Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something From Nothing

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.
For theists its God.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable. Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The implications are endless.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 5:36:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
ConservativePolitico : Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

The Fool: Its not a fact. you have to except that fact that its impossible for somethign to come from nothing. But it is possible that things where always here.

ConservativePolitico : Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

The Fool: Its already been shown false?

ConservativePolitico : For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.

The Fool: The big bang doesn't come from nothing. It was always there, as a singular, clump, we just call the beginning the part when it explodes. Not all athiest believe the Big Bang theory. I dont! I things it bad science. But science improves over time. What we dont' know today we may learn in the future.. there is no Rush. but everybody wants to Rush.

ConservativePolitico : : For theists its God.

The Fool: Everybody want God we just want it to be rationaly based. Revelation, is not a rational conception.

ConservativePolitico : : But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable.

The Fool: We don't know everything, maybe we never will. Why do we have to know everything, Knowledge increases or time and generations. we may know it tommorow. Or later in the future. Anothe theory will come along to replace the one we have now. Every generation thinks they have the final answer.

ConservativePolitico : Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The Fool: multiuniverse is a very weak theory.

The implications are endless.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 5:40:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.
For theists its God.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable. Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The implications are endless.

Why is that?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
jedipengiun
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 6:10:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.
For theists its God.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable. Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The implications are endless.

This is why i'm contemplating a belief in a predestination paradox for the cause of the universe.
Things that make me happy!

: At 6/22/2012 1:46:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
: Also, as an Englishman I'm obligated to be prejudiced against gingers and the French.

: At 8/27/2012 10:00:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
: Every self-respecting philosopher needs to smoke a pipe.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 6:24:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 6:21:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I've posted this many times and I am always going to every time this is brought up.



The Fool: LOL!!!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:59:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.
False. No credible scientific theory will claim "something from nothing"; at best they will claim "something from seemingly nothing." Usually it's a ply to get people's attention (ie sell books.) In other words, "something from seemingly nothing" means that this so called nothing is actually something.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.
False; see above.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.
False; Big Bang does not claim something from nothing.

For theists its God.
Not all theists believe that God created the Universe from nothing. Furthermore, if the Universe came from God AND God is not nothing then Universe did not come from nothing.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing.
From a contradiction ANYTHING follows so what follows would be nonsense, meaninglessness, more contradictions, etc.

This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable.

1) The above is a false dichotomy (laws that govern matter are not unbreakable = incomplete understanding of physics).

2) Regardless, ANYTHING follows from a contradiction and therefore MANY other implications would follow: nonsense, meaninglessness, more contradictions, etc.

Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.
This doesn't solve the problem, it only complicates it. This is because using this classification simply subdivides the Universe differently; however, we still have the Universe.

The Universe = all things that exist; all of existence. Now if you believe in the Multiverse scheme, then all you are doing is subdividing the Universe (ie all of existence) and renaming the subdivisions "universes" and then renaming the Universe as "Multiverse." In this scheme, the Multiverse is still = "all of existence" = Universe we have always talked about; ergo, we are back to square one.

But why is "something from nothing" not possible? It is because it is a contradiction: one cannot get existence from non-existence because non-existence does not exist. You see, nothingness does not exist because it is a contradiction in meaning; it attempts to define through negation of what can NEVER be negated: existence. This is different from the nothing that we use in every day speak or the value of 0 (zero) that we are accustomed to. If I ask you "what's in your fridge" and you say "nothing", what you mean is that "there is no food" inside but there is certainly air, energy, etc. This is because this "nothing" is the negation of "some thing" and NOT the negation of "all things."

The Universe = all things that exist, ergo there is only ONE Universe. The only thing other than the Universe is non-existence, and of course non-existence does not exist. This is where nothingness lies: it is non-existence and so it does not exist and so we cannot say existence (ie all things or anything) came from non-existence because non-existence does not exist!

The implications are endless.
Indeed; they're not only endless but uncountable as well. There is an infinite amount of ways that nonsense, meaninglessness, and more contradictions can be expressed. If we allow for one contradiction then we allow ALL contradictions. If we allow "existence" to come from "non-existence" then ANYTHING follows. Fill out the following to see why:

(pick any thing that exists) can come from (pick anything that cannot exist).
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 6:17:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: you see. we don;t disagree that much. Its just the physicalism. But its really just a matter of language.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 8:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: that is not much of an argument..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 8:50:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 8:49:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: that is not much of an argument..

Equally 'it defying our logic' isn't decent rhetoric. An argument isn't needed. We have the answers.
turn down for h'what
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 9:00:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 8:23:32 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I wouldn't say it defies our logic. Quantum mechanics isn't that hard to grasp.

Is that right?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 9:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 9:00:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/23/2012 8:23:32 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I wouldn't say it defies our logic. Quantum mechanics isn't that hard to grasp.

Is that right?

aren't*, my mistake. I was subconsciously referring to an individual field of quantum mechanics.
turn down for h'what
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 12:51:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.
For theists its God.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable. Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The implications are endless.

Christian Theists don't believe God came from nothing. It's impossible to be a self-caused being because one would have to exist prior to one's coming into of existence. This is impossible.

God is a necessary being. He has no cause. He has always existed. This is how God has always been understood, ever since God first started speaking to the Old Testament Prophets.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 5:33:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 8:23:32 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I wouldn't say it defies our logic. Quantum mechanics isn't that hard to grasp.

With all due respect, quantum physics does defy logic and if that is what you think; then you do not grasp quantum physics. On the contrary, quantum physics has shown us that the presumption that deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking directly correspond to the truth about physical reality does not hold in all instances. In effect, it has made us realize that the ultimate nature of reality is unfathomable by the human intellect; it is beyond a human being's theoretical ability to grasp.

Quantum physics has changed both our ideas of physical reality and our conception of rationality itself. The very fact of human knowledge would be unaccountable without a distinction between subject and object, between knower and known, but quantum physics has demonstrated that this distinction is arbitrary at best, it just doesn't apply. The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world has become blurred; it's been shown that there is no independence between the observer and the observed. On its most fundamental level quantum physics has given us particles that move from place to place without traveling the distance in between, a single proton at a time that still displays an interference pattern in the double slit experiment so we conclude that a single proton travels every possible path simultaneously and therefore it interferes with itself, it's told us that energy and matter are interconvertible, and that they demonstrate the mutually exclusive characteristics of both particles and waves, the human intellect cannot conceptually grasp a reality that has mutually exclusive properties. Quantum physics gives us a fundamental physical reality that exhibits two conflicting aspects of an ultimate reality that has proven to be incomprehensible by the human intellect. Quantum physics demonstrates that there are absolute limits to the certainty of fundamental coupled facts that necessarily define reality with precision, uncertain relations were shown to be facts about nature itself, in the end, certainty, rationality, and deductive reasoning were shown to be inapplicable to true reality as it has been defined by quantum physics.

The universe has also been shown to be non-local in direct violation of all of our laws of physical science, we have found that reality is ultimately describable in terms of relationships, and the concept of systems showed us that rather than building up reality from elementary, or constituent parts, the analysis of natural phenomena from the top down is more true to reality. These concepts are incompatible with the fundamental manner in which our mind grasps ideas scientifically.

The foundational scientific concept of causality was even challenged, at the quantum level events occur that have no cause, randomness was introduced as a feature of reality, the basic concept of continuity was also shown to be incorrect, nature, time, and even space were shown to be discrete rather than continuous. Space, time and motion, matter, energy and force became types of relationships rather than absolute entities. We discovered that space does not have a Euclidean character that exists independently, and time is not absolute and uniform, neither space nor time is infinite. As Kant demonstrated, an independent Euclidean space and an absolute and uniform time are the "a priori" categories of thought that allow us to grasp any knowledge. Space and time have been shown to have no independent reality apart from their connections with matter and energy - space, time, matter, and energy have been shown to be relationships that have no autonomous existence. The question becomes, "What are they relationships among?", and the consensus answer of science is "We just don't know". At this time, the ultimate basis of reality is simply unknown and it is generally believed that we can never conceive of just what that fundamental reality might be within the limitations of human thought.

All of the unifying theories postulate more dimensions, most reference ten or eleven dimensions, that is to say that reality ultimately consists of at least six additional dimensions that transcend our four dimensional frame of reference, which is to say, they are beyond our intellectual ability to grasp. Quantum physics has demonstrated that the reality that we experience, that we are even capable of experiencing, is a lower level, four dimensional aspect of a far greater reality that we are incapable of even fathoming.

Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in a forest, the greater the clearing the more contact we have with the unknown, it seems the more information we obtain through natural explanations, rather than less, the mystery of true reality becomes greater, and this is especially true of quantum physics. Reality is ultimately indeterminate and the facts of quantum physics have become conceptually inconsistent. The quantum level of reality is not only beyond our experience, it is beyond our limited human faculty of comprehension. It was shown that our ability to explain natural phenomena is constrained by our limited ability to form concepts, it turned out that reality is more than we think it is, it is in fact, more than we can think it is. There has been a blurring of the line between subjective and objective, between mind and world, and between outer and inner reality, and those lines are necessary for us to grasp any knowledge.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 12:21:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 9:00:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/23/2012 8:23:32 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I wouldn't say it defies our logic. Quantum mechanics isn't that hard to grasp.

Is that right?

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:00:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

I agree. When you go back far enough, everything breaks down. Logic itself falls into question and cannot answer for itself. At some point, everything has to make no sense.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:26:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 1:00:10 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

I agree. When you go back far enough, everything breaks down. Logic itself falls into question and cannot answer for itself. At some point, everything has to make no sense.
No need to go far back; all you have to do is read your statements above and we will have arrived at making no sense! Anyways, just because you FEEL the above to be true doesn't mean that it IS true!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 2:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 1:26:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No need to go far back; all you have to do is read your statements above and we will have arrived at making no sense! Anyways, just because you FEEL the above to be true doesn't mean that it IS true!

Really? You think so? I don't know, I think you're going to have to help me understand what you think makes no sense here. Let's go through this:

tarkovsky wrote:
I agree.

This is communicating an instance of being of the same opinion or mind, or holding the same belief.

tarkvosky wrote:
When you go back far enough, everything breaks down.

This communicated what might happen when you look far enough back into the course of events that took place over the history of the universe. For example, imagine you're driving a car down the road and you ask yourself whether or not you closed your gas tank after filling up at the gas station. You can retrace your events, however, perhaps (and certainly not by any stretch of the imagination for you tboone) you have a limited memory and your ability to recall simply breaks down at a certain point, and you simply cannot remember.

tarkovsky wrote:
Logic itself falls into question and cannot answer for itself.

This communicates how a particularly harsh scrutiny for some mode of understanding can preclude it's ability to deliver certain desired answers.

tarkovsky wrote:
At some point, everything has to make no sense.

This communicates the necessity of an inscrutable status, with respect to everything, at a particular point in time.

I don't know, seems like everything checks out to me. I think you're going to have to defend your assertion that we have "arrived at no sense" when 'arriving' at my last post.

Of course, if someone thought the assertions made in my post were false, well that'd be another story entirely wouldn't it?

Accusing some assertion of being false, such as'The moon is made out of cheese' is utterly different from accusing some assertion of making no sense, such as 'Bread far under when go'.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 2:52:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 11:54:32 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
How does the Big Bang Theory claim something came from nothing?!

It doesn't usually, it says it all came from an infinitely dense, infinitely hot something called a singularity, which is just postulated to have been there when the Big Bang occurred.

But there is a popular cosmology theory called the zero-energy hypothesis which argues that the total energy of the universe is zero because the positive energy of matter is equal to the negative energy of gravity. This balancing of the total energy allows for inflation and predicts a flat universe, and it does appear to be flat, which I suppose accounts for the popularity of the theory. If the total energy of the universe is zero then it is reasoned that it could have come from nothing. The speculation is that the universe could have been the result of a quantum fluctuation in empty space, which then could have "inflated" rapidly because the positive energy of inflation would be balanced by the negative energy of gravity, which would produce a universe with a net energy of zero.

Obviously something of a semantics game is being played here; you can hardly say that the intricate counterbalancing of positive and negative forces is "nothing". The postulated zero energy state is a very dynamic and constantly changing state that is full of forces that balance each other exactly, I'm not sure it's appropriate to call that "nothing". If you do, then you haven't really shown how something could come from nothing, since the zero energy universe is postulated as a result of the balancing of forces, all you can really say is you have shown how nothing could have come from nothing. A theory that postulates a universe from nothing by saying the universe is equal to nothing seems like nothing but a word game to me, and what it explains is nothing.

My personal opinion is that all this theory really tells us is that there are some really smart people out there with way too much time on their hands. But hey, at least they aren't out shooting people in movie theaters for no reason at all.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:02:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 2:52:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/23/2012 11:54:32 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
How does the Big Bang Theory claim something came from nothing?!

It doesn't usually, it says it all came from an infinitely dense, infinitely hot something called a singularity, which is just postulated to have been there when the Big Bang occurred.

But there is a popular cosmology theory called the zero-energy hypothesis which argues that the total energy of the universe is zero because the positive energy of matter is equal to the negative energy of gravity. This balancing of the total energy allows for inflation and predicts a flat universe, and it does appear to be flat, which I suppose accounts for the popularity of the theory. If the total energy of the universe is zero then it is reasoned that it could have come from nothing. The speculation is that the universe could have been the result of a quantum fluctuation in empty space, which then could have "inflated" rapidly because the positive energy of inflation would be balanced by the negative energy of gravity, which would produce a universe with a net energy of zero.

Obviously something of a semantics game is being played here; you can hardly say that the intricate counterbalancing of positive and negative forces is "nothing". The postulated zero energy state is a very dynamic and constantly changing state that is full of forces that balance each other exactly, I'm not sure it's appropriate to call that "nothing". If you do, then you haven't really shown how something could come from nothing, since the zero energy universe is postulated as a result of the balancing of forces, all you can really say is you have shown how nothing could have come from nothing. A theory that postulates a universe from nothing by saying the universe is equal to nothing seems like nothing but a word game to me, and what it explains is nothing.

My personal opinion is that all this theory really tells us is that there are some really smart people out there with way too much time on their hands. But hey, at least they aren't out shooting people in movie theaters for no reason at all.

The Fool: No you could never reason that something came from nothing. Even if something Popped in front of you. All you could say is that I DON"T KNOW how it happend. Because Recognition=/=equal reallity. Our senses have limitations. Thus we could never ever conclude something coming from nothing. Quantum Mechanics doesn't break logic. It mean there is holes the the Quantum Mechanics Theory. logic/mathmatics is NOT THEORETICAL. Quantume physics its. It INDUCTION. IT can turn out to be completely FALSE.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:05:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.

Er? I'm an atheist and I don't assert that something came from nothing.

For theists its God.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable. Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The implications are endless.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:16:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.
For theists its God.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable. Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The implications are endless.

No Sir. Before the Big Bang, there were no laws of cause and effect. Therefore, on a molecular level, something could have come from nothing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:23:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:16:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/22/2012 4:30:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whether you're atheist, theist, a multi-universe thinker or just an average Joe, you can't escape the fact that at some point, somewhere, something had to come from nothing.

Whether this was matter or consciousness or something that took place in an alternate or parallel universe something must have manifested itself from nothing.

For atheists its matter in the Big Bang.
For theists its God.

But let's ignore that and focus simply on the implications. Something from nothing. This defies our logic and understanding of the universe meaning that either we have an incomplete understanding of physics (true) or that the laws that govern matter are not unbreakable. Or perhaps our laws that govern the universe only apply to our universe and there really is a multiverse out there.

The implications are endless.

No Sir. Before the Big Bang, there were no laws of cause and effect. Therefore, on a molecular level, something could have come from nothing.

The Fool: I don't claim such mysticial powers of knowledge. I am but a Fool you see.
Cause and effect is simple an extrapolation of suffience or necessary condition.
And you are saying it is sufficient(possible) condition tht something came from nothing. Hmmmm suspecious at least. <(*J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 4:29:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 2:40:03 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 7/24/2012 1:26:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No need to go far back; all you have to do is read your statements above and we will have arrived at making no sense! Anyways, just because you FEEL the above to be true doesn't mean that it IS true!
Really?
Yes.

You think so?
I know so.

I don't know,
I do know.

I think you're going to have to help me understand what you think makes no sense here. Let's go through this:
When you go back far enough, everything breaks down.
This communicated what might happen when you look far enough back into the course of events that took place over the history of the universe. For example, imagine you're driving a car down the road and you ask yourself whether or not you closed your gas tank after filling up at the gas station. You can retrace your events, however, perhaps (and certainly not by any stretch of the imagination for you tboone) you have a limited memory and your ability to recall simply breaks down at a certain point, and you simply cannot remember.
I didn't realize that the OP was about human frailty...lemme check...oh indeed it was not!

tarkovsky wrote:
Logic itself falls into question and cannot answer for itself.
This communicates how a particularly harsh scrutiny for some mode of understanding can preclude it's ability to deliver certain desired answers.
This is the beginning of the nonsense part.

tarkovsky wrote:
At some point, everything has to make no sense.
This communicates the necessity of an inscrutable status, with respect to everything, at a particular point in time.
This is the CRUX of the nonsense part.

I don't know, seems like everything checks out to me. I think you're going to have to defend your assertion that we have "arrived at no sense" when 'arriving' at my last post.
See crux above.

Of course, if someone thought the assertions made in my post were false, well that'd be another story entirely wouldn't it?
See crux above.

Accusing some assertion of being false, such as'The moon is made out of cheese' is utterly different from accusing some assertion of making no sense, such as 'Bread far under when go'.
A distinction without a difference, in this case.

*******************************************************
At 7/24/2012 3:16:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
No Sir. Before the Big Bang, there were no laws of cause and effect. Therefore, on a molecular level, something could have come from nothing.
Lol! There were no atoms, never mind molecules! BTW, you cannot have atoms or molecules if there is no cause & effect.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 6:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 4:29:50 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Accusing some assertion of being false, such as'The moon is made out of cheese' is utterly different from accusing some assertion of making no sense, such as 'Bread far under when go'.
A distinction without a difference, in this case.

Welp, this discussion is over.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:45:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:02:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 2:52:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/23/2012 11:54:32 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
How does the Big Bang Theory claim something came from nothing?!

It doesn't usually, it says it all came from an infinitely dense, infinitely hot something called a singularity, which is just postulated to have been there when the Big Bang occurred.

But there is a popular cosmology theory called the zero-energy hypothesis which argues that the total energy of the universe is zero because the positive energy of matter is equal to the negative energy of gravity. This balancing of the total energy allows for inflation and predicts a flat universe, and it does appear to be flat, which I suppose accounts for the popularity of the theory. If the total energy of the universe is zero then it is reasoned that it could have come from nothing. The speculation is that the universe could have been the result of a quantum fluctuation in empty space, which then could have "inflated" rapidly because the positive energy of inflation would be balanced by the negative energy of gravity, which would produce a universe with a net energy of zero.

Obviously something of a semantics game is being played here; you can hardly say that the intricate counterbalancing of positive and negative forces is "nothing". The postulated zero energy state is a very dynamic and constantly changing state that is full of forces that balance each other exactly, I'm not sure it's appropriate to call that "nothing". If you do, then you haven't really shown how something could come from nothing, since the zero energy universe is postulated as a result of the balancing of forces, all you can really say is you have shown how nothing could have come from nothing. A theory that postulates a universe from nothing by saying the universe is equal to nothing seems like nothing but a word game to me, and what it explains is nothing.

My personal opinion is that all this theory really tells us is that there are some really smart people out there with way too much time on their hands. But hey, at least they aren't out shooting people in movie theaters for no reason at all.

The Fool: No you could never reason that something came from nothing.

There are a lot of physicist that do reason that.

Even if something Popped in front of you. All you could say is that I DON"T KNOW how it happend. Because Recognition=/=equal reallity. Our senses have limitations. Thus we could never ever conclude something coming from nothing.

A lot of physicists do conclude that.

Quantum Mechanics doesn't break logic. It mean there is holes the the Quantum Mechanics Theory. logic/mathmatics is NOT THEORETICAL. Quantume physics its. It INDUCTION. IT can turn out to be completely FALSE.

I see no compelling reason to think the universe must follow the rules you make up, it's much more likely that your reasoning can turn out to be completely FALSE.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 9:33:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 8:45:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:02:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 2:52:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/23/2012 11:54:32 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
How does the Big Bang Theory claim something came from nothing?!

It doesn't usually, it says it all came from an infinitely dense, infinitely hot something called a singularity, which is just postulated to have been there when the Big Bang occurred.

But there is a popular cosmology theory called the zero-energy hypothesis which argues that the total energy of the universe is zero because the positive energy of matter is equal to the negative energy of gravity. This balancing of the total energy allows for inflation and predicts a flat universe, and it does appear to be flat, which I suppose accounts for the popularity of the theory. If the total energy of the universe is zero then it is reasoned that it could have come from nothing. The speculation is that the universe could have been the result of a quantum fluctuation in empty space, which then could have "inflated" rapidly because the positive energy of inflation would be balanced by the negative energy of gravity, which would produce a universe with a net energy of zero.

Obviously something of a semantics game is being played here; you can hardly say that the intricate counterbalancing of positive and negative forces is "nothing". The postulated zero energy state is a very dynamic and constantly changing state that is full of forces that balance each other exactly, I'm not sure it's appropriate to call that "nothing". If you do, then you haven't really shown how something could come from nothing, since the zero energy universe is postulated as a result of the balancing of forces, all you can really say is you have shown how nothing could have come from nothing. A theory that postulates a universe from nothing by saying the universe is equal to nothing seems like nothing but a word game to me, and what it explains is nothing.

My personal opinion is that all this theory really tells us is that there are some really smart people out there with way too much time on their hands. But hey, at least they aren't out shooting people in movie theaters for no reason at all.

The Fool: No you could never reason that something came from nothing.

There are a lot of physicist that do reason that.
The Fool: False appeal to authority.

Even if something Popped in front of you. All you could say is that I DON"T KNOW how it happend. Because Recognition=/=equal reallity. Our senses have limitations. Thus we could never ever conclude something coming from nothing.

A lot of physicists do conclude that.
The Fool: false appeal to authority.

Quantum Mechanics doesn't break logic. It mean there is holes the the Quantum Mechanics Theory. logic/mathmatics is NOT THEORETICAL. Quantume physics its. It INDUCTION. IT can turn out to be completely FALSE.

I see no compelling reason to think the universe must follow the rules you make up, it's much more likely that your reasoning can turn out to be completely FALSE.

The Fool: What you compelled by is irrevant to what you can justify. Firstly we discover logal rules. We create a language to represent them, a symbolic system which is of the same deriviation of the symbolic system of math which quantum theory depends upon. The symbolic systam can fail to represent the reality of what is symbolizes. But the reallity can't fail to be itself. So this reasoning is presupposed in the quantum theory which you are basing your bold assumptions. And thus if follow by necessity that you are wrong. .............

.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 6:23:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 9:33:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 8:45:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:02:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/24/2012 2:52:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/23/2012 11:54:32 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
How does the Big Bang Theory claim something came from nothing?!

It doesn't usually, it says it all came from an infinitely dense, infinitely hot something called a singularity, which is just postulated to have been there when the Big Bang occurred.

But there is a popular cosmology theory called the zero-energy hypothesis which argues that the total energy of the universe is zero because the positive energy of matter is equal to the negative energy of gravity. This balancing of the total energy allows for inflation and predicts a flat universe, and it does appear to be flat, which I suppose accounts for the popularity of the theory. If the total energy of the universe is zero then it is reasoned that it could have come from nothing. The speculation is that the universe could have been the result of a quantum fluctuation in empty space, which then could have "inflated" rapidly because the positive energy of inflation would be balanced by the negative energy of gravity, which would produce a universe with a net energy of zero.

Obviously something of a semantics game is being played here; you can hardly say that the intricate counterbalancing of positive and negative forces is "nothing". The postulated zero energy state is a very dynamic and constantly changing state that is full of forces that balance each other exactly, I'm not sure it's appropriate to call that "nothing". If you do, then you haven't really shown how something could come from nothing, since the zero energy universe is postulated as a result of the balancing of forces, all you can really say is you have shown how nothing could have come from nothing. A theory that postulates a universe from nothing by saying the universe is equal to nothing seems like nothing but a word game to me, and what it explains is nothing.

My personal opinion is that all this theory really tells us is that there are some really smart people out there with way too much time on their hands. But hey, at least they aren't out shooting people in movie theaters for no reason at all.

The Fool: No you could never reason that something came from nothing.

There are a lot of physicist that do reason that.
The Fool: False appeal to authority.

Nope, you made the bold assertion that "you could never reason that something came from nothing", I merely restated the point I had already made that a lot of physicists do in fact reason just that. Your lame reply was just a false appeal to the Wikipedia list of fallacies to make it appear that you know what you are talking about.


Even if something Popped in front of you. All you could say is that I DON"T KNOW how it happend. Because Recognition=/=equal reallity. Our senses have limitations. Thus we could never ever conclude something coming from nothing.

A lot of physicists do conclude that.
The Fool: false appeal to authority.

Nope again, you made another unfounded bold assertion that "we could never ever conclude something coming from nothing", again I merely restated the point I had already made that a lot of physicists do in fact conclude just that. Your lame reply was just another false appeal to the Wikipedia list of fallacies to make it appear that you know what you are talking about.

Quantum Mechanics doesn't break logic. It mean there is holes the the Quantum Mechanics Theory. logic/mathmatics is NOT THEORETICAL. Quantume physics its. It INDUCTION. IT can turn out to be completely FALSE.

I see no compelling reason to think the universe must follow the rules you make up, it's much more likely that your reasoning can turn out to be completely FALSE.

The Fool: What you compelled by is irrevant to what you can justify.

Nope again, I can certainly justify the assertion that the universe doesn't have to follow the uninformed rules you simply make up and declare.

Firstly we discover logal rules. We create a language to represent them, a symbolic system which is of the same deriviation of the symbolic system of math which quantum theory depends upon. The symbolic systam can fail to represent the reality of what is symbolizes. But the reallity can't fail to be itself. So this reasoning is presupposed in the quantum theory which you are basing your bold assumptions. And thus if follow by necessity that you are wrong. .............

Nope yet again, I did not presuppose quantum theory in stating that the universe doesn't need to follow the rules you make up, it's just common sense. There is no principle of nature that states reality is limited by your own bold assumptions based on nothing more than what seems right to an uninformed Fool.

My initial post was not a bold assumption, it simply stated that there is a popular theory of a zero energy universe that many physicists believe and from it many reason that the universe could have come from nothing. If you do some research to become informed about the subject matter you will find that my statement was factual.

Your "bold assumptions" response was yet another false appeal to the Wikipedia list of fallacies to make it appear that you know what you are talking about, and you quite obviously don't.


.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater