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

@Bhaktajan,

Bhaktajan;97671 wrote:

Q. You claim there is a nowhere, so tell us where it is?

.

Since when is "nowhere" the name of some place? Anymore than, "nothing" is the name of something? Or, "nobody" the name of somebody?

@vectorcube,

Since when is "nowhere" the name of some place? Anymore than, "nothing" is the name of something? Or, "nobody" the name of somebody?

Since when is "nowhere" the name of some place?
An uncarved block is "Nowhere" until it is carved and displayed by doting curators for civic display.

Before an edifice is constructed materials are gathered from far away locales usually "out-of-the-way" locations where no one lives except wildnerness.

Before the elements are assembled into a usefull ediface the lanscape is excavated, namely a void is formed in the ground to set the foundation.

The Foudation rests upon a void. The elements fill that same void and sores into the heaven.

While standing upon the roof, the weight of ones footprint is transferred to the structure and transmitted to the foundation which is enveloped by the void where the basement is.

@Bhaktajan,

A void is not nothing, a void is a space enclosed by something. Nothing does not exist ,only something exists. Making claims of faith driven conviction, will not make nothing appear. If you have an empty box, the box describes the empty box. With nothing there is no box to contain anything.

@xris,

xris;97688 wrote:

A void is not nothing, a void is a space enclosed by something. Nothing does not exist ,only something exists. Making claims of faith driven conviction, will not make nothing appear. If you have an empty box, the box describes the empty box. With nothing there is no box to contain anything.

And even with 20/20 vision, you won't be able to see Nobody coming up the street. And if my bureau drawer contains nothing but a pair of old socks, it does not contain two items: a pair of old socks, and nothing.

@vectorcube,

I don't see how the ability to expand forever makes the universe infinite, vectorcube. If the universe began with finite size (and did it not?), it may expand forever, doubling in size every minute of every year, but it will never be infinite in the predicted lifetime of matter in the universe.

The thing is that, sure, there must be something "outside" the finite universe, but that something is also outside the space-time of the finite universe. Do not expect it then, whatever it is, to have spatial dimension (or temporal dimension). Thus, if we have a finite universe with something outside it, it's not something that we can move into. It's something in which movement is meaningless; movement, distance, size, shape, length, breadth, depth, height, width, motion, location, position, bearing, angle, arc, frequency, color, sound, radiation. rotation,...etc.

So, yeah, it's pretty much like an inside with no outside.

Samm

@vectorcube,

Samm what makes you say it will never be infinate, I mean scientific evidence please, because that's where the infinity theory comes from, science.
Thanks

@vectorcube,

According to the Mystical books of India, the Universe that we see in the night sky is black because there is an enclosure in the vast distance that encases our universe and, consequently absorbs the light of the Stars.

BTW, Why is the night sky NOT alit like a football night game?

According to the Mystical books of India, the physical universe is finite in size . . . It is we who are physically infinitely small.

The Universe is immense . . . but we are physically microscopically miniscule.

India's scriptures state that the Spirit-Soul is 1/10,000th the size of the tip of a strand of hair.

But also, that the Cosmos is a microcosism within a microcosism of Scale that leaves us closer to atomic size than to a physical size of any consequence

@Caroline,

Caroline, it only seems to me that if I begin with a universe having a definite volume of one hundred "bajoozis" and over an extensive but finite time, I increment the size of that volume by any definite additional volume, or any definite percentage of its current volume. I can never end up with an infinite volume, as I understand infinite to be limitless. It can be awfully big, bigger than we can express, bigger than we can conceive, but it can't suddenly become limitless. Can it? If so, how?

Samm

@vectorcube,

Hey Sammuelle,

I remember a math teacher say:

"If you make consecutive steps foward toward the wall ---by only half the distance for each step foward ---you will never reach the wall."

I never agreed with it yet I understood how it is true. But I still feel that eventually there is no more space to be subdivided and thus Absolute zero is arrived at.

@Bhaktajan,

Bhaktajan, I agree with you that eventually there is no more space to dissect. My understanding of quantum scales of reality is that, at these incredibly small scales space begins to lose its definition suggesting that space only retains its characteristic qualities down to a certain scale, a certain refinement, past which it rather "ceases to be space". Has anyone else read such a description--I think when reading about the uncertainty principle as it applies to electron motion or such?

Samm

@vectorcube,

Samm;97400 wrote:

Alan, I probably agree with you a lot more than you would think, but God cannot be a magic word that absolves us of trying to understand the whys and wherefores of things. Thus I never use the word God here, because I'm trying to explain what happened in a way that any atheist can accept. Then, if I want to call it God offline or in the religion section, I've got the whys and wherefores down already.

Samm, If I might offer a little alteration, if I hear you correctly, as what you just said:

Alan, I believe you and I are more aligned than what we think. We cannot know all that is god and use that word as if we do. That's why I don't use it. It is unknowable in all that it is and represents. Then, I think...............................(you go too far.)!..............for NOT ONE of us "has it down already" as to the why's and the wherefores!!! Nor will "we" EVER.

Hope you don't mind. I could be reading it wrong. As far as atheist go, they are a part of the 'god thing' too; they just won't admit it because they can't touch it. It will grab a hold of them........someday.

Samm;97408 wrote:

Thanks for the quick survey of Krishna Consciousness, Baktajan. Now, if someone would be so bold as to explain the eternal truths of the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism-Taoism-Zen, Confucianism & Shinto, Primitive religions, Paganism & Neo-paganism, and of course Miscellaneous religion...well, we may not advance our understanding of why there is something rather than nothing all that much, but we can present ourselves as equal-evangelism philosophers. Don't misunderstand me, Baktajan, I'm big on Krishna and Christ and Buddha, and Mithra and me are old buds. But seeing that our site is for philosophy, not religion, you might have presented your point of view with less hype and spin for your favorite answer-to-everything. We've already got too much of that here. Hindu vedas and upanishads are closer to philosophy than many other religious texts, and I appreciate the thought, but maybe take it over to the religion sites and come back here dressed in your undies--by which I mean, just you and us, without our attendant religious views to buffer and support us, looking out into the universe and seeking our own answers instead of those some holy man wrote down for us.

Brilliantly said, but the undies have to go to. Naked is a better word. Like "in the beginning", before we even knew what a fig tree was. Ha! We have a lot of new information now, than then. Do we not? We just need to "put it together", like a puzzle, huh? Perhaps we need to............get together.............to put it together. Will it ever end? I think not, but it will give us a clearer picture, will it or not! I think it will, if all will freely give and what not, thought "want/won't" is a "not" we could better do..............without, if we could be so agreeable, huh?

Bhaktajan;97430 wrote:

Vector wrote: "I maintain that the universe is infinite, because the evidence suggest there is not enough mass to slow the expansion of space." [End Vector quote]

Bhaktajan;97430 wrote:
But, the 'whole system' is a Whole unit onto itself. The Universe may be expanding ---but it is a singular entity that is being referred to. So it is a quantifiable able entity.

We just can't quantify if from our view point and never will. Quantity has a limit from our perspective for we can only see so far. Our vision is blurred if we think we can. No one can see that far. So from our perspective it has to be infinite. We can't "put a lid on it".

EmperorNero;97481 wrote:
The purpose of the universe is to create me.

Among other things.

EmperorNero;97481 wrote:
Nothingness is only a natural state from the perspective of something-ness. If there were nothing, there was also no consciousness to wonder why there is nothing. Thus the two states are completely neutral.

I remember when I was just a child, I was so proud to have learned to spell the biggest word: SOMETHING. I remember as if it were yesterday and was amazed that I could spell such a big word. Now I know why. I am "SOMETHING", for there is no such thing as "nothing". Maybe that has "something" to do with "it", you know, "that God responsible for ALL of "it". Perhaps He is "it" now as he is seeking us HOO/who are "hiding" from Him. You know "hide and seek" and such. Maybe he has eyes/spies who know where, why and how you hide? Ha.

Pathfinder;97499 wrote:
Let's say we take a right turn here and just keep on heading to the east. Just keep on going. Past Jupiter, past Pluto, out into the great beyond and continue. Out of this solar system and into the next galaxy and passing galaxy after galaxy. Still heading in a straight line. What would we head into? Would we reach a place at some point where the universe would become something else? The border between the universe and whatever contains the universe. The place where reality becomes something else. Is there an end to the universe if we continue to travel in a straight line without stopping? Would we just continue to move forever? No matter how long we traveled, if we did not stop, we would have to have always continued to get to a different location wouldnt we? So where would we be if we just kept on going?

Excellant. Make's you wonder doesn't it? You know on those occasions when "we can't think straight and we talk in circles". Remember those telephones we made as kids when we would poke a hole in the bottom of two empty tin cans and attach a wire between them. If the wire was lax, it wouldn't work. Only when it was pulled perfectly straight could we speak into one and it be heard by the one who held the other tin can. Kinda makes you wonder what "hay wire" is all about. Unlike sisal, we use hemp and perhaps we are smoking too much of it.

EmperorNero;97504 wrote:
It would probably like walking in one direction on earth. You wouldn't fall off the earth at some point.

Yes, my friend. but unfortunately, some do have a tendency to walk in circles.

Pathfinder;97505 wrote:
Quite different I'm afraid, no gravity in space.

Yeah, right. But you will have to admit, those who carry the greatest load to leave the deepest footprints. Not the ones found in "snow", you know, for those do melt away, leaving nothing but a head ache and a runny nose. (Those of you who play in the "snow", please give this a lot of thought) Thanks.

EmperorNero;97509 wrote:
I meant that it's on another level of course. The earth is finite, but by walking in one direction we wouldn't ever get to the end.

I think that's the point my friend. There is "no" end, not that we will ever see. It's all about the journey.

kennethamy;97512 wrote:
Everyone has a legal right to an opinion. But, to have an intellectual right to an opinion, you have an obligation to be informed.

Sorry Ken, no one should be obligated to do anything. What they 'do' have to offer will be freely given. No one likes to be "obligated". Like the land we are on; who truly owns that? No one on this planet. If I might offer, that is the biggest problem we have. We think this piece of granite belongs to us, and it doesn't.

vectorcube;97573 wrote:
The reason i think the universe is infinite is because scientists found that there is not enough matter content to stop the expansion of space. To me, it seems to just be an empirical fact.

Because they think it started from nothing and just grew. That's impossible. You can't get something from nothing. It is just hubris to think we can. I promise you, we are not as smart as we think we are. Empirical fact. Hell, Vec, we just barely go to the moon, and we think we know what the facts are.

Pathfinder;97584 wrote:
You cannot even define infinite. What does that mean? To say that something is infinite is just another way of saying you have no idea how far it goes or how big it is or how long it lasts. Infinite simply means , " I don't know!"

Do you realize how so very hard it is for a perfect being such as we, to admit to that. It has been said of the wise; "they know that they don't know it all" and freely admit to it. Were like babes in a wood. Although we are perfect, we are still quite young and can see the forest the trees as our assumed intelligence truly does get in the way.

Caroline;97587 wrote:
Infinite means that goes on for eternity, that's a very long time eh Pathfinder?

Way to go sweetheart. You hang in there. Ha! If you ever need any help, you just whistle. Hey? Wait a minute? I'm the one who is supposed to do that, huh? Oh well, I was never much of a wolf anyway. But I have seen some sights for sore eyes. By the way, I hear the whistling is over with in any case, as you found a whistler who carried your tune. Was it a duet and you both were making good music together? Ha. How so very nice that is.

Alan McDougall;97590 wrote:
We do not necessarily have something out of nothing. It's possible that there "was never nothing, and there was no origin at all".

You got my vote on that one, Alan.

Alan McDougall;97590 wrote:
Many models of the universe posit an eternal universe, or an eternal system of universes (a multiverse). This means that something caused the Big Bang, and before that time goes backwards into infinity the same way we imagine it going forwards forever.

You mean like a cell dividing? When one cell dies, another takes is place? Now that could cause a lot of controversy, huh? I guess it just depends on what "dying" is. Like that "event horizon", as we approach a "Black Hole" of no return. You know, the grave. There is a tunnel there someplace where we can see the light of day. I don't think it has anything to do with any worms that might live there though.

Alan McDougall;97590 wrote:
This is certainly not proven, but it makes a very direct kind of sense. As you say, "science has proven that something cannot come out of nothing." This refers to the law of conservation, which says matter and energy cannot be created (or destroyed).

Works for me.

Pathfinder;97591 wrote:
define eternity Caroline. What does it mean? It means that you do not know how long something will last.

Does anybody? What have we learned? Hell, we still bury body's in underground vaults. Who is going to arise from those; zombies? Yet, though I have personally witnessed the walking dead, and that is truly a horror to behold. No life at all, to speak of.

Pathfinder;97596 wrote:
You may or may not be right Alan. But infinity and eternity are really just ways of us saying we give up trying to understand it. There is no way for a person to argue infinity because it is by definition undefinable. It's the old, 'well thats just the way it is' defense.'

Well said.

Pathfinder;97596 wrote:
I think there is a boundary that we should not try to step over when it comes to trying to understand origin.

Yeah, like digging a hole on a rainy day to find a treasure. The mud just keeps covering it up again. Kinda like "mud-slinging or spinning out of control". Speaking of which...........naw, let's not go there. That would be politically incorrect. Heaven forbid.

Pathfinder;97596 wrote:
It is obvious that as soon as we go there it becomes impossible for us to remain in the realm of logic. As vectorcube has clearly stated, the best we can do is say 'Its big, really really big!'

Speaking of logic. That's an easy one or is it? This link Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia sorta tries to. Gotta couple of thousand of years on your hands?

Pathfinder;97606 wrote:
I am not talking about what one would see along the way, I am discussing what one would see when they get to the farthest reaches, the end of the line, that point where the universe ends or changes into something else. To put it into words is difficult because we begin to lose the ability to remain in the realm of logic.

Logically impossible, so let's not think about it for the "time being". We just keep getting stuck in the mud. Note my signature, if I might be so bold...............and old. Jeez. Just how..............I wish I knew. Perhaps I always was. Who knows? I don't think about it..............anymore. That hole is too deep for me to go digging around in. Not without a flash...............light which I do use on occasion to dig just a little bit deeper.

Pathfinder;97606 wrote:
But if we actually open our minds and suppose ourselves walking all the way to the edge of the universe, what would we find if we crossed that border? Is there a border to cross. How can something just go on forever without end? What exactly do we mean when we say infinity and eternity? What is there at that point where we enter infinity and leave behind measurable time?

Path, perhaps time has nothing to do with it. After all, that is our invention as we think we are running out of time. I have often thought of a galactic science student with the universe on his lab table along with a microscope and his homework is to find earth, much less, a human being. And we think we know so much? Ha!

Caroline;97609 wrote:
Eternity-Imagine the planet earth is a ball made of steel and a dove is orbiting around it in space, (of course),and once every orbit it swoops down and gently brushes the globe slightly with it's wing, eternity is the time it takes for the ball to disappear down to nothing by it's gentle brushing of the doves wing, that's a mighty long time. That's a well known saying by the way......how about when you take everything away, the Earth the universe, what is left? Nothing? Describe that nothing. It has to be something, if only thin air or something. That's why it is infinite. I can't imagine how long the globe would take to wear away.

It doesn't, it only "looks like we do". Hmmm, "...It looks like we do". Man, could I ever expound on that statement. Talk about perceptions, WOW! Sometimes, I truly do amaze myself, ha! Oh, well, I've related to you about my friend and all, huh? It truly is hard to know who is doing the talking or typing. Speaking of "type",...................naw. That would mean off to the races and it's hard to imagine all of them ending in a dead heat, at least at the present, anyway.

William

@William,

William;97777 wrote:

Sorry Ken, no one should be obligated to do anything. What they 'do' have to offer will be freely given. No one likes to be "obligated". Like the land we are on; who truly owns that? No one on this planet. If I might offer, that is the biggest problem we have. We think this piece of granite belongs to us, and it doesn't.

William

Rights entail obligations. A person who opines that someone is guilty of a crime is obligated to present evidence for that opinion, or he should not make such an accusation. A person has an intellectual right to an opinion, but then, he has an intellectual obligation to support that opinion. It does not matter that he does not like to be obligated. If someone does not like to be obligated, then he should not do something that means he is obligated. What that has to do with your analogy of owning property, I have no idea.

@vectorcube,

Hello Ken. Thank you for your response. Let us go over what it is you have to say.

kennethamy;97779 wrote:

Rights entail obligations.

Do they really? Why? Who has to be so obligated in order to be right? What Ken, made them wrong in the first place? Where they born that way? That's an easy excuse, isn't it. Perhaps those who were born so right created those obligations or laws that would be hard for anyone to follow so those who assumed to be right could reign/rain/rule over others.

kennethamy;97779 wrote:

A person who opines that someone is guilty of a crime is obligated to present evidence for that opinion, or he should not make such an accusation.

It is not a crime to think, unless you do it out loud and it truly does harm to others as in libel and what is liable to happen in such a case. Then, what those measures could entail could be a crime. You need to have tangible proof of such a crime, not to just imagine some one committed it. One has to be there and witness it on the spot to make such an accusation. If you have ever seen the tomes of such law books, there can be found, if you look long enough, exceptions, to the most heinous rule that gets the guilty off the 'hook', if they have the price to pay for such an excursion for those who have the wit to twist those words to fit any occasion. Ken, you can't "think" someone guilty. That is a crime in and of itself!

kennethamy;97779 wrote:

A person has an intellectual right to an opinion, but then, he has an intellectual obligation to support that opinion.

It depends.....on what he or she is placing that opinion on; hear say? What if it is just a rumor or out of spite, and what gives "them" that right?

kennethamy;97779 wrote:

It does not matter that he does not like to be obligated.

Do you like to be obligated? What if you can't pay, then what? Are we not tempted every single day of our lives to buy more than we can pay for and much more, DON'T NEED to fill the coffers of those who render such laws. That's entrapment, Ken, no matter how you care to define it.

kennethamy;97779 wrote:

If someone does not like to be obligated, then he should not do something that means he is obligated.

Yeah, temptation is a toughy, huh? How does one become blind to it? Man has no such desires, he's tricked into it. You would be surprised, I suspect, if you truly knew how little you need to be truly happy. But that's me and "hoo" am I that gives me the will to say that. Ha! What's in a name? Huh?

kennethamy;97779 wrote:

What that has to do with your analogy of owning property, I have no idea.

Ken, there is enough property for all, equally. That is the balance if.....it is share equally. That's what "really matters". As to what is 'matter'; it is mental and physical property that is bought and sold to make a "profit" at the expense of those who are assumed to have less to offer as the innocent are tempted by symbolism that has no substance that is not nourishing enough to truly live on. Haves over the have nots. Intelligence over ignorance and imitation is suicide as so many make apes of themselves and parrot what others deemed so wise, do say, and mentally and physically starve to death.

Let me tell you what I think. This earth is a gift and we were all directed here for reasons we may someday understand. We all arrived and are if fact in origin "extra-terrestrial". Not of this Earth. It is we who must adapt to it; we can't "make" it adapt to us. If we don't, it will have no use for us. No "one" of us has any "right" to it. NO ONE. If so some one show me the deed that proves that entitlement. Our history doesn't go back that far, at least as far as we can consciously remember. It is to be shared by all of us. To have and to hold is just a myth created by whose who want to profit from it as they gather it's precious resources for their own and auction it off to the highest bidder who is duped by their symbolism and intellectual prowess that has no substance, but force.

Ken, I am not asking you to believe a word I say. Only you can do that. Some will if will fit, some of it will not. I know that. I have no idea of what this life has offered you or what it has taken away from you. It is what I believe is the truth and if it is it will eventually fit all.......someday as we will learn to share without threat or temptation all we have to offer so all can benefit. That makes a lot of sense to me as our senses then will offer something we could not believe imaginable as all will find out what ESP truly means. :whistling:

William

@vectorcube,

Okay, kennethamy, I yield the point. Now make it stop. :-(

Samm

@richrf,

The question why is there something is natural, I think. It's grounded in our natural curiosity ... the intuitive need to press the question can't be denied. The natural state is a loaded definition only because it lacks a definition ... how do we define it? An original state? A state of nothing or non-being? Hegel defines it as a state of not-being which is yet being ... taking to task the Idea we have of nothing. We need to go beyond the world of our everyday practical experiences to find solutions to such questions. Some however chose to debate whether or not this particular question amounts to a 'real question.' I think it does amount to a real question because metaphysics cannot be confined to the world of our everday practical experiences. If it were so constrained it would not then be metaphysics.

@vectorcube,

Where does the creative potential or possiblity that preceeds material existence come from?
For a theist it comes from god, from the divine. In a fashion not unlike Plato's forms.
It is as rational an answer as any other available to us this side of the existential divide.

@vectorcube,

Science tells us at the moment of creation, just before the big bang, there was an absence of everything, no space, no time, no matter, no fundamental constants, no energy, not an empty void but unimaginable nothingness, which we know is impossible because we exist

DISCORDIAN CATMAS

Think For Yourself.
Convictions Cause Convicts.
The Conclusion You Jump To May Be Your Own.
The Pun is Mightier then the Sword.
Truth: If its not one thing its another.
Reality: It all depends on how you look at it.
The Enlightened take things Lightly.
No Two Equals are the Same.
Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Is the thought of a Unicorn a Real Thought?
Curb Your Dogma.

I have an interesting but failed attempt at an explanation for the existence of the universe over at http://towardsrationalexplanationexistence.blogspot.com/.
What do you folks think about it?

The definition of nothing can be found in a common dictionary. Take your pick.

But this is a forum in philosophy. So what do philosophers say?

Kant said there is no place in metaphysics for the magic wand of so-called common sense. So, if we are Kantians, which I would call myself, then the dictionary definition of nothing must be thrown out. It's irrelevant.

When we think nothing, we negate nothing.

It's impossible for us to actually think nothing.

The idea of nothing therefore follows through to two ideas, as opposed to one simple idea (like this dictionary definition of nothing). These two ideas can be simply defined as the Absolute Nothing or Void that exists outside of my thoughts. And the other idea, is this thought that I have of this external, Absolute Void.

This applies to the beginning, from whence all else followed into being.

Hegel calls this a bare beginning as such, in his Science of Logic, and he further defines this ultimate beginning to all things as the absolute, or the simple immediate, and he also states this Idea is the idea of being in relation to not being.

I like the above idea of nothing getting bored of itself and then it went and created something, and the idea of going out to buy movies instead, but before there were movie rental places, there was only nothing, thinking about creating such places. But this took quite some time, and ingenuity. Now, if we get tired silly responding to such interesting threads, we can go out and buy these movies, or simply tune into the movie channels.

To end my own contribution here: Nothing is not nothing. It is still something, and if all things were cancelled out of existence, then all things would inevitably once more reappear. And we'd be back again going over this same thread, with this same question. I believe the universe exists necessarily. It is not the result of an accident, or a quantum vacuum fluctuation (John Gribbin mentions this conjecture in his book "In Search of the Big Bang").

Philosophy Forum

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

Quick Links

My Account

able2know