A possible solution to why is there something rather than nothing.

@ACB,

ACB;96617 wrote:

1. If something "came" (i.e. came into existence), it had a beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, it has not always existed.
3. If it has not always existed, there was a time when it did not exist. (Because if there were no such time, the thing would never have been non-existent, i.e. it would always have existed.)
4. Time is something.
5. Therefore, something must come from something; it cannot come from nothing.

Thanks for the argument, ACB. I'm trying to make sure I understand it as well as I can, so I'm giving you some feedback on what I think you're saying. Okay? I'm thinking that (1.) looks like an unnecessary step that just says "came into existence" = "had a beginning". On the other hand, I can see that (2.) is necessary to affirm that having a beginning is not something that can be accomplished by a thing that has always existed. This statement seems to be obvious to me, but you can never be to cautious, I suppose, in building your argument.

Now (3.) is a tautology, and no doubt. You are basically saying "If it hasn't always existed, then it hasn't always existed." (Perhaps you include this because of your (4.) which simply says that "Time is something", e.g. something that exists. And this leads to your conclusion (5.) that something must come from something rather than nothing.

What I understand you essentially to be saying is this: "If there was a time when time did not exist, then time must come from something rather than nothing." How did I do?

Samm

@ACB,

ACB;96617 wrote:

1. If something "came" (i.e. came into existence), it had a beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, it has not always existed.
3. If it has not always existed, there was a time when it did not exist. (Because if there were no such time, the thing would never have been non-existent, i.e. it would always have existed.)
4. Time is something.
5. Therefore, something must come from something; it cannot come from nothing.

What is the something that that something came out of? You do not say. And you need that premise, for without that premise, the conclusion does not follow. The only thing you say is "something" is time. Was that the something the something came out of? How?

@SammDickens,

Samm;96592 wrote:

I won't criticize your reading list, vectorcube. But you don't know how much time your fellow posters have spent studying information about what they post. If Einstein had lived in our computer world, he would have been testing his "crackpot" ideas in such arenas as these boards, and I don't think you would have afforded him the credit he deserved, since he was just some poor nurd working in a patent office.

If we're not good enough for you, take it elsewhere.

Samm

You people need to stop thinking so highly of yourself. This is philosophy. You people need to read more about the subject before anything else.

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 01:34 AM ----------

xris;96593 wrote:

Thats your problem you assume much to much. For all your debate you have not once had an objection that has any authority, or a valid criticism, that has any substance. You are the star of rhetoric and not much else.

This is truely an objection without any authority:sarcastic:

@vectorcube,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so respect it and learn from each other, as no one really knows these particular answers it is all speculative so respect each other please and enjoy ok.
Thank You.

@SammDickens,

Samm;96632 wrote:

What I understand you essentially to be saying is this: "If there was a time when time did not exist, then time must come from something rather than nothing." How did I do?

I wouldn't put it quite like that. There cannot have been a time when time did not exist, as that would be a contradiction. I am basically saying that if there was a time when the universe did not exist, then the universe must come from something rather than nothing, because "a time" requires a timeframe, which is something.

@Caroline,

Caroline;96675 wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so respect it and learn from each other, as no one really knows these particular answers it is all speculative so respect each other please and enjoy ok.
Thank You.

No one is intellectually entitled to an uninformed or badly thought out opinion. And, no one can learn from such an opinion.

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 08:31 AM ----------

ACB;96703 wrote:

I wouldn't put it quite like that. There cannot have been a time when time did not exist, as that would be a contradiction. I am basically saying that if there was a time when the universe did not exist, then the universe must come from something rather than nothing, because "a time" requires a timeframe, which is something.

I don't believe that a time-frame is the name of something in the sense of "something" that is being talked about. Time is an "ideality" in terms of which we understand events. "Time-frame" is a something only in the way (say) "three-dimensional" is a something. And, if Einstein is right, then there cannot be a universe without time, since space/time must be a constituent of the universe.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96644 wrote:

The only thing you say is "something" is time. Was that the something the something came out of?

The something came out of a pre-existing state of affairs existing in time. We don't know how it did so, or what that state of affairs was like. All we know is that a state of affairs is something, not nothing.

To put it another way, the word "come" implies a point of departure or origin. So what can "came out of nothing" possibly mean? Either the universe came from something, or it did not "come" at all, i.e. it had no beginning.

@vectorcube,

We may not be able to understand the dynamics around eternity and infinity, but we are very capable of understanding thermodynamics, and the first of thermodynamics clearly proves that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.

Our problem in these suppositions is that we are trying to go from the known to the unknown without any ability to do so or really without any reason.

The physics we know.

Basically stated, if the universe has existed for as long as we seem to think it has, it should have burned itself out a long time ago. That is the pure logic of the physics we know. So according to the laws of physics that we try to write our existence around, the universe cannot be eternal if it is bound to those laws.

However if it is not bound to those laws that we prove mathematically and deem to be non negotiable, than it steps out of the bounds of reality as we define it by our mathematical logic and ability to comprehend.

We have two conflicting truths here.

1. The universe cannot be eternal because it would have already burned out by now. The fact that it has not burned out yet suggests that it is not eternal and had a beginning and will have an end.

2. If it had a beginning, than this suggests a point in time when there was some thing that began from no thing, and this seeming impossible to conceive suggests some sort of infinity or eternity to the universe.

Infinity or thermodynamics. Both cancel each other out. One we know to be actual physics supported by mathematical evaluation minus the final summation. The other we know to be simple logic based upon reason.

Reason versus math.

To accomplish a truce between these conflicts we must go to the source of the conflict. That source once again takes us to that one and only matter that always arises during these processes of comprehension of existence. It is the tool with which we do our reasoning and perform our mathematical tasks. The brain. The problem arises when our brain is trying to tell us one thing and our logic is trying to tell us something else, 'that' is the mind at work against the brain.

Hense the problem is not really one of infinity versus thermodynamics, it is actually one of mind versus brain.

Comprehension of these complex paradoxes is not a matter of discerning the truth in them. That actual truth is out there, left far behind or looming somewhere ahead, and we will not change it by any of our hypothesizing. The comprehension of these dilemmas is simply found in our understanding that our capability is not limited to what the brain is telling us, and that we can also find truth in our logic. When the two collide, we know simply that truth is elusive, and yet there.

The truth of the allegorical caves of Plato reveal that what we are trying desperately to do here is understand with the brain, and all we are seeing is the shadow on the wall.

The truth is out there around the corner creating that shadow, and we are simply not able to be free of the chains that bind us and restrict us from getting there to see what that actuality really is.

In fact what we are doing here is sitting together in chains twisting and thrashing about, arguing about what might be out there, when we are totally disabled from discovering that. Our brain is incapable of revealing that to us without seeing it.

Our minds however are the variable here. Some of us chained in this room do not question the shadows reality and simply accept that the shadow is the reality. Their brain is telling them that what they see is the reality of the moment. In the world of biology and science, what the brain says is absolute and acceptable. What ya see is what ya get. But some others reach deeper than the brain function to find a mind that argues the brains accusations, and they consider other possibilities. The mind will at some point discover what the brain was unable to do. It will seek out the source of the shadows because it was not bound by the biological function and recognized a function that is not located in physiology.

It is the mind that leads us to ponder the origin, the brain that keeps us from comprehending it. But like the true cause of Plato shadows, our origin is outside of the cave waiting to be revealed.

The dilemma of first cause and eternity is not a matter of physics and human brain function, it is a matter of time; not into the past of what must have happened, but into the future of what will be revealed of the truth of what happened.

To shorten this entire post into one thought:

What matters is not behind us but what we are walking into. Will we use our minds to uncover that trail, or walk blindly using our brain and its limited sensory dependencies.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube, I for one was probably studying philosophy when your mom was cleaning your diapers, if I may judge your age by the literacy of your writing. And I will not have you speaking as if I'm some teenager fresh out of my first book of philosophy. I am well enough read in the philosophy we are doing here. Now stop implying that I am stupid and ignorant and focus on the subject of the site. Contribute what you can and don't talk like you're the only one here who's ever picked up a philosophy book. I assure you that such an attitude toward others will not engender respect for you or your comments.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 10:20 AM ----------

kennethamy;96705 wrote:

No one is intellectually entitled to an uninformed or badly thought out opinion. And, no one can learn from such an opinion.

I have no argument with what you say here, kennethamy. I think our problem is people making judgments about other people's opinions because they disagree with them or don't understand them well. This site is not restricted to professors of philosophy and we probably need to be a little more patient with each other in clarifying and feedback. We need more patience and respect, less judgmentalism. Even the teenager who has read very little if any philosophy is capable of questioning the human predicament and wondering at the complexity and ancient majesty of his or her world.

Samm

@SammDickens,

Changing the subject slightly and without the need to contradict each other, can your logical mathematics solve the insolvable or does it still come down to agreed terms of reference.

I see such sentences that appear to me a bit silly, is it my lack of learning.. I will ask again what is wrong with the logic, if we see a start without a cause it must come from nothing. What preconceived notion can in logic deny an observed event.

If the universe ceased to exist would it cause something else? If we see the start of something ,of everything, why in logic must it presume a cause. We observe causes and events and our observed logic attempts to dictate our conditioning to every other event. Its not logical. QM is questioning this accepted logic and when its now observed that atoms can be in two places at once and there may only be one electron in the whole universe, is accepted logic, rational.

@Caroline,

Caroline;96675 wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so respect it and learn from each other, as no one really knows these particular answers it is all speculative so respect each other please and enjoy ok.
Thank You.

Just for you, miss caroline!:letme-at-em:

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 11:39 AM ----------

Pathfinder;96713 wrote:

What matters is not behind us but what we are walking into. Will we use our minds to uncover that trail, or walk blindly using our brain and its limited sensory dependencies.

Funny, but i do think our brain can uncover the truth. I think will understand the bb, and what came before it, because we can explain it by appeal to natural laws. I don` t think we can know why the laws are what they are, or why they exist at all.

xris wrote:

I see such sentences that appear to me a bit silly, is it my lack of learning.. I will ask again what is wrong with the logic, if we see a start without a cause it must come from nothing. What preconceived notion can in logic deny an observed event.

It is misguided to think that something can come from nothing. It is like claiming that "the moon is made of cheese", "2+2=5" or " Cause does not percede effect". It is retarded. I don` t believe anyone can sustain this belief from the utter stupidity of it.

You need to take the utter stupidity of it, and face the value. There is no reductive explanation for it. There is no mathematical ground based on any contingently true theory that we have for it.

This is no different than asking why we believe the axiom of logic is true.
To claim that it is false is stupid, and we take it that intuition as our guide.

@xris,

xris;96738 wrote:

I will ask again what is wrong with the logic, if we see a start without a cause it must come from nothing. What preconceived notion can in logic deny an observed event.

An observed event??? Who has observed the beginning of the universe? As to what is wrong with the logic, see my posts #200, 205 and 207, and if you disagree with my reasoning, please say why.

@SammDickens,

Samm;96732 wrote:

vectorcube, I for one was probably studying philosophy when your mom was cleaning your diapers, if I may judge your age by the literacy of your writing. And I will not have you speaking as if I'm some teenager fresh out of my first book of philosophy. I am well enough read in the philosophy we are doing here. Now stop implying that I am stupid and ignorant and focus on the subject of the site. Contribute what you can and don't talk like you're the only one here who's ever picked up a philosophy book. I assure you that such an attitude toward others will not engender respect for you or your comments.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 10:20 AM ----------

I have no argument with what you say here, kennethamy. I think our problem is people making judgments about other people's opinions because they disagree with them or don't understand them well. This site is not restricted to professors of philosophy and we probably need to be a little more patient with each other in clarifying and feedback. We need more patience and respect, less judgmentalism. Even the teenager who has read very little if any philosophy is capable of questioning the human predicament and wondering at the complexity and ancient majesty of his or her world.

Samm

I am not sure what you mean by, "capable", since that is not the question. The question is whether the uninformed and untrained are intellectually entitled to an opinion. People can wonder freely, of course. But people are not intellectually entitled not to know what they are talking about. I would have thought that was uncontroversial.

@ACB,

ACB;96778 wrote:

An observed event??? Who has observed the beginning of the universe? As to what is wrong with the logic, see my posts #200, 205 and 207, and if you disagree with my reasoning, please say why.

Its observed because it can be traced back to that point , its not my claim its cosmologists. Your logic is placed on accepted values, im questioning those values.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96782 wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by, "capable", since that is not the question. The question is whether the uninformed and untrained are intellectually entitled to an opinion. People can wonder freely, of course. But people are not intellectually entitled not to know what they are talking about. I would have thought that was uncontroversial.

I consider it controversial. But I am the village idiot. What right have I to an opinion?

Samm

@SammDickens,

Samm;96895 wrote:

I consider it controversial. But I am the village idiot. What right have I to an opinion?

Samm

Samm i may be paranoid, as well, cos im sure he was referring to me not you. I am refraining, from being honest. Education is OK if its followed by an adequate brain and not just the ability to use that most wonderful of things, a retentive memory. Intelligence is not always judged by that ability but the power of lucid thought.

@vectorcube,

Have to agree with Xris here, there are many professors and scientists who are very keen with regard to their particular study but havent got a clue when it comes to anything that they have not crammed into their heads from their study manuals.

Intelligence and wisdom is not the belonging of the scholarly and educated trying to attain it, it belongs to those who are capable of it.

@xris,

I am being touchy on this subject because I have worked at a facility for the mentally retarded for about 15 years. I don't think wonder, awe, and curiosity require finesse or training; those are only pluses, value added as it were. If we get someone on this board who is barely able to spell enough to communicate his or her ideas, and may not have a clue about the subject of discussion, we might yet enjoy the point of view of another unique conscious being trying to comprehend his or her world and make sense of it. I know it sometimes seems that we can't be bothered with people who are not making what we feel is a positive contribution in some manner (even when in disagreement), but my experiences have given me a little more compassion and consideration for anyone reaching out to others in an effort to express how the world seems to them, what concerns them, what realizations or insights they have known. The idea of "intellectual entitlement" just sounds much more elitist and exclusivist than I am sure it ever was meant to be. Sorry.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-12-2009 at 10:52 AM ----------

Oh yes! And they're still subject to harsh response to their posts. The same rules apply to all who post here. No-one should get special treatment, but everyone should be allowed a voice.

Samm

@vectorcube,

It seems thsat Samm and Xris are in agreement and I agree with both of them.

There are many autistic people who are considered geniuses, many child prodigies, and amny great minds that appear to be lacking in formal education. I would like to hear and experience them all so I don't mjkiss something special.

@Pathfinder,

The most pointed statements i have ever heard, came from my children and the magic of their observation has reduced be to tears.

Philosophy Forum

A possible solution to why is there something rather than nothing.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know