Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhy can't you have an infinite void with nothing in it? I mean that is what void means:containing nothing; barren; empty
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWho said you couldn't? But the point is that we have a universe which is evidence that it is not an absolute void, but a fluctuating quantum void of non-zero energy out of which, in my opinion, universes are born.
And you said: my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing
But a void would be nothing, in the sense that there is nothing, literally, in it. So our universe could expand into that void.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut there is no evidence of this fluctuating quantum void, which by definition would not be a true void since it has something in it.
And you said: my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing
But a void would be nothing, in the sense that there is nothing, literally, in it. So our universe could expand into that void.Last edited by JimL; 05-10-2018, 10:14 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, it would not be a true void, it would be what they call a false vacuum, a void of non-zero point energy. That it exists is extrapolated from what is known, it's an hypotheses, but one derived of the science. We can't observe what's beyond the universe.
The confusion I believe has to do with each persons idea of what is meant by"nothing." Literally nothing according to Chrawnus means "no void" as well. To me "nothing" means an existing void in which literally "nothing" else, or at least "nothing material exists.
Exactly right, which is exactly my point. No void, no expansion!Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, lets try a different tact. When we speak of "something", we are speaking of matter, and vise versa, when we speak if "nothing," we are speaking of the lack of anything material. That's all I'm suggesting when I define that which is outside our universe. In other words I'm suggesting that there is infinite non-material space within the which universes like our own are born, exist, expand and die. When you say "nothing" what you mean by that is absolute nothing, including the lack of an infinite void. That kind of "nothing," your idea of "nothing", makes no sense, because for one thing nihil ex nihilo, nothing comes from nothing, and two, an existing "something" can't expand unless there is a sort of space, a place, a void into which it can expand.
When you ask "what exactly would stop the universe from existing or expanding if there is literally "NOTHING" , my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing.
Imagine that you were the only existing thing. No stars. No planets. You're floating in a void. You can sense the motion of your body because your hand has a relationship to your face, your feet to your fingers, etc. But the very idea of "motion" in that void is meaningless. There is no reference point. You can't move towards or away from anything because there is nothing else. It's a dimensionless emptiness. That is the situation the "universe" is in. You seem to be trying to extend space to infinity and simply claim part of it has no matter or energy (i.e., outside the universe). But since space, time, matter, and energy are all bound together, that simply does not seem to work.
Perhaps beyond the bounds of the universe, there is simply nothing. No time, no space, no matter, no energy. No thing.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo it isn't, there is zero scientific evidence for some pre-existing energy.
But a void, by definition is nothingness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDirect scientific observation, no. But, just as it is the case that "nothing comes from nothing," it is also true that something doesn't become nothing. That which has existence, can't then become non-existent. Energy exists, that we know, ergo it has always existed, it neither came from nothing, nor could it as an existing thing become non-existent.
The infinite void in and of itself is what I would define as "nothingness". The fact that something exists within it, doesn't change the fact that in and of itself it is a void. Energy exists within it, universes exist within it, but in and of itself, it is "nothing" but a void.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostActually we do have an idea, though it's derived of common sense rather than direct observation.
http://commonsensekiller.blogspot.co...dicts-our.html
Exactly my point.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, lets try a different tact. When we speak of "something", we are speaking of matter, and vise versa, when we speak if "nothing," we are speaking of the lack of anything material. That's all I'm suggesting when I define that which is outside our universe. In other words I'm suggesting that there is infinite non-material space within the which universes like our own are born, exist, expand and die. When you say "nothing" what you mean by that is absolute nothing, including the lack of an infinite void. That kind of "nothing," your idea of "nothing", makes no sense, because for one thing nihil ex nihilo, nothing comes from nothing, and two, an existing "something" can't expand unless there is a sort of space, a place, a void into which it can expand.
When you ask "what exactly would stop the universe from existing or expanding if there is literally "NOTHING" , my answer to that would be; the fact that there is "literally" nothing would stop it. Empty space, a void, may be nothing in one sense of the word, it's not material, but in another sense it is not "literally" nothing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI am underlining your problem here. You are trying to apply concepts that you learned inside the universe to the universe itself. When you blow up a balloon, it expands "into" the surrounding air. Growing things displace other things, and occupy space previously occupied by something else. At the very least, they change their relationship to other things: the inflating balloon gets closer to your nose, etc.). But we do not know there is anything outside the universe. There is nothing to change relationship to.
Imagine that you were the only existing thing. No stars. No planets. You're floating in a void. You can sense the motion of your body because your hand has a relationship to your face, your feet to your fingers, etc. But the very idea of "motion" in that void is meaningless. There is no reference point. You can't move towards or away from anything because there is nothing else. It's a dimensionless emptiness. That is the situation the "universe" is in. You seem to be trying to extend space to infinity and simply claim part of it has no matter or energy (i.e., outside the universe). But since space, time, matter, and energy are all bound together, that simply does not seem to work.
Perhaps beyond the bounds of the universe, there is simply nothing. No time, no space, no matter, no energy. No thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI don't know what you mean by non-material space.Regular space is already "non-material".
I'm not sure how you'd establish that "regular" space needs some sort of "higher-order" space in order to be "born, exist, expand and die".
We know physical/material things need some sort of space/place in order to exist. We do not know the same about space itself. I don't know of anything that would warrant the conclusion that space itself needs it's own kind of "space" in order to be able to exist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, actually space as we know and experience it, is material. It's one way to understand gravity, things move through space in accordance to the warps in it caused by the objects in it. The earth revolves around the sun because it is following the warp in space caused by the sun.
I'm not suggesting that the spacetime universe emerged from a higher order space, space as we know it is material. I'm suggesting that the spacetime universe is born of the cosmic void, which isn't space, but there is a fluctuating energy field. That has to be where Vilenkin's tunneling through a barrier universe creation takes place.
True, we don't know, maybe THE UNIVERSE is finite, but its expansion kind of rules that out for me. You can make the argument that space doesn't need a void in which to expand, but a logical argument for that hasn't been made to me. I believe that if we count a void as a something, then there is no such thing as nothing, because that void would itself undoubtedly be infinite.
Now doesn't THAT blow your mind..?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI am underlining your problem here. You are trying to apply concepts that you learned inside the universe to the universe itself. When you blow up a balloon, it expands "into" the surrounding air. Growing things displace other things, and occupy space previously occupied by something else. At the very least, they change their relationship to other things: the inflating balloon gets closer to your nose, etc.). But we do not know there is anything outside the universe. There is nothing to change relationship to.
Imagine that you were the only existing thing. No stars. No planets. You're floating in a void. You can sense the motion of your body because your hand has a relationship to your face, your feet to your fingers, etc. But the very idea of "motion" in that void is meaningless. There is no reference point. You can't move towards or away from anything because there is nothing else. It's a dimensionless emptiness. That is the situation the "universe" is in. You seem to be trying to extend space to infinity and simply claim part of it has no matter or energy (i.e., outside the universe). But since space, time, matter, and energy are all bound together, that simply does not seem to work.
Perhaps beyond the bounds of the universe, there is simply nothing. No time, no space, no matter, no energy. No thing.
Relying on Valenkin, Hawking, Hertog and the many others I cited they all believe there is 'something' and not nothing beyond our universe in space and time(?) only in the potential possibility of other universes. Hawking for one seriously clams that the existence of the multiverse is possibly falsified. I believe our universe is expanding through a Quantum world that infinitely exists beyond our universe, and any hypothetical boundary does not exist because time exists as we move outward with use as still part of our universe.
Hawking's last paper:
Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-12-2018, 05:36 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment