logically, nothing should exist

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you got it all in reverse

You said " logically, nothing exists"

i say, You exists and you are non logical

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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".

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")

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?

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

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.

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.

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 ?

 

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

Not?

 

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'.

 

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.

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:

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

 

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:shrug:

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh. Now I'm allowed to post links!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

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.