Nothing from Something?

[John J. Bannan]

Positing an alternative isn't necessary to prove something wrong. Rather admit ignorance than espouse something that doesn't make sense, yeah?

As for something that explain away the primary cause paradox, see the thread you made in General Philosophy. I provided a logic proof that demonstrates something always existed, eternally. There was never simply nothing (as far as we know).

I am positing the existence of multiple nothingnesses - not just nothingness. There's a big difference, and that's why your proof fails.

 

[John J. Bannan]

There's nothing to indicate that matter and energy haven't always been around.

That's true. But, at least I can explain why matter and energy have always been around, i.e. because matter and energy are forms of nothingness. You, however, cannot explain why matter and energy have always been around, except to say that they have been. Well, how do you know?

 

[ashura]

I am positing the existence of multiple nothingnesses - not just nothingness. There's a big difference, and that's why your proof fails.

But nothingness has no actual attributes. It's defined as the lack of something. So when you have multiple nothingnesses, you only have multiple instances of lacking something. And no matter how many of those instances you have, you will never end up with something unless you introduce something to the nothing.

(Am I the only one feeling a bit embarrassed by this conversation?)

 

[Enmos]

Matter is made of nothingness. So, if God is made of matter, God is made of nothingness. For example, you are made of organs, but those organs are made of cells, so you are also made of cells.

Make up your mind.
Does nothingness create matter, or IS it matter ?

 

[John J. Bannan]

That's only because you repeat the same fallacy over and over again, and we keep telling you that your are wrong.

Maybe we are hoping you might still come to your senses.

Well, I would come to my senses the moment you give me an explanation for the universe that doesn't suffer from the primary cause paradox and also makes sense.

 

[John J. Bannan]

How ? Show me the difference between 0 and 0.

Easy. Put a "+" between them.

 

[ashura]

Well, I would come to my senses the moment you give me an explanation for the universe that doesn't suffer from the primary cause paradox and also makes sense.

What makes you think a good explanation exists that fits your requirements? We can't explain the origin of energy, we don't know where it came from. That doesn't mean you can go and make stuff up and proclaim that just because it's the only theory it's a correct theory.

 

[Myles]

Seeing that this 0+0 argument has generated 24 pages on this thread, I am forced to admit that something can come from nothing.

Just wait, folks, till he starts on 1+1/ Infinity is lurking around the corner.

 

[John J. Bannan]

But nothingness has no actual attributes. It's defined as the lack of something. So when you have multiple nothingnesses, you only have multiple instances of lacking something. And no matter how many of those instances you have, you will never end up with something unless you introduce something to the nothing.

(Am I the only one feeling a bit embarrassed by this conversation?)

Not if those multiple nothingnesses collide and create matter.

 

[Enmos]

How ? How does something without properties (and in fact doesn't even exist) create something with properties ?

How can two zeros be added together? I don't know, but math allows it. It is an inherent property of nothingness that it can exist simultaneously in multiple forms. Why? Because that's what zeros do.

You don't even have any what you yourself mean to say..

You told us over and over that zeros indeed do have properties, now all of a sudden they don't ?

Stop your non-answers and start to think..

I am not saying zeros don't have properties. I said, zero has the property of being able to exist simultaneously with another zero.

See the first quote. I asked you "How does something without properties create something with properties ?".
Your reply: "How can two zeros be added together?"

So I'll ask you again.. do zeros have properties or not ?

 

[ashura]

Not if those multiple nothingnesses collide and create matter.

Are you telling me that if we were to do an experiment with a vacuum in a closed system, we could create energy from nothing?

 

[Enmos]

Yes they are, otherwise math wouldn't permit you to say 0+0=0. Now you're attacking math, and that's a losing battle.

x + 0 means take x and add nothing. So nothing is added.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Make up your mind.
Does nothingness create matter, or IS it matter ?

Multiple nothingnesses create matter, but matter is only a form of nothingness.

 

[Enmos]

Well, I would come to my senses the moment you give me an explanation for the universe that doesn't suffer from the primary cause paradox and also makes sense.

Again ?

 

[Enmos]

Easy. Put a "+" between them.

They still look the same to me.

 

[Enmos]

Multiple nothingnesses create matter, but matter is only a form of nothingness.

So you won't make up your mind.. typical.

 

[John J. Bannan]

What makes you think a good explanation exists that fits your requirements? We can't explain the origin of energy, we don't know where it came from. That doesn't mean you can go and make stuff up and proclaim that just because it's the only theory it's a correct theory.

I already know you can't give me an alternative explanation. If you could, you would've by now. I am certainly free to make stuff up. In fact, that's how ideas are generally born, if I'm not mistaken. Could my idea be wrong? Sure. But, it seems to me that it's not. It seems rather obvious, when you think about it, that matter comes from empty space. Afterall, there's a hell of a lot of empty space out there in comparison to matter. Seems like the empty space has the upper hand, and probably accounts for the existence of matter. Sort of like looking at the ocean and guessing that life arose from it. Why? Because it's what earlier life forms liked to live in. Well, particles like to live in space. Good chance space gave birth to the particles.

 

[John J. Bannan]

See the first quote. I asked you "How does something without properties create something with properties ?".
Your reply: "How can two zeros be added together?"

So I'll ask you again.. do zeros have properties or not ?

Yes, zeros have properties. They have the property of being able to exist side by side in the equation 0+0=0.

 

[Enmos]

Yes, zeros have properties. They have the property of being able to exist side by side in the equation 0+0=0.

And nothingness ?

 

[Myles]

I already know you can't give me an alternative explanation. If you could, you would've by now. I am certainly free to make stuff up. In fact, that's how ideas are generally born, if I'm not mistaken. Could my idea be wrong? Sure. But, it seems to me that it's not. It seems rather obvious, when you think about it, that matter comes from empty space. Afterall, there's a hell of a lot of empty space out there in comparison to matter. Seems like the empty space has the upper hand, and probably accounts for the existence of matter. Sort of like looking at the ocean and guessing that life arose from it. Why? Because it's what earlier life forms liked to live in. Well, particles like to live in space. Good chance space gave birth to the particles.

You are suffering the fate of all original thinkers; you are being scoffed at by your inferiors.