28 Jan 07
Originally posted by frogstompIf space didn't contain anything it would be nothing , What is this thing called potentiality? Is IT made of anything? Or is it just another concept again?
space exists with or without containing anything, since is simply is the potentiality for things to move through.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterCorrect.
1)You do not believe that something can come from absolutely nothing . That to you is an invalid idea.
2)Ok , then you must by implication believe that if a state of absolutely nothing was /is / could have (don't pick up on the language here , it's a philosophical statement) it would have no potential or possibility of somethingness. Therefore , from nothing , nothing can come.
No, I don't believe that the existence of Nothingness is a valid concept and therefore speculating about its existence or potential is invalid.
3) Therefore (because we know the universe exists) it cannot come from nothing ..that's invalid....so must have "come from" a state of somethingness (whatever that may be) . But that somethingness must have also not come from nothing but must have also come from somethingness.... etc etc etc x 10000 trillion
Here is where you always get it wrong and just cant seem to understand the basic concept I am trying to explain. "come from" requires a time component, if time is finite then there is the possibility that the universe had a beginning without having a "coming from".
3a) A potential way out here is to say that the universe is uncaused and infinite in itself and has no beginning but this still leads you to eternal continuous existence anyway bacause the universe has always been around in this model.
4) If you take 3 into infinite regress you are left with infinite somethingness or a chain of infinite somethingnesses which leads you to eternal somethingness anyway because this infinite regress can have no beginning by definition.
5) You can decide not to go down the infinite regress road and stop with something uncaused if you like . But this somethingness with which you stop must be eternal or continuous or infinite without beginning because if it's not your are back to 3 again.
Invalid logic as 3 is invalid. See my answer to 3.
6) You then get to the realisation that you have nowhere to go if you rule out S from Nothing. You can put off the inevitable but logically you can't get off the road to eternal continuous existence without reverting to S from N or some self contradictory logic like "the universe created itself" or "the universe doesn't exist".
It's basic logic.... A is either A or non A so once you rule out non A you are only left with A. It's like in chess when the best (or only) move available is to be found once you realise all the other moves don't work.
I can't see a 3rd option that is not self contradictory or so woolly it doesn't address the raw question itself.
So in your chess analogy, which move comes before Whites first move? Is a chess game eternal or does it come from nothing?
A finite something has to have a beginning and a boundary ...but it can't have a beginning from nothing... that is invalid. Therefore , you are into infinity again and continuity. Eternity to me is something that has no beginning and is continuous requiring no cause.
As long as the time component has a beginning then there is no "from nothing" involved. That is why your conclusion is flawed.
So eternity is because there can be no state of nothing ever... because if there was we wouldn't be here.
Now however incredible this idea sounds it makes more sense than the S from N idea because one thing we do know for sure is that we exist.
What I don't get is how you create a 3rd option when there is none.
You still wont tell me whether you think space is finite. If you accept the big bang theory then you must accept that space is finite. You must therefore apply your question to space as well. If space is finite what is beyond it? More space or nothing? If more space then space is not as finite as claimed so the only other possibility according to your theory is that surrounding the universe is a sea of nothing which is always in existence!
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf space is finite what is beyond it? More space or nothing?WHITEHEAD
Correct.
[b]2)Ok , then you must by implication believe that if a state of absolutely nothing was /is / could have (don't pick up on the language here , it's a philosophical statement) it would have no potential or possibility of somethingness. Therefore , from nothing , nothing can come.
No, I don't believe that the existence of Nothingness is a ...[text shortened]... unding the universe is a sea of nothing which is always in existence![/b]
It's quite simple really , I dispute the idea that what may beyond the universe needs to be either space or nothing ...it could be something else (another type of dimensionality for example). Just because you think that nothing can exist beyond 3d space as we know it doesn't mean it can't.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI never made a claim that what is beyond 3d space is nothing. I am rather making a claim that there is no such thing as 'beyond' 3d space as the very concept implies spacial dimensions.
If space is finite what is beyond it? More space or nothing?WHITEHEAD
It's quite simple really , I dispute the idea that what may beyond the universe needs to be either space or nothing ...it could be something else (another type of dimensionality for example). Just because you think that nothing can exist beyond 3d space as we know it doesn't mean it can't.
Do you think that if you went to the edge of the universe you might fall off?
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo what terminology do you think I might be able to use ? You are confusing a philosophical question with a question of physics. Do you not realise that I am fully aware of the limitations of the language here? If you would like to invent a whole new vocab for me I would be happy to use it , but until then I shall continue to use the only concepts I know of that are available to me.
I never made a claim that what is beyond 3d space is nothing. I am rather making a claim that there is no such thing as 'beyond' 3d space as the very concept implies spacial dimensions.
Do you think that if you went to the edge of the universe you might fall off?
The phrases "beyond" or "before" the known universe are obviously used with a pinch of salt but since you do not believe in nothing or S from N then there must be something out "there" , even if it's something we can barely imagine. Our words may have limitations but they are all we have I'm afraid.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere is where you always get it wrong and just cant seem to understand the basic concept I am trying to explain. "come from" requires a time component, if time is finite then there is the possibility that the universe had a beginning without having a "coming from". Twhitehead
Correct.
[b]2)Ok , then you must by implication believe that if a state of absolutely nothing was /is / could have (don't pick up on the language here , it's a philosophical statement) it would have no potential or possibility of somethingness. Therefore , from nothing , nothing can come.
No, I don't believe that the existence of Nothingness is a ...[text shortened]... unding the universe is a sea of nothing which is always in existence![/b]
The problem here is that whatever phrase I use is doomed. If I say "how" did the universe begin you would talk about the word did and say thast how implied some mechanism which needed a process which implied time. If I said "why" did the universe begin you would say that why implies a reason and if there is a reason it implies that there was something causing the universe but that would implioe causality and time.
I could go on...
After a while you start to wonder if there are ANY valid questions that could be asked. If this is so then it shows the S from N idea to be invalid in itself. Of course if there really was nothing then then we would expect all our questions to be invalid and irrational but that means that the whole thing would be shown to be an irrational , unprovable contradictory belief.
You believe that the idea of S from N (or nothing itself) is invalid but you get yourself tongue tied because you don't want to go down the next logical step of continuous existence.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou still wont tell me whether you think space is finite. If you accept the big bang theory then you must accept that space is finite. You must therefore apply your question to space as well. If space is finite what is beyond it? More space or nothing?WHITEHEAD
Correct.
[b]2)Ok , then you must by implication believe that if a state of absolutely nothing was /is / could have (don't pick up on the language here , it's a philosophical statement) it would have no potential or possibility of somethingness. Therefore , from nothing , nothing can come.
No, I don't believe that the existence of Nothingness is a ...[text shortened]... unding the universe is a sea of nothing which is always in existence![/b]
Space/time within the universe is finite . I accept the big bang theory , no problems. As for space or time or dimensions "beyond" or "before" the universe I cannot rule them out as definitively as you do. You think that if anything exists it must exist in space/time as we know it , but philosophically and logically it makes no sense to make such a sweeping assumption. It's more scientific to keep an open mind about what we may or may not be able to say about existence outside of the universe.How do you know that there might not be infinite space outside the known universe?
However, you imply that space/time is all that can ever exist and that nothing can exist apart from space time or it being in space/time somehow. But since you believe space/time to be finite and the universe to have a beginning , this belief is in direct contradiction with your idea that nothing existing is a silly idea. If space time is finite then according to your logic all that exists (or could ever exist) is finite. This then leads you to discontinuity between nothing and something. You are trapped between the proverbial rock and hard place with nowhere to go but wordplay.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs I have stated repeatedly there is no basis whatever for your conclusion that ~(S from N) => Something out "there".
The phrases "beyond" or "before" the known universe are obviously used with a pinch of salt but since you do not believe in nothing or S from N then there must be something out "there" , even if it's something we can barely imagine. Our words may have limitations but they are all we have I'm afraid.
29 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell that depends on your definition of continuous existence.
You believe that the idea of S from N (or nothing itself) is invalid but you get yourself tongue tied because you don't want to go down the next logical step of continuous existence.
If you mean that time is infinite, then why is it "the next logical step"?
If you mean that something exists external to the universe then why is it "the next logical step"?
You are convinced that something you term causality exists externally to the universe and draw far reaching conclusions without verifying or justifying your premise.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have not implied that. I have merely stated that it is a possibility not a necessity.
However, you imply that space/time is all that can ever exist and that nothing can exist apart from space time or it being in space/time somehow.
But since you believe space/time to be finite and the universe to have a beginning, this belief is in direct contradiction with your idea that nothing existing is a silly idea. If space time is finite then according to your logic all that exists (or could ever exist) is finite. This then leads you to discontinuity between nothing and something.
No it does not. Why, if you accept that nothing existing is a ridiculous idea, do you keep instantiating it when there is no reason to do so?
You are claiming that:
Finite time/space => the existence of Nothing => a discontinuity between the two entities.
But you skip the reasoning behind the first 'implies'.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you think life , the universe and everything in it and everything that exists is finite (ie has a beginning and a boundary of some sort)? If you do what implications do YOU think it has on the issue of nothing/ S from N / and discontinuity? Do you think that life itself can be finite and have a beginning but also that it's impossible for life to have never not existed (nothing). If nothing is not an option and you don't believe that there ever can be , has been or is a state of complete non-existence (nothing) then how do you come to the conclusion that life can still be finite?
I have not implied that. I have merely stated that it is a possibility not a necessity.
[b]But since you believe space/time to be finite and the universe to have a beginning, this belief is in direct contradiction with your idea that nothing existing is a silly idea. If space time is finite then according to your logic all that exists (or could ever e ...[text shortened]... scontinuity between the two entities.
But you skip the reasoning behind the first 'implies'.
For me , 1)life is either finite and discontinuous (which implies that a state of nothingness must exist) OR 2) life must be infinite and continuous (which is really eternity by another name).
However , if you have a 3rd option that gets you out of this then that's fine , the problem is that you are not sharing it.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadContinuous existence is not a time based question for me. It's a question of substance and existence itself. Beyond or outside or before the universe(yes I know the terms are inadequate) is either existence or some kind that we may or may not understand or non-existence (nothing). Whether it is time , matter or a 57th dimension is not relevant , because there is either continuity in existence or non-existence and existence combined. But since the terms existence and non-existence are incompatible this seems illogical.
Well that depends on your definition of continuous existence.
If you mean that time is infinite, then why is it "the next logical step"?
If you mean that something exists external to the universe then why is it "the next logical step"?
You are convinced that something you term causality exists externally to the universe and draw far reaching conclusions without verifying or justifying your premise.
We can say that there may be a state which both exists and not exists all at the same time and we may say that there is no causality or time or any kind of logic to any of it at all. But in that case we have no less reason to believe life is sitting on the back of a giant polar bear. The other option is to assume (as all science assumes ) that what we don't know about has some kind of feint logical resemblance to what we already know otherwise we end up completely ripping up the rationality book.
29 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead2)Ok , then you must by implication believe that if a state of absolutely nothing was /is / could have (don't pick up on the language here , it's a philosophical statement) it would have no potential or possibility of somethingness. Therefore , from nothing , nothing can come. KM
Correct.
[b]2)Ok , then you must by implication believe that if a state of absolutely nothing was /is / could have (don't pick up on the language here , it's a philosophical statement) it would have no potential or possibility of somethingness. Therefore , from nothing , nothing can come.
No, I don't believe that the existence of Nothingness is a unding the universe is a sea of nothing which is always in existence![/b]
No, I don't believe that the existence of Nothingness is a valid concept and therefore speculating about its existence or potential is invalid.WHITEY
This starts to look very slippery at this point however you have answered the question even though you have tried hard not to. In saying that the existence of nothing is invalid you have said in not so many words that it's impossible for life to not exist because if it WERE possible for life to not exist it could surely still be a valid concept. So for you the idea of life not ever existing (absolutely nothing) is invalid. You would infact go further than me and not just say "from nothing , nothing can come" you would say "nothing can never even BE in the first place" because the concept is invalid and therefore not possible (because if it were possible it would have to be valid at least).
So having established that you believe in the impossibility of the non-existence of life (in whatever form) you must then consider the implications of this ----life (in some form) has been hanging around forever , existing. If I hadn't then nothing would be there instead ! (even though I know you will say that nothing can't be "there" because that implies space yawn yawn) How about life has been around forever because if it hasn't then "non-life" (absolutely nothing) would "non-exist" ?
Never mind I'm sure you will find some semantic wriggle to get out of this and it's understandable because thinking that life could be eternal in some form might shake your world view , but it doesn't have to...there's nothing (LOL) to fear !!