57

# How can something come from nothing?

Herald

1
Sat 12 Jul, 2014 11:31 pm
@Syamsu,
Syamsu wrote:
Sure it makes sense. The basis of this theory is that mathematics can accurately and exhaustively describe the universe.

Why do you model the non-existence of the Universe (before the Big Bang) by zero and not by an empty set - [], for example.
Zero is not nothingness.
1. It is integer digit.
2. It has properties as a number.
3. It has properties as a digit.
4. It should be applied to something to express the concept of nothingness ... which is, well, not exactly Nothing.
One cannot express the nothingness without any tools as means of the representation.
When modelling the concept of the non-existing space as zero-D space (for convenience of the representation and the comprehension) the very concept of zero-D space is not impossible to exist ... as a concept. It simply designates that the Space before becoming (if it has not always been existing) with three dimensions (as we know it) has been non-existing space with zero dimensions, incl. non-existing dimension of measuring the Time (which is actually a dimension in the Intelligence, for Time does not exist in the physical world).

Syamsu wrote:
Mathematics is based on 0, and so is the universe based on 0. The 1 derives from 0 as a rewrite of it. Thus 01 = 0, because there is a boolean relationship between the 0 and the 1.

Modeling the Universe with integer math is not an idea of first brightness for the Universe is obviously 'analogue' and the integer math is 'digital' ('discrete'), which causes discrepancy in the mapping of the representation.
One should try to find some better math model (to represent the Universe), and it is not obligatory for that model to be the 'theory' of the Big Bang.
kiuku

1
Sun 13 Jul, 2014 07:58 am
@MWal,
+ Neologist

what if you are born out of a shell, as a test tube clone? Do you comprehend the nothing then?
Fil Albuquerque

1
Sun 13 Jul, 2014 10:52 pm
@Herald,
Obviously analogue ? Obvious ??? right...
MWal

1
Mon 14 Jul, 2014 09:40 am
@kiuku,
No. The only way to nothing which doesn't exist, is to give up your life, all emotions, and to lack virtue. You can't be nothing, but when you die and give up hope.
Herald

1
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 10:47 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Obviously analogue ? Obvious ??? right...

The RF spectrum is continuous (if you hate the 'analogue' term). The communication channels and the band frequencies are our invention.
The light section in the RF spectrum is also analogue - the colors are our invention.
The space is continuous - or at least we cannot detect its discontinuous sequence (if exists).
What else - the time is continuous, no matter we measure it in seconds and nanoseconds etc. You may argue that Time is not real. Well, maybe yes, but the sequence of events in time is real and when you drive a car for example you don't jump from milestone to milestone.
Actually I am not so sure that it is 'obviously', but at least it seems so.
Even the Universe is discrete ('digital'), of at least we don't posses the resolution of our perceptions to establish that. So it is 'obviously' analogue.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Tue 15 Jul, 2014 08:54 pm
@Herald,
If anything a discrete quantized space Universe makes far far more sense then a continuous one. For starters with the analogue hypothesis you have the Zeno's paradox to deal with. Analogue is as much real as human vision is continuous...

Syamsu

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 08:06 am
@Herald,
The mathematics I am talking about is ordered by zero, it is not just about integers obviously.

Zero is reasonably nothingness, eventhough nothing is something. Nothing is something because the 0 (nothing) and 1 (something) fundamentally have a boolean relationship. That is because in essence the 1 is a rewrite of 0, that is the origin of the 1.

I have limited understanding of these things, I am no expert, but I have common sense to see the plausibility of this mathematical theory. How can mathematics be useful everywhere in science, if mathematics does not accurately and exhaustively describe the universe?
MWal

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 08:51 am
How can evil do moral, it can't, it's evil. This is a very important principle to nature.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 01:35 pm
@MWal,
As I see it: When I die I will become "nothing", as I was before I was born. But this notion of "nothing" is only the conceptual complement of "something". The Nothing that I was before birth and after death is what I actually am now, it's just that this transcendent state is eclipsed by the illusory Ego. At the same time that I am Nothing I am also Everything.
But this is only as I see it; Everything is opinion (much more than one of Frank's "guesses").
Frank Apisa

2
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 01:38 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

As I see it: When I die I will become "nothing", as I was before I was born. But this notion of "nothing" is only the conceptual complement of "something". The Nothing that I was before birth and after death is what I actual am now, it's just that this transcendent state is eclipsed by the illusory Ego. At the same time that I am Nothing I am also Everything.
But this is only as I see it; Everything is opinion (much more than one of Frank's "guesses").

Not sure why you involved me here, JL.

But if you have got something to say to me...actually say it...and I will respond.
Arcades

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 02:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Obviously you are the gate-keeper frank.people think you have bid them pass for them to survive in the philosophy forum.
Arcades

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 02:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Obviously you are the gate-keeper frank. People think you have bid them pass for them to survive in the philosophy forum.
0 Replies

MWal

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 02:53 pm
@JLNobody,
Your life force came from its birth state, now death is a asset of nothing. But if you have hope you can still be something as you are dead. Until The Lord revives the faithful.
0 Replies

Frank Apisa

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 03:34 pm
@Arcades,
Arcades wrote:

Obviously you are the gate-keeper frank.people think you have bid them pass for them to survive in the philosophy forum.

There is nobody here who thinks that other than (possibly) you.

By the way...you only have to post these kinds of messages once.
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Wed 16 Jul, 2014 10:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I am saying in effect that my private intuitive conclusions have no logical or public "proof" to support them, but they are, nevertheless, for me better grounded than are what you have presented as (mere) guesses.
You might be flattered (or indifferent) to know that here someone has used your nihilistic epistemology as a kind of negative reference point.
Frank Apisa

1
Thu 17 Jul, 2014 04:15 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I am saying in effect that my private intuitive conclusions have no logical or public "proof" to support them, but they are, nevertheless, for me better grounded than are what you have presented as (mere) guesses.

I truly do not understand what you mean here, JL.

Name one of your "intuitive conclusions" that you see as better grounded than my description of it as just a guess.

We can discuss why you arrive at that conclusion.

Quote:
You might be flattered (or indifferent) to know that here someone has used your nihilistic epistemology as a kind of negative reference point.

Almost every comment I have heard about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...except those cloaked in all sorts of qualifiers...are pure guesses.

If that is a nihilistic epistemology...okay. But it is something even more important: It is the truth.
0 Replies

Gravis

1
Thu 17 Jul, 2014 06:28 am
@ripple,
Read the book for a theory around this.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468
0 Replies

Truth teller

1
Thu 17 Jul, 2014 01:39 pm
@Herald,
R.S.
There was a time earlier in life that I supposed myself to be much more unique than I actually was. To believe in nothing was the key to what I believed to be true intellectuality. After all, to say anything was actuality as opposed to merely the things that rocks dream of (for instance), would be to throw my hat into the ring of utter commonality and to file myself away as a definitive hard copy. I thought to believe in nothing was without limits and absolutely as unique as it gets. Then my brother-in-law being a Christian said to me one day, "you don't believe in anything right?" I said, "right." But then he came back with. "that's what you believe in, you believe in nothing." Then it came to me, I do believe in something and it's nothing! After all, **nothing was something, how else could I describe my belief without using the strongest **term through which to explain it. I wasn't unique at all, I believed in something and it was "nothing." Now, to believe in nothing (obviously), is to consider something that can't be seen or detected by our senses. It's own definition can't elude the fact that "it" can't be seen. If one should say it can be seen -- you give room for the argument that says, conversation over.

Yet still "nothing" remains something, else no one would ever believe in it. The question "How can something come from nothing" is much more interesting than what a first glance may take-in. When we define possibility by our own limited standards i.e. "what seems possible," we miss the chance to see "nothing," in its actuality. Loosely paraphrased -- biblical scripture says, God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen through the creation -- so no man is without excuse. "Nothing" can be harnessed (if you will), by someone who has no limitations. In the beginning God created. To limit actuality because we can't understand it, gives us no platform on which to speak exclusivities. There's ample proof to the affirmative all around us that speak volumes on behalf of actuality. "Nothing," in the hands of the Creator, has unlimited potential. God created all things, yes, I suppose we might even say "nothing," because it surely exits.
My point is not to get us running around engaged in the pursuit of seeing nothing :-) >> far from it, but to come to the realization that our Creator (God) created everything from what was unseen. And that along with everything He created us separate and individually unique to have fellowship with Him. For God so loved the world!
Here's a great question, "Where did love come from?"
God is love, Jesus Christ is the full expression of love.
cicerone imposter

1
Thu 17 Jul, 2014 01:46 pm
@Truth teller,
You're talking about religious belief, not scientific belief. Religious belief is based on faith, because nobody can prove of any creator or god(s).
We do understand philosophically that man is prone to create gods from mythology; these are facts of history. Most cultures/races created their own gods. Proof that man is prone to create gods.
Frank Apisa

1
Thu 17 Jul, 2014 02:58 pm
@Truth teller,
Truth teller wrote:

R.S.
There was a time earlier in life that I supposed myself to be much more unique than I actually was. To believe in nothing was the key to what I believed to be true intellectuality. After all, to say anything was actuality as opposed to merely the things that rocks dream of (for instance), would be to throw my hat into the ring of utter commonality and to file myself away as a definitive hard copy. I thought to believe in nothing was without limits and absolutely as unique as it gets. Then my brother-in-law being a Christian said to me one day, "you don't believe in anything right?" I said, "right." But then he came back with. "that's what you believe in, you believe in nothing." Then it came to me, I do believe in something and it's nothing! After all, **nothing was something, how else could I describe my belief without using the strongest **term through which to explain it. I wasn't unique at all, I believed in something and it was "nothing." Now, to believe in nothing (obviously), is to consider something that can't be seen or detected by our senses. It's own definition can't elude the fact that "it" can't be seen. If one should say it can be seen -- you give room for the argument that says, conversation over.

Yet still "nothing" remains something, else no one would ever believe in it. The question "How can something come from nothing" is much more interesting than what a first glance may take-in. When we define possibility by our own limited standards i.e. "what seems possible," we miss the chance to see "nothing," in its actuality. Loosely paraphrased -- biblical scripture says, God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen through the creation -- so no man is without excuse. "Nothing" can be harnessed (if you will), by someone who has no limitations. In the beginning God created. To limit actuality because we can't understand it, gives us no platform on which to speak exclusivities. There's ample proof to the affirmative all around us that speak volumes on behalf of actuality. "Nothing," in the hands of the Creator, has unlimited potential. God created all things, yes, I suppose we might even say "nothing," because it surely exits.
My point is not to get us running around engaged in the pursuit of seeing nothing :-) >> far from it, but to come to the realization that our Creator (God) created everything from what was unseen. And that along with everything He created us separate and individually unique to have fellowship with Him. For God so loved the world!
Here's a great question, "Where did love come from?"
God is love, Jesus Christ is the full expression of love.

Interesting sentence highlighted, wouldn't you say?
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
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
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/06/2024 at 01:54:17