|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Does consciousness count as something? Does intelligence or wisdom count as something? Would a state of affairs in which there was consciousness, wisdom, and intelligence be the same as a state of affairs in which there was nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: By carefully considering the issue. How can intelligence be said to exist without something that is intelligent? (And what point is there in trying to suggest that abstract entities can somehow exist in the absence of concrete entities anyway ?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Why is there something rather than nothing? I can't think of anything smart to say or add. The only thing that comes to mind is purpose. Every- t-h-i-n-g has a purpose. With nothing, there's no purpose. With something, there's purpose. If no-thing is some-thing then what purpose does the no-thing serve? Can no-thing serve a purpose? If it can then there must be some-thing to be purposed. So, to add my 2 cents, *purpose* is my "answer" to your question, or atleast what comes to mind for now. If it even makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How can you have purpose unless you first have something capable of intent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
frako writes: And that nothing is something its the absence of nothing, i say nothing is impossible "unnatural" there always has to be something even if it adds up to nothing. And I thought I was giving people headaches. One thing we can be sure of, even if true nothing could exist, the only place it could do it is nowhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
granpa Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
Why is there something rather than nothing? Some initial thoughts: * God would not constitute an explanation, since God counts as something. * Indeed, if anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for. * This last consideration makes the question look unanswerable. To explain my thinking, consider that a question beginning "Why ..." invites an answer describing some thing which is an antecedent cause, or at least something with a sort of family resemblance to an antecedent cause. * Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't. My own opinion is that the question is unanswerable, and indeed can only be asked because the English language allows us to talk nonsense. This view does not satisfy me in the slightest, but as I am in the habit of saying, being hungry does not prove that we have bread. you can only go so far back in time and then you just cant go back any further.to ask what existed before the beginning is like asking whats north of the north pole. the question simply doesnt make any sense. in the beginning even space didnt exist but there had to exist 1 event.call it event one an event is an object doing something. call it object one doing verb one event one had to cause at least one other event to happen.causing another event to happen is doing something. verb one = causing another event to happen an event is itself an object.(strictly speaking an event is an instance of a verb) object one = event one Edited by granpa, : added quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Your premise was "... an infinite number of possible configurations which a universe might assume when coming into existence." of which something is more likely than nothing as a consequence. It seems to me that the idea that it is necessary for the universe to come into existence in any configuration is already a "something". A truly "nothing" universe would not "come into existence", nor lead to anything else coming into existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Why is there something rather than nothing? The big problem is that "nothing" is simply a place-holder for *undefined*. And as such, you're not going to get much of a sensible answer from this angle.
would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't. I'm not sure I agree, based on my point above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The thread's Q can be the ultimate unanswerable, or the simplest one of all.
After studying the sciences, I came to the conclusion there is no alternative to Creationism, and thereby the premise of something from nothing [ex nehilo], a premise introduced in Genesis. Consider the following and correct me where you find a glitch: 1. Once there was no universe or anything universe contained. This is based on the premise of an absolutely finite universe. 2. Then there was the universe. 3. Here, looking for laws to explain how this could happen is a mute point: the laws never existed once - else the universe would not be finite or it would pop up everywhere w/o emperical laws. Either way laws do not apply; these were obviously ushered in after the universe appeared. An analogy is a car: before the car and the blueprints of the car [car making laws] - there was the raw base metals. Thus the laws of the universe would have appeared after the universe emerged in its raw form [agreed in some scientific thinking as in the Plank' limit]. 4. By a process of elimination, namely there is absolutely no other possibility how the universe could have happened, accept by a command by a transcendent force, as stated in Genesis, becomes the only choiceless conclusion. To prove this point, try to name an alternative? Here, it is not the straying from laws and empirical methodology which impacts - its the absolute lack of any possible alternatives available. Remember that when the universe began, there were no laws, no tools or elements, no energy, space or any such things as yet. This leaves only one option - the most disdained by science - ex nehilo. Further. Consider the word CREATE from Genesis' POV. It is a very technical term that appears only in the first creational chapter. The word is replaced with FORMED from Chapter 2 to the rest of the entire Hebrew bible. Why? Because CREATE in Chapter 1 refers to something from nothing; while formed refers to something from something else. When we consider this further, we find that everything in the universe comes under the term FORMED; accept what appeared originally - these were not formed but CREATED in the very technical term of that word and its meaning and it happened only once; only something from nothing is create, technically speaking. If anyone can come up with an alternative - any alternative whatsoever, based on an absolutely finite universe - please enlighten me. I'm listening., especially from a scientific POV Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I spotted a glitch here. "SPACE". This never existed pre-universe. Nor did DEFINED - this is post-uni. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The big problem is that "nothing" is simply a place-holder for *undefined*. No. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning on this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
So wait your god can be eternal and needs no creation while every other thing needs creation.
Let me put a diferent crackpot theory up for grabs. 0 is an unnatural state and it cant be found anywhere eccept on paper.We see nothing produce virtual particles particles that in one moment come into exsistance in pairs then colide and go out of exsistance in the next moment they last for such a short time that they are not considered part of reality. Lets say space can do the same it pops into exsistance for a short while then collides with negative space and goes out of exsistance again. so now lets propose that space comes into exsistance with negative space but a colission with anoter positive space deflects it away from the path it was on to collide with negative space. Now we have 2 permanent pozitive spaces and 2 negative that will not collide because their tregectaries have been altered. Now lets propose that the same thing happenes inside the space so we get a box inside the box. Now in space virtual particles form all the time but like if they forme on the edge of an event horizon of a black hole where one part gets sucked into a black hole and the other wanders freely the same thing happens in the outside box a virual particle gets trapped inside the smaller inside box and one floats around freely The smaller box slowly but surely gets filled up by these virtual particles they can enter but cannot escape. And at one point the "walls" of the small box cannot hold they brake and we get the big bang you know the rest form there. So in fact we got something from nothing but if you add that something up you end up with nothing again, it is only something as long it is sepperated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
No. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning on this point. there is no reasoning, i'm simply stating a fact. Or perhaps you have a definition of "nothing" of which I am unaware?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8536 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
A truly "nothing" universe would not "come into existence", nor lead to anything else coming into existence. Yes. It would be indistinguishable from the void from which it came ... or didn't come, actually. So, for speculation 1, since this universe "came into being" the only configurations possible had to contain "something" by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I found some glitches here.
quote: Yes, these are called omega or ghost particles, which appear to come from nowhere and become discernable upon impact with electrons. BUT! You are posing a post- or in-universe scenario, when empirical laws exist. These laws and their resultant products never existed pre-finite-uni. Glitch!
quote: None of these existed at the point of the universe. Even the BBT speculates a singular entity initiated the universe. Glitch!
quote: Space, posotive and negative yet never existed pre-finite uni. Glitch! You get the idea why I said there is no alternative to ex nehilo?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024