How can something come from nothing?

@ripple,

The question 'why does something exist' is arbitrary related to the other question: 'why does nothing exist?'.
The universe is infinite, and transcendental. Transcendentalism is the idea that all categories and order dissolves as they're related to infinite. A rationalist says, categorically, nothing is nothing; and something is something. A transcendentalist, however, asserts nothing is something; and something is nothing. The two are dependent; the two are one.

The universe, across infinite, is paradoxical. Thus, to a transcendentalist, we both exist and do not exist. Existence is permeated by uncertainty, and the prospect of nothing.

TO put it another way, undifferentiated infinite, being in a state of voidness (nothing), contains the latent potential for all manifestation.

To put it another way, why should infinite differentiate into finite parts? Why should order exist? Why should it emerge out of chaos? It's paradoxical, but then ask why should chaos exist? Why shouldn't there be life, and order?

It is self-evident that both exist. We both exist, and do not exist; in the sense all existence is, in part, an illusion.

I believe that in the state of absolute nothingness, the prospect of something remains transcendentally entangled; nothing and something are inseparable. You cannot have nothing without something.
This entanglement instills in nothingness an infinite imaginative potential; an unseeable observer bias; a freedom of manifestation; a consciousness of the something beyond; in the same way, throughout our existence, there is an unending presence of uncertainty. I think, by many, this is identified as 'God'. It is the void we were born out of and return to.

1 Reply

@IanRust,

Anything paradoxical, or conflicting in nature will self implode at some point. Every single thing must be one or the other, and self identify within its own value, and the value of others. And can not exist and have divisions amongst itself. Otherwise only nothing would exist. Since we can see that at least one thing does exist. And It is not an illusion, therefor the concept of nothing does not exist, and everything must. And everything has value to it. And can never be nothing. Even if it somehow was. We have to decide who we are, and we either will choose to be with the one who brings light. Or the one who brings darkness. And accept the ramifications that our particular choice brings. Whereever it may take us.

2 Replies

@xXxSERVANTxXx,

Infinite is paradoxical, and everything does implode at some point. Everything dies and returns to nothing. Existence also emerges seemingly out of nothing. Nothingness is transcendentally related to everything. In nothingness there is a latent potential for the emergence of everything.

It is impossible that only nothing could exist. The concept of nothing is incoherent without some existence. It's only from the perspective of existence you can comprehend nothing. Your idea of nothing is incomprehensible, and incoherent.

WHen you say every single thing must be one thing or another, you fail to recognize there is a transcendental connection between all things. Indeed nothing is nothing, and everything is everything, rationally speaking; but rationality will only take you so far. Transcendence dissolves all boundaries and categories. It is in this way nothing is everything.

I assure you that when time is compressed everything you value returns to being nothing.

1 Reply

@xXxSERVANTxXx,

ALso... paradoxical unity being implosion, as you say, also generates creation. Neither does everything (or anything) immortally exist.

1 Reply

@IanRust,

In terms of paradoxes. Nothing is not everything, and everything is not nothing. So nothing can't be everything, and everything can't be nothing. So we must, at some point, be everything or nothing. If we are not nothing right now. We won't ever be but everything, and can't be nothing. Unless nothing is everything. Or nothing doesn't exist. If we do not know how to be nothing as we are everything or at least something. Right now, and are not nothing.

0 Replies

@IanRust,

(Seemingly)

My point in a nutshell

Trancedental or the unknown is not nothing, even what we do not know has value to it, because we can grasp bits of the unknown, while we do not know what it is that we do not know. And even do know. We also do not know why we do not know what we do, and do not know why we do know what we do not. :-)

1 Reply

@xXxSERVANTxXx,

Actually...... transcendentally, the unknown IS nothing until it's materialized as something. Thus nothing is something. Sure this happens in degrees, this is in no way contrary to my position.
You say 'you exist'. Can you tell me what exactly you are?
Do you have a soul? Can you put your finger on what your soul is? Can you define it?
What were you before you were born? Where will you go when you die? Nowhere? Nothing?
Transcendentally, everything IS nothing. Rationally, everything is everything and nothing is nothing.
This discussion.... over.

1 Reply

@IanRust,

I personally disagree with those statements. Nothing is nothing. And can only be or do nothing. And can't be or do anything but nothing itself. Since something does exist it can't be nothing. Therefore nothing is not something only nothing. And since something exists it isn't nothing. But something. Therefore, in my opinions to say that nothing is something or something is nothing is false. I believe that something is something, and nothing is nothing. But nothing does not exist, and only a force that always was could incomprehensibly grasp nothing, if it wanted to do it. And that mortals simply can not fathom a concept such as nothingness in a state of somethingness. And it is impossible for anything beneath this force to try to validate a state of nothingness.

I can't personally answer those questions you asked me, but it does not mean that you did not ask me them. And even if you were to pretend I had, and if I were too pretend. It does not mean that you never had asked me them, or that I truly never saw them.

Sorry to see you go, I enjoyed the conversations, thank you :-)

1 Reply

@xXxSERVANTxXx,

I don't feel like I can explain this to you any more thoroughly, and perhaps it isn't my place.
Farewell

1 Reply

@IanRust,

Farewell :-)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Interesting that I found this from several years ago. Have your views changed since then? I find this to be right on track.

Given that either something came from nothing, or that something has always been, I think there are only two possibilities here. Either the universe is eternal and uncreated, or the universe is created and its creator is eternal. We still can't get something out of nothing on pain of absurdity.

The eternal universe also has a myriad of absudities. One is the absurdity of actual infinites. A model here that deals with time is a good illustration. If the universe "began" in the infinite past, then it has taken an infinite amount of time to arrive at what we call the "present." In short, we could never arrive at the present. So in that, I believe that time, and thus also space are temporal. They can continue into infinite future, but they must have begun in the finite past; perhaps at the moment of the "Big Bang."

David Hilbert believed that there are no actual infinites in reality, only infinites in the abstract, as in mathematics, specifically set theory. I believe he was correct.

If the universe cannot be eternal, it began in the finite past, and was thus created.

We can then draw some interesting inferences about the nature of that creator.

1) The creator must be eternal and not created.
2) The creator must be immaterial.
3) The creator must be more powerful that what it/he/she created.

Starting to look a lot like the existence of God is not so irrational afer all.

1 Reply

@brandonsays,

brandonsays wrote:

Interesting that I found this from several years ago. Have your views changed since then? I find this to be right on track.

Given that either something came from nothing, or that something has always been, I think there are only two possibilities here. Either the universe is eternal and uncreated, or the universe is created and its creator is eternal. We still can't get something out of nothing on pain of absurdity.

The eternal universe also has a myriad of absudities. One is the absurdity of actual infinites. A model here that deals with time is a good illustration. If the universe "began" in the infinite past, then it has taken an infinite amount of time to arrive at what we call the "present." In short, we could never arrive at the present. So in that, I believe that time, and thus also space are temporal. They can continue into infinite future, but they must have begun in the finite past; perhaps at the moment of the "Big Bang."

David Hilbert believed that there are no actual infinites in reality, only infinites in the abstract, as in mathematics, specifically set theory. I believe he was correct.

If the universe cannot be eternal, it began in the finite past, and was thus created.

We can then draw some interesting inferences about the nature of that creator.

1) The creator must be eternal and not created.
2) The creator must be immaterial.
3) The creator must be more powerful that what it/he/she created.

Starting to look a lot like the existence of God is not so irrational afer all.

Huh????

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It seems (very plainly) to me that concepts like "some-thing" and "no-thing" (and perhaps all others, especially "God", "infinity" etc. etc.) tell us more about ourselves--the nature of our brains and cultures--than they do about the metaphysical structure of the world.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

It seems (very plainly) to me that concepts like "some-thing" and "no-thing" (and perhaps all others, especially "God", "infinity" etc. etc.) tell us more about ourselves--the nature of our brains and cultures--than they do about the metaphysical structure of the world.

That is very interesting, JL. Thank you for sharing.

Me...I do not know if it does or not.

And I am not sure if the naive realists are closer or further away from the REALITY than you non-dualists.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Apisa does not address the thread topic.

It is obviously of more importance to try to score cheap debate points than to address the question posed. Which is troll-blurt.

Billions of dollars, and vast quantities of brain power, are being used to try to find out if that which exploded in the Big Bang was "something". The Causality Principle demands it was not nothing. If it was nothing a miracle occurred in terms of that principle.

If it is concluded, which it never will be, that it was something they are no nearer because they have an infinite regress to deal with.

Jobs down unto the nth generation or until the taxpayers finally discover that a waste of scarce resources on a grand scale is being perped on them.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It does seem to me--you must be tired of hearing this--that the "deepest" issues in Philosophy and Science (both at this level are interchangable with our notion of religion) are unfathonble to us puny humans, just as language is inaccessible to snakes.
As such, the Big Bang will remain a mystery to us despite our ability to measure superficial aspects of its EXpression in terms of numbers, words, and other human constructions. I guess I'm agreeing with some of the spirit of Spendius' post.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

As such, the Big Bang will remain a mystery to us despite our ability to measure superficial aspects

The Big Bang (if it has ever happened) is not a mystery - it is the greatest pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, based on invalid assumptions (if any at all).
Before unscrambling 'the mystery' of the Big Bang there are a lot of other questions and issues that have to be solved.
1. Is the universe homogeneous in the general case, and are the laws of physics and chemistry etc. 'isomorphous' & valid as we know them for the whole Universe?
2. Has the Universe always existed ... or it has started from some point of time (the 'hour of the Big Bang' or whatever) ... in which case the next question is: if the Universe has a starting point it must be finite (in terms of time at least) and it should have some end point ... and end-spiel (rien ne va plus & game over).
3. If the Big Bang and the Universe are at the age of 14.8 Bys, and the Solar System is at the age of 4.6 BN, what has been right here, in 'our place' before that? There must be s.th. left from the 'old space' - it cannot simply disappear into nothing ... or we are not sure?
... and the next question is: Can something disappear into nothing ... and how does that happen ... and does that mean?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

It does seem to me--you must be tired of hearing this--that the "deepest" issues in Philosophy and Science (both at this level are interchangable with our notion of religion) are unfathonble to us puny humans, just as language is inaccessible to snakes.
As such, the Big Bang will remain a mystery to us despite our ability to measure superficial aspects of its EXpression in terms of numbers, words, and other human constructions. I guess I'm agreeing with some of the spirit of Spendius' post.

Or, instead of saying that the big bang will remain a mystery, just say that we don't know. Saying it will remain a mystery implies that it's somehow cut off from further inquiry. Who knows?

I'm very wary of imposing limits on human knowledge, especially since we keep uncovering crazier and crazier phenomena with each passing century. Honestly, who the **** knows?

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

You're right to question my skepticism regarding the limits of human knowledge. I can't know that if I'm to be consistent. And for me to assert that "the big bang will remain a mystery" is to claim some kind of knowledge of it such that it cannot be a total mystery.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Ding an Sich wrote:

JLNobody wrote:

It does seem to me--you must be tired of hearing this--that the "deepest" issues in Philosophy and Science (both at this level are interchangable with our notion of religion) are unfathonble to us puny humans, just as language is inaccessible to snakes.
As such, the Big Bang will remain a mystery to us despite our ability to measure superficial aspects of its EXpression in terms of numbers, words, and other human constructions. I guess I'm agreeing with some of the spirit of Spendius' post.

Or, instead of saying that the big bang will remain a mystery, just say that we don't know. Saying it will remain a mystery implies that it's somehow cut off from further inquiry. Who knows?

I'm very wary of imposing limits on human knowledge, especially since we keep uncovering crazier and crazier phenomena with each passing century. Honestly, who the **** knows?

Precisely!

0 Replies

How can something come from nothing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know