Time itself has no beginning or end.

Being must have been forever.

Existance itself, can never have been "non-existance" cause "non-existance" cannot exist.

The universe cannot have spontaniously popped out of nothing. Not real nothing, cause nothing doesn't hold anything.



Is this so irrational?

Can you explain in simple understandable terms, how something can come from nothing?



I would rather explain nothing that we understand it, as concealed and hidden for us.

In physics, there is a principle known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. One form of this principle states that the energy of the vacuum can fluctuate over very small periods of time. Those energy fluctuations (sometimes called "zero point energy") can cause particles to spontaneously pop into existence out of nothingness. Usually, they only last for a short time, then disappear again.

Some physicists think that our entire universe might have resulted from a kind of quantum fluctuation similar to this, except that the universe never self-anihilated.

In physics, there is a principle known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. One form of this principle states that the energy of the vacuum can fluctuate over very small periods of time. Those energy fluctuations (sometimes called "zero point energy") can cause particles to spontaneously pop into existence out of nothingness. Usually, they only last for a short time, then disappear again.

Some physicists think that our entire universe might have resulted from a kind of quantum fluctuation similar to this, except that the universe never self-anihilated.I've read much about it.

However, I don't think they pop out of nothingness.

Nothing can grasp nothingness, it's so beyond existance that it isn't even a opposite, it's nothing. Nothing is completly cut off from reality and existance, nothing can come out of that. Nothing is not a place, not even a conception.

I still think that nothing as we perceive it, is that which is hidden for us. Particles don't come from real nothing, nothing cannot even hold the potential.

Hidden variables?! :D

Time itself has no beginning or end.

It does. Time was "created" and so must have had a beginning. The very directional nature of time seems to imply it had a beginning.

i look at it this way sometimes....'conscious' and 'unconscious'
we are conscious now. thought s we are aware of and so on, feelings. and in sleep we have dreams and are aware of them. but there is also deep dreamless sleep, where we are UN-conscious. yet from there we become consciousn again

i believe that matter-energy is NEVEr separate from an interior awareness/consciousness. so the above example must be commensurate with all of reality

there can't ALWAYs be ONE-SIDE. it doesn't make sense. if if claimed there was ONLY 'dry', 'cold', 'up, 'light'...such a claim woldn't make ANY sense less you also know of their 'other sides/aspects/polar related extremes, ie.,'wet', 'hot', 'down' 'dark'. are you with me. likewise for 'something', 'nothing'. if therewas only something how would you KNOW nothing, and vice versa?

Contemplating on the matter nothingness really must be the optimal (lack of) environment for the impossible to happen; nothingness means no laws, no limitations.

You could get all philosophical on this one whilst observing science. Assume that nothingness, 0, fluctuates into 1 and -1 and all the infinite fractions thereof, i.e. creation of form and anti-form. Then assume there must be balance, 0, then at all times will the sum of 1 and -1 and all the fractions thereof equal 0, ergo creation, form, is nothing and nothing is form.

It does. Time was "created" and so must have had a beginning. The very directional nature of time seems to imply it had a beginning.But still, time itself, when first created allready must have had time...

Time is movement. If there is no movement, then there is no tome. Time started when movement started. Time started when matter started to move. There are many dimentions to time and movement. Matter may have shifted into ours to start movement and creation of time.

Time is movement. If there is no movement, then there is no tome. Time started when movement started. Time started when matter started to move. There are many dimentions to time and movement. Matter may have shifted into ours to start movement and creation of time.No movement could have been without time. Without time, no change. Without change, no time.

So if time didn't exist, then nothing could have changed that.

But if time didn't exist and was created as neverending thus encompassing it's own creation...then I don't know.

Existance itself, however, must have allways existed.

No movement could have been without time. Without time, no change. Without change, no time.

I think that ILikeSalt argued that Time is defined by Movement. You claim the opposite that Movement is dependent on Time. I'm inclined to agree with ILikeSalt; no Movement = no Time.

Now, Movement requires Distance (Space), and Distance divided by Time = Speed

Einstein gave us E=Mc^2

Transcribed:

Energy = Matter*Time/Distance*Time/Distance

hence:

Time = ((Energy/Matter)*Distance)/Time

so:

((Energy/Matter)*Distance)/Time = ((Energy/Matter)*Distance)/Time

hence:

(Energy/Matter)*Distance = (Energy/Matter)*Distance

hence:

Energy/Matter = Energy/Matter

hence:

Energy = Energy

and:

Matter = Matter

and:

Distance = Distance

...guess Time is Energy spread out over Matter enhanced by Distance.

So...er...Energy, Matter and Distance is Money.

Where was I going with this again?

I think that ILikeSalt argued that Time is defined by Movement. You claim the opposite that Movement is dependent on Time. I'm inclined to agree with ILikeSalt; no Movement = no Time.

Now, Movement requires Distance (Space), and Distance divided by Time = Speed

Einstein gave us E=Mc^2

Transcribed:

Energy = Matter*Time/Distance*Time/Distance

hence:

Time = ((Energy/Matter)*Distance)/Time

so:

((Energy/Matter)*Distance)/Time = ((Energy/Matter)*Distance)/Time

hence:

(Energy/Matter)*Distance = (Energy/Matter)*Distance

hence:

Energy/Matter = Energy/Matter

hence:

Energy = Energy

and:

Matter = Matter

and:

Distance = Distance

...guess Time is Energy spread out over Matter enhanced by Distance.

So...er...Energy, Matter and Distance is Money.

Where was I going with this again?You were talking about getting money at the speed of light. I'm listening.

Ok, so if time is movement, then what is causing the movement at the beginning of time? Before that there were no cause that would cause a movement (since it then obviously couldn't have been movement before there was time).

If true nothing was all that existed, then from that nothing could have existed.

To me this makes sense. I can't grasp the situation where something inside nothing comes into existance.

There isn't something in nothing. There isn't something that could come into existance.

Ok, so if time is movement, then what is causing the movement at the beginning of time? Before that there were no cause that would cause a movement (since it then obviously couldn't have been movement before there was time).

Again, Movement does not require Time, it defines Time, ergo there need not had been any Time to allow original Movement. Time and Movement and Space shouldn't be viewed as such seperate issues in my oppinion. And if Time is infinite backwards (viewing Time as being linear as we are inclined to) then Movement must be too, hence there were never any "first move".

If true nothing was all that existed, then from that nothing could have existed.

To me this makes sense. I can't grasp the situation where something inside nothing comes into existance.

There isn't something in nothing. There isn't something that could come into existance.

Don't you read my posts?

Contemplating on the matter nothingness really must be the optimal (lack of) environment for the impossible to happen; nothingness means no laws, no limitations.

You could get all philosophical on this one whilst observing science. Assume that nothingness, 0, fluctuates into 1 and -1 and all the infinite fractions thereof, i.e. creation of form and anti-form. Then assume there must be balance, 0, then at all times will the sum of 1 and -1 and all the fractions thereof equal 0, ergo creation, form, is nothing and nothing is form.

With this I suggested that creation can indeed spring from nothingness. That we through our points of view based on our reality regard this as impossible means nothing to the lack of laws and limitations of nothingness.

With this I suggested that creation can indeed spring from nothingness. That we through our points of view based on our reality regard this as impossible means nothing to the lack of laws and limitations of nothingness.I understand what you mean, and I did read your posts.

But if it was real nothing, then it shouldn't even hold the potential of something, nothing could arise from real nothing.

I'm not talking about a vacuum, or a place where every possibility is real. Cause there just might be such a place, but then it is something, instead of nothing. Nothing is another deal. From nothing, nothing comes. Nothing doesn't even exist. It isn't here, it isn't there. There are no connection from nothing to something.

I believe that there are emptiness though. And I believe that all possibilities exist, in some way. Ordered or Chaotic. Or each possibility finds it's own place.

But nevertheless, nothing is nothing. No laws, no potential, no place where anything could exist (cause anything that has the existance in nothing contradicts nothing).

So for something to exist (or start exist) in nothing, nothing would disappear in that instance, if only to become nothing again. Note that disappear here actually means, come into existance. If nothing would hold anything then nothing would at that instance be something.

Again, Movement does not require Time, it defines Time, ergo there need not had been any Time to allow original Movement. Time and Movement and Space shouldn't be viewed as such seperate issues in my oppinion. And if Time is infinite backwards (viewing Time as being linear as we are inclined to) then Movement must be too, hence there were never any "first move".Then I agree by your reasons.

I understand what you mean, and I did read your posts.

But if it was real nothing, then it shouldn't even hold the potential of something, nothing could arise from real nothing.

I'm not talking about a vacuum, or a place where every possibility is real. Cause there just might be such a place, but then it is something, instead of nothing. Nothing is another deal. From nothing, nothing comes. Nothing doesn't even exist. It isn't here, it isn't there. There are no connection from nothing to something.

I believe that there are emptiness though. And I believe that all possibilities exist, in some way. Ordered or Chaotic. Or each possibility finds it's own place.

But nevertheless, nothing is nothing. No laws, no potential, no place where anything could exist (cause anything that has the existance in nothing contradicts nothing).

So for something to exist (or start exist) in nothing, nothing would disappear in that instance, if only to become nothing again. Note that disappear here actually means, come into existance. If nothing would hold anything then nothing would at that instance be something.

I do perfectly realize the nothing you mean, and I never talked about creation and existence within this nothing, for as you say this nothing can't contain anything for it isn't. I mean creation that suddenly just pops up outta bleeming nowhere, exactly because nothing has no laws or limitations to prohibit this...it's preposterous, I know - just messing about with terms and common views.

Why is it so difficult to discuss absolutes, I wonder....?

Potential is the original quality of all, this universal physicality is a fulfilled potentiality.

kula

I do perfectly realize the nothing you mean, and I never talked about creation and existence within this nothing, for as you say this nothing can't contain anything for it isn't. I mean creation that suddenly just pops up outta bleeming nowhere, exactly because nothing has no laws or limitations to prohibit this...it's preposterous, I know - just messing about with terms and common views.

Why is it so difficult to discuss absolutes, I wonder....?I know, it's like study nothing. It's impossible, your very thought of it denies it.

I do understand what you mean, that without anything that say "you can't exist" then anything could exist.

But still, I think the universe came from existance. Maybe everything came from infinity? Or something even beyond infinity? Maybe we got it all backwards?

I think that it is more comfortable to look at it that way :)


What could we see if we look at it that way?

That maybe we are looking towards nothing to explain our existance, when we should look the other way. But time haven't let us see it yet...I guess...

We start with everything and work towards nothing ? Thats an interesting idea, will have to ponder that for a while

kula

"Can you explain in simple understandable terms, how something can come from nothing?"

Because even nothing contains something.

But nevertheless, nothing is nothing. No laws, no potential, no place where anything could exist (cause anything that has the existance in nothing contradicts nothing).You're assuming that the rules of causality and logic still apply, hence your version of nothing is not nothing it has rules. There's no reason to assume that these rules apply 'outside' our Universe.

~Raithere

"Can you explain in simple understandable terms, how something can come from nothing?"

Because even nothing contains something.It can't contain anything.

Tell me how there could be something in nothing.

There isn't even anything that could be called "in nothing", there is no "in".

You're assuming that the rules of causality and logic still apply, hence your version of nothing is not nothing it has rules. There's no reason to assume that these rules apply 'outside' our Universe.

~RaithereI'm not saying that rules of causality and logic apply. They do not apply in nothing. Nothing has no rules, have no matter or potential matter.

What we see as nothing, if particles spontaniously form there, thus cannot be nothing, but must be something hidden for us.

Nothing don't exist. Nothing is nothing at all. Nothing.

There is no nothing.

Oblivion. ( ). nada.

Nothing don't exist. Nothing is nothing at all. Nothing.

There is no nothing.

One of the explanations is that the concept of nothing is just a philosophical construct that is sometimes used in logic, but that as such does not exist.

One of the explanations is that the concept of nothing is just a philosophical construct that is sometimes used in logic, but that as such does not exist.Yes, it's like mathematical zero. Took a long time to be accepted :)

Nothing though (to my view) should be treated as "unknown". Cause as long as we see nothing, what we really see is unknown.

For example, if we see a particle just vanish. Then we shouldn't say that it went to nothing. We should say it went to something unknown and hidden to us. Cause nothing can't hold the particle, so either it transformed into something that we didn't see (unknown) or it went some other place which is hidden to us.

Yes, it's like mathematical zero. Took a long time to be accepted :)

Nothing though (to my view) should be treated as "unknown". Cause as long as we see nothing, what we really see is unknown.

For example, if we see a particle just vanish. Then we shouldn't say that it went to nothing. We should say it went to something unknown and hidden to us. Cause nothing can't hold the particle, so either it transformed into something that we didn't see (unknown) or it went some other place which is hidden to us.

There is an important distinction to be made: Nothing is *not* necessarily the same as the unknown.

The unknown has 1. the characteristic of not being known, and 2. it can become known.
Nothing does not have these 2 characteristics.

In physics, there is a principle known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. One form of this principle states that the energy of the vacuum can fluctuate over very small periods of time. Those energy fluctuations (sometimes called "zero point energy") can cause particles to spontaneously pop into existence out of nothingness.I thought that “zero point energy” was the energy of a system in the ground state (v=0)? That’s what they told us, anyway.

One of the explanations is that the concept of nothing is just a philosophical construct that is sometimes used in logic, but that as such does not exist.
Precisely.

You see, when one asserts that something can come out of nothing, they are making a fundamental assumption: causality. That there must have been a begining and such a begining must necessarily follow the logic of this-- universe/awareness/present. One cannot however make such an assumption. All we know is that an event seemed to have occured that prompted this. What "caused" said event or whether said event was "caused" or what preceded said event is by definition, impossibe to realize within this. Consider: if we increasingly focus on something, shall we eventually reach a nothing or is something an infinite because "nothing" cannot be at the end of something? It is simply a concept.

There is an important distinction to be made: Nothing is *not* necessarily the same as the unknown.

The unknown has 1. the characteristic of not being known, and 2. it can become known.
Nothing does not have these 2 characteristics.true, true...

I also agree with you that nothing doesn't equal the unknown. But nothing doesn't exist, so it equals nothing. Therefor the conclusion that whatever we perceive as nothing is essentially the unknown.

TADA!! :)

Precisely.

You see, when one asserts that something can come out of nothing, they are making a fundamental assumption: causality. That there must have been a begining and such a begining must necessarily follow the logic of this-- universe/awareness/present. One cannot however make such an assumption. All we know is that an event seemed to have occured that prompted this. What "caused" said event or whether said event was "caused" or what preceded said event is by definition, impossibe to realize within this. Consider: if we increasingly focus on something, shall we eventually reach a nothing or is something an infinite because "nothing" cannot be at the end of something? It is simply a concept.But causality itself talks against the concept of nothing, effect must have a cause. Every cause is a previous effect. Thus there can't be a uncaused cause (which equals a uncaused effect).

Actually we shouldn't even have two words for cause and effect. Every cause is a effect and every effect is a cause.

true, true...

I also agree with you that nothing doesn't equal the unknown. But nothing doesn't exist, so it equals nothing. Therefor the conclusion that whatever we perceive as nothing is essentially the unknown.

TADA!! :)

Can we indeed *perceive* something as nothing?!

Can we indeed *perceive* something as nothing?!Good question.

Yes. Black is such a nothing. Which is unknown.

The mental world doesn't have a concept of nothing either, it's just unknown. Thus we need "something" to explain that unknown. This "something" is black, when visual isn't known. From all these concepts that the mind makes up to compensate for the unknown, comes the notion of nothing.

Could be. I'm certainly not sure.

But causality itself talks against the concept of nothing, effect must have a cause. Every cause is a previous effect. Thus there can't be a uncaused cause (which equals a uncaused effect).

Witness Gödel's second incompleteness theorem:
No consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency.

At some point, causality breaks. Look at Raithere's post above.

Good question.

Yes. Black is such a nothing.

Hm?
If nothing is to be a nothing, then it cannot be black. It cannot have a charcteristic. You've said before that in nothing, no rules etc. apply.

Hm?
If nothing is to be a nothing, then it cannot be black. It cannot have a charcteristic. You've said before that in nothing, no rules etc. apply.Yes, but now I'm talking to you in the notion that nothing that we perceive it is essentially "the unknown".

While nothing itself cannot be perceived, cause it doesn't exist.

Witness Gödel's second incompleteness theorem:
No consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency.

At some point, causality breaks. Look at Raithere's post above.Well, causality doesn't specifically say that something must have a beginning.

Causality say that (correct me if I'm wrong) every effect must have a cause that is sufficient to the effect.

They need not to have a beginning, especially not if cause and effect is the same.

Yes, but now I'm talking to you in the notion that nothing that we perceive it is essentially "the unknown".

But look at the 2 points I made above. Nothing is not the same as the unknown. To perceive it as such is an error.

But look at the 2 points I made above. Nothing is not the same as the unknown. To perceive it as such is an error.I agree totally! Trust me! :)

Nothing doesn't exist, right? Thus nothing cannot be perceived, right? Thus anything we perceive as "nothing" must be the unknown...right?

Well, causality doesn't specifically say that something must have a beginning.

Causality say that (correct me if I'm wrong) every effect must have a cause that is sufficient to the effect.

Yes. But what has this got to do with the concept of nothing?
If anything, it may have to do with the concept of the unknown, as the first cause may be unknown. That is, if we follow this linear conception of causality.


They need not to have a beginning, especially not if cause and effect is the same.

How can cause and effect be the same?

I agree totally! Trust me! :)

Nothing doesn't exist, right? Thus nothing cannot be perceived, right? Thus anything we perceive as "nothing" must be the unknown...right?

But we do not perceive anything as "nothing"!!
You are forcing this.

But we do not perceive anything as "nothing"!!
You are forcing this.I see nothing.

"No, you see the unknown!"

"Particles jump out of nothing spontaniously!"

"NO!!!"

I'm being forced too you know.

I'm sure that there are reasons why they say that particles jump out of nothing, but I can't agree with that, I would rather say that particles jump out of something hidden to us.

Yes. But what has this got to do with the concept of nothing?
If anything, it may have to do with the concept of the unknown, as the first cause may be unknown. That is, if we follow this linear conception of causality.




How can cause and effect be the same?To your first question.

There can't be a beginning, if there was nothing before. Cause nothing doesn't exist, thus something cannot have started from that.

Cause = effect. This obviously don't say that what caused the effect is the effect itself.

But it does say that in the beginning, the cause and the effect might have been very caught up in themselves, or even might have been the same.

But causality itself talks against the concept of nothing, effect must have a cause. Every cause is a previous effect. Thus there can't be a uncaused cause (which equals a uncaused effect).

Actually we shouldn't even have two words for cause and effect. Every cause is a effect and every effect is a cause.
Of course causality when extended eventually breaks, because what precedes this exists only as a concept. Thus when the the one supposes that nothing preceded this, and since this had to have a cause, and futher more, since nothing can cause something, there cannot be a now, one makes an error in reasoning.

To your first question.
There can't be a beginning, if there was nothing before. Cause nothing doesn't exist, thus something cannot have started from that.
You cannot make such an assumption regarding the start of the universe as is, because you can only assume casaulity up to the start of the universe-- it breaks down. It does not follow that causality must be a rule before the start of this universe.

Cause = effect. This obviously don't say that what caused the effect is the effect itself.
But it does say that in the beginning, the cause and the effect might have been very caught up in themselves, or even might have been the same.
It says that by definition, the beginning is the cause and the effect, because one cannot make any conclusions about what preceded before.

Of course causality when extended eventually breaks, because what precedes this exists only as a concept. Thus when the the one supposes that nothing preceded this, and since this had to have a cause, and futher more, since nothing can cause something, there cannot be a now, one makes an error in reasoning.Oh.."now" I see what you mean!

You are talking about "now".

Ok, so if there is no past (other than a concept) and there is no future (right now), then cause and effect would break down. Could we from this conclude that the past and the future actually exist?

What makes time go on? Now?

You cannot make such an assumption regarding the start of the universe as is, because you can only assume casaulity up to the start of the universe-- it breaks down. It does not follow that causality must be a rule before the start of this universe.In reality, causality isn't a rule.

In reality, it isn't a law.

In reality, it is what it is.

But we know that "nothing" doesn't exist. From that we can know that the universe didn't arise from nothing. Cause however we see it, nothing can come from nothing. With or without any laws beyond nothing.

But we know that "nothing" doesn't exist. From that we can know that the universe didn't arise from nothing. Cause however we see it, nothing can come from nothing. With or without any laws beyond nothing.
We "know" that nothing doesn't exists because it is how the concept is defined. Moreover, the concept exists in this context only, and is not translatable across contexts--universes. You seem unable to understand this simple distinction. What heppened before this universe came to being cannot necessarily be understood by methods within this universe, because everything that is now, came to be when this universe came to being.

I see nothing.

"No, you see the unknown!"

When dealing with terms, we're often facing also their common, popular meaning, as opposed to the specific scientific meaning, even though we may not be aware of it.

"I looked into the box, but I saw nothing" -- that is, 'I looked into the box and saw not what I was looking for, or what I expected to see.'

"Nothing" is sometimes just a pronoun, standing for a whole phrase to make the sentence shorter.


"Particles jump out of nothing spontaniously!"

"NO!!!"

I'm being forced too you know.

And who or what is forcing you?


I'm sure that there are reasons why they say that particles jump out of nothing, but I can't agree with that, I would rather say that particles jump out of something hidden to us.

I can understand this. I too, have a problem understanding how something should "come out of nothing."


To your first question.

There can't be a beginning, if there was nothing before.

Must a beginning have a beginning? Maybe what is causing troubles is the conceptualization of the beginning as a thing.
What if we see the concept of "beginning" as a *description* of a certain happening? What if we try to imagine "beginning" to be something like speed or other non-elementary quantities?


Cause nothing doesn't exist, thus something cannot have started from that.

Yes, this seems valid.


Cause = effect. This obviously don't say that what caused the effect is the effect itself.

If you say cause = effect then you are saying cause = effect. :)
Shooting an arrow = the flight of an arrow.
This is stretching the concepts of cause and effect in a manner that they become useless.


But it does say that in the beginning, the cause and the effect might have been very caught up in themselves, or even might have been the same.

I suppose you are trying to solve the question of the ultimate beginning by using linear causality. I don't think it works, as the concepts of cause and effect become blurred, and are not the concepts of cause and effect anymore as we know them -- so why call them cause and effect in the first place?

Like I suggested before, if following linear causality, we ought to say that the first cause is unknown or obscure -- and not that the first cause is nothing or that the first cause is a cause and effect "very caught up in themselves".

In reality, causality isn't a rule.

In reality, it isn't a law.

In reality, it is what it is.

But the thing is that we cannot "do" anything with that reality, it is absurd in its overwhelmingness. We interpret it in some manner, and one of them is in terms of cause and effect relationships. We think ourselves and the world in the realm of these interpretations; we cannot escape or overcome them.

But if we don't interpret them somehow, we cannot live.

So, it is eventually all up to our interpretation of reality.

We "know" that nothing doesn't exists because it is how the concept is defined. Moreover, the concept exists in this context only, and is not translatable across contexts--universes. You seem unable to understand this simple distinction. What heppened before this universe came to being cannot necessarily be understood by methods within this universe, because everything that is now, came to be when this universe came to being.Sure. But nothing never came to be. Not with this universe and not with any other. Nothing is the same with or without universes.

Universes and reality is utterly beyond nothing as nothing isn't even to be mentioned in science. Nothing shouldn't even be considered in science. Everything is. No particles jump out of nothing, the universe don't jump out of nothing, nothing isn't. What is perceived as "nothing" for science, is the same as is perceived as darkness for us. If we see a shooting star, we don't say that it came from nothing, we can say that it came from the void out there in space (it came from a place hidden to our view).

When dealing with terms, we're often facing also their common, popular meaning, as opposed to the specific scientific meaning, even though we may not be aware of it.

"I looked into the box, but I saw nothing" -- that is, 'I looked into the box and saw not what I was looking for, or what I expected to see.'

"Nothing" is sometimes just a pronoun, standing for a whole phrase to make the sentence shorter.I agree.

And who or what is forcing you?No one in particular. But anyone that say nothing exists. It is forcing my view on everything. I too have taken into consideration that nothing could actually exist in the form of "an idea" or something to that effect. But in concepts of reality we should think of it as "what is" and nothing "what isn't".

Nothing is nothing forever. It's not even a opposite of anything, it's just nothing at all.

Must a beginning have a beginning? Maybe what is causing troubles is the conceptualization of the beginning as a thing.
What if we see the concept of "beginning" as a *description* of a certain happening? What if we try to imagine "beginning" to be something like speed or other non-elementary quantities?Any beginning that we know of do have a beginning. Every cause do have a previous effect.

Even if the beginning is regarded as speed or any other construct. and I've actually never thought of "beginning" as a thing. Or if I have, then I can't realise it now. I'm finding it very difficult to say the least.

If you say cause = effect then you are saying cause = effect. :)
Shooting an arrow = the flight of an arrow.
This is stretching the concepts of cause and effect in a manner that they become useless.It becomes useless to everyday causality. But it could become useful in the problems regarding causality itself.

I suppose you are trying to solve the question of the ultimate beginning by using linear causality. I don't think it works, as the concepts of cause and effect become blurred, and are not the concepts of cause and effect anymore as we know them -- so why call them cause and effect in the first place?We shouldn't. We should call it plain "effect" in which the cause of the effect is a previous effect.

Cause each cause is an effect. And each effect is a cause. Thus what is it that makes us think that the start would be a cause and not a effect?

If we follow each cause and effect through the past, "Effect" - "Cause" - "Effect" - "Cause" - "Effect" etc.. what is it that say that we should wind up with a cause? Maybe the cause of the universe haven't happened yet? Maybe that is why the future is hidden to us?

But this is obviously stretching it way beyond any concepts.

Like I suggested before, if following linear causality, we ought to say that the first cause is unknown or obscure -- and not that the first cause is nothing or that the first cause is a cause and effect "very caught up in themselves".The cause of me throwing a rock, is the same cause as the rock flying to the air. When the cause of me vanish then the energy of my cause has dried out and the rock have another cause (takes it's cause from another place, as the energy of my throw dries out). Thus like soundwaves are equivalent to what caused the soundwaves, so is the rocks movement the equivalent my throw. Cause = Effect. The cause is thus only transformed into a effect. But it is essentially the same. Just as the sound carries the image of the cause of the sound.

I too have taken into consideration that nothing could actually exist in the form of "an idea" or something to that effect.

Yes, "nothing" can be regarded as a mere philosophical construct.


But in concepts of reality we should think of it as "what is" and nothing "what isn't".

I think the above understanding of "nothing" complies with this.


Even if the beginning is regarded as speed or any other construct. and I've actually never thought of "beginning" as a thing. Or if I have, then I can't realise it now. I'm finding it very difficult to say the least.

Then try harder. :)


Cause each cause is an effect. And each effect is a cause. Thus what is it that makes us think that the start would be a cause and not a effect?

But that effect would again have to have a cause, if we are to follow linear causality.


If we follow each cause and effect through the past, "Effect" - "Cause" - "Effect" - "Cause" - "Effect" etc.. what is it that say that we should wind up with a cause?

It is our understanding of causality that says that for each effect there is a cause.
The rock won't fall unless you first pick it up and let it fall.


Maybe the cause of the universe haven't happened yet?

This is *very* creative, but I'm afraid also quite odd. ;)


The cause of me throwing a rock, is the same cause as the rock flying to the air. When the cause of me vanish then the energy of my cause has dried out and the rock have another cause (takes it's cause from another place, as the energy of my throw dries out). Thus like soundwaves are equivalent to what caused the soundwaves, so is the rocks movement the equivalent my throw. Cause = Effect.
/.../
Just as the sound carries the image of the cause of the sound.

No no no. You need to work up on your understanding of Newtonian physics.


The cause is thus only transformed into a effect. But it is essentially the same.

I can imagine how you came to this conclusion, and I understand it, in a metaphorical way. But we either stick to Newtonian physics, or metaphors -- it is not productive to mix them all up.

Some theories that i have read suggest that the 'positive' energy in the universe in balanced out by the negative (gravity) and if it collapsed they would cancel each other out, leaving nothing.

Can nothing be an end state ?

If the universe collpsed, and time was no more, would the universe ever have existed at all ?

kula

Some theories that i have read suggest that the 'positive' energy in the universe in balanced out by the negative (gravity) and if it collapsed they would cancel each other out, leaving nothing.

Can nothing be an end state ?

If the universe collpsed, and time was no more, would the universe ever have existed at all ?

kulaReally good question! If time stopped, would it never had been?

No no no. You need to work up on your understanding of Newtonian physics.But if we visualise it, this is what happens (at least more or less):

I throw. Rock get's energy equivalent to my throw.
Cause. Effect.

The same is with sound.

Stone is dropped and hit the ground. Bonk!
Cause. Effect!

By hearing the sound, you could get an idea of what hit the ground, and what the ground is made of. Thus we can say that the image of the soundwaves is the image of the cause.


I can imagine how you came to this conclusion, and I understand it, in a metaphorical way. But we either stick to Newtonian physics, or metaphors -- it is not productive to mix them all up.If we take the above examples, then we could say that the cause is transformed into the effect. Cause everything the effect is must be the cause of it.

And I realise, that it's not only me who throws the rock that is the cause, it's also wind and all kind of other natural phenomena that also has it's piece of the cause.

It can't contain anything.

Tell me how there could be something in nothing.

There isn't even anything that could be called "in nothing", there is no "in".


Just because you cannot "see" anything when you observe 'nothing" doesn't mean that subatomic particles aren't flying around. So when looking at nothing with the naked eye it would seem there's nothing there, which of course is a misconception many people have, including yourself.

Just because you cannot "see" anything when you observe 'nothing" doesn't mean that subatomic particles aren't flying around.

It would do if it really was nothing.......... other wise it would be invisable sub atomic particles flying around, which is infinitely more than nothing.

kula

Just because you cannot "see" anything when you observe 'nothing" doesn't mean that subatomic particles aren't flying around. So when looking at nothing with the naked eye it would seem there's nothing there, which of course is a misconception many people have, including yourself.That would describe a "nothing" that is hidden to us, thus not real nothing. Real nothing can't contain particles.

A couple of pondersome thoughts on cause and effect.

In the future........

A quantum computer 'measures' all possible states thus virtually observing, at least, a universe of information.

or

A quantum computer 'measures' the exact conditions of the big bang

A particle excelerator creates 'a' big bang

or

A particle excelerator creates a 'link' to 'the' big bang

or

A particle excelerator creates 'the' big bang

The universe keeps expanding until all the energy is used up to create space.

(would totally empty space be nothing ?)

Or maybe spacetime is 'harmonic', like matter (each wavelength/size of particle has a specific reaction to others) and every 'instant' of time is connected in all directions to every other instant. (Maybe like an inverse square of effect....ish !)

Time to think about getting a coffee

kula

If we take the above examples, then we could say that the cause is transformed into the effect. Cause everything the effect is must be the cause of it.

Assigning cause-effect relationships is a difficult thing, and depends on the evidence we currently have.

We are dealing with two empirical problems:
1. What do we understand as "effect" (what group of phenomena, or what single phenomenon)?
2. What do we understand as "cause" (what group of phenomena, or what single phenomenon)?

While your statement Cause everything the effect is must be the cause of it is philosophically acceptable, it is hard to successfully pursue it in reality.

Take illnesses for example: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. What is causing them? What is the exact effect? There is a set of observable symptoms -- but how far do we take our observations? Do we measure and compare all body functions? ...


Thus we can say that the image of the soundwaves is the image of the cause.

While at images, what you did is metaphorize "man is made in God's image".
But from your Cause everything the effect is must be the cause of it, it would then also follow that the Universe *is* God, God *is* the Universe. This is circular reasoning, and circular reasoning doesn't bring us far.
Here, things get delicate.

Assigning cause-effect relationships is a difficult thing, and depends on the evidence we currently have.

We are dealing with two empirical problems:
1. What do we understand as "effect" (what group of phenomena, or what single phenomenon)?
2. What do we understand as "cause" (what group of phenomena, or what single phenomenon)?

While your statement Cause everything the effect is must be the cause of it is philosophically acceptable, it is hard to successfully pursue it in reality.

Take illnesses for example: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. What is causing them? What is the exact effect? There is a set of observable symptoms -- but how far do we take our observations? Do we measure and compare all body functions? ...Well, I guess that to see the full cause of them, we must see the full effect. We only have methods and understanding to at most study a few effects at work at the same time, while there sure are many other effects that go unnoticed by us. Thus we fail to understand the full cause of it.

While at images, what you did is metaphorize "man is made in God's image".
But from your Cause everything the effect is must be the cause of it, it would then also follow that the Universe *is* God, God *is* the Universe. This is circular reasoning, and circular reasoning doesn't bring us far.
Here, things get delicate.Well, it would say that the universe then is the cause that God used. Since the universe is the effect of the cause.

Or, if you want, a manifestation of Gods will.

Well, I guess that to see the full cause of them, we must see the full effect. We only have methods and understanding to at most study a few effects at work at the same time, while there sure are many other effects that go unnoticed by us. Thus we fail to understand the full cause of it.

Well, it would say that the universe then is the cause that God used. Since the universe is the effect of the cause.

Or, if you want, a manifestation of Gods will.

If scientific research continues as it always has, we will attempt to not only measure the cause but recreate it. At that point everything could be said to start again and we would have been the cause of the existence of the universe. No doubt we will also try to create God as well !

kula

If scientific research continues as it always has, we will attempt to not only measure the cause but recreate it. At that point everything could be said to start again and we would have been the cause of the existence of the universe. No doubt we will also try to create God as well !

kulaI don't think we will try to create God. But I do think that we may be fooled at trying.

We would not be able to create the universe from the start. The cause would be vastly beyond us, even in the far future. I think. But it's a good thought.

You say that we will attempt alot of things, we surely will, but attempting to recreate the cause of the universe would equate to our own doom (if the attempt is successfull that is...).

the irony being...that we are alREADy cocreators already, of the universe. participants........we have choices. thing is, many of us choose the grim joyless way. admittedly the reason for this is the oeverall oppression from authorities whose middle name is control, but, once you beging looking THROUGh how they sustai9n their control, then a possibly vision may arise, rather than apathetic despiar and cynicism, etc

the irony being...that we are alREADy cocreators already, of the universe. participants........we have choices. thing is, many of us choose the grim joyless way. admittedly the reason for this is the oeverall oppression from authorities whose middle name is control, but, once you beging looking THROUGh how they sustai9n their control, then a possibly vision may arise, rather than apathetic despiar and cynicism, etcWell, we may be cocreators in one sence, but that doesn't mean that we will be able to create the cause of the universe.

But we really haven't made anything, we have simply remodelled what was available to us from the start. But in another sence, we have made something, cause we have made our ideas real. Thus our ideas has been made into existance. Allthough using tools and parts that allready were in existance.

I don't think we will try to create God. But I do think that we may be fooled at trying.

We would not be able to create the universe from the start. The cause would be vastly beyond us, even in the far future. I think. But it's a good thought.

You say that we will attempt alot of things, we surely will, but attempting to recreate the cause of the universe would equate to our own doom (if the attempt is successfull that is...).

We already have the quantum computer. Once we have it working properly, in theory, it will be able to measure every possible state of a system, there are some fair old possibilities there, everything that already has been 'realised' during the course of the universe, and a lot more besides. We should have it perfected, if Moores law holds about the increasing speed of processors, by 2012.

We already have the quantum computer. Once we have it working properly, in theory, it will be able to measure every possible state of a system, there are some fair old possibilities there, everything that already has been 'realised' during the course of the universe, and a lot more besides. We should have it perfected, if Moores law holds about the increasing speed of processors, by 2012.Well, Moores law have nothing to do with quantum computers. Since it is simply another category.

That's from what I can understand anyway. Quantum computers can have a quantum bit that is both 1 and 0 at the same time, I don't even know how we could compare that to traditional computers today. I don't know how to control these bits either...but that's not up to me I guess, someone sure will find a way, they allways do :)

Oh, is quantum bits called qubit? I think that would be a nice name, I recollect that I've heard it somewhere, but I don't know.

Anyway, I'm fascinated at quantum computers, though I don't really understand it all that much.

The advent of Quantum computers follows Moores law, as they fulfill the criteria for the number of calculations that can be carried out in a specific time. Thay cant yet, and 'normal' technology is still following Moores law but it wont be able to by 2012 so quantum computers seem the obvious bet.

From what ive read, the catagory is concerned with the number of calculations that can be carried out (or the number of switches on a chip)

There are so many questions to be addressed in this topic that it's difficult to know where to begin. Perhaps I'll begin with time.

Simply stated, time is the sequential movement from one event to another. You cannot say that time is infinite (ie, time is infinitely old), for what kind of infinite would it be? It it were an actual infinite, then there would be no "now," no present moment (see infinite set theory). If it were a potential infinite, then it would have had a beginning, and is counting into an infinite age. Since time can not be an actual infinite, but may possibly be a potential infinite, then it must have had a beginning. Remember that time is the sequential movement from one event to the next, so within the realm of time, a beginning is a must.

However, this does not say that the moments time have not existed for eternity. God, being an actual infinite, has always existed, and if He created time and space, logic dictates (since God is omnipresent) that everything has existed due to His creative force for eternity also. That means that the moments of the past, present and future have always existed, except that for those who are relegated to the movement of time, there is a clear past, present and future.

So yes, there could at no time have been "nothingness." While time did have a beginning, there is no "prior" to that beginning. However, if there is no prior to the beginning of time, and there was never a moment of nothingness, and God created time and space, from what did He create it?

The definition of the term 'create' is to make something from nothing. I question the meaning of this definition. Does it mean, to make something from nothingness? Or does it mean to make something from no pre-existing 'thing.' If the answer is nothingness, then I cannot logically justify the creation of the universe, since I have already admitted that there can have never been a nothingness. Therefore, I must believe that the actual meaning of creation is to make from no 'thing.' With this in mind, it becomes easier to answer the question of how God created the universe.

In infinite set theory, it is shown that an actual infinite can be added to, or subtracted from without changing the infiniteness, or the nature of that actual infinite. Since God is an actual infinite, it can be see that it is possible for Him to remove from Himself without changing Himself. This being said, it seems clear that God could have created the universe out of that which is contained within Him as an infinite being. Therefore, God could still create the universe, since what He used was not something that existed already, but rather, that which was made came to be what it was as soon as it was taken out of Him (a thing of finite nature).

Realize that since God is an eternal being, there was not "point of time" when this occurred. It simply is, as God knows it, a result of His own nature of Eternality, and Omni-benevolence (which must be the case as an Actual Infinite Being).

Those are all good points, however, personally, i dont think we need to invoke an infinite entity as the 'prime cause' of existence. I agree that we can invoke god to explain the particular universe we are living in though.

We can use definitions that we are already familiar with, like potential, to explain how this universe and god can exist.

Eveything has potential. 'Pre' universe there existed potential, but with no time, it was possible for all 'combinations' of potential to be fulfilled. If consciousness was realised, then the consciousnessc could decide to exist and 'become' something that was real, not chaotic, and continue existing (time).

If a simple pattern were realised, then that could act as a seed in the singularity of potential causing it to explode into objects needing time and space in which to exist as one object 'measured' the potential around it 'fixing' chaotic states into actualities.

Obviously time would also be 'created' (potential fulfilled) at the same instance so we can also say that the prime cause was timeless/infinite before the universe. Potential is a more powerful concept than god, for potential also has the potential to destroy the physical and consciousness, returning us to a state of an infinity chaotic singularity..............with the potential to become anything. If the universe does collapse, so will time, and time will have never been !

What is greater, Potentiality or Actuality? I cannot see how you could possibly say that Potential is greater, since potential can only be released by act, and that is a limitation. Since potential is limited, it is not infinite. Therefore, potential cannot have always existed. This is because prior to the universe there was nothing to which potential was attached. You say that everything has potential, however prior to the Universe (if there were no infinite being), there would have been nothing to have potential. It is necessary that there be an eternal being, an infinite being, that is pure Act to initiate time and universe, and so thereby also creating potential. However, realize that because God is pure Act, there never was a potential to create, only an eternal creative act.

I'm not saying there was an object that possed potential, just a state or quality of potential. Potential is rleased by act in this physical universe, but we are talking about there being no time for cause and effect. Cause and effect are again products of this physical universe.

Potential could also be the 'act', potential can 'be' anything.

Try replacing your concept of god with potental. Do you find that god has any qualities that infinite potential does not ? Does infinite potential possess any qualities that god does not ?

Does god, for instance, have infinite potential, can god become an unconscious singularity of chaos ?

infinity is "infinity"
time is "time"
existance is "existance"


Philosopher Philocrazy

and all three
are three different constracts
of creation

Philosopher Philocrazy

Possibly, although i dont believe that you can have a created or physical infinity, infinity seems to be the realm of potential rather than actuality.

Cant argue with time and existence though !

to be or not to be (shakespear)


Philosopher Philocrazy

and your evidence is
choice
and my evidence is
creation
isnt choice a constract of creation?
your reply here........................with credit to Philocrazy thank you

philosopher PHILOCRAZY

and your evidence is
choice
and my evidence is
creation
isnt choice a constract of creation?
your reply here........................with credit to Philocrazy thank you

philosopher PHILOCRAZY

I'm not quite with you, evidence for what ? Choice is a result of non chaotic patterns, creation suggests choice.

Unless creation, 'original' creation, was fulfillment of potential. Creation doesnt seem to exist in this universe, only rearrangement. I would suggest even original creation is just rearrangement of potential. Directed rearrangement would come once choice was manifest.

you have the choice to think what you like
tell me who do you thank for that
let me answear this to you please
creation sir
what is beyond that tell me again
here...........your choice................credit to philocrazy please
your choice "a product of creation"
take it or leave it
"your choice"
what gave you that
"creation"

Philosopher Philocrazy

what do you/we know....is a first question. actually know?

we all sense time, and existance don't we.
when i say 'we' i am assuming you have been brought up in western culture, with its education, the same as me?

we are taught to believe there is A way of knowing time. usually the work ethic way...right?

you know the reality for some of being in a shitty job, or even a non-shity job, and the lookin at the clock, and then time drags doesn't it?...that we can all agree on, no?

then there are times we are really happy...like holidays, and these times time seems to fly..."shit, where did the time GO?"

in all these occasion the day changes...the sun rises and sets, and we have the noon, and the evening, so we can meet people and say 'good afternoon' and they understand cause they also have that xperience

so, that could becalled chronolgical time, and the experience of fast, or slow time, could be called psycholgical time

all this we all experience, and theres no big words or conepts to wade through

have any of you taken hallucinogens?

with hallucinogens, time does really weird shit. it can seem ever so long yet oly a small bit of time has passed. and the perception of chronological time--ie when it getss to go dark can also seem much different than how we experience it 'normally'

so what is normal. some cultures other than western have differnt language structures where VERBs are more prominent. will they experience time differerntly? how would we know? we are educated to experience time in a frantic rushed crazy way. only when we stop that, as on holiday, or with hallucinogens do we experience a different flava of TIME.

I don't know where your idea that potential can 'be' anything, and much less how potential can be act. Potential is the ability to perform any given action. Act is the carrying out of that ability. Change is the movement from potential to actual. Potential is certainly a state, a quality. However, you make the mistake of assuming that states, or qualities can be attached to nothing. All things have states, and qualities, and it is in things that states and qualities exist, not elsewhere. Also, states don't necessarily apply to only one thing or another. States can also be applied to groups of things. For example, you may say that the universe is in a state of expansion. The universe is a collection of things to which this state applies. You seem to believe that states and qualities can be applied to nothing, I would be willing to hear the reasoning behind this, because it makes no sense to me.

You ask if God can become unconscious chaos, this is meaningless, since you are trying to apply a negative to the infinite. Furthermore, there can be no pure state of unconscious chaos, because such a state would consist of nothing, for where there is something there is order of a form.

It seems as though you are making potential to be an independant thing (state or quality, as you say). Yet if potential were an independant state, then it could not be attached to anything, be dependant upon anything, yet it is clear that in our space/time construct that this is the case. If something is purely independant, as you suggest by saying that it needs not be attached to anything, that it 'existed' prior to creation, and that it is infinite, then it could never be attached to anything, perticularly not in a construct that it is responsible for. A thing cannot be purely independant, and dependant at the same time.

Those things which you challenge God to do, are meaningless since they can be accomplished ONLY by nothing. And your reasoning behind potential is hidden to me, for the notions you present about it make no sense to me.