Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 366 (624972)
07-21-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
07-20-2011 5:20 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 5:20 PM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 366 (624983)
07-21-2011 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
07-20-2011 10:38 PM


quote:
How do you know that?
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 ?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 10:38 PM GDR has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 366 (624988)
07-21-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2011 1:58 AM


Purpose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2011 1:58 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 07-21-2011 1:55 AM Chuck77 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 366 (624992)
07-21-2011 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Chuck77
07-21-2011 1:37 AM


Re: Purpose
How can you have purpose unless you first have something capable of intent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Chuck77, posted 07-21-2011 1:37 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Chuck77, posted 07-22-2011 6:33 AM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 366 (624997)
07-21-2011 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by frako
07-20-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Self-inconsistent?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by frako, posted 07-20-2011 7:19 PM frako has not replied

granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 36 of 366 (624999)
07-21-2011 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2011 1:58 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2011 1:58 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 37 of 366 (625002)
07-21-2011 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by AZPaul3
07-20-2011 5:42 PM


Re: Two Speculations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AZPaul3, posted 07-20-2011 5:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2011 8:16 AM Dr Jack has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 38 of 366 (625008)
07-21-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2011 1:58 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2011 1:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 7:43 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 7:50 AM cavediver has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 39 of 366 (625022)
07-21-2011 7:36 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by frako, posted 07-21-2011 7:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 40 of 366 (625023)
07-21-2011 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
07-21-2011 5:50 AM


quote:
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.
I spotted a glitch here. "SPACE". This never existed pre-universe. Nor did DEFINED - this is post-uni.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 5:50 AM cavediver has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 366 (625026)
07-21-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
07-21-2011 5:50 AM


The big problem is that "nothing" is simply a place-holder for *undefined*.
No.
Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning on this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 5:50 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 8:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2011 9:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 42 of 366 (625027)
07-21-2011 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 7:36 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 7:36 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 8:23 AM frako has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 43 of 366 (625033)
07-21-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 7:50 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 7:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 PM cavediver has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 44 of 366 (625035)
07-21-2011 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Jack
07-21-2011 4:27 AM


Re: Two Speculations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2011 4:27 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2011 9:05 AM AZPaul3 has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 45 of 366 (625036)
07-21-2011 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by frako
07-21-2011 7:52 AM


I found some glitches here.
quote:
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.
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:
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.
None of these existed at the point of the universe. Even the BBT speculates a singular entity initiated the universe. Glitch!
quote:
so now lets propose that space comes into exsistance with negative space
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by frako, posted 07-21-2011 7:52 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by frako, posted 07-21-2011 9:27 AM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024