positive and vice versa.

Quantum Quack, and Qorl, please take you little conversation into pm, or create a thread for yourself. Here, stick to the topic

Truthseeker. Please explain yourself on what u mean by opposites being a organizer and not reality. Also read the post before this one to understand what im trying to get at...

Qorl. Your empty threats are obviously not scaring anyone. Your thread will not be open so if you have some divine punishment use it now or forever hold your peace (sounds like a marriage). I think the worst thing you can do is send a virus to our computer, lol im shaking.

so your saying infinity and nothing are the same.

and for nothing to "be" it must be the opposite of something?

No. Nothing is where everything that does not exist in our reality, the opposite of everything in the universe, dwells or rather “is”. Meanwhile, the universe, or the opposite of nothing, is where, in our reality, everything that does exist, to our perspective, is held. So yes, for nothing to “be” it must be the opposite of something, not just anything, but the universe.

Basically, to put it simply, nothingness is our opposite reality. In nothingness, there is a universe of opposites, to us these are nonexistent, but they exist in nothing.

Yet as Quantum Quack suggested in a previous post, there are no infinites outside the boundries of our mind. So does this make infinity non-existent? Well if Quantum Quack and the other’s whom agreed with him are right, then infinity is non-existent, the exact opposite of finite

I am not sure where I implied the above.

The finite is not opposite to the infinte it is in fact a part of the infinite and Vica Versa.

As there are no boundaries to our minds then nothing can exist beyond something that doesn't exist. Circular logic yes?

Yes u said something to this extent. In a previous thread, no post my fault, you explained that there is no such thing as infinity. The threade is called infinity finite or finite infinity, it's around 3 pages back.

I am 100% positive in that thread, you explained why infinity could not exist, infact it was that thread which got me thinking about this theory.

I am sorry Vortorx But the reason I started the thread was to argue For the existence of infinity. I do hope I haven't mislead you or others.


Many years ago when pondering the infinite I developed a not so original idea that to achieve a finite state in a sea of infinity a duality of infinite actions must exist.

A grain of sand exists as finite because of these opposing infinite forces.

The premise of all my physics understandings has been based on this fundamental. That everything is infinite but achieves a finite state because of the polarisations with in the infinite.

Since reading this forum for some time I have become aware that physics and math have some concern about handling the infinite.

I take the stance that the infinite has to be considered in all equations. The reason being that if something came from nothing and nothing is infinite then infinite forces etc are at play to create and maintain the finite.

I ask whether my approach to the infinitely finite is flawed and whether some one would be kind enough to explain why this is so?


Vortorx I do feel this is a very minor point in your theory though.

I also feel that there is always an exception to the rule. No matter how thorough a theory is there will always be some exceptions, this I am afraid is the nature of the beast.

A question That I have pondered on for some time when dealing with the polarizing of opposites is that between the opposites exists soemthing also. What exists do you think?

Between a north and south pole of a bar magnet exists something?

I don't understand your question. dealing with the polarizing of opposites is that between the opposites exists soemthing also What would exist between the opposites?

The north and south pole of a bar magnet, may just be opposing elements. They oppose each other, draw away, retract from each other but this does not mean they are opposites. They have to many similar properties to be appropriate negatives. Therefore they are just opposing objects, not opposites. Kinda like good and evil.

Does anyone need varifying on what I think opposites are?

The question Vortorx with all due respect is that there are grey areas in a sea of opposites. And it is this grey area that fills in the picture.

Nothing vs something,. What is in between? Surreality? both physical and metaphysical. Like falling asleep. One minute wide awake the next asleep, As you loose consciousness the reality you live in departs and eventually ceases to exist (nothing). But there is definitely some thing between consciousness and unconsciousness.

But then votorx you say something arises from nothing because it opposites doesn't the opposite also applly frmo something there arises nothing...thus nothing should ever exist.

As soon as there is a something to oppose nothing(whatever the hell that means) there is no longer nothing. Nothing can only be nothing, and with nothing there are no rules, there is NOTHING, the human brain has a hard time comprehending the concept of nothing. There could easily be nothing without something, thats the only way there could be nothing, and nothing could never change in any way.

Quantum Quack
To many things to list. I could see matrix and if I'm interested in something I could get an answer right away. Answer is not exact right I have to figure it out. Plus, you and me are spirits not just a flesh walking creatures as this world thinks. I give to a BigBlueHead and to Votorx a question and they still didn't get it. My thoughts are energy the same as my spirit and the universe. :)Hi Qorl, so you think you are Jesus?

There are roles which people take on, maybe you identified with the role that Jesus had?

If you are serious about it that is. You should think twice about that crystalinks site, it's just hype. Trust yourself, have you seen any aliens lately? Otherwise, trust things you know are true, it doesn't have to be true, just because it seems so. If it seems true based on your experiance, then find out if your experiance really matches what seems true.

To make it clear. Imagine this scenario:

Star Trek had a show when you were a child, in the show a UFO stayed inside a black hole. The show was very interesting and your imagination went galactic.

(I didn't see much Star Trek myself, so this example isn't from my own experiance)

Now you are 30 years old, and read from a website that there might be aliens hiding inside black hole, you don't remember the Star Trek episode, but you remember the feeling of amazement. Now you connect that feeling with amazement with truth, and thus you connect the "aliens in black hole" with truth.

This may - or may not, be true in your case. I don't think you are Jesus though, then you better give me a hint.

Just so you understand me, I myself believe that there are aliens, and I believe that there might have been UFO's visiting. There have been too many observations to ignore it. Though, I feel that some sites (like crystalinks) make the fact ignored because they angle it in a "healing - crystals" way. Or more or less a hippie way.

If UFO's are real then why don't reflect it in a real way? Or in a way that people can take in.

I think the main thing to consider is the "big deal " aspect. Obviously Qorl has had some experiences that basically have blown him away. I call this the "Big Deal " effect.
Personally I have no doubt about the existence of alien life but consider it hardly worth mentioning. Yes I have had experiences that lead to this knowledge but so what?
What is the big deal about there being alien life?

It's not as if it didn't exist before we considered it. Alien life has existed for a lot longer that we think. Again so what?

If you take on a more universal perspective it's no longer all that amazing. In fact it would be more amazing if there wasn't alien life.

Many persons claim to be reborn and most claim an earlier life of fame. Fine, so what?

If Jesus is truely reborn then he sure hasn't been born with a message of love and compassion nor an abiity to heal or ressurect etc etc.... For surely if he was we would see it on TV and not just here at the forum.

So I would suggest that Qorl is having great difficulty trying to comprehend his present torment and in doing so is trrying to rationalise his experiences which he is barely coping with.
He feels he has experienced something HE feels would blow others away and in doing so creates a nightmare for himself and all who try to understand him.
I wish him the ability to find peace and put his mind back together again and learn to cope with whoever or whatever he is and not just what he believes he is.

I think the main thing to consider is the "big deal " aspect. Obviously Qorl has had some experiences that basically have blown him away. I call this the "Big Deal " effect.
Personally I have no doubt about the existence of alien life but consider it hardly worth mentioning. Yes I have had experiences that lead to this knowledge but so what?
What is the big deal about there being alien life?

It's not as if it didn't exist before we considered it. Alien life has existed for a lot longer that we think. Again so what?

If you take on a more universal perspective it's no longer all that amazing. In fact it would be more amazing if there wasn't alien life.

Many persons claim to be reborn and most claim an earlier life of fame. Fine, so what?

If Jesus is truely reborn then he sure hasn't been born with a message of love and compassion nor an abiity to heal or ressurect etc etc.... For surely if he was we would see it on TV and not just here at the forum.

So I would suggest that Qorl is having great difficulty trying to comprehend his present torment and in doing so is trrying to rationalise his experiences which he is barely coping with.
He feels he has experienced something HE feels would blow others away and in doing so creates a nightmare for himself and all who try to understand him.
I wish him the ability to find peace and put his mind back together again and learn to cope with whoever or whatever he is and not just what he believes he is.I agree with you. I myself, have had experiances which I thought would be very interesting for others to hear about, and sometimes it turns out they are common (like sleep-paralyzis).

Though I have a couple of experiances that I know is pretty much unique (I only know one person that may have experianced the same things). It's weird, cause when one of us experiance something, then the other one is almost bound to experiance the same thing - or have experianced the same thing earlier. This relation in itself is a unique experiance I guess. It isn't just coincidents, these things have been going on since we were children, I haven't seen this kind of connection with anyone else (though one of my friends seem to have a similar relation, but they aren't opposites (read below to understand)). Another thing that is weird about this, is that the relations seem to be opposites. If I hurt myself on the left leg, then it turns out that he has hurt himself on the right leg (or sometimes on the right arm - if it's really opposite). Our family situation is similar as well, our problems and situations in life are also similar. What we like and so on are also similar. But often - or more correctly allways - opposite, I say often, cause there might be something I've missed and often is still true to allways - just less true.

inter-relationships between people are truelly amzingly diverse. Every now and then something stands out to us and we consider this with amazement and wonder. For some people this standing out is enough to set the persons imagination off into all sorts of speculatory paths and belief systems are built that can and often do create incredible problems for the believer and those he has contact with.

This is quite a natural process that for some leads to institutional care.

The thing is science and the crytical thinker will consider experiences as imaginary or delusional and immediately there is a desire to prove something that can't be proved properly which leads to confrontation and again in some cases institutional care.
I would suggest that the experiences are not necessarilly imaginary however the understanding of these experiences may be some what confused.

Nothing vs something,. What is in between? Surreality? both physical and metaphysical.

Why must there be something inbetween? If I'm getting something wrong then I apologize but it doesn't seem logical that there must be something inbetween 2 different aspects. When you fall asleep, you are mentally dispersing from the world and entering your own imagination. But in reality you are still there. While you are asleep everything around you continues and reality is still around you. Just because you imagination takes over doesn't mean that you leave reality, and reality ceases to exist. In fact what happens while you sleep IS due to reality.

But then votorx you say something arises from nothing because it's opposites, doesn't the opposite also applly frmo something there arises nothing...thus nothing should ever exist.

No. Because there has always been nothing. Nothing does not exist, so something must exist for it to be. Maybe you are having trouble comprehending what im trying to say because we both have 2 different views on existance and nonexistence. I believe for something to exist it must have some kinda similar aspect to everything else, it can even be as small as 1 atom. Now if it doesn't have anything like this then i cannot exist. Space is nothingness, it doesn't exist to some extent. Like i explained before we can't see space, we cant smell, eat, touch, taste or hear it. It has not atoms and is in no way existent. But just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it won't effect us. Becuase it does effect us. This is just like nothing, nothing really is space and nothing effects us like space because out of it came the birth of the universe. Even things such as imaginary beasts and boogiemen effected us in some way, such imaginary things can drive people insane or even does such outstandingly stupid things like suicide. But does this mean it exist? No it doesn't, but it still effects them directly, so why couldn't nothing, the supposed opposite of the universe, do the same? thus nothing should ever exist. That doesn't make sense.

As soon as there is a something to oppose nothing(whatever the hell that means) there is no longer nothing. Nothing can only be nothing, and with nothing there are no rules, there is NOTHING, the human brain has a hard time comprehending the concept of nothing. There could easily be nothing without something, thats the only way there could be nothing, and nothing could never change in any way.

What is space then? Space is just another way of saying nothing yet it is still there.

Vortorx maybe this statement will help.
Absolute Nothing is dependent of Absolutely everything being dependent on absolutely everything.

replace the word dependent with the word relationship or other etc etc.
Absolute nothing is and can only be acheived by default when everything is in a relationship with everything.
I hope it makes sense to you.

Qorl,
What you say is fine, thank you I will look forward to the day that you are proved correct. Next!!!!

I give to a BigBlueHead and to Votorx a question and they still didn't get it.

There's a difference between "not getting it" and "not agreeing with you". The thought of an apple is only energy in the most basic sense. The pattern that it represents has a physical presence within your brain and is interpreted/used by your brain as being a thought of an apple. This works in the context of your brain, and doesn't require a Great Engineer to put the thought there.

It's nice that you believe in Alien God but you haven't convinced me, so you can't use Alien Him to prove other things to me 'cause I don't believe in him.

Your assuming that there is always nothing. Where does this assumption come from?

You said that because there always is nothing there is a something. But inorder for them to be opposites vice versa has to eb true. But as I sit looking out my window there is always something and no nothing. So
"nothing" can never exist

Your assuming that there is always nothing. Where does this assumption come from?

You said that because there always is nothing there is a something. But inorder for them to be opposites vice versa has to eb true. But as I sit looking out my window there is always something and no nothing. So
"nothing" can never exist

Nothing isn't going to sit outside your window waving at you neurocomp. Nothing is space, the region of nothing outside our planets atmosphere. It is the small irrelevant space where no atoms or molecules are present, like the small space inbetween the millions of small microscopic atoms floating in the air. You can't "see" nothing. Like you can't see air, it's just there because it effects us in some way.

I get the assumption from many things. But one of the biggest reasons i think this is true is because there had to be a beginning to everything. Before the beginning of the birth of the universe, before the ball of matter which caused the big bang was formed, there had to be something or...there would be nothing. If there was something before the beginning of the universe and always have been then it would be a continous endless paradox. A never-ending series of begginnings which cannot be since there had to be something to start everything. So for this to happen, before this one thing started everything, there had to be simply, nothing.

Vortorx maybe this statement will help.
Absolute Nothing is dependent of Absolutely everything being dependent on absolutely everything.

replace the word dependent with the word relationship or other etc etc.
Absolute nothing is and can only be acheived by default when everything is in a relationship with everything.
I hope it makes sense to you.

I understand what u are saying. But is it you mean when you say Absolutely everything being dependent on absolutely everything? Why would this be so?

P-l-e-a-s-e, all of you, study correlation and regression!! :D

correlation and regression in the statistics sense? what about it?

correlation and regression in the statistics sense? what about it?
Hehehe... :D
I'm just joking about the fact that they are discussing things without really taking into account wheter there is any correlation about them or not... :D
Ie... this whole discussion of everything and nothing and on the dependance of everything and blah blah blah... :cool:

Nothing isn't going to sit outside your window waving at you neurocomp. Nothing is space, the region of nothing outside our planets atmosphere. It is the small irrelevant space where no atoms or molecules are present, like the small space inbetween the millions of small microscopic atoms floating in the air. You can't "see" nothing. Like you can't see air, it's just there because it effects us in some way.

you are right there, but i wouldn't call it "irrelevant space" !!
this space is very important to your existance, though you wont understand that. there might not be atoms or molecules but rather spiritual energy of the universe.

you see- you've found the difference between what i call "realitease" and the higher spiritual world that lies all around us and in the voids of dark space. this is where the creators of the galaxies reside and contemplate the status of the universe. our universe is a tightly knit fabric and they are always patching up holes and fixing it...

- there are two very seperate "dimensions" if u will that dominate our reality, existance, and purpose. they are seemingly opposite dimensions, as you would probably say- they are the two that you named:
-matter
-anti-matter

you spoke of them as being opposites- when u stated that in order for something to have an opposite it must be negative. true to an extent.
you see, the VOIDs of space , which u claim as being the opposite of our reality- are indeed on opposite ends of the existance spectrum.
in one you have our reality in which we seem to be souls trapped in physical bodies on a big rock-- and on the other side you have the darkest ends of space, the 'universe' which you may not know but it is full of energy, even though its invisible to computer's eyes and mathematical analysis--
its waves, energy, the opposite of your atoms- they arent physical therefore they dont need any real positive 'space' - like u said, its nothing.

you are touching the sands of time and uncovering the true origins of the universe, but you lack spirituality.

The strange thing about all this is that if we agree that the opposite of something is nothing then it follows that the opposite of negative is nothing as well. Because negative is something therefore it's opposite is nothing.
This logic means that everything has only one true opposite and that is nothing.

Opposite of positive ( something) is nothing. Or so the argument suggests.

The only thing outside of everything "isn't".

Zonabi, I don't believe in spirituality. I called that space irrevelent as an expression, but if you read my posts you would see that i hold that space with high importance since it is the reason why the universe exists today. As for being spiritual, you are right, i do not believe in spirituality and never will.

Quantum Quack. What makes negative something? Isn't negative just a thought, a word we use to express what we mean? Nothing isn't "something" just an action really.

This logic means that everything has only one true opposite and that is nothing.
Why couldn't we say that all opposites dwell in nothing? Just like our reality dwells in the universe. I do not want to call it this, because I do not believe it is this, but you can relate this idea as an alternate universe.

The only thing outside of everything "isn't". What do u mean?

The problem with trying to understand "Nothing" is that as soon as you apply a concept or idea to it it ceases being "nothing". So "Nothing" can only exist ny default and not as "Something"

The only way to fully close the argument about "nothing" is to relate to everything as absolute. Only when everything i(Something) is absolute does "nothing" become truely nothing. The notion of nothing becomes just a concept that only exists as a series of words in our imagination.
There fore
The only thing outside of everything isn't .....holds true.

I was using the word negative to express a pole of energy say a negatively charged electron. Soem may say that it's opposite is a positively charged electron but I am suggesting that the opposite is in fact "Nothing" as an electron is something afterall and as stated the opposite to something is " " precisely

i think in the world opposite to our world; electrons are positively charged, causing incredible differences in the way our world and their world function. perhaps this explain the VOIDs of space and black holes and some of the mysteries of outer space and the universe? ?

its like the :alternate universe: u mentioned.
theres many of them. im sorry but u have to believe in spirituality kind of :(

tell me votorx. do u believe in aliens ( or other life forms in other galaxies ) ?

is there any stuff on positive electrons?

Zonabi, I do believe there are aliens, I do not believe we have been visited and I do not believe we ever will be.

Why couldn't an Atom (A = Protons, B = Neutrons, C = Electrons)

E E

ABAB
E AB E
ABAB

E E

Have an opposite such as this? (A = Protons, B = Neutrons, C = Electrons)

-A -A

E-BE-B
-A E-B -A
E-BE-B

-A -A

Sry for the crude drawing. I am no scientist and I made this diagram logically, not scientifically. What I am wondering is, are there any, laws which deny such a thing of being true? And if so, why?

Html code prevents me from showing the actual diagram, Press reply to see the drawing of the atom.

Votorx,

If I understood what you draw... protons never go around an atom... As for anti-protons... I don't think so... but I never studied with anti-protons anyways... :D But as far as I know, anti-protons would behave like regular protons...

votorx, let me try and get this straight:

you believe the reason the universe was created was to oppose the nothingness that you claim came before it ? you have good arguments with your atomic knowledge, and i for one am interested in your ideas, but i have to throw this one at you:

if so, what do u think our reason is for us being here ?

please dont tell me you think we are just some by-products of a coincidental accident of the perfect alignments of strange celestial bodies producing the extraordinarily perfect conditions for intelligent, soulfull & creative life forms?

and for the record, what makes you so sure that we havent, and wont ever, be visited by aliens? PM me if u dont want to talk about that on this thread.

i would like to see the drawing of the atom, if you would please email it to me, or something. i bet its interesting.

you believe the reason the universe was created was to oppose the nothingness that you claim came before it Basically, yes. To put it simple I’ve been trying to explain why and how everything has an opposite, and that nothing can exist in the universe without having an opposite. This nothing that came before the universe had to have some kinda of opposing element for it to “be”. Kinda of like a paradox...if there is nothing there would have to be a something, but what is there if there is no something and no nothing, then there would be nothing again... or would there, but there would be no nothing...so what would there be? O.o. Anyways....

what do u think our reason is for us being here ? I don’t know...Maybe we are the final product of the elements needed to oppose death, or inanimitation (word I made up to express the nature of inanimate objects). Every animal has a certain characteristic which separates them from each other. Some have the ability to fly, others breath under water. Some a born with 4 legs, other born with 2, some 3, and others 8. Maybe we came into existence as a sentient life form to oppose stupidity present in all other things, or the unintelligence found in nonexistence. Its possible that, in this alternate universe that my theory has picked up on, humans are as smart as beetles, who knows?

and for the record, what makes you so sure that we havent, and wont ever, be visited by aliens? This is going just a little off topic but im going to take the risk of a topic change and answer it anyways. Even though humans have been on the earth for such a short amount of time within history, it is still illogical to think that all aliens are advanced enough to do something that’s physically impossible. Correct me if im wrong but light speed has been dubbed impossible to accomplish. If this is true then the hundreds of light-years that seperate our solar system from other systems and galaxies will make traveling to these other planets virtually impossible. Maybe sometimes, billions of years later, when we’ve populated enough planets and slowly make out way across the universe, WE might be able to find aliens on other planets. But to tell you the truth I think we will die out before we make it out of our own galaxy..

PS If you noticed, We are a very rare case. 1 out of the billions and billions of species found on planet has any kind of considerable amount of intelligence. Not only that but these other animals have been present on earth much longer than we have. Why haven’t they devoloped into an intelligent life form? Maybe alien life forms on other planets are just as smart as a wild dog.

What was originally a fairly simple, easy to understand theory is now turning into a complicated pile of scattered thoughts. I think I need to take a little while to recollect on what I’m trying to prove because im starting to lose myself, Im going to post my third revised theory in maybe the next day or 2.

Revised Theory #3:

Now before I tell you about my theory again I wish to give you a few terms to help understand my theory:

1. Nothing/Nothingness/Space/Void – A realm of non-existence. A region where an “alternate universe” contains the opposites of our reality. This region can be found where are universe doesn’t dwell, Ex. Space.

2. Opposites/Opposity/Negatives – An object of complete negativity from our reality. Everything about these objects are completely opposite from our reality, this include existence and non-existence. For something to be an opposite it must be the non-existent to its opposing element. Therefore these opposites dwell in the nothing which surrounds our universe.

3. Universe/Our Reality/ Nothing’s Opposite – Our universe is our reality. We as humans dwell in this universe which was contrived out of nothing. Everything that is the opposites of the objects which dwell in nothing can be found in this universe, whether it be on our planet or in some distant star.

4. My Theory of Opposites – For something to exist in our universe, its opposite must exist in the nothing/space that surrounds us. If there is no opposite, then it cannot exist.

Ok, hopefully I’ve been able to explain these terms thoroughly enough for everyone to understand. With this out of the way I will go onto my theory:

Science and logic both reveal that before the birth of the universe there was an endless vastness of nothing. The length of this space/void goes on for all inifinty and has always been there before there was any trace of the universe. This is impossible since this endless void of space cannot “be” without its counter-active opposite. Yet if this nothing wasn’t there, then there would have to be something (paradox), but as we all know there was no something at the some time. According to my theory of opposites for there to be nothing there would have to be an opposing element, which, using simple logic, would have to be something. So, to uphold this law, the opposite of nothing must be created even if it was as small as an atom. How it was created is beyond me, but this is WHY the universe was created, to uphold my theory of opposites or rather the theory of Ying and Yang.

I tried making this theory as short and simple as possible I hope u can understand it. I am open again to any questions if my theory was unclear or simply wrong by your standards.

To be conceived of as a state, "literally nothing" is self-contradictory, because it's basically a state in which nothing exists, as determined by the rules relating to the use of the word "nothing". In other words, it's a rule-bound state - the state consists of literally nothing, therefore there can be nothing there, by decree of the definition of "nothing" - therefore there must, in fact, be rules forever present in the state - thus there can't really be "nothing there."

To begin from "nothing" but avoid such contradictions, you really have to have a state representing even less than "literally nothing" - a state devoid of all apparent content, including rules. This shift towards a state that is only "apparently nothing" is conceptually helpful, because in the absence of any rules, the nature of the state is unpredictable - it is inherently unstable & thus may well change into "something" (such as a "universe"), without requiring any mysterious reason for doing so....

Well then, if that is true then what do u believe there was before the birth of the universe?

Rules aren't a thing, they aren't objects, atoms, they are literally a certain perimeter which all things, whether existing in our reality or not, must follow. Just because there is nothing there does not mean that all rules are devoided. To state that there must be something for there to be laws, while not having support about such a thing, is irrelevant. To put it simply, many if not all rules are always present no matter what state, even in our subconcious and in our dreams there are certain rules limiting us to what we can and cannot do.

Votorx can I ask you what you majored in? and are you a "god" believing person? I take it you've never studied computatibility, neuroscience
or Q physics or Relativity.

There is no evidence to suggest there was ever a time of a beginning t=0.
The so called big bang theory, is a local phenomenon (local of course being in astronomical distances). THere also is no evidence to show that the universe as we all know it was always there.
This is an open ended question. Probably with no answer in our lifetime

That said there exists 4 options
1) nothing-> something
2) nothing->nothing
3) something->nothin
4) something->something

option 2 of course will never have occured. And I doubt the universe will ever end (again my own opinion). So it comes down to 1 and 4. Personally
for the big bang to occur and create what we have now there would have to be something that was lost. Thus I believe in 4 that substances has persisted throughout all "time". That there was never a state of nothing.

And your definition #1 is very vague...how do you incorporate antimatter it exists only in ms.

and as for your definition of dreams I am confused...you say that all rules and opposites can exist but there are limitations? We can defy anylaw as long as we can think of it. Thats why there are so many scifi writers out there.

The so called big bang theory, is a local phenomenon (local of course being in astronomical distances). THere also is no evidence to show that the universe as we all know it was always there.

I never said that there was a big bang, i am just saying my theory on why the universe was created MAY have led to the big bang theory.

and are you a "god" believing person?

No, which is why i came up with this theory so i can prove that god did not create the universe.

There is no evidence to suggest there was ever a time of a beginning t=0.
What evidence suggest that there was never a time of a beginning?

for the big bang to occur and create what we have now there would have to be something that was lost. Thus I believe in 4 that substances has persisted throughout all "time". That there was never a state of nothing.

I believe there was a beginning. I believe something had to create this substance at some time, rather it being there for all eternity. It is redicilous to think that, a substance that had been in existance for all eternity would suddenly have a bigbang only a few billion years from today. Relatively, that few billions year could be compared to a trillionth of a millisecond in our reality. I believe your defintion of #4 is very vague as well, more vague than my definiton of #1.

and as for your definition of dreams I am confused...you say that all rules and opposites can exist but there are limitations? We can defy anylaw as long as we can think of it.
Maybe in our mind we think we defy such laws but in reality it's not so. Just thinking we can fly without no mechanical help isn't going to make us float in midair now is it? Anyways, with that interpretation of dreams was only a responce to bubblecar's post and should not be interpreted into my theory.

1) you didn't answer about your educational background? philosophy? science? etc.
2) i never said there was evidence to show that there never existed a t=0
I said there was no evidence to show that t=0

3) it is not ridiculous to think that substance persists forever. Put it this way in a local region of the universe there could exist a grid structure of H atom
and then some outside force perturbs it to what we have now. AND

QUOTE "It is redicilous to think that, a substance that had been in existance for all eternity would suddenly have a bigbang only a few billion years from today. "
If you have not studied chaos theory, dynamical systems or cellular automata you would not understand how a simple system could cause a big explosion. Also there is a theory out there that there may have been multitude of big bangs out there at different times...therefore you second part is valid.

Also there is always grey matter areas, therefore not necessarily existing opposites.

I agree with neurocomp as far as creation of the universe goes as it could not have created itself from "nothing", and my understanding of the big bang theory was that it was gas particles that caused the explosion in the 1st place but perhaps im wrong?? Also i think sayin its ridiculous for substances to always have existed even before our current universe(there possably was previous ones that expanded and collapsed??? could that be the cause of the big bang???) is a frankly stupid statement, the size of the universe is a concept humans struggle to grasp as is the concept that "something" may have existed for trillions of years before our universe. The fact is "something" had to have existed for all time to lead onto "something" else, unless im much mistaken no object can appear from nothingness.(though i'd be very interested if someone wants to prove me wrong) :)

"Rules aren't a thing, they aren't objects, atoms"

Rules don't need to be "objects" in order to make a mockery of the claim that "there's nothing there". If you are claiming that "rules are present in the state", you are referring to characteristics that must be manifested in some tangible way, or you're just making unsupportable assertions. And if such characteristics can be shown to really exist in the state, it's certainly not true that there's "nothing there".

Alas, our minds are too feeble to grasp the concept of nothingness, existence, this, that, etc. To say that there has to be something before something else can be created, however, is silly and frought with biased, perception-based assumptions. Truly, such things are irrelevant to "truth".

I don't know, but I am quite tired of posting in this thread. Feel free to continue discussing what you must but after 5 pages of continous responce, I have grown very bored of this same subject and will no longer post about my theory. Believe what you for now because your guess is a good as mine.

I think now i understand more the meaning of this word "GOD". God is the one who created this ball and made something from nothing.

I NEVER CREATED THIS THEORY TO SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GOD!!!
The reason I made up this theory to why the universe was created is to prove that there is a possibility of the universe being created without the use of god or any other supernatural deity.

but if there is god there is always something.

Which is why, according to my theory, there is NO GOD.

yes but in your theory something came out of nothing.....

Do to the law of opposites...

ok can we not bring god into a perfectly good scientific discussion???

Just thought I'd post this passage from a longer post I've made on this theme, in another forum....

...Firstly there is a basic matter of terminology - in a cosmological context, people tend to think of the term "nothing" in a literal, absolute sense, instead of trying to equate it with a rationally describable state, the most minimal state to which the world can be reduced. I've argued in the past that we can speak of a universe arising ex nihilo, as long as we use a definition of "nothing" that is both logically self-consistent & potentially capable of being related to a "real" state underlying physical states that are empirically accessible. Though some may find this tactic initially confusing, I would maintain that conceptually, it can provide us with a useful picture.

For many people there is really only one conceptual choice - the universe either arose from "literally nothing" ("nothing" as defined by the dictionary), or has always existed (either as some kind of "steady state" or "cyclic" model). Much of the enthusiasm for the latter option stems from the assumption that a cosmos "with no beginning" is "easier to understand" than one which arose from an initial state. In fact, the opposite can be expected to be the case - the complex world we inhabit is likely to remain eternally mysterious if it has just "always been there", whereas if it arose from a simpler state - a fundamental, minimal state embodying the largest possible potential for change - it is potentially explicable.

What's wrong with conceptually transposing "literally absolutely nothing" into a "state"? The answer is that the state would have to be "rule-bound" in order to eternally embody the definition of the term "absolutely nothing". The state could never change, because in order to do so, there would have to be a "potential for change" present, in which case the state would really contain "something" & be contradictory. But the rule that "there can be no potential for change (or anything else) in this state", would itself have to be manifested somehow in the state, as a real characteristic enabling us to determine the rule-bound nature of the state - thus there wouldn't really be "nothing there", therefore a state of "literally, absolutely nothing" is inherently self-contradictory.

To arrive at an idea of "nothingness as a fundamental, minimal state, embodying maximum potential for change", involves stripping the cosmos of its history, including apparent "laws" & all the structures that they & billions of years of interaction have brought into the world. Instead of some eternally calm, quiet world we would expect this "apparent" (rather than "literal") nothingness to be inherently unstable - there are no rules present to keep it stable, & no consequential "prior events" that could probabilistically favour one type of initial, simple change over another. Thus we should expect the "maximum potential for change" to be an inherent characteristic of the most minimal state to which we can reduce describable states - random instability is what you get when you remove historical structures & their specific templates ("laws") from the world around us.

So the idea of "cause & effect" is not really violated - the universe arose from nothing because it is in the nature of nothingness to change, & the world we inhabit is presumably just one of the infinite range of things that nothingness can look like, after billions of years of change.

I feel ur still missing the main point, things dont just 'appear' out of thin air, theres nothing in the palm of my hand, nothing will ever just 'appear' there, no matter wot the happens, its the same basic principle but on a grander scale with the universe, it couldnt just appear because there needs to be 'something' or because there is 'nothing'. As crazy as it may sound the possibility is there that there have been many universes throughout all time, expanding and then collapsing, we might be in the 50th universe out of many. Unfortunately we will never know because it is impossible to workout what was there before our universe, we can only speculate, and i speculate gas particles or something were there to from our universe(as you can probably tell im no expert just a crazy science nut, and i dont pretend to be right im just throwing up suggestions for thought) :)

Ahhh I didn't want to post on here again but Lemming's reply just annoys me. Let me make something clear there is always something within the palm of your hand whether or not you can see it. Simple small things such as germs and other elementary ideas exist all over your body at all times. The reason things cannot appear out of thin air is because something already exists where it would need to come into its state of existence. Of course many other rules of phsyics or whatever contradict that idea anyways it just me talking. That's all i wanted to say.

ok i made a bad comparison, but the germs r there bcoz i am there, if i wasnt there, there would b no hand and no germs, if the earth wasnt here then there wouldnt be nething 2 replace it, there would b 8 planets in the solar system etc i think u understand the point im tryin 2 make i just compared it to sumthing badly, my bad

ok i made a bad comparison, but the germs r there bcoz i am there, if i wasnt there, there would b no hand and no germs, if the earth wasnt here then there wouldnt be nething 2 replace it, there would b 8 planets in the solar system etc i think u understand the point im tryin 2 make i just compared it to sumthing badly, my bad


If there was no hand there would still be the germs. It just wouldn't exist on that hand just in another place entirly. Let me make an example: There are 2 possibilities to what is going to happen. I take a cloth which is ontop of a table. There's silverware ontop of this cloth. Now lets sake i pull the cloth as hard possible. Either the silverware is gonna allow it to slip right under it and land perfectly on the table, or it's going to follow the cloth and fall on the floor. Just because the cloth is missing does not mean the silverware will become non existent as well.

Hopefully you see my point. Another point i want to get by you is, there is no natural law needed to uphold the solar system, where if a planet was to dissapear then the solar system would no longer be able to uphold its stability. If the earth was never created then so be it, it would not affect the picture over all since there is no actual natural law needed to preserve the solar system with an exact # of planets. If there had been a law (such as my law of opposites) then a planet would have been created in its place, just like the universe was created out of nothing. Do u understand?

i never mentioned the planet dissappearing, if it wasnt there in the 1st place then there may not have been another planet in its place, theres no scientific way to prove a planet would/wouldnt be created in its place. Also you cannot create something(whatever that may be) out of nothing. You cannot create or destroy matter which is what the universe is made out of, however you can change its form, there has to have been matter in some form before the universe existed.

Ok if u cannot create matter than explain to me how the universe came to be without that stupid common idea that the universe always "was".

Oh yes and also explain this to me. While we cannot create and dystroy matter why can't natural law do so? Is it because it's truly is impossible or because we cannot comprehend enough of natural law to understand why?

my opinion is that matter changed form to become the universe, i shall again repeat the big bang theory, gas particles collided and exploded to create the universe, if this is so then matter existed previously and changed form to become what we now know as the universe. Also i would like to ask you about the theory of opposites, if everything has an opposite and so the universe became, then what is now the opposite of something since theres no longer nothing? does it no longer have an opposite? also does it mean that one day the universe will return to its form of nothing for want of an opposite form??? i do admit your theory ties in with the theory of the universe expanding and collapsing (since it would go back to its original from, whatever that may be) and may be possible IF one day science proves you can create objects from nothing, in which case i would gladly accept it :) (im just not sure where exactly 'nothing' is in the universe now as an opposite)

So to summarize all of that u basically believe matter existed for all eternity. If such a thing happened then why aren't there hundres of big bangs all around us? Gas must have collided hudreds of times over the billion years of existence right?

Anyways, who says there is no longer nothing? I do not wish to reexplain my theory AGAIN, so i would ask of you to please go back around a page or 2 and find my third revised theory, there you should find my theory of opposites. If u have any questions just ask. And that will also explain why objects were created from nothing. It will not return to nothingness either.

I honestly think this Taoist-like kind of "theory" is already cliche... :D

But anyways... :rolleyes:

Matter doesn't have to have always existed. In the brane theory, two empty universes collide and they heat up, and than matter is created. But...

Yeah well... whatever... :D

Space is a vacuum, gas doesnt collide in space, it collides on stars, hundreds of hydrogen explosions occur on the surface of the sun everyday, so yes gas has collided hundreds of times over the last billion years, just it happens on the surface of stars not in the vacuum of space.:)
(sorry I dont know how to quote but you said this in your 3rd revised theory) 4. My Theory of Opposites – For something to exist in our universe, its opposite must exist in the nothing/space that surrounds us. If there is no opposite, then it cannot exist.

That means that there is a nothingness out there somewhere, if we ever find it, i'll believe your theory, for now I dont think either of us will change our minds so shall we agree to disagree as we are starting to go round in circles? (though can I ask why the universe wont return to nothingness if a nothingness doesnt exist out there now to coincide with it?):)

I don't understand you question Lemmin3k.

TruthSeeker - My theory is cliche? So that must mean that it has been thought up before many times right? Can you possibly give me an example because I've never heard of the universe being created from opposites before... And er... I thought matter couldn't be created??? (...)

Lemming, as i said before I am bored with this theory but I have a habit of continueing something untill I get the last word, even if it is unpleasant on my part. Therefore I will be waiting for truth seekers responce and then I will withdraw myself from this topic one last time.

Fair enough, we all have different theorys on how the universe was created, and although i dispute yours i dont deny it is interesting and has provided a good discussion. Perhaps i shall start a thread on the opposite of your theory just to be confusing (that would involve there always being something and it eventually becoming nothing due to the theory of opposites) or maybe i shall post a few theorys of my own for discussion. (although it may achieve nothing):)

uhhhhh in vain of myself I have to ask you a question. If matter has existed forever then when is the beginning, and why (50000000000000 trillion years being less than a billionth of a millisecond in the vast time of foreverness) did it take such a long time for the universe to be created.

Absence of matter.
A space empty of matter.
A space relatively empty of matter.
A state of emptiness; a void.
A state of being sealed off from external or environmental influences; isolation.

That is a full definition of a vacuum. How does this contradict that space is really just nothingness? How does space represent something, how exactly does it contain the characteristics of something that exists? Because we think we can see it? But, in reality we can't see space can we? I know what i said before but I would just like you to answer these questions. Just explain to me how space is more than nothing and i will let you be.

Space is full of photons & waves of light, nothingness would be a state without light and photons etc. Space may be a vacuum but it doesnt mean theres nothing in it, we cant see it because light has nothing to reflect off of, theres no water or gas in a vacuum, but if light wasnt passing through it we wouldnt see stars, so there must be light waves in space despite it being a vacuum.

Was this a discussion on HOW or WHY the universe was created, I think you've lost yourselves in that minute detail so will not reach an answer.

Yes Lemming but what about where we can't see stars? You must believe in infinite smallness to be able to understand what im trying to get here. No matter how much space a thing takes up there is always, no matter how small it is, even inbetween the small space within atoms, a place where there is literally nothing to be found. While there may be light it isn't present everwhere in the universe.

Firdroirich, we haven't lost ourselves at all. It always has and always will be WHY the universe was created not HOW.

Infinite smallness is a way to make everything right, that makes what i said about there being a nothingness on my hand right because there would be a space of nothingness in between the germs, even if it was infinitly small. We are going round in circles because using infinite smallness I can go back to my arguement about there being a nothingness on my hand and say that nothingness is in between the germs, and you cant create objects out of the nothingness in that space. Im rapidly losing interest in this thread as we are going to end up starting over. As for stars we cant see, light takes time to travel to us, new stars may appear in the sky tomorrow as the light finally reaches us, also the possibility is there that there may not be a star there to see, there are billions of them but it doesnt mean they are a certain spacing apart, there may be 4 in a single solar system and a space where there are no stars.

Well then we're done because you have just accepted my theory.

Confused? Well here's my proof:

That means that there is a nothingness out there somewhere, if we ever find it, i'll believe your theory,

My work here is done.

You've also just proved your theory wrong, if there is nothingness out there then you cannot create something out of nothing, unless you can prove to me you can??? i wish to see your experiment in which you created something in one of these pockets of nothing. Otherwise you still fail to prove you can create something from nothing, also if something and nothing do co-exist, they must always have co-existed so they can always have been opposites, therefore saying there was nothing in the begining is also wrong. You have yet to PROVE your theory.

Also i did not say i believe in infinite smallness

Unfortunetly I do not have any experiment to varify this theory. This is just a theory I came up with and posted to hear your thoughts. Mind you, its a theory on WHY the universe was created not HOW. I do not know HOW the universe was created therefore I cannot have any experement to prove my theory 100% right nor do I have the experiance/resources. That is why its a THEORY not a law.

this thread is an exact model of the universe... it goes round and round in an seemingly endless circle, or cycle~ if u will ;)

this thread is an exact model of the universe... it goes round and round in an seemingly endless circle, or cycle~ if u will ;)
... :D

LOL... That's the funniest thing I've heard today... :D