north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:52 pm
@Aquathunda,
Aquathunda wrote:

I wonder that at times myself. I was once driving, and wondered if the person next to me was real or created for my perception. I then realized, if she was real or false, the true reality is that it doesn't affect the fact that she is there. It may be true that nothing exists, but in the end, does it matter?

This false life is real enough for me.


it isn't true that nothing exists , that the thing

and it never has been true
0 Replies
 
cassavetes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:56 pm
@A Lyn Fei,
mm-hm I cannot agree enough, it is something relative to totals, and amounts...perhaps a theoretical phenomenon, but more or less I'd say it is something not worth racking the brain about, we know how it applies, and the confusion is when you try to describe the word as something within itself.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 11:12 pm
@cassavetes,
cassavetes wrote:

mm-hm I cannot agree enough, it is something relative to totals, and amounts...perhaps a theoretical phenomenon, but more or less I'd say it is something not worth racking the brain about, we know how it applies, and the confusion is when you try to describe the word as something within itself.


the thing is though we have to go through this in order to see the common sense of relising that it doesn't exist
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 12:09 am
@Sentience,
Quote:
Some people say that the universe was created out of nothingness, whether through quantum physics. This seems to violate causality, which states that everything is caused by something else in turn. Causality would state that there has always been something that is existent.
Are you becoming religious and belive in a type of God or disagree with physics ?
Quote:
Also, basic principles of matter and energy state that there will, if proven correct, always be something existent, because we cannot create or destroy matter. It will simply change shape as affected by causality.
Which does not apply to the beginning of the universe. Your argument presumes the universe always existed.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 12:29 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Some people say that the universe was created out of nothingness, whether through quantum physics. This seems to violate causality, which states that everything is caused by something else in turn. Causality would state that there has always been something that is existent.


Quote:
Are you becoming religious and belive in a type of God or disagree with physics ?


disagree with the known physics

myself

Quote:
Also, basic principles of matter and energy state that there will, if proven correct, always be something existent, because we cannot create or destroy matter. It will simply change shape as affected by causality.


Quote:
Which does not apply to the beginning of the universe. Your argument presumes the universe always existed.


we don't what was before the big bang though , assuming there was a BB
0 Replies
 
stevecook172001
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 03:56 am
@Ionus,
Nothing means nothing, including existence.

So, no, nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an absence of everything that is or could be
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 06:28 am
@stevecook172001,
Quote:
Nothing means nothing, including existence....Nothing is an absence of everything that is or could be

Thats rather extreme...how do you suppose we got such an absolute word into common usage ? Or is your definition wrong ?
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 07:06 am
@Ionus,
Hi lonus,
Do exscuse my being caught up in other threads, but what is this replying to, please?
Thank you lonus, have a great day.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 07:14 am
@Sentience,
Hi Sentience,
Nice to meet you. It is the first - Does "Nothing" exist. The space between atoms (if percieved, for atoms are only theoretical) would be filled by a wave or force, which is what divides them, like the solar system - It may appear empty, but is actually full of radiation from the sun, along with that of other stars and galaxies (space is full). Answer this: Can "Something" arise from "Nothing"?
Thank you though, and have a smashing day.
Mark...
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 12:18 pm
@mark noble,
Can I just point out that saying the words "nothing exists" is an oxymoron? Though jumbo shrimp isn't actually an oxymoron. Anyhow, Mark, if I may answer the question you put to Sentience, something cannot arise from nothing because nothing does not exist. Even if there was a vague nothingness that I cannot comprehend the possibility of something still could not arise from it, unless you believe in a First Cause or God. Even then, I'd have to ask where that came from. On the abstract, I'd say the only way that something could be derived from nothing- and this is the writer in me speaking, of course- is if the human brain actually was able to manifest something from its imagination. But that would mean the entire world is an illusion anyways and nothing at all exists. Fairly cool to think about, but rather unlikely.

A Lyn
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 12:52 pm
@A Lyn Fei,
Hi A Lyn,
Absolutely!
X
Mark...
0 Replies
 
Homomorph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 01:03 pm
Ok, here's a math idea, but I'm not sure if this goes anywhere yet. If something exists, then we can say it is in a set, say A, and everything else is in B. A and B cannot share any elements, so there is no x, such that x is in A and x in B (not sure where else to go yet). So I think this is a round-a-bout way of saying that the idea of something not existing exists, but that's it. In other words, the only way to define something that doesn't exist, is by saying just that.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 02:41 pm
@Homomorph,
Hi Homomorph,
Nice to meet you. Let me get this right - "Something" > let's call it "Brian" is in set A. Every other "something" > let's call it "Diane" > is in B. Brian and Diane are on alternate worlds. There is no X let's call it "Fido" and "Fido" who doesn't exist is on Brian's world AND Diane's world (which cannot share elements (so "Fido" isn't on Brian or Diane's worlds, but is, and doesn't exist). And we're leaving it at that for now, because you're not sure where to go with it yet. And the IDEA of something 'Not existing' Exists. And to sum up, we determine that the only way to define something that doesn't exist is to just say that it doesn't exist.

My reply to this is... Could I get that with a side-order of crocodile, please?
When you have decided where to go with this, please let me know. I (and I mean this) think you are completely my type of person. And I'm going to adore you being here on the forum.
We'll likely have to do some work on the math though.
Thank you Homomorph. Have a fantastic evening.
Mark...
Homomorph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 04:20 pm
@mark noble,
Nice to meet you too, Mark Smile

Exactly!

To me, [nothing] seems to be the complete absence of anything we can define with our thoughts, so since everything we know or have known is defined, at least in some way, it seems that ''nothing'' is not truly [nothing]. I guess I am just saying what everyone else has been, which is that we lack the ability to define it in the way we define everything else. I guess [nothing] would be the complete absence of consciousness, which still seems to not make much difference. Ugh.

0 Replies
 
ABYA
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 04:55 pm
Nothing = SOMETHING that DOESN'T EXIST, an oxymoron indeed.
I'm sure a bottle or 2 of dry wine would help me find the answer, but I can't find the DRY WINE.
Of course thats just my UNBIASED OPINION.
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 06:21 pm
@ABYA,
That's an opinion, isn't it?

Nothing is the absence of something, not something that that does not exist.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 06:28 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Even 'nothing' is something!
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 09:20 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Yes it can. The big bang is an example.
The notions that these big bang theories (there are more than one) explain a "something from nothing" scenario are a common misconception. Any physicist can tell you that - at best, these theories can only postulate what happened moments after a "big bang" happened.
cassavetes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 10:17 pm
@north,
Do we?
0 Replies
 
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 03:49 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Yes it can. The big bang is an example.
The notions that these big bang theories (there are more than one) explain a "something from nothing" scenario are a common misconception. Any physicist can tell you that - at best, these theories can only postulate what happened moments after a "big bang" happened.

This is quite true
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/17/2019 at 02:53:11