The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?

quote:

---

Re: Purpose
If one considers the positive darkness of colour absence it is possible to grasp the transcendent nature of imagined reality. Only then can light be seen in terms of non-conceptual reality. Of course in the absence of imagination there can be no transcendental which leads to the dichotomy of nothing itself being something. At that point the metaphorical apple can be said not to exist metaphorically and the whole of reality will implode in a nothing anti-nothing cancellation effect.

​

Let’s just hope this doesn’t occur.

---

I found the best efforts of my imagination cannot imagine a pre-universe scenario. I imagine this is because all the wiring in my brain is subject to post-universe scenarios. The closest, realistic description I found, was Genesis' opening four words: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD[CREATOR]'. This is such an unimaginably awesome and terrifying scenario, that it can only be accepted theoretically, and because we have no alternative one to consider.When one considers this further, and also upholds a finite universe - what else can apply other than a finite universe creator being applicable? After all, if we nominate anything else, we immediately violate the finite factor of this universe. This is why I say there is no alternative to creationism, and from a scientific emperical POV only. After all, all the theologies are in contradiction of each other - so we know they cannot be right. The premise of LET THERE BE 'LIGHT' is a direct finger poking at science, not theology, to prove the case.Color and darkness are post-universe products and do not apply here.
It is also remarkable from a literary POV how Genesis posits this factor of what prevailed before the universe existed at the very beginning, in the same verse as the first description of the universe and its finite position. It is as if our questions have been anticipated.

My reasoning why evolution cannot apply with anything connected with life or the earth.For evolution to kick off, first there has to be something to evolutionize; this says the raw products of earth [matter] and fully completed life forms, had to be first existant before evolution can claim any impacts. If the earth is 5 B years old, and life 5M years old, we see that evolution and life are recent factors, to the extent if we say the impacts were very slow it becomes farsical and understandably escapist.If matter emerged without evolution, then matter has no reliance on it; the same applies with life forms. Evolution is just a word which observed some changes, and made into the neo science deity. For sure it is not based on any scientific criteria, for sure it is agenda based to counter Creationism. One does not have to be religious to recognise what is a manipulation; atheists have become more paranoid than the religionists today.Evolution is nothing other than the wiring in a directive program. Nature is nothing other than a metaphor of what is inexplicable. Acknowledging a universe maker is not an unscientific premise; its rejection is.

I gave your post a rating of 5.
All of it made sense - most of it I agreed with.Please continue to produce such clear and cogent arguments.
(No sarcasm intended.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

We're all in the same boat. We don't know who or what we are, where we come from, why, how, when, where we're going - or even if there's a place to go to. And we cannot do a thing about it. Both, creator and no creator are equally unprovable; the theologists and scientists are also in the boat. Such a scenario cannot occur randomly. I believe it had to use ultimate power and means to effect such an un-natural and un-acceptable scenario. Its a dead give away of smething applying, but I don't know what that is - it is barred to me and everyone of us. Intentionally is the only logical view here.

But Jo (May I call you Jo?) what your position fails to take into account is the anti-nothingness nature of the conceptual light-dark-absence triune. This triune can only be considered in terms of the immateriality of notional colour. Where colour, of course, refers to the conceptual rather than physical manifestation of light as a conglomerate of conceivable somethings. Having defined the terms it should now be obvious that THE BEGINNING you refer to, rather than being something terrifying, is simply a logical function of the nothingness spectrum. Metaphorically speaking it is the antithesis of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The LET in the LET THERE BE LIGHT proclamation. Now having established the nature of the triune and the spectrum of conceivable nothings we can move onto the question of why the spectral landscape may or may not include both pre and post universe aspects of the something-nothing inversable relationship. Essentially we need to consider whether something and nothing are nothing more than opposite sides of the same spectral transcendant. It seems to me that in the absence of pre-conceptual universe perceptual colourisation the landscape can only be considered in it’s monochromatic imagined and thus finite form. But even this limited polarisation of the conceptual reality spectrum allows us to draw reasonably concrete conclusions if appropriately extrapolated to the infinite form on the basis of the something-anti-nothing equivalence principle.Of course such extrapolations may be unwarranted. Until we ascertain the exact ratio of the colourisation co-efficient nothing is truly certain.Interested in your thoughts.

True but I also pointed out that when we ask the big question it has to involve time because it kinda suggests the same question as what was before the BB. As has been explained elsewhere that question is meaningless in that it is like asking what is north of the North Pole.It seems to me that the major problem areas concern human conception of time and infinity. Our minds that are being fed with information from our 5 senses are unable to cope with the ideas.Time is how we perceive change but we don't know how else we might be able to perceive change. I pointed out that some scientists speculate that there might be another universe woven within our own. Maybe it is possible that in another universe or one that is truly interwoven with our own that we might find that we can move around in time.As far as infinity is concerned I found this quote in Brian Greene's book, "The Fabric of the Cosmos" very interesting.

quote:

---

In practice, the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. If you use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, they almost always yield one answer: infinity.

---

He goes on to say that this can't be correct so they have to find a way to get rid of the infinities. However maybe it is correct. I have read where many scientists believe that the key to our broadening our understanding involves time and that time is actually an illusion, and for that matter some have gone on to say that so is space.That's all miles over my head but my point would be that something instead of nothing is a meaningless question until we can truly understand time and infinity, which I don't think is going to happen any time soon. In the end, all we can do is speculate.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Infinities have blighted our mathematical models of reality previously LinkIt seems to be a feature of applying classical thinking to quantum phenomena. Or something like that. Should we ever understand the nature of time and the importance of infinity I still don't see how this will aid in solving the question of why something rather than nothing at all.Time and infinity would just become our "something" and the question would become one of why time and infinity exist rather than literally nothing at all.

I get that, but we might then at least have a better idea how to actually frame the question. I guess my contention is that there is a greater reality, regardless of whether our existence is theistic or atheistic, than we are able to perceive.As it stands I don't think we can fully understand the question let alone the answer.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Too true.

You realy dont know what evolution is right? Hows about a RNA molecule that copies itself with flaws can that be "evolutionised"? Yes NO Life is way older then 5 million years more like 3 billion, and what realy kicked off evolution was multicellular organisms it took some time forthem to evolve, then the other kick was land based organisms. Yes NO (at least for life on earth witch "copies" itself with flaws) Well yes NO Like observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, peer rewive, more testing more predictions theory ... fact.(well techincaly the theory of evolution is a theory the method of how things evolved)(and the fact of evolution is a fact things have evolved) Well no the agenda of creationism is to counter evolution and bring bibles back into school and it has no grounds in science and scientific criteria. Quite right when you are religius it is hard to spot manipulation of facts, and evidence because it makes you feel all warm inside when your fary tale has some "evidence" to back itself up. Really how so? Are we bombing people to fight of other view's like the muslims or the christians (if you happened to miss the latest christian bombing a guy in oslo placed a bomb there then went to an island and shot 80 or so kids) Well no evolution is fact and the theory of evolution is a theory, creationism is a farry tale. Well no we are doing quite fine in explaining nature way better then the religious before us. You know lightnig is caused by thors hammer, the rainbow is a sighn from god .. all that silly stuff has been replaced with real explenations. So accepting an untestable, invisible, unevidenced being is more scientific then rejecting it?

Why not?That's the route I'd take...

Is an inconsistency a "something".....?

Yup, it is here in our world.If there was nothing, then the fact that an inconsitancy couldn't exist doesn't make that nothing, itself, no longer inconsistant.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself?I don't really see how genuine nothingness (whatever the hell that means) can be inconsistent. What is it inconsistent with? Inconsistent with what?

Being.