because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something? It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point

So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated

But logically, nothing should exist because it's impossible that existence always existed, how did it begin? Everything has a beginning so if existence has a beginning, what was before that?:eek:

because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something?

By its very definition it doesn't seem it could. Have you ever seen an instance of *nothing*? It doesn't appear to be real.


It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point

What you call a 'starting' point is a moment of change that is recognizable to you. It also has doesn't prove that it is impossible for existence to always 'be'.


So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated

It might not have a starting point.


But logically, nothing should exist because it's impossible that existence always existed, how did it begin?

It doesn't appear that *nothing* exists; hence, the implication is that existence has always existed... i.e. no beginning.


Everything has a beginning so if existence has a beginning, what was before that?:eek:

Again, what you call a 'beginning' is but a moment of change that you recognize. Did you know there are parts of reality that move without time?

But everything needs to have started somewhere, to suggest that it always existed is......complicated and confusing, because that means time is eternal (or has been eternal) but then it raises the question: what the fuck do we live in?

But everything needs to have started somewhere, to suggest that it always existed is......complicated and confusing, because that means time is eternal (or has been eternal) but then it raises the question: what the fuck do we live in?

why does everything need to have a starting point?. what have we ever witnessed to have a starting point?. we as humans have only ever observed transformation of energy, nothing else.

the universe is very complicated and confusing, this very subject has lead to the suicide of the worlds best philosophical minds in the past. it is so fantasitic and mind boggling to even comprehend true infinity or finity, both are as strange to us mortal humans as the other.

i spend most of my philosophy thinking time on this very subject. and i have come to a near conclusion, that existence is infact eternal and infinite, time does not exist, and there is only "NOW", and there was never a start of existence because it didnt need a start. things only need starting points if we believe time exists. if you eliminate time it makes sense.

but ofcourse people dont like to eliminate time, especialy since so many scientific theories depend on it.


peace.

What we assume is nothing isn't the case for even nothing has some atomic particles or subatomic particles there invisible to the eye. The most important things in life are invisible to our eyes. Also remember that which ends begins, and that which begins also ends. A loop if it were or just never ending starting and stopping of time and matter.

because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something? It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point

So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated

But logically, nothing should exist because it's impossible that existence always existed, how did it begin? Everything has a beginning so if existence has a beginning, what was before that?:eek:

Maybe this is non-existence...

if you imagine that nothing exists, you realize that it's unimaginable, and that's why imagination (everything) is born and creates everything. nothing is everything, because everything could be there.

because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something?

what is something? everything that exists is something, so you can never explain what something is, and that's why it can't be anything but nothing, illusion.

It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point

without cause there is no effect. but the problem is that you think that the universe started in time, in the past, when it is constantly created now in this eternal moment, like a signal creates a picture on a TV.

Regardless of whether or not there is time or not, where did the absolute first creations of existence come from? Where did the energy they used come from? Where did it all come from? If it is a cycle, something needs to have come before it, so what came before existence?

But everything needs to have started somewhere,...

That's flawed thinking. It can be exposed as such by asking the simple objective question 'why?'.


... to suggest that it always existed is......complicated and confusing,...


Do you value having answers that are easy to understand more than truth?


because that means time is eternal (or has been eternal)...

It doesn't mean that. Did you know that photons (light) move through space and not time? Time is a construct of our universe specifically; however, when our universe expands / contracts it does so without being 'encased' in time. What this all means is that changes in mass require time and other forms of change do not.


but then it raises the question: what the fuck do we live in?

You don't live "in" something. That is a subjective term that really does not apply. You are a collection of atoms. Atoms are part of (not in) the universe. Lets say, there was a universe right next to ours and we tried to transfer some atoms to it. How would you do it? Could they leap from one universe to the other? The answer is 'no' because they are objects (with mass consequently) made out of space-time (i.e. they are made out of the structure of our universe). You are the same way. You are literally a cross section of the universe that is sentient... a point of consciousness if you will.

Regardless of whether or not there is time or not, where did the absolute first creations of existence come from? Where did the energy they used come from? Where did it all come from? If it is a cycle, something needs to have come before it, so what came before existence?
But thats the point, without time 'creation' is completely meaningless. It's a case where the consequences are counter-intuitive indeed, intuitions are the only evidence you have, and almost all intuitions are useless if we remove time (since everything we know is based on it.)

I'l quote Hawking, a public lecture on the beginning of time
Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
And the law of conservation of matter is the same as conservation of energy, so the enery did indeed 'spontaniously' exist. Remember, our intuitions and knowlege of conservation of energy/mattter (and thus thigns not spontaniously existing) are all based on the physics of our universe, which has absolutly nothing to do with the physics of the begginings of our universe.

-Andrew

Regardless of whether or not there is time or not, where did the absolute first creations of existence come from?

Again, this is flawed thinking. Lets perform the 'why' test. Why does there have to be an 'absolute first' of existence? Why does it have to be 'created'? Why would it have to 'come from' something?


Where did the energy they used come from? Where did it all come from? If it is a cycle, something needs to have come before it, so what came before existence?

I think the idea of 'cyclic' would apply to our universe specifically (not necessarily reality). As long as reality just 'is' (i.e. no start / end ), a cyclic behavior can be infinite.

Absolutely, logically nothing should exist. Perhaps that is in fact the case. But, what you think is something is really nothing.

Absolutely, logically nothing should exist. Perhaps that is in fact the case. But, what you think is something is really nothing.

Can you point out a single instance of *nothing* (i.e. a complete absence of anything / everything)?

you assume that time had a beginning but then you conclude that before the beginning that 'nothing' existed. 'before the beginning of time' is a meaningless statement.


the universe didn't come from nothing. it came from everything. big difference.

Yeah. Maybe right now is nothingness. You just perceive somethingness as more than nothing, which it may not be.

Again, this is flawed thinking. Lets perform the 'why' test. Why does there have to be an 'absolute first' of existence? Why does it have to be 'created'? Why would it have to 'come from' something?



I think the idea of 'cyclic' would apply to our universe specifically (not necessarily reality). As long as reality just 'is' (i.e. no start / end ), a cyclic behavior can be infinite.

If it wasn't in some way created, how would it exist? What would it do? What would it change? Why is it there? Makes no sense to me.

Well, a pretty big part of your conundrum is the fact that we can't see the higher dimensions from which the big bang (may have) sprung. It's like trying to figure out how a car works without being allowed to lift the hood.

If it wasn't in some way created, how would it exist? What would it do? What would it change? Why is it there? Makes no sense to me.

i prefer to think of existence in terms of events. everthing that exists is an event. to 'exist' is to 'do (something)'. what can one event do to another event? well it can 'observe' it. the event of observing another event is observed by other events. and so on and so on.

What we assume is nothing isn't the case for even nothing has some atomic particles or subatomic particles there invisible to the eye. The most important things in life are invisible to our eyes. Also remember that which ends begins, and that which begins also ends. A loop if it were or just never ending starting and stopping of time and matter.

if you section off a cubic meter of space, you can mention all of the atomic and sub-atomic particles and account for the existence of those. but what about the rest of the empty space?, empty space or force does exist, otherwise everything would be one connected piece of mass, there is an empty space that seperates everything. we cannot see, hear, taste, smell or touch this empty force, it eludes all 5 of our senses that we use to interact with the universe. this is as close to nothing as we can ever guess. yet it is still something on a level that we cannot interact with.


peace.

If it wasn't in some way created, how would it exist? What would it do? What would it change? Why is it there? Makes no sense to me.

but you cannot create existence from nothing, an infinite universe that always existed, makes alot more sense than something comming from absolute nothingness. how would you even begin to explain how nothing can create something?


peace.

it eludes all 5 of our senses that we use to interact with the universe.
Actually the last I heard there are around 22(?) senses that we have... :D

"So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated"

The scientists can work their theory down to a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang, but they don't have any idea what happened before this.

If it was possible for the universe to begin 13.7 Billion years ago, why did it not start 50 billion years ago instead.

what if time is discrete? what if the universe makes instantaneous jumps between states? there would still have to be a first moment but wouldn't it be easier to imagine that time has a beginning if it is discrete?

If it wasn't in some way created, how would it exist?

That might be one of the few things to which a 'how' question doesn't apply. Either way, we don't posess the knowledge to answer the question or know if its really a valid question.


What would it do?

That's an easy one :). Exactly what its doing now.


What would it change?

Ultimately our understanding of reality.


Why is it there?

If that's really a 'how' question then the same answer applies. If this is a question of 'sentient intent' then it doesn't appear to apply.


Makes no sense to me.

It's a tough thing to mentally undo all the assumptions that go into our questions.

but you cannot create existence from nothing, an infinite universe that always existed, makes alot more sense than something comming from absolute nothingness. how would you even begin to explain how nothing can create something?


peace.

Exactly, but the concept that it ALWAYS existed completely eliminates Time from the picture, or even common sense

It is ridiculous to think that in all existence, no even lead to present day it was just there for absolutely no reason

Imagine an infinite line. Where did it start?

So obviously not everything has a starting point.

Now imagine existence to be infinite. voila.

"So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated"

The scientists can work their theory down to a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang, but they don't have any idea what happened before this.

If it was possible for the universe to begin 13.7 Billion years ago, why did it not start 50 billion years ago instead.

The solution to this would be a fluctuating universe. Bing bang, big crunch, big bang, etc... for eternity. No starting point, no ending.

Exactly, but the concept that it ALWAYS existed completely eliminates Time from the picture, or even common sense

It is ridiculous to think that in all existence, no even lead to present day it was just there for absolutely no reason

How would it eliminate time ?

Why is it ridiculous ? Religious people make the same assumption about God.

The solution to this would be a fluctuating universe. Bing bang, big crunch, big bang, etc... for eternity. No starting point, no ending.

I understand that but where would the materials and energy requiered have come from? That's what doesn't make sense, where did all of these things come from.

It would eliminate time because according to time everything has a start point

I understand that but where would the materials and energy requiered have come from? That's what doesn't make sense, where did all of these things come from.

It simply always was.
Again, theists make this claim all the time about their God. Im assuming you are religious ?


It would eliminate time because according to time everything has a start point
Says who ? :shrug:

It simply always was.
Again, theists make this claim all the time about their God. Im assuming you are religious ?


Says who ? :shrug:

No not really. Anyway, it just can't have been "simply was" that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, if everything was simply there, the question is why and how did it get there?

Says common sense. If you add time, logically, nothing should exist.

No not really. Anyway, it just can't have been "simply was" that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, if everything was simply there, the question is why and how did it get there?

Says common sense. If you add time, logically, nothing should exist.

We are both making assumptions we can never prove. Lets just leave it at that.

We are both making assumptions we can never prove. Lets just leave it at that.

What assumptions? It is only common sense that something needs to have led to what we see today, and something needs to have led to that, etc. So the question is, where did it all originally come from? Unless you believe in God, this is very confusing. And even then, what created God?

Also, time means that everything has a starting point. Eliminate time and it makes sense, but if you eliminate time, the question becomes obsolete.

Actually the last I heard there are around 22(?) senses that we have... :D

and none of them can interact/sense with the unseen fabric.


peace.

Exactly, but the concept that it ALWAYS existed completely eliminates Time from the picture, or even common sense

It is ridiculous to think that in all existence, no even lead to present day it was just there for absolutely no reason

exactly eliminate the fiction that time had a start.


and it makes more sense than something comming from absolute nothing. anyway you believe in what i am saying, because you are a muslim. and you think allah is eternal and has always existed. i believe that energy and also the unseen fabric (dao) have always existed. we both believe that things are eternal, we just call them different names. you call it allah, i call it dao.


peace.

exactly eliminate the fiction that time had a start.

and it makes more sense than something comming from absolute nothing.
peace.



the idea that time had a beginning does not imply that something came from nothing. quite the opposite.

What assumptions? It is only common sense that something needs to have led to what we see today, and something needs to have led to that, etc. So the question is, where did it all originally come from? Unless you believe in God, this is very confusing. And even then, what created God?

Also, time means that everything has a starting point. Eliminate time and it makes sense, but if you eliminate time, the question becomes obsolete.

Oh right... :rolleyes: You KNOW all that eh ? Well good luck with that.

no I don't KNOW all that but I mean it's logical to think that it's impossible that existence has always existed. What's the point of it even existing? It's hard to believe it was always there, forever without having to come from something.

no I don't KNOW all that but I mean it's logical to think that it's impossible that existence has always existed. What's the point of it even existing? It's hard to believe it was always there, forever without having to come from something.

If you don't KNOW it its an assumption.

And how is it logical to think (read assume) that it's impossible that existence has always existence ? Both assumptions are just as logical. Actually, scratch that; to assert that nothing and something are the same is absolutely NOT logical.

What would be the point of existence if it did come from nothing.. ?

That something is hard to believe doesn't mean it can't true.

The thing is: nothing really exists, its all "Maya"

If you don't KNOW it its an assumption.

And how is it logical to think (read assume) that it's impossible that existence has always existence ? Both assumptions are just as logical. Actually, scratch that; to assert that nothing and something are the same is absolutely NOT logical.

What would be the point of existence if it did come from nothing.. ?

That something is hard to believe doesn't mean it can't true.

There had to have been a time when there was nothing, absolutely nothing.

dont ask me why, it's only logical that it couldn't have always existed, if it did:

1. How?
2. Why?
3. wtf did it come from?

it makes no sense to say it's always been there for absolutely no reason.

There had to have been a time when there was nothing, absolutely nothing.

dont ask me why, it's only logical that it couldn't have always existed, if it did:

1. How?
2. Why?
3. wtf did it come from?

it makes no sense to say it's always been there for absolutely no reason.

It does actually... it was difficult for me to accept that existence might be infinite in terms of time. But why can it not be?

If existence is infinite it didn't come from anything, it just exists. There is no why or how, it just exists.

There had to have been a time when there was nothing, absolutely nothing.

dont ask me why, it's only logical that it couldn't have always existed, if it did:

1. How?
2. Why?
3. wtf did it come from?

it makes no sense to say it's always been there for absolutely no reason.

If its logical why cant i ask why, if its logical theres a reason for it.

I already said neither of us could prove our assumptions. However, if it always existed questions 1, 2 and 3 are not relevant (especially question 3 ! :bugeye:).

This could go on forever, I suggest we put an end to it. :)

The thing is: nothing really exists, its all "Maya"

Does "Maya" exist ?

There had to have been a time when there was nothing, absolutely nothing.





no because time itself wouldnt exist. existence goes back to the first moment of time. before that there was no time.

And before that there was what?

I find it hard to believe this energy and matter of our universe or all universes or even existence was just there, forever, randomly there for absolutely no reason and with nothing to have come from. That is what makes it so amazing to believe a cock and bull theory that the universe just always existed.

And before that there was what?

I find it hard to believe this energy and matter of our universe or all universes or even existence was just there, forever, randomly there for absolutely no reason and with nothing to have come from. That is what makes it so amazing to believe a cock and bull theory that the universe just always existed.

Its a whole lot more logical than to assert something equals nothing.

because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something? It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point

So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated

But logically, nothing should exist because it's impossible that existence always existed, how did it begin? Everything has a beginning so if existence has a beginning, what was before that?:eek:Logically something exists, since it does.

There is no other logic.

Everything has a start that we know of, often that start is a transition from one state to another, not a "something from nothing" or that start has to come from outside.

The idea that time also started and that it could explain that it wasn't started at a specific point etc. is simply something the scientists say because they have no other option and it looked like it could work.

Its a whole lot more logical than to assert something equals nothing.

something can't be anything but nothing.

If it transits from another form, where did that form transit from? And the one before that? And that? That's what doesn't make sense to me, what was the VERY FIRST ever "thing" in the universe? And how did it come?

what was the VERY FIRST ever "thing" in the universe?

the universe itself. everything.

where did it come from is a meaningless statement. its like asking what came before the beginning.

the universe itself. everything.

where did it come from is a meaningless statement. its like asking what came before the beginning.

Why is there a beginning then?

Why is there a beginning then?

BEFORE the beginning is meaningless.

I want to know what happens after the end :D

Why is there a beginning then?

there is no evidence that the universe/existence had a starting point. not even a hint at that.


peace.

BEFORE the beginning is meaningless.

how would you get a beginning ?


peace.

I want to know what happens after the end :D

after the end, and before the beggining, did not and willl not exist. time does not come into play. there is just "now", and it is eternal. (as far as i can use logic to show).

how would you describe it as?. eternal existence no start?, something came from nothing? what would you say?


peace.

how would you get a beginning ?


peace.



i dont know but the question itself is probably meaningless. like asking what is north of the north pole or what is the sound of one hand clapping. just because you can ask a question doesnt mean that there has to be an answer.

i dont know but the question itself is probably meaningless. like asking what is north of the north pole or what is the sound of one hand clapping. just because you can ask a question doesnt mean that there has to be an answer.

its not meaningless, and neither is asking what is north of the north pole. they both have an answer, even if the answer is a correction and not straight forward and simple.

even if your answer is "there is nothing north of the north pole" its still an answer with meaning that leads to another question, and if you keep asking something you will get to its root.

if you keep asking "how" to any question, you will get further and further into the root knowledge of the universe and existence.


there has to be an answer to a question about facts and reality. look around everything has a fact and truth. but we dont know them all.


peace.

If it transits from another form, where did that form transit from? And the one before that? And that? That's what doesn't make sense to me, what was the VERY FIRST ever "thing" in the universe? And how did it come?

You are not listening. The question you ask is only relevant to your own assertion. If something always was the question is meaningless.

There might not be evidence that there was a beginning, but it is logical to say that all that you see today, and all that was before, and before that, and before that, had to have come from something.

There might not be evidence that there was a beginning, but it is logical to say that all that you see today, and all that was before, and before that, and before that, had to have come from something.

so your saying existence is an eternal cycle of constant transformation?.


peace.

so your saying existence is an eternal cycle of constant transformation?.


peace.

No, nothing of the sort. I'm saying that there must have been some sort of outside "thing" (for lack of a better word) that must've sparked the creation of existence, but then, what created that?

It's like God. You believe that God is eternal, but I still have to wonder, how was he created? Why is he there?

No, nothing of the sort. I'm saying that there must have been some sort of outside "thing" (for lack of a better word) that must've sparked the creation of existence, but then, what created that?

It's like God. You believe that God is eternal, but I still have to wonder, how was he created? Why is he there?

there is not "outside" of the universe, because universe means everything in existence. so if something does lay outside of what we call the universe, then we have to then include that in the universe. even if another universe exists, that is still in the overall universe.

exactly what created the thing before the thing?, if you believe something created the known universe, then something must have created that. if you think god created it then god must either be an eternal cycle of transformation, or god is eternal and has always existed.


you cant just say something came from nothing without explaining how it might even happen. why do you believe this even though you cant even explain it to yourself? thats illogical to believe something you cant explain.


peace.

There might not be evidence that there was a beginning, but it is logical to say that all that you see today, and all that was before, and before that, and before that, had to have come from something.

And before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, etc.
Do you see the problem ?
If you keep up that reasoning you end up agreeing with me that something always was.

No, nothing of the sort. I'm saying that there must have been some sort of outside "thing" (for lack of a better word) that must've sparked the creation of existence, but then, what created that?

It's like God. You believe that God is eternal, but I still have to wonder, how was he created? Why is he there?

1.) But then what created that... exactly. Call that cause 0, what created cause 0 ? Cause -1 created cause 0, but what created cause -1 ? That must have been cause -2... etc, etc, etc.

2.) I don't believe God is eternal, i don't even believe in God.
If you have to wonder how he was created we're back to 1.)
Why is he there ? Where ? I don't think he IS there or anywhere..

thats illogical to believe something you cant explain.


I think you meant this: Its illogical to believe in something that cant be explained. ;)

I think you meant this: Its illogical to believe in something that cant be explained. ;)

no i actualy meant, its illogical to believe in something that you cant explain yourself. because the first thing you should be able to do with something you personaly believe in is explain it.

thats why i believe existence has always existed, simply because i cannot explain or understand how something can come from nothing, wich to me concludes something had to always exist.

peace.

It seems to be in a place were time and space have not meaning, there must exist infinate potential which is made manifest as universes. But how else, what else, could be made manifest also?
In essence the question you are asking is how a temporal-spatial mind can comprehend that which is not temporal spatial, and the short answer is that it cannot.

no i actualy meant, its illogical to believe in something that you cant explain yourself. because the first thing you should be able to do with something you personaly believe in is explain it.

thats why i believe existence has always existed, simply because i cannot explain or understand how something can come from nothing, wich to me concludes something had to always exist.

peace.

I see your point but in that case belief is illogical period. Belief is a confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, thus being unexplainable.

Also, you cannot explain or understand how something always was. So your (and mine) belief is illogical by your own definition. ;)

Both 'theories' are unprovable, therefore you can only belief in one of them or be agnostic about the whole thing. I chose to believe that something always was because that is a whole lot more logical than to believe that nothing equals something.

I see your point but in that case belief is illogical period. Belief is a confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, thus being unexplainable.

Also, you cannot explain or understand how something always was. So your (and mine) belief is illogical by your own definition. ;)

Both 'theories' are unprovable, therefore you can only belief in one of them or be agnostic about the whole thing. I chose to believe that something always was because that is a whole lot more logical than to believe that nothing equals something.

you are right in alot of ways, but if something always existed it has no further explanation than that. because it always existed, therefore has no reason, meaning or method to its existence. it just is. if something is truly infinite/eternal, then your explanation can only be very short and simple. because it was always existing and thats all.



peace.

you are right in alot of ways, but if something always existed it has no further explanation than that. because it always existed, therefore has no reason, meaning or method to its existence. it just is. if something is truly infinite/eternal, then your explanation can only be very short and simple. because it was always existing and thats all.



peace.

I agree, but that is exactly the point. Thats why you cant prove or disprove it, preventing you from ever arriving at the point where you can explain it.
Come to think of it, disproving that something equals nothing should be quite simple ;)

Let's not forget that we are in a fish bowl. It is quite conceiveable that the explanation for the existence of the universe requires an understanding of what exists beyond the universe, such as higher dimensions of space. Our inability to see beyond our universe makes it quite possibly impossible to explain the existence of the universe.

Its because as human beings we dont have the mental capacity to understand things that are truly infinite. Not everything is linear, beginning and end, Time doesnt exists so isnt it possible that all the infinite span of our existence is happening simultaniously for eternity and our concious is just the product of a vast expanse of energy and matter that we cannot ever hope to explain. I mean how can you find the beginning to something that is infinite? Its effing mind boggling as it should be.

Let's not forget that we are in a fish bowl. It is quite conceiveable that the explanation for the existence of the universe requires an understanding of what exists beyond the universe, such as higher dimensions of space. Our inability to see beyond our universe makes it quite possibly impossible to explain the existence of the universe.

Universe = all there is.
There is no beyond the universe.

There is the multi-universe theory.

But see, what sparked THE VERY FIRST existence? Why is existence there in the first place, what was the very first thing? And then....how did IT get there?

I agree, but that is exactly the point. Thats why you cant prove or disprove it, preventing you from ever arriving at the point where you can explain it.
Come to think of it, disproving that something equals nothing should be quite simple ;)

but we can explain it quite well so far, you have the 2 main ideas. something that comes from nothing, wich we cannot explain. or something that always existed, and because it always existed it does not require an explanation. simply because if something has always existed it would not need a reason or meaning to explain why it exists.

eternity doesent need to be explained, its not that it cant be explained. its explanation is infact as simple as the statement. "it always existed". that is the explanation.


peace.

There is the multi-universe theory.

But see, what sparked THE VERY FIRST existence? Why is existence there in the first place, what was the very first thing? And then....how did IT get there?

Multi-universe theory is just a name, IF its true all the universes combined form the 'overall' universe.

What makes you think there was a very first existence ?

There is the multi-universe theory.

But see, what sparked THE VERY FIRST existence? Why is existence there in the first place, what was the very first thing? And then....how did IT get there?

what you are asking is not going to ever produce an answer. you will just go round and round in circles. then you will finaly realise and come to the conclusion i came to about 8 years ago, that in that frame of thinking it must be an infinite eternal cycle of transformation. wich is sparked by the eternal empty force that we call space and i call dao.

if something had a start then something must have started it, and so on and so on.


peace,

but we can explain it quite well so far, you have the 2 main ideas. something that comes from nothing, wich we cannot explain. or something that always existed, and because it always existed it does not require an explanation. simply because if something has always existed it would not need a reason or meaning to explain why it exists.

eternity doesent need to be explained, its not that it cant be explained. its explanation is infact as simple as the statement. "it always existed". that is the explanation.


peace.

I am agreeing with you, I'm just saying that we can never prove that something always existed.
It follows that we can't explain how or why something always was (whether that is necessary or not).

I am agreeing with you, I'm just saying that we can never prove that something always existed.
It follows that we can't explain how or why something always was (whether that is necessary or not).

we cant prove it with observation or hard evidence, but we can prove it in the same way we can show some forms of physics through maths. we can present logical evidence but it can never be shown in physical form.

like for example 0+0 = 0, you can never get 1 from a 0.


peace.

we cant prove it with observation or hard evidence, but we can prove it in the same way we can show some forms of physics through maths. we can present logical evidence but it can never be shown in physical form.

like for example 0+0 = 0, you can never get 1 from a 0.


peace.

Thats how you disprove something equals nothing.
Not how you prove something always was. ;)

Time and space were created at the big bang we are told. I think its true because I respect the scientists who say it but i'd need to seriously study a lot of maths and physics before i can start to understand what they really mean.

What were time and space like initially? What the hell are they now for that matter? Could one form in some way before/without the other? Perhaps their original natures may be quite unimaginable except in mathematics.

If hot spacetime were being originated then in some way it must have become a cooler kind spacetime as it grew. Why? There was nowhere (yet) for the heat to radiate away. Maybe the heat source was turned off?

Im using lots of words related to time. Like 'was, grew,become,have been,to start with, etc. All seem kind of out of place on this topic when things maybe did'nt apparently use my kind of space or time. I think nature was operating in a way very alien to us here and now, but theres no reason why it should not be scientifically explainable.

I do believe also though that the 'big bang 'whatever it may be was the simplest of inevitable things. To nature the origin of the universe was just as easy to do as the sound of a leaf falling from a tree.

Time and space were created at the big bang we are told. I think its true because I respect the scientists who say it but i'd need to seriously study a lot of maths and physics before i can start to understand what they really mean.

What were time and space like initially? What the hell are they now for that matter? Could one form in some way before/without the other? Perhaps their original natures may be quite unimaginable except in mathematics.

If hot spacetime were being originated then in some way it must have become a cooler kind spacetime as it grew. Why? There was nowhere (yet) for the heat to radiate away. Maybe the heat source was turned off?

Im using lots of words related to time. Like 'was, grew,become,have been,to start with, etc. All seem kind of out of place on this topic when things maybe did'nt apparently use my kind of space or time. I think nature was operating in a way very alien to us here and now, but theres no reason why it should not be scientifically explainable.

I do believe also though that the 'big bang 'whatever it may be was the simplest of inevitable things. To nature the origin of the universe was just as easy to do as the sound of a leaf falling from a tree.

They don't say that, they don't say it because they don't know what happened at the moment of the big bang. For all we know the universe is fluctuating (for ever).

Thats how you disprove something equals nothing.
Not how you prove something always was. ;)

it actualy does both :), think about it. if you cant get 1 from 0, that means we must have started with atleast 1,

1+1 = 2, we need the 1s otherwise we cant have anything. 0 represents nothing and 1 represents something. so in conclusion there must have always been 1s. because you cant get anything out of 0s.


peace.

it actualy does both :), think about it. if you cant get 1 from 0, that means we must have started with atleast 1,

1+1 = 2, we need the 1s otherwise we cant have anything. 0 represents nothing and 1 represents something. so in conclusion there must have always been 1s. because you cant get anything out of 0s.


peace.

Its not very solid proof, but i guess its the best we've got ;)

Its not very solid proof, but i guess its the best we've got ;)

lol yeah, as far as maths goes though its pretty good. 0+0 could never produce 1. we have to conclude that existence has always been 1.


peace.

Multi-universe theory is just a name, IF its true all the universes combined form the 'overall' universe.

What makes you think there was a very first existence ?

Because otherwise that would be saying that all matter, energy, etc has always been there, for absolutely no reason nor deriving from any sort of begining, which is nonsense.

And before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, etc.
Do you see the problem ?
If you keep up that reasoning you end up agreeing with me that something always was.

no, because time itself has a benning and there is no 'before time began'.

Because otherwise that would be saying that all matter, energy, etc has always been there, for absolutely no reason nor deriving from any sort of begining, which is nonsense.

no, the fact that it has always existed is the reason. something deriving from absolute nothing without a reason is nonesense.

how would you explain such an event in your theory?


peace.

no, because time itself has a benning and there is no 'before time began'.

on what basis do you say time had a start?


peace.

Because otherwise that would be saying that all matter, energy, etc has always been there, for absolutely no reason nor deriving from any sort of begining, which is nonsense.

And something equaling nothing is not nonsense ?

Lets say for a second that your theory is correct. First there was nothing, then, all of a sudden there was something.
Something came into existence from nothing, for what reason ? What reason can you provide for that ? If you cant point to a reason your theory is nonsense as you yourself pointed out.

no, because time itself has a benning and there is no 'before time began'.

How does that change anything ? What caused time to come into existence ?

How does that change anything ? What caused time to come into existence ?

it didnt. 'coming into existence' would require time.

instead of saying 'exists' how about saying 'happens'. that which happens happens. and in happening it causes itself to happen again.

Entropy...

Every time energy is used, a little bit of it is lost from use. That little bit can never be recovered. Which means, sooner or later, the universe will not have any usable energy left. That is what is known as 'heat-death' and nothing will ever happen after that point. The universe as a place where life can develop and people can participate in internet forums has a limited, finite lifespan.

That heat death hasn't happened yet. Obviously. I don't get around like I used to, but I still get around.

If the universe were infinitely old, had 'always' existed, this would have happened long ago. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a starting point. The expansion of the universe and the average temperature of the universe confirm this theory.

The universe is about 12.7 to 13.7 billion years old, give or take an eon.

What started it all? The mechanics of it are explained in the 'Big Bang' theory. It fits most of the known facts about the universe and makes predictions that are confirmed whenever we can do the experiments.

The 'why' of it is the real problem. Us Christian believers know why, and the atheists all put their hands over their ears and sing "lalalalalala" whenever the subject comes up. Or make up great theories about 'multiple universes' and 'mega-verses' which can't be detected or interacted... ain't that the bee's knees?

Whatever one wants to believe to sooth one's fears beside the point; the universe did begin at a specific point and will end at a specific point. If one can't deal with that, one is in denial.

And the original poster is correct: There is no reason - absent that awkward God person - why anything should exist at all.

it didnt. 'coming into time' would require time.

instead of saying 'exists' how about saying 'happens'. that which happens happens. and in happening it causes itself to happen again.

So time always was.. ? :shrug:

Entropy...

Every time energy is used, a little bit of it is lost from use. That little bit can never be recovered. Which means, sooner or later, the universe will not have any usable energy left. That is what is known as 'heat-death' and nothing will ever happen after that point. The universe as a place where life can develop and people can participate in internet forums has a limited, finite lifespan.

That heat death hasn't happened yet. Obviously. I don't get around like I used to, but I still get around.

If the universe were infinitely old, had 'always' existed, this would have happened long ago. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a starting point. The expansion of the universe and the average temperature of the universe confirm this theory.

The universe is about 12.7 to 13.7 billion years old, give or take an eon.

What started it all? The mechanics of it are explained in the 'Big Bang' theory. It fits most of the known facts about the universe and makes predictions that are confirmed whenever we can do the experiments.

The 'why' of it is the real problem. Us Christian believers know why, and the atheists all put their hands over their ears and sing "lalalalalala" whenever the subject comes up. Or make up great theories about 'multiple universes' and 'mega-verses' which can't be detected or interacted... ain't that the bee's knees?

Whatever one wants to believe to sooth one's fears beside the point; the universe did begin at a specific point and will end at a specific point. If one can't deal with that, one is in denial.

Energy doesn't get 'lost', it is only transformed. You can't destroy or create energy.

If the universe were infinitely old, had 'always' existed, this would have happened long ago.
No it wouldn't have happened long ago, it always was.. it never 'happened'.

Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a starting point.
What about a fluctuating universe ?

The 'why' of it is the real problem. Us Christian believers know why, and the atheists all put their hands over their ears and sing "lalalalalala" whenever the subject comes up. Or make up great theories about 'multiple universes' and 'mega-verses' which can't be detected or interacted... ain't that the bee's knees?
Oh, you're one of those...
You don't know why, you belief you know why.
So the creation theory hasn't been made up ? Yeah, right. :bugeye:
How is the creation theory detected or interacted ? :bugeye:

Whatever one wants to believe to sooth one's fears beside the point; the universe did begin at a specific point and will end at a specific point. If one can't deal with that, one is in denial.
Sooth one's fear ? What the hell.. aren't you talking about yourself !?
If one doesn't belief the shit that you belief in they are in denial ? Give me a break.. :bugeye:

How does that change anything ? What caused time to come into existence ?

you are assuming that prior to that first moment that there was a 'nothing'. but there wasnt. there is no 'prior to the beginning'. something didnt come from nothing. it came from everything.

you are assuming that prior to that first moment that there was a 'nothing'. but there wasnt. there is no 'prior to the beginning'. something didnt come from nothing. it came from everything.

If there was no prior to beginning there wasn't any time prior to beginning either. This means the universe always was, but in a different way.
I like this version, but there will be trouble explaining how this came to be.

Energy doesn't get 'lost', it is only transformed. You can't destroy or create energy.Energy is lost from use. Perhaps you should read up on entropy. This isn't something unknown.
If the universe were infinitely old, had 'always' existed, this would have happened long ago.No it wouldn't have happened long ago, it always was.. it never 'happened'.What never happened, Enmos? Entropy, or the Universe?
Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a starting point.What about a fluctuating universe ?Are you talking about the 'pulsating' Universe that expands and contracts? What evidence do you have to support such a thought?
The 'why' of it is the real problem. Us Christian believers know why, and the atheists all put their hands over their ears and sing "lalalalalala" whenever the subject comes up. Or make up great theories about 'multiple universes' and 'mega-verses' which can't be detected or interacted... ain't that the bee's knees?Oh, you're one of those...
You don't know why, you belief you know why.How do you type with your hands over your ears (eyes in this case) and making noises to distract yourself? You are one of those, aren't you? Sorry to disturb your dreamworld, Enmos.So the creation theory hasn't been made up ? Yeah, right. :bugeye:
How is the creation theory detected or interacted ? :bugeye:Which 'creation theory' do you reference, sir? The Big Bang theory of the universe, or the Creation story in Genesis? I take it you reject both, is that it?
Whatever one wants to believe to sooth one's fears beside the point; the universe did begin at a specific point and will end at a specific point. If one can't deal with that, one is in denial.Sooth one's fear ? What the hell.. aren't you talking about yourself !?No, Enmos, I'm talking about you. You're so afraid of life you deny your mortality. You can't face up to thinking there is something more important than you. It's a pretty common failing.If one doesn't belief the shit that you belief in they are in denial ? Give me a break.. :bugeye:You understand neither entropy nor heat death nor the singularity beginning, and I'm supposed to bow to your superior knowledge? I've had this discussion before, and with educated people, too.

So time always was.. ? :shrug:

always means 'at all times'. so yes 'time' existed 'at all times'. but it did have a beginning. a first moment of time.

Energy is lost from use. Perhaps you should read up on entropy. This isn't something unknown.

It may be 'lost' from 'use' but it wont be destroyed, it is transformed.


What never happened, Enmos? Entropy, or the Universe?

Well, both i guess. But i was talking about the universe.
If something always was, it never started or happened. If something always was it that doesn't mean it started a loooooong time ago, it means it never started because it always was.


Are you talking about the 'pulsating' Universe that expands and contracts? What evidence do you have to support such a thought?

Yes.
I have no evidence.
What evidence do you have that the universe came into existence from nothing ?


How do you type with your hands over your ears (eyes in this case) and making noises to distract yourself? You are one of those, aren't you? Sorry to disturb your dreamworld, Enmos.

So you KNOW how the universe came to be eh ? lol
Well, present the evidence mate.


Which 'creation theory' do you reference, sir? The Big Bang theory of the universe, or the Creation story in Genesis? I take it you reject both, is that it?

Any theory that states God made the universe is a creation theory to me.
I don't reject the Big Bang at all.


No, Enmos, I'm talking about you. You're so afraid of life you deny your mortality. You can't face up to thinking there is something more important than you. It's a pretty common failing.

:confused: How did mortality come into this ? I am not afraid of life at all, and I' m not afraid of death either.
LOL you couldn't be more wrong about me. I have no importance at all, I'm but a mere speck of dust in the universe. I am mortal, contrary to you, you get to have eternal life by you own belief. When i die, I'm dead and will be reabsorbed by nature. Not you, you get to go to heaven and be with God and all that. Hows that for arrogance ? Who is afraid to die here ?


You understand neither entropy nor heat death nor the singularity beginning, and I'm supposed to bow to your superior knowledge? I've had this discussion before, and with educated people, too.

I understand most of it. I have no superior knowledge. I have said before that this discussion is useless because no one can prove either theory.
I am not asserting that any theory is true or false, I am merely stating that I think some theories are more logical than others, and thus have a better change of being true.
You come in and pretend i have just declared myself some sort of Jesus, better read the entire thread before posting such stuff buddy.

And something equaling nothing is not nonsense ?

Lets say for a second that your theory is correct. First there was nothing, then, all of a sudden there was something.
Something came into existence from nothing, for what reason ? What reason can you provide for that ? If you cant point to a reason your theory is nonsense as you yourself pointed out.

Of course, that is nonsense! That's why I want an answer!

But, the idea of it always being there, for no reason with no start point, just existing, is also total nonsense.

always means 'at all times'. so yes 'time' existed 'at all times'. but it did have a beginning. a first moment of time.

So we have established that time always was. Beginning has no meaning when you are speaking of the 'beginning of time'. Even if time has only existed for a nanosecond, it always existed. So i guess we eventually agree.

'coming into existence' would require time.
Here you claimed that in order for there to be 'something' time has to exist.
If 'something' has arisen together with time, we can conclude that 'something' always was.

Of course, that is nonsense! That's why I want an answer!

But, the idea of it always being there, for no reason with no start point, just existing, is also total nonsense.

Reason doesn't come into play Norse, it doesn't come into play in your 'theory' either.
Maybe you can find your self in above post ?

always means 'at all times'. so yes 'time' existed 'at all times'. but it did have a beginning. a first moment of time.

that doesent make sense, you are implying that something came from nothing. how would you explain your idea?


peace.

Of course, that is nonsense! That's why I want an answer!

But, the idea of it always being there, for no reason with no start point, just existing, is also total nonsense.

you have got it confused totaly, what you believe has no reason or cause. if something comes from nothing that is illogical.

if something always existed it wouldent have a reason, meaning, or cause. think about it properly, dont just read this post and ignore what people are saying or its pointless of us having a debate. i am listning to what you are saying.

if you have absolute nothing, then how can something be created? its impossible according to every law of physics we know of.

but if something always existed it does not need a creator, because it is eternal. if something has always existed then there is no question to ask about where it came from. because it didnt come from anywhere due to its eternal nature.

peace.

that doesent make sense, you are implying that something came from nothing. how would you explain your idea?


peace.

Chi, it doesn't matter, see post 104 ;)

Chi, it doesn't matter, see post 104 ;)

oh i didnt read that :).

peace,

Look, if the universe always existed, that would not make any sense.

Think of a timeline, the timeline cannot be infinite (from the beginning), because that would suggest that there is an INFINITE amount of matter, space, energy, etc,

That's why, regardless of whether or not there will be an end, there had to be a beginning. If you say it's infinite, that suggests that there is an endless amount of materials, and energy, which is nonsense

Look, if the universe always existed, that would not make any sense.

Think of a timeline, the timeline cannot be infinite (from the beginning), because that would suggest that there is an INFINITE amount of matter, space, energy, etc,

That's why, regardless of whether or not there will be an end, there had to be a beginning. If you say it's infinite, that suggests that there is an endless amount of materials, and energy, which is nonsense

Norsefire, read post 104. Its done :p

Look, if the universe always existed, that would not make any sense.

Think of a timeline, the timeline cannot be infinite (from the beginning), because that would suggest that there is an INFINITE amount of matter, space, energy, etc,

That's why, regardless of whether or not there will be an end, there had to be a beginning. If you say it's infinite, that suggests that there is an endless amount of materials, and energy, which is nonsense

why does an eternal existence suggest infinite amount of matter and material?
and ok then its fine to say you dont agree with 1 theory, but how do you explains omething comming from nothing then?

because your doing alot of complaining but not enough explaining :).

peace.

Look, if the universe always existed, that would not make any sense.

Why? All that humans have experience with are things that seem to have a beginning and an end. There's no reason for the contrary to be intuitively obvious. It's ok if it's hard to comprehend, but just because you don't dosen't mean it's "nonsense". If you were born a hundred years ago, would being able to float freely in microgravity been any less hard to accept?

There's nothing inherently odd about non-time bound existence. Remember onething. "time" as humans percieve it (like something passing or "moving on") is a completely subjective idea. Inert matter just changes state, from moment to moment, based on external forces. Unless it's shown that protons actually do decay, then there's no reason that a rock in intergalactic space couldn't last, unchanged, "forever".

Your difficulty is entirely one of a lack of imagination, I think.

Because, if the universe always existed, therefore the universe, which is energy, matter, and space (or any more of what we don't know), would be infinite. Energy is not infinite, therefore the universe cannot be infinite

It would mean that there was, and will be, an endless amount of energy within the universe

Because, if the universe always existed, therefore the universe, which is energy, matter, and space (or any more of what we don't know), would be infinite. Energy is not infinite, therefore the universe cannot be infinite

It would mean that there was, and will be, an endless amount of energy within the universe Non sequitur, infinite duration does not cause infinite other quantities (such as matter, energy, or space.) Infact, the theory states the opposite: energy is never created or destroyed, and thus, time has no effect on the quantity of energy, or matter in the universe.

-Andrew

I know, energy is cannot be created or destroyed

But matter can (as in, convert), and that means that matter must've been infinite, as well as energy, which is bull

But matter can (as in, convert), and that means that matter must've been infinite, as well as energy, which is bull Matter and energy are essentialy the same thing. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed either.

-Andrew

Matter and energy are essentialy the same thing. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed either.

-Andrew

If it cannot be created or destroyed, why does it exist? How does it exist?

If it cannot be created or destroyed, why does it exist? How does it exist? It always has existed, since it's start.
The overall assumption is that something needs to be created in order to exist. This assumption of course is meaningfull only as long as we have a dimension of time which is govourning the object who's existance is in question. Take a way time, and the problem of something needing to be created is completely meaningless.
Thus, one could say that the matter/energy already existed when time itself came into play, but having no time to exist in, there was no problems of creation or destruction (because as I said, those are meaningless terms without time.)

Since time is apart of the universe itself (and does not govourn it, but rather the things inside it) the problem is solved, and the question of "what created the universe" is entirely meaningless.

-Andrew

It always has existed, since it's start.
The overall assumption is that something needs to be created in order to exist. This assumption of course is meaningfull only as long as we have a dimension of time which is govourning the object who's existance is in question. Take a way time, and the problem of something needing to be created is completely meaningless.
Thus, one could say that the matter/energy already existed when time itself came into play, but having no time to exist in, there was no problems of creation or destruction (because as I said, those are meaningless terms without time.)

Since time is apart of the universe itself (and does not govourn it, but rather the things inside it) the problem is solved, and the question of "what created the universe" is entirely meaningless.

-Andrew

But what created matter/energy (why are they there)?

But what created matter/energy (why are they there)?
By what mechanisms does the universe happen to be? That would be the physics of our universe's universe... something we may never be able to understand (or even interact with.) So, I do not know.
Of course, my point is that this does not imply nonexistance due to an unending causal chain.

-Andrew

But what created matter/energy (why are they there)?

lol norse, seriously your questions are being answered, you have asked the same question over and over. you have recieved answers over and over. its kind of like talking to a robot.

you asked what created energy, we all said that energy cannot be created, only transformed. you are looking for some kind of meaning to life and existence. if something is eternal without start, then it does not have a meaning or reason.

peace.

Look Norse, I will try to simplify it for you.

Imagine the universe came into existence exactly 24 hours ago.
Then the universe has, at any point in the past 24 hours, always been (for all time).
The universe has been forever, at any point in the past 24 hours, despite the fact that it has only existed for 24 hours.
This is because there is no 'before time', "before" is a temporal expression and doesn't apply to a timeless situation.

So even if the universe had a 'beginning' it has always been. In fact you can't actually speak of a beginning of time because a beginning requires a 'before'.

I hope this helps.

Ok, forget about time. Just, what materials, and where did they come from that created the universe? They wouldn't have come out of no where now......

Norsefire, you can't get a satisfactory answer because science has no satisfactory answer.

Allow me to suggest you read a book called The First Three Minutes of Time, by Steven Weinberg. Weinberg deals the problems of 'what happened before time began'. The short answer is, our science cannot tell. All our theories and mathematics completely break down at the end of the first unit of Planck time, which is 10 ^ -43 power, if I'm remembering correctly.

There are a couple books by Brian Greene dealing with the origin of the universe, and of course, A Brief History of Time by Hawking. Check out the physics section of the public library; do a subject search for 'Cosmology'.

Current information has the universe at about 14 billion years old. So there is a beginning to the universe, it - spacetime - did in fact 'start' then. And despite Enmos' faith in a self-recycling universe, most astronomers and cosmologists do not believe the universe will ever reverse expansion and collapse upon itself. There isn't enough mass in the universe for gravity to take over from the expansion. The universe will continue to expland and finally attain total heat (energy) equilibrium - heat death.

It is actually more logical to live than to question existence lol, no im serious. This question is almsot moot. It can only be entertained in fact it logically doesnt matter because logically at base it is more important to stay alive, eat, find shelter, and maintain an aptitude for existing than to even question it. Its more or less the result of imagination and wishful thinking. If you spent all your days questioning in reality or logically, it would not do you one bit of decent good. That is unfortunate, but reality is reality and there's no changing that. This is coming from a solid ground not one based on upon the BIg what if's.

This whole thread began with an ancient question and time or history has actually shown our own genius into developing into the whole of humanity we know so well today. The ancients would frown upon our understanding. For it is not within undetstanding to constantly repeat the question, but to actual create anew the reality we may experience. Again teh ancients would frown upon this very thread for tis question was for them, not really for us, but still we hold it so near to us that it is transcluscent enough for us to actually bring it up in life. Our question is not even philosophical anymore. Philosophy is an old word for summing up the validity of existence, but yet we continue. Why? That leads back to the question. Can someone please say something to stop this so that we can actually do something for the human race dead and alive? That is the task that I am not even prepared to conquer, but maybe one of you guys out there can.

How does philosophy give us anything, but problems? Why can't philosophy actually solve problems? Why can;t philosophizing give us the answer to infinite resources i.e. food and shit like that? Seriously. This is a good point.

Ok, forget about time. Just, what materials, and where did they come from that created the universe? They wouldn't have come out of no where now......

1. You cant just leave out time.
2. I just explained how matter always was, no point in asking where it came from.

Norsefire, you can't get a satisfactory answer because science has no satisfactory answer.

Allow me to suggest you read a book called The First Three Minutes of Time, by Steven Weinberg. Weinberg deals the problems of 'what happened before time began'. The short answer is, our science cannot tell. All our theories and mathematics completely break down at the end of the first unit of Planck time, which is 10 ^ -43 power, if I'm remembering correctly.

There are a couple books by Brian Greene dealing with the origin of the universe, and of course, A Brief History of Time by Hawking. Check out the physics section of the public library; do a subject search for 'Cosmology'.

Current information has the universe at about 14 billion years old. So there is a beginning to the universe, it - spacetime - did in fact 'start' then. And despite Enmos' faith in a self-recycling universe, most astronomers and cosmologists do not believe the universe will ever reverse expansion and collapse upon itself. There isn't enough mass in the universe for gravity to take over from the expansion. The universe will continue to expland and finally attain total heat (energy) equilibrium - heat death.

Archie, I declared long ago in this thread that it was pointless to continue the discussion because neither 'theory' can never be proven correct.
I already said that my 'theory' is a belief and not fact.
We, well at least I, have arrived at a 'hypothesis' that doesn't require a 'self-recycling universe', see post 123.

It can only be entertained in fact it logically doesnt matter because logically at base it is more important to stay alive, eat, find shelter, and maintain an aptitude for existing than to even question it.

I can do all of those. ;)


If you spent all your days questioning in reality or logically, it would not do you one bit of decent good.

What, do you think I'm some kind of weirdo that spends his days pondering about existence ? LOL

How does philosophy give us anything, but problems? Why can't philosophy actually solve problems? Why can;t philosophizing give us the answer to infinite resources i.e. food and shit like that? Seriously. This is a good point.

Dunno :shrug:
But it can be fun though :)

Ok, so where did all that you see now come from? Something doesn't come out of nothing, so in the period of nothingness, where did the first something come from?

Ok, so where did all that you see now come from? Something doesn't come out of nothing, so in the period of nothingness, where did the first something come from?

Do you even read what we post ? :confused:

Do you even read what we post ? :confused:

Yes, all of it

But it does not answer the simple question: Where did the necessary whatever come from?

Yes, all of it

But it does not answer the simple question: Where did the necessary whatever come from?

It's a meaningless question.
I can't tell you anymore than I already did.
It looks like you're holding on to you 'theory' and I am holding on to mine.
No point in continuing this discussion, like I said before.

so in the period of nothingness, where did the first something come from?

From a wink. then another wink, and a wink wink wink...;)

And that means that logically nothing should exist

Because nothing cannot become something, therefore there shouldn't be anything existing today

But there is...so wtf

because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something? It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point

So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated

But logically, nothing should exist because it's impossible that existence always existed, how did it begin? Everything has a beginning so if existence has a beginning, what was before that?:eek:
Exactly! It's completely preposterous! :eek:

And that means that logically nothing should exist

Because nothing cannot become something, therefore there shouldn't be anything existing today

But there is...so wtf

Whatever Norse, this whole thread has been a waste of time.

And that means that logically nothing should exist

Because nothing cannot become something, therefore there shouldn't be anything existing today

But there is...so wtf
I actually wrote about that in my blog, yesterday. Sadly, I cannot post any links until I reach 20-something posts.... :shrug:

Whatever Norse, this whole thread has been a waste of time.

No, it's not, it's just the topic that is difficult

Because, once they find the answer to "how something can come out of nothing", then It would make sense. Until then, I will never understand how all the matter,energy,etc exists if it came from absolutely nothing

No, it's not, it's just the topic that is difficult

Because, once they find the answer to "how something can come out of nothing", then It would make sense. Until then, I will never understand how all the matter,energy,etc exists if it came from absolutely nothing
Obviously, that "nothing" must be something....

And that means that logically nothing should exist

Because nothing cannot become something, therefore there shouldn't be anything existing today

But there is...so wtf

you got it all in reverse

You said " logically, nothing exists"

i say, You exists and you are non logical

Obviously, that "nothing" must be something....

which brings us back to where we started.

that the assumption that the universe has a beginning is as good as the assumption that the universe has no beginning.

Because, once they find the answer to "how something can come out of nothing", then It would make sense. Until then, I will never understand how all the matter,energy,etc exists if it came from absolutely nothing
It's a question which has no answer, or evidence, in any way.
The intuitions that something cannot come from nothing are invalid, since they are based on the physics of our universe which is irrelevant before the big bang.
So, maby it is only in these physics that something cannot come from nothing, and if you read Hawking's aforementioned book, he says just that: before the big bang, conservation of matter/energy did not apply, and the amount of it could change.

That said,
A better question would be "What is something and nothing?" because all current examples are apart of our universe and cannot be applied to it's creation. Perhaps this is nothing?

-Andrew

It's a question which has no answer, or evidence, in any way.
The intuitions that something cannot come from nothing are invalid, since they are based on the physics of our universe which is irrelevant before the big bang.
So, maby it is only in these physics that something cannot come from nothing, and if you read Hawking's aforementioned book, he says just that: before the big bang, conservation of matter/energy did not apply, and the amount of it could change.

That said,
A better question would be "What is something and nothing?" because all current examples are apart of our universe and cannot be applied to it's creation. Perhaps this is nothing?

-Andrew

Don't encourage him ;)

And that means that logically nothing should exist

Because nothing cannot become something, therefore there shouldn't be anything existing today

But there is...so wtf

time itself has a beginning. from that first moment the universe (everything) existed. there was never a time when nothing existed. something did not come from nothing. it came from everything. 'everything' has always (at all times) existed.

'everything' was very small in the beginning and has been growing since.

time itself has a beginning. from that first moment the universe (everything) existed. there was never a time when nothing existed. something did not come from nothing. it came from everything. 'everything' has always (at all times) existed.

'everything' was very small in the beginning and has been growing since.

Time has also been at all times, therefore time had no beginning either.

It's a question which has no answer, or evidence, in any way.
The intuitions that something cannot come from nothing are invalid, since they are based on the physics of our universe which is irrelevant before the big bang.
So, maby it is only in these physics that something cannot come from nothing, and if you read Hawking's aforementioned book, he says just that: before the big bang, conservation of matter/energy did not apply, and the amount of it could change.

That said,
A better question would be "What is something and nothing?" because all current examples are apart of our universe and cannot be applied to it's creation. Perhaps this is nothing?

-Andrew

everything is an event. events that interact with other events. the act of interacting with another event is an event itself. it is the event itself.

Don't encourage him
Ooops.

everything is an event. events that interact with other events. the act of interacting with another event is an event itself. it is the event itself.
Well, now we have to define an event, I will presume it would be any form of information storage/interaction?
Also, this implys, or so it seems, that any form of information is equaly valid and 'real.' For instance my dreams have events much like real life, but are they real? Most would say 'no.' Or say the matrix from The Matrix would be equaly as equaly real as the 'real life' they are fighting machines in.
I do like this definition though.

-Andrew

Ooops.


Well, now we have to define an event, I will presume it would be any form of information storage/interaction?
Also, this implys, or so it seems, that any form of information is equaly valid and 'real.' For instance my dreams have events much like real life, but are they real? Most would say 'no.' Or say the matrix from The Matrix would be equaly as equaly real as the 'real life' they are fighting machines in.
I do like this definition though.

-Andrew

any form of information storage/interaction? yes, it seems so to me.

as for the matrix not being real, why would it not be real? at very least, it would be real to the people that live and die there.

because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something?

The "how" is not relavent to "is or isn't" except in explaining it. Explaining or not doesn't impact its "is or isn't".

It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point.

If everything has a start point, when did time start? Do you realize that time can't have a "beginning" because that implies "a time at which it started", which if there were no time, couldn't exist? As such, literally time must have always been, or the term "always" loses all meaning. (odd side note: from this and the existence of black holes I deduce the conceptual requirement of a "subjective infinity")

So when existence started, how did it start?

Well my favorite theory is a collision of membranes in 11 dimensional space, but no one knows the answer to your quesiton for certain eh?

It's very confusing and complicated.

Your inadequecy doesn't impact the universal "is or isn't" either.

But logically, nothing should exist because it's impossible that existence always existed.

That is a lame assumption I'd think, as technically - "always" is a term that is only pertinent within the framework of time, and without time "existence" itself has no applicable definition. Thus "existence" has indeed "always existed" in that were there no time, nothing could be said (as we could possibily relate to it anyway) to exist. Existence requires time to be asserted. There's like five or twenty ways to read the previous sentence, all of which I think are valid.

how did it begin?

Look stoner, I already told you nobody fucking knows for sure. Lol. Pardon.

Pick a theory and run with it, bitch. Jump on board the m-theory train. It's faddish for the wanna be know it all like myself.

Everything has a beginning so if existence has a beginning, what was before that?

Well, given that your thinking is fundamentally bound to time I'd say you, nor any other human that has ever lived has a snowball's chance in hell at answering that question, as it's simply beyond our potential scope.

Of course I dunno about that for sure, there may be ways of probing that kind of shit that I don't understand.

I cant shake the idea the time needs existence of matter/energy to exist.
Time can't have a beginning and if time needs matter/energy to exist then matter/energy didn't have a beginning either.

Time needs matter/energy to exist.
Any thoughts ?

I cant shake the idea the time needs existence of matter/energy to exist.
Dunno about "need" but if there were neither matter or energy how could you tell if time was passing?

Time can't have a beginning
Not?

Dunno about "need" but if there were neither matter or energy how could you tell if time was passing?

Not being able to tell if time was passing doesn't mean it isn't.


Not?[/QUOTE]
No.
Time has always been, logically.
There can't be a 'before time' because there would be no time and "before" is a temporal expression.
So even if the universe had a 'beginning' it has always been. In fact you can't actually speak of a beginning of time because a beginning requires a 'before'.

Not being able to tell if time was passing doesn't mean it isn't.
From an operational view if you can't tell if time is passing (at all) then it might as well not be there since it has no effect on anything.

No.
Time has always been, logically.
There can't be a 'before time' because there would be no time and "before" is a temporal expression.
So even if the universe had a 'beginning' it has always been. In fact you can't actually speak of a beginning of time because a beginning requires a 'before'.
I disagree, one theory has the universe (big bang) being a black hole forming in another universe and breaking through into (creating) our space-time.
Before that black hole was formed in the other universe ours did not exist AT ALL, therefore no time (in our universe) until the creation of our universe.
Time in the "other" place doesn't count because it's inaccessible.
Just a thought.
Alternatively: and "before" is a temporal expression.
All we have is the language we have: the concepts shaped by our language, and, indeed, our understanding, may be completely at fault.

From an operational view if you can't tell if time is passing (at all) then it might as well not be there since it has no effect on anything.

You could never know, i agree. But still it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Damn, why I'm I arguing.. you agree with my earlier statement lol


I disagree, one theory has the universe (big bang) being a black hole forming in another universe and breaking through into (creating) our space-time.
Before that black hole was formed in the other universe ours did not exist AT ALL, therefore no time (in our universe) until the creation of our universe.
Time in the "other" place doesn't count because it's inaccessible.
Just a thought.

Even then time has by definition always been in our universe.. If there was no time before time, time has always been :( :shrug:


Alternatively:
All we have is the language we have: the concepts shaped by our language, and the indeed our understanding, may be completely at fault.

I'm struggling to put my thoughts into words but language doesn't seem sufficient. I can only hope you understand what I mean :(

Oh. Now I'm allowed to post links! :)

Here's what I was talking about earlier:
http://preposterousposthumous.blogspot.com/

Whatever Norse, this whole thread has been a waste of time.
If it is a waste of time, you seem to have invested a lot of time in making it a waste.

I re-read post 123 and then realized why I didn't really remember it. It's circular dreck. It reminds of Curly of the Three Stooges running in a small circle with one foot in place, yelling "Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!"

Except the Three Stooges were entertaining for a bit longer.

All you've said is "It always was because it's here now and it never started because it always was." You might try reading up on Cosmology. Really. Find out about heat death and why that mandates a beginning. You might even want to check out some of Michio Kaku's books and find out what M theory really means. But as politely as I can say this, buy a clue.

And that means that logically nothing should exist

Because nothing cannot become something, therefore there shouldn't be anything existing today

But there is...so wtf

so, put 2 and 2 together and you get the answer. so if something does exist it means something always existed. or there would be nothing.


peace.

something can be created out of nothing...e=mc^

That requires mass...

because it makes no sense, how can nothing become something? It's impossible that our universe or any universe or even existence was ALWAYS there, because everything had a start point

So when existence started, how did it start? It's very confusing and complicated

But logically, nothing should exist because it's impossible that existence always existed, how did it begin? Everything has a beginning so if existence has a beginning, what was before that?:eek:

Nothingness is non-existence; nothingness is
non-relational. Nothingness has no distinctiveness in and of itself,
hence nothingness cannot be recognizable.

Nothingness is not a concept because a concept exists; "nothingess" is non-existant.

In terms of categorical generalization, the general contains the specific in a set inclusive relationship - moving towards higher levels of generalization and abstraction as the perceptual differences dissolve with the higher levels of meta-syntax.

Theoretically speaking, at the highest set of all possible sets level, nothing exists in and of itself...

Since the one totality of existence has no outside frame of reference, it can only be defined in terms of intrinsic relationships.

If it is a waste of time, you seem to have invested a lot of time in making it a waste.

I re-read post 123 and then realized why I didn't really remember it. It's circular dreck. It reminds of Curly of the Three Stooges running in a small circle with one foot in place, yelling "Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!"

Except the Three Stooges were entertaining for a bit longer.

All you've said is "It always was because it's here now and it never started because it always was." You might try reading up on Cosmology. Really. Find out about heat death and why that mandates a beginning. You might even want to check out some of Michio Kaku's books and find out what M theory really means. But as politely as I can say this, buy a clue.

All I need is common sense.. it isn't that hard really. But thanks anyway.. :rolleyes:
But if you can explain to me why "time has, by definition, always been" is a false statement, be my guest.

m=c^/e

Nothingness is non-existence; nothingness is
non-relational. Nothingness has no distinctiveness in and of itself,
hence nothingness cannot be recognizable.

Nothingness is not a concept because a concept exists; "nothingess" is non-existant.

In terms of categorical generalization, the general contains the specific in a set inclusive relationship - moving towards higher levels of generalization and abstraction as the perceptual differences dissolve with the higher levels of meta-syntax.

Theoretically speaking, at the highest set of all possible sets level, nothing exists in and of itself...

Since the one totality of existence has no outside frame of reference, it can only be defined in terms of intrinsic relationships.



you bring up an interesting point. people are calling 'nothing' a 'thing'. but nothing cant be a type of thing because it is no-thing. it can only be an idea.