Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something From Nothing?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 124 (77264)
01-09-2004 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by RingoKid
01-08-2004 1:10 AM


Back To God, again....
Here is a quick question to ponder: In the Bible, light is mentioned as the stars and such, but also mentioned as a sort of "spiritual light" such as in John 1:3-5=====>
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
I will speculate that this "Spiritual Light" is not in a fixed spot. It is everywhere, and yet nowhere. Everywhere if.... and nowhere if...
Comments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RingoKid, posted 01-08-2004 1:10 AM RingoKid has not replied

  
Infinity
Guest


Message 47 of 124 (78177)
01-13-2004 8:58 AM


space exists?
So you guys tell me it was space that expanded?
How can we actually say space is something that exists? In my opinion, this is wrong. If you say that space is that something where gravitation is in, you've invented a name for nothing. Gravity is not bound to space or anything, gravity is also something we made up with our minds. I don't mean gravity is non-existent, of course. If you say gravity is that what makes us stay on the earth and what makes a dead bird fall out of the sky, then gravity exists. But we shouldn't connect gravity to things like time and space because it's merely a law. Untouchable, unchangeable. We can only see it's effect on things. We don't see or measure the gravity itself.
If you wanna discuss things like 'nothing', you also have to explain what you mean by that word. If it's the absence of everything (all objects), it means no objects. What I'm trying to explain is that this nothing, that we give a name is not even worth having a name, because it doesn't exists (like someone said already).
If it doesn't exist, how can it (nothing) expand? How can it do or create ANYTHING?
Indeed something cannot be formed by nothing. If there once was nothing, there would still be nothing. So there must always have been something.
We thinking people are very good at asking questions. We allways want to know what came before something. So if you start with 'at first, there was one little piece of material...' we're all willing to know what was the origin of this thing. As you might imagine, this thinking will lead us nowhere. We can't say anything for sure about what came before something and what is the point in guessing?
So I suggest we try to think of what could have been there from the 'beginning'. Let's just try to imagine that there has always been some thing or person that is not build of matter, nor is it 'nothing', let's call it God. Now let's for the moment assume that this God cannot be put in a testtube because we are unable to say anything of him, as we are far less intelligent than he is. That's difficult for you to understand isn't it? It's because you want to visualise everything, you want to say 'this is IT'. But supposing something more intelligent than us doesn't exist is the same thing as supposing there is no other universe. We should keep in mind that we could have some sort of 'limited vision' which means that there might be a lot more than we can see/touch/hear.. The fact that we don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exists.
So that brings us back to basics: anything can exist without us knowing about it, as our 'senses' might be insufficient.
Let's stop talking about this nothing-crap. I guess the only good answer is that we'll never know the answer. At least, not if you want clear proof. On the other hand, if I look at the world and the stars and everything, I have to admit that this God I was talking about just HAS to exist, and it has to have some kind of taste and creativity
Greetings from Infinity

Time is the key to Evolution?

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2004 9:05 AM You have not replied
 Message 53 by sidelined, posted 01-13-2004 10:45 PM You have not replied

     
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 124 (78179)
01-13-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Infinity
01-13-2004 8:58 AM


How can we actually say space is something that exists?
Because the warping of spacetime has very real effects that we can observe. It's ludicrous at this point to suggest that space is nothing; that it's merely a stage for matter and energy to playact on. Hardly - space itself is a participant as well.
But we shouldn't connect gravity to things like time and space because it's merely a law.
That's not why we do it. We do it because gravity has real, observable effects on time. In fact it has the same effect that motion has on time, suggesting that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable to the universe. That has the implication that what we call gravity isn't actually a force, an "action at a distance", but simply straight-line motion through curved, warped space.
Let's just try to imagine that there has always been some thing or person that is not build of matter, nor is it 'nothing', let's call it God.
Fine. Some entity, outside the universe, not made of matter. How, exactly, is this entity able to cause things to occur in the universe? Magic? By definition you've restricted God from acting in this universe.
The fact that we don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exists.
Sure, but that's hardly a reason to believe in something. After all, you can apply that reasoning to literally anything at all. Not very useful, then.
On the other hand, if I look at the world and the stars and everything, I have to admit that this God I was talking about just HAS to exist, and it has to have some kind of taste and creativity
Funny, I look at the world around me and can only conclude that this God you speak of can't possibly exist. Maybe our personal feelings on the issue aren't a good basis for trying to arrive at a description of what is real and what is not? Maybe we should try something a little more... objective?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Infinity, posted 01-13-2004 8:58 AM Infinity has not replied

  
Taco
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 124 (78231)
01-13-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RingoKid
01-08-2004 1:10 AM


Balloon analogy
The air in the balloon is not part of the analogy because it deals only in a 2-dimensional space. So there is no "inside the balloon" or "outside the balloon". There is only the surface and we can only go along that surface. Along the surface there is no edge, but it is still finite in extent. If you expand the surface it is not expanding into anything, it is just getting bigger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RingoKid, posted 01-08-2004 1:10 AM RingoKid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Abshalom, posted 01-13-2004 6:52 PM Taco has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 124 (78274)
01-13-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taco
01-13-2004 1:57 PM


Re: Balloon analogy
Specifically using the expanding ballon analogy, how can "nothing" be displaced?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taco, posted 01-13-2004 1:57 PM Taco has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 124 (78304)
01-13-2004 10:22 PM


What are you talking about, Abshalom? The balloon is something, and it's not displacing anything by expanding.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Abshalom, posted 01-13-2004 10:41 PM Beercules has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 124 (78310)
01-13-2004 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Beercules
01-13-2004 10:22 PM


Displacement of Nothing
Beercules:
Fill a 5-gallon bucket just shy of the rim. Bend over with a deflated balloon stem in your mouth and submerge the body of the balloon in the bucket full of water. Now start inflating the balloon while holding the balloon down in the water. Notice any displacement now?
The same thing happens when you inflate a balloon using compressed air or helium from a tank. As the balloon inflates, it displaces the atmosphere into which the inflated balloon expands.
My question may appear really stupid to you and others, but again: "How do you displace 'nothing'?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Beercules, posted 01-13-2004 10:22 PM Beercules has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Beercules, posted 01-14-2004 5:54 PM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2004 5:57 PM Abshalom has replied
 Message 69 by Taco, posted 01-15-2004 4:27 PM Abshalom has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 53 of 124 (78312)
01-13-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Infinity
01-13-2004 8:58 AM


Re: space exists?
Infinity
Now let's for the moment assume that this God cannot be put in a testtube because we are unable to say anything of him, as we are far less intelligent than he is.
How do you assume something about God if we are unable to say anything of him?

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Infinity, posted 01-13-2004 8:58 AM Infinity has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 124 (78479)
01-14-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Abshalom
01-13-2004 10:41 PM


Re: Displacement of Nothing
In your example, the ballon is being placed into a medium. In this case, it's water which gets displaced when you do so. The universe however is NOT embedded in anything! It's not displacing some "thing" called nothing, it's not displacing anything.
I think you are getting confused by the english language. You easily say "the universe is displacing nothing" but it is a negative that literally means "the universe is not displacing anything". You are taking the "nothing" to mean a thing in it's own right, which is inproper usage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Abshalom, posted 01-13-2004 10:41 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 124 (78481)
01-14-2004 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Abshalom
01-13-2004 10:41 PM


"How do you displace 'nothing'?"
By putting something there. What's nothing going to do? Stop you? Exert a force? It's nothing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Abshalom, posted 01-13-2004 10:41 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Abshalom, posted 01-14-2004 6:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 124 (78482)
01-14-2004 6:03 PM


something is only relative when you have something else to compare it to...
when there is only one thing it is nothing, give it a consciousness about it's own nothingness and call it GOD.
a thought is nothing, until given substance by means of expression, then
BANG... something springs into existence but contained within the nothing that thought of it.
GOD sustains/effects the universe by creative thought and it is that which we share the god principle and because it exists outdide of that which exists in our universe it is a non thing...yet still something
wouldn't occam's razor suggest this to be the simplest theory ???
heh heh

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2004 6:20 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 124 (78487)
01-14-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RingoKid
01-14-2004 6:03 PM


a thought is nothing
No, it's something - a thought. An idea is still something.
wouldn't occam's razor suggest this to be the simplest theory ???
Only if you don't know what Occam's Razor says. God represents, by definition, an untestable unknown. Therefore Occam's Razor cuts it away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RingoKid, posted 01-14-2004 6:03 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 124 (78488)
01-14-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
01-14-2004 5:57 PM


bad math
No wonder I did so poorly in Algebra ... this damned confusing concept of zero. And how the hell did I succeed in art without realizing the importance of negative space? Thank god for fingers, computers, and calculators!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2004 5:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 124 (78497)
01-14-2004 7:57 PM


ACCEPT NOTHING AS FACT
nothing is a thought so it must be something but how can nothing be something...here we go again
QUESTION EVERYTHING
...and it seems you can even interprete the razor in favour of both God and no God
DETERMINE YOUR OWN TRUTH
Funny, I look at the world around me and can only conclude that this God you speak of can possibly exist...
DEFINE YOUR OWN REALITY

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 60 of 124 (78513)
01-14-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
12-30-2003 4:50 AM


crashfrog writes:
It's possible that something came from nothing via the same process that causes something to come from nothing at every moment in every point in space. Look it up - it's called the "Casimir Effect" and it means that matter is continually popping in and out of existence at every point in space.
In my opinion the cassimr effect proves that matter can come from energy which is reasonable and true. The BIG question is however Who creates the energy? Can someone give me link or something to this. As i Understand it, energy can neither be created nor destroyed therefore it is constant in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2003 4:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2004 11:48 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024