55
   

How can something come from nothing?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 12:07 am
@Herald,
Invalid by who's default? Yours? LMAO You're not the one to determine such statements being discussed. "Something from nothing" is a concept, and not limited to your limited interpretation of it.

Most people think of 'something from nothing' has a strictly theological meaning. But who has such authority to limit the meaning of words?

A thousand years ago, the idea of trains were non-existent; it was a 'nothing.'
Nobody thought it; it didn't exist.

From whoinventedit.
Quote:
The history of the train will show that Richard Trevithick made the first steam tramway locomotive in 1804. In 1814, George Stephenson created the Blucher, the first steam locomotive meant for railway use.


From this creation or concept of trains, came the railroad systems, stations, and the workers that service the train industry.

That's something from nothing. It's the concept that fits.
Syamsu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 04:59 am
@Herald,
It is very obvious that the mathematical 0 can accurately and exhaustively describe what nothing is.

Mathematics can do the job of making a copy of the universe, as you can see on computersimulations. So in one hand you have a piece of paper with the number 0 on it, in your other hand you have the physical thing which is 0. The mathematical universe and the physical universe.

If you do away with the 0 as well, so that there isn't even nothing, then you are still left with the spiritual domain. It is a matter of opinion what is in the spiritual domain. If you opine that the spiritual domain is empty, then you have the perfect nothingness, which obviously also a completely immoral opinion.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 06:40 am
@Syamsu,
No mate...Zero works in maths like space between words works in written languages...space between words is not nothingness. You are a long way to get it.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 11:29 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Invalid by who's default? Yours?

Not exactly. The issue has been studied by some world renowned mathematicians - experts in math logic

cicerone imposter wrote:
LMAO

No comment.

cicerone imposter wrote:
You're not the one to determine such statements being discussed. "Something from nothing" is a concept, and not limited to your limited interpretation of it.

A statement based on invalid assumptions is automatically invalidated for all possible interpretations.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Most people think of 'something from nothing' has a strictly theological meaning. But who has such authority to limit the meaning of words?

I don't think that 'something from nothing' has a strictly theological meaning, but you cannot extend the interpretation of invalid statement or concept or whatever else it might be.

cicerone imposter wrote:
A thousand years ago, the idea of trains were non-existent; it was a 'nothing.' Nobody thought it; it didn't exist.

The fact that it hasn't existed does not mean at all that it has come from nothing. If you are curious to know the early trains are conceptual replica of the post-coaches and the intercity stagecoach.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 11:41 am
@Herald,
You defeated your own statements with,
Quote:
The fact that it hasn't existed does not mean at all that it has come from nothing. If you are curious to know the early trains are conceptual replica of the post-coaches and the intercity stagecoach.


So, look before wheels were 'invented' or conceptualized. DUH!
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 11:51 am
@Syamsu,
Syamsu wrote:
It is very obvious that the mathematical 0 can accurately and exhaustively describe what nothing is.

I would use the concept of zero-D space - it is more comprehensible.
Pay attention what you are saying: 'what nothing is'.
Do you have any evidences that nothing can exist at all. By definition existence is 'everything that is'. IMV nothing is excluded here, hence nothing cannot exist due to contradiction in the statement, from where follows that the problem for the existence of nothing is invalid as a problem, for it is based on invalid assumptions.

Syamsu wrote:
If you do away with the 0 as well, so that there isn't even nothing, then you are still left with the spiritual domain.

Where are the evidences (and the proof) of this: that the 'spiritual domain' can exist independently of the physical universe ... taking into account that the carriers of the spirituality - as we know them - are physical (neurons, neurotransmitters, communication channels, etc.)

Syamsu wrote:
If you opine that the spiritual domain is empty

'Empty' or 'does not exist', for these are different. The fact that a basket is empty does not mean at all that that basket does not exist.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 11:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
So, look before wheels were 'invented' or conceptualized. DUH!

If you think that you have invented the wheel - think again.
Look at your pupils in the mirror, observe the rings of Saturn in the telescope - do you still think that you have invented the wheel?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 12:39 pm
@Herald,
You,
Quote:
If you think that you have invented the wheel - think again.


What a stupid answer!
0 Replies
 
Syamsu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 04:14 pm
@Herald,
Philosophy for beginners...the spiritual domain, or what is in it, acts in a free way. Evidence works by force, so evidence does not apply to the spiritual domain.

The evidence of something forces to a conclusion, resulting in a fact. A fact is a copy / model of something. If you have an exact model of the moon, then you have all the facts about it.

What is in the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion. Only in a free way can you reach a conclusioj about what acts in a free way. Forming an opinion operates by expression of emotion with free will, thus in a way choosing the answer.

So, it is possible to do away with all material, then you are left to form an opinion on what is in the spiritual domain, and choose there is nothing in it.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2014 05:02 pm
@Syamsu,
A materialist has no choice but to do so.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 02:12 pm
@Syamsu,
Syamsu wrote:
Evidence works by force, so evidence does not apply to the spiritual domain.

Math logic for beginners - the evidences in the spiritual domain (if exists) are called plausibility and are verified and validated with logical methods - lack of contradictions, logical inferences in support of it, etc.

Syamsu wrote:
A fact is a copy / model of something. If you have an exact model of the moon, then you have all the facts about it.

What you call facts here is actually perception, representation and mapping of the reality, for brevity our understanding of the world.
The interpretation of most of the other sciences about fact is not phenomenology, but rather 'something that truly exists or happens in the real world; something that has actual existence; something that is, has been or always will be' - in other words fact is something that has at least material carrier. If you find out the material carrier of the spiritual domain (Higgs bozons or String theory, or whatever), I may start believing you about the fact of existance in the 'spiritual domain'.
The very fact (as something that has actual existence) that we cannot find the carrier does not necessarily mean that the spiritual domain is impossible to exist, but this infers nothing. The odds are 50:50 - we neither know what our spirit is, nor even know whether we are able, or allowed, or authorized to ever get knowing this.

Syamsu wrote:
What is in the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion.

How are you so sure that it is exactly 'domain' (hyperspace), and not for example quantum communication channel?

Syamsu wrote:
Only in a free way can you reach a conclusion about what acts in a free way. Forming an opinion operates by expression of emotion with free will.

This 'free will' is some kind of an illusion.
     1. Living in society and having free will is impossible.
     2. The free will of one person is constrains to the others.
     3. It is not sure that too much free will is something good, but this is just my opinion.
     4. Some of the atheists have become such only for the 'free will' theory - in order to get rid of the constraints of morality and to justify their irresponsibility in wasting the resources of the planet.

Syamsu wrote:
So, it is possible to do away with all material, then you are left to form an opinion on what is in the spiritual domain

I don't know what do you mean by that 'to do away with', perhaps 'renunciation of material possessions' but actually one cannot do this, for in the worst case scenario he should possess or have free access to: unpolluted air, clean water, some food ... and some 'free will' ... and eventually some devices with access to the net - as a minimum :-) ... which means communications, informatics, electric power consumption - this does not seem to me as 'renunciation of material possessions'.

Syamsu wrote:
... and choose there is nothing in it.

Actually I don't understand this last one.
The very fact (as something that truly exists or happens in the real world) that we don't like that something that is there, does not mean that there is 'nothing in it' - this is a different interpretation of the nothing concept.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 02:57 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
we neither know what our spirit is, nor even know whether we are able, or allowed, or authorized to ever get knowing this.


"I and I, one said to the other no man sees my face and lives."

Bob Dylan.

The materialist has no choice, H, but to deny the spiritual domain's existence.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 04:30 pm
@spendius,
There are plenty of spiritual materialists out there...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 04:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Half-baked ideas are very common Fil.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 07:25 pm
@spendius,
I knew you would agree.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 07:28 pm
@Herald,
You,
Quote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Invalid by who's default? Yours?

You,
Quote:
Not exactly. The issue has been studied by some world renowned mathematicians - experts in math logic


It's not about math; it's about language and the meaning of words.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 07:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
In fact I am yet to meet a free spirit... Cool
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 09:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's not about math; it's about language and the meaning of words.

Dear Ci, what am I to blame that you have some gaps in the knowledge and understanding of the world ... and in the interpretation of some concepts?
How did you find out that the gap in the interpretation is with me and not with your understanding about my understanding, for example ... and of what I am trying to say?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 09:45 pm
@Herald,
Simple; I understand English. The title of this forum is "How can something come from nothing?"

Quote:
some·thing
ˈsəmˌTHiNG/
pronoun
1. a thing that is unspecified or unknown.
"we stopped for something to eat"
2. used in various expressions indicating that a description or amount being stated is not exact.
"a wry look, something between amusement and regret"


Quote:
noth·ing
ˈnəTHiNG/
pronoun
1. not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
synonyms: not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, naught/nought; More
antonyms: something
something of no importance or concern.
"“What are you laughing at?” “Oh, nothing, sir.”"
synonyms: a trifling matter, a trifle; More
(in calculations) no amount; zero.
synonyms: zero, naught/nought, 0; More
adjectiveinformal
adjective: nothing
1. having no prospect of progress; of no value.
"he had a series of nothing jobs"
kiuku
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 07:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
Meanwhile I want to write about Ex Nihilo but the thieves are out to play. That's obviously the market, what you said "spiritual materialists"; looking for the underground lair of Charles Darwin, up to the 19th century; looking for the Opium den. Those books sell well, that's why.

Why don't they try some Opium and see if they have thoughts.

Either that or he said Ex Nihilo and now he can't defend it.

Evolution in ex nihilate, is all they want. That's what I'm saying, the opium den is what caused those topics that sell well to the media.
 

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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 07:16:22