Nothing to something must be possible

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post
Any attempt to answer the question has to be clear about the definition of “nothing.”
Still, think about that. How can any definitions that we mere mortals here on planet Earth come up with to encompass "nothing" not start with the fact that we are in a "something" going all the way back to all that we do not know about existence itself?
What 'you' do NOT YET KNOW does NOT mean that 'we' have ALREADY DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED.

See, the definition that encompasses 'nothing' is, REALLY, SO SIMPLE and EASY to come up with. And, the definition that has ALREADY eventuated is one that fits in PERFECTLY with the One UNIFIED GUT and TOE.

That definition, by the way, for those of 'you' who are Truly interested, can be explained in Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY terms.

Oh, and by the way, OF COURSE there is a 'something', which, so-called, 'goes all the way back to the eternal NOW'. See, contrary to popular belief by some, Existence, Itself, IS ETERNAL.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm It would be like those in Flatland defining the third dimension in order to grasp it as we do. Defining it into existence. And the novella Flatland was a satirical account of the rigid class morality that was Victorian England. So, let's define morality into existence in order to determine which actual behaviors we choose are right or wrong.
This is a bit like defining the things that one does NOT YET KNOW as being IMPOSSIBLE for ANY one else to be able to define, uncover, nor KNOW.

See, what 'you', do NOT YET KNOW about Existence "iambiguous" is ALREADY old knowledge for some of 'us'.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Then the part where whatever we define "nothing" to be, it's then definitions all the way down...
LOL If 'you' are to STUPID to be able to define a word, or even be able to look it up in a dictionary, then so be it, but the rest of 'us' are NOT that STUPID.

Also, talk about letting one's own made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS affect the way they LOOK AT and SEE things from then on.

LOL Your CLAIM that the definition of 'nothing' is then 'definitions all the way down', could be SAID and CLAIMED about the definition for ANY word. But if you want to SAY or BELIEVE otherwise, then 'what', EXACTLY, is the DIFFERENCE?
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm
It is not enough to describe a mechanism in which a baby universe might spark into being through a quantum fluctuation and then undergo expansion and inflation and increasing complexity until finally we wind up with galaxies and planets and dolphins shooting up out of a pool to grab a fish from the trainer. To my mind, that just takes the question back to an early condition that yet requires an explanation.
All the way back to, "okay, but what came before nothing at all?"
LOL WHY would ANY one think, believe, assume, or imagine that there was, let alone even could, 'nothing at all'?

What makes 'you', people, think of things could be true when they are, obviously, LOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Define that into existence please.
The 'thing' of 'nothing at all' can NOT be defined into existence. But the definition, itself, which FITS PERFECTLY that conception ALREADY EXISTS.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm
In that scenario your “nothing” still has qualities that give rise to something. It’s not a true nothing. My version of zero has no superscripts. And if you can tell me there’s a Multiverse from which our universe bubbled forth, you’ve merely moved the fundamental problem of existence back onto a broader platform.
How about this then from Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Only we really have no idea "here and now" if the human brain itself, as but one component of a mind-numbingly vast multiverse is even capable of pinning something like that down.
What IS IRREFUTABLY True regarding the Universe, Itself, is ALREADY KNOWN by some of 'us'.

But, SEE there are those who are YET TO SEE, and who BELIEVE it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE. These ones REMAIN back in the OLD DAYS, in and with APE thinking.

The word 'multiverse' was just MADE UP to explain what was ONCE impossible to explain. The word 'multiverse', as ALREADY EXPLAINED, only moves what some of 'you' are STILL yet to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm We don't even know whether, if it does, it was never able not to in a wholly determined Reality.
'you', "iambiguous", may not YET know these, and other, things, but that CERTAINLY DOES NOT mean nor even imply that 'we' have NOT YET ALREADY COME-TO-KNOW, what 'you' DO NOT.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm
This also covers the God explanation. If God is the ultimate cause of the universe, I’ll want to know why God exists. The obvious answer is: He just does. He is. He’s what Holt calls the Supreme Brute Fact. He explains himself. And so on.
We can't leave Him out, right?

He just does. Presto! God and His "mysterious ways" account for everything.
Talk about introducing CRAP, in order to just 'try to' BUILD UP and SUPPORT one's OWN BELIEFS.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post
A secular version of [the God explanation], one that doesn’t require a supreme Creator, is how I approach the something-nothing question. Seems to me that “nothing,” for all its simplicity and symmetry and lack of arbitrariness, is nonetheless an entirely imaginary state, or condition, and we can say with confidence that it has never existed.
Right. Mere mortals on this third rock circling this hum drum star in this hum drum galaxy in what may or may not be this hum drum universe can say with confidence that our own something embedded in everything there is has always existed.

Now all we need is the Nova documentary or the YouTube video substantiating it with ample evidence. Or, as is often the case in forums like this one, a "world of words" assessment...the logic of which invariably going around and around in "metaphysical" circles.

Or, as he encompasses it:
“Nothing” is dreamed up in the world of something, in the brains of philosophers etc. on a little blue planet orbiting an ordinary yellow star in a certain spiral galaxy. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that nothing could not in theory “exist,” but seems to me that it hasn’t. We’ve never been that dialed down, folks. Just didn’t happen. We live in the something universe, either in our tidy little Big Bang universe or in a Big Bang bubble within the Multiverse, and no amount of deletion of the elements and forces of this universe would ever get us to a condition of absolutely nothing.
OBVIOUSLY, 'absolutely nothing' COULD exist. BUT, because there IS 'something', there was NEVER a time when ONLY 'nothing' existed.

This IS a PROVABLE Fact.

BUT, while one BELIEVES there was 'a beginning', that one is NOT ABLE TO LEARN and SEE this Fact.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am Okay, admittedly, this certainly seems to be the must reasonable set of assumptions to me as well. You know, for what that's worth. The existence of nothing? Then -- poof! -- the Big Bang bringing into existence everything that revolves around this:
Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:

"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.
Talk about one basing ALL of their views here on their OWN BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

LOL Besides the Fact that it is NOT 'beyond the imagination' of a species to grasp just the size of the Universe, it is a Fact that the size of the Universe is ALREADY KNOWN, and that 'that size' IS IRREFUTABLE.

And this is not even stating the Fact that 'what' the Universe is fundamentally made up of, and 'how' the Universe actually works is ALSO already KNOWN. Well for some of 'us' anyway, and obviously NOT for the one known as "iambiguous" here.

That one is still in the DARK AGES where people BELIEVED the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the Universe began and was expanding.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am As for situating "I" in all of this...?
Again, ALREADY DONE, and IRREFUTABLY KNOWN. As well as it was a Truly SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, also.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am And this:
It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.
So what?

Has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the Universe IS infinite AND eternal.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am But...

Really, how can anything just always exists?
VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am Do you know anything that has?
YES. Thee one and ONLY Universe, Itself.

It could NOT exist in ANY other way.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am How is that not equally way, way, way beyond actually being demonstrated. We're just partial to it because something is what we are a part of now.
The Fact that the Universe IS ETERNAL is BEING DEMONSTRATED and SHOWN, ALL OF THE TIME. But, just like the BELIEVERS of "a flat earth" or "geocentric universe" could NOT SEE what was actually DEMONSTRABLY True so to the BELIEVERS that the Universe BEGAN, and/or IS EXPANDING, they too also can NOT YET SEE what is actually DEMONSTRABLY True, either.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post
So, then, why is there something rather than nothing? There just is. The is-ness of the universe is one of its interesting features. Sorry if that isn’t satisfactory. It is because it is. Let’s move on.
This is perhaps the optimal answer. It really comes down to whether any of us here are [realistically] able to confront the gap between what they think they know as this "infinitesimally tiny speck of existence" and all that would need to be known about existence itself...and still convince themselves that the answer is within reach.
LOL The answer is NOT just within reach, it, contrary to popular belief in the days when this was being written, had ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED, and GRASPED.

The BELIEVERS, however, were BLIND and DEAF to this Fact.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am With or without God. With God the answer is already known. Without God and it almost certainly never will be. By us. Or, at any rate, not in our lifetimes.
Well, at least, 'you' are OPEN to 'it ALMOST certainly never will be'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am For example, Frank Drake, the man "who led search for life on other planets" just died.
So what?

Human bodies come and go. No REAL loss in the scheme of things.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Is there life on other planets?
How are 'you' defining the 'life' word here?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am And, if so, how does that factor into an understanding of existence itself?
That would all depend on what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you want to understand regarding 'existence', itself.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am There may be civilizations out there with brains actually able to solve it. But that's now all moot for Frank. Just as exchanges like this will one day be moot for all of us.
I found it moot that 'you' would even mention and talk about what is SO PLAINLY OBVIOUSLY Factual.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Unless, of course, there is a God.
WHY, what DIFFERENCE would that make?

Oh, and by the way, how do 'you' define the 'God' word?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am
Obviously there remain huge cosmological questions, like the fate of the universe.
One would only ask a question about 'the fate of the Universe' if they were under some sort of ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that the Universe actually BEGAN.

SEE, and OBVIOUSLY, thee ALWAYS existing Universe becomes 'what it WILL, ALWAYS'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am And we’d all like to know what happened before the Big Bang, but I’m fairly persuaded by the Hawking notion that time itself begins at the Big Bang and there’s no “before.”
LOL Okay.

A LOT of 'you', human beings, were also PERSUADED that the other human made up notions of 'the flat earth' and the 'geocentric universe' were real and true things as well. That was, anyway, until human beings collectively 'grew up' or evolved further.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am There’s no boundary. The universe is finite but unbounded, like the 2-D surface of a sphere.
Please. Time is easily one of most boggling aspects of reality itself.
LOL NO it is NOT.

'Time', when LOOKED AT, properly AND correctly, FITS IN PERFECTLY with the REST of the Universe, Itself.

The notion of 'time' is only so-called 'boggling' to some of 'you', human beings, because 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things' Falsely, Wrongly, or Incorrectly.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Is there really a, what, set of mathematical equations and/or scientific experiments that can leave no doubt that it came into existence with the Big Bang?
NO.

Because NEITHER 'time' NOR the 'Universe' came into existence with 'A bang'.

The 'big bang' was just a made up word anyway to just "explain" what was NOT YET KNOWN.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am If so, by all means, link me to them.

On the other hand, who is kidding whom, here. How many or us are able even to grasp the conjectures of those like Hawking?
That one human being known as and labeled "stephen hawking" 'conjectured' up things that were NOT True, because like ALL 'conjectures' they were based on INCOMPLETE information.

"stephen hawking" like "others" had NOT YET become privy to what IS actually and irrefutably True, Right, AND Correct.

WHERE those people made THEIR MISTAKES can be VERY EASY SHOWN and DEMONSTRATED.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Instead, it just seems entirely implausible that there could be nothing -- no time, no space, no matter -- and then it all just "popped" into existence, "inflated", and over 13 billion years became the universe as we know it today...about "93 billion light-years across".
It 'seems' entirely implausible', BECAUSE it IS entirely implausible.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am One light year alone being 6 trillion miles. That's the equivalent of going around the Earth about 40,160 times.
So what?

What SEEMS big or large to 'you', IS just normal or natural to 'us'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Come on, the only thing more unfathomable still, perhaps, is that all of this was simply always around forever and ever.
WHY is 'thee One and ONLY ETERNAL Universe' more UNFATHOMABLE to the very small and narrowed viewed 'you', within that very small and tiny little human body?

WHY, EXACTLY, are 'you' completely and utterly UNABLE to FATHOM that the Universe IS ETERNAL?

What is STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' from even CONTEMPLATING 'this'?

The ANSWERS, by the way, are VERY SIMPLE and EASY to GRASP and OBTAIN. That is; once 'you' become Truly OPEN enough.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

What we have here is "iambiguous" living up to its name.

That is; it actually BELIEVES the Universe could NOT come from 'nothing', NOR come from 'something', NOR always exist.

Which then leaves what other possibilities "iambiguous"?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:10 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post
Any attempt to answer the question has to be clear about the definition of “nothing.”
Still, think about that. How can any definitions that we mere mortals here on planet Earth come up with to encompass "nothing" not start with the fact that we are in a "something" going all the way back to all that we do not know about existence itself?
What 'you' do NOT YET KNOW does NOT mean that 'we' have ALREADY DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED.

See, the definition that encompasses 'nothing' is, REALLY, SO SIMPLE and EASY to come up with. And, the definition that has ALREADY eventuated is one that fits in PERFECTLY with the One UNIFIED GUT and TOE.

That definition, by the way, for those of 'you' who are Truly interested, can be explained in Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY terms.

Oh, and by the way, OF COURSE there is a 'something', which, so-called, 'goes all the way back to the eternal NOW'. See, contrary to popular belief by some, Existence, Itself, IS ETERNAL.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm It would be like those in Flatland defining the third dimension in order to grasp it as we do. Defining it into existence. And the novella Flatland was a satirical account of the rigid class morality that was Victorian England. So, let's define morality into existence in order to determine which actual behaviors we choose are right or wrong.
This is a bit like defining the things that one does NOT YET KNOW as being IMPOSSIBLE for ANY one else to be able to define, uncover, nor KNOW.

See, what 'you', do NOT YET KNOW about Existence "iambiguous" is ALREADY old knowledge for some of 'us'.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Then the part where whatever we define "nothing" to be, it's then definitions all the way down...
LOL If 'you' are to STUPID to be able to define a word, or even be able to look it up in a dictionary, then so be it, but the rest of 'us' are NOT that STUPID.

Also, talk about letting one's own made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS affect the way they LOOK AT and SEE things from then on.

LOL Your CLAIM that the definition of 'nothing' is then 'definitions all the way down', could be SAID and CLAIMED about the definition for ANY word. But if you want to SAY or BELIEVE otherwise, then 'what', EXACTLY, is the DIFFERENCE?
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm
It is not enough to describe a mechanism in which a baby universe might spark into being through a quantum fluctuation and then undergo expansion and inflation and increasing complexity until finally we wind up with galaxies and planets and dolphins shooting up out of a pool to grab a fish from the trainer. To my mind, that just takes the question back to an early condition that yet requires an explanation.
All the way back to, "okay, but what came before nothing at all?"
LOL WHY would ANY one think, believe, assume, or imagine that there was, let alone even could, 'nothing at all'?

What makes 'you', people, think of things could be true when they are, obviously, LOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Define that into existence please.
The 'thing' of 'nothing at all' can NOT be defined into existence. But the definition, itself, which FITS PERFECTLY that conception ALREADY EXISTS.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm
In that scenario your “nothing” still has qualities that give rise to something. It’s not a true nothing. My version of zero has no superscripts. And if you can tell me there’s a Multiverse from which our universe bubbled forth, you’ve merely moved the fundamental problem of existence back onto a broader platform.
How about this then from Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Only we really have no idea "here and now" if the human brain itself, as but one component of a mind-numbingly vast multiverse is even capable of pinning something like that down.
What IS IRREFUTABLY True regarding the Universe, Itself, is ALREADY KNOWN by some of 'us'.

But, SEE there are those who are YET TO SEE, and who BELIEVE it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE. These ones REMAIN back in the OLD DAYS, in and with APE thinking.

The word 'multiverse' was just MADE UP to explain what was ONCE impossible to explain. The word 'multiverse', as ALREADY EXPLAINED, only moves what some of 'you' are STILL yet to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm We don't even know whether, if it does, it was never able not to in a wholly determined Reality.
'you', "iambiguous", may not YET know these, and other, things, but that CERTAINLY DOES NOT mean nor even imply that 'we' have NOT YET ALREADY COME-TO-KNOW, what 'you' DO NOT.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm
This also covers the God explanation. If God is the ultimate cause of the universe, I’ll want to know why God exists. The obvious answer is: He just does. He is. He’s what Holt calls the Supreme Brute Fact. He explains himself. And so on.
We can't leave Him out, right?

He just does. Presto! God and His "mysterious ways" account for everything.
Talk about introducing CRAP, in order to just 'try to' BUILD UP and SUPPORT one's OWN BELIEFS.
:lol:

No, SERIOUSLY.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:33 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post
A secular version of [the God explanation], one that doesn’t require a supreme Creator, is how I approach the something-nothing question. Seems to me that “nothing,” for all its simplicity and symmetry and lack of arbitrariness, is nonetheless an entirely imaginary state, or condition, and we can say with confidence that it has never existed.
Right. Mere mortals on this third rock circling this hum drum star in this hum drum galaxy in what may or may not be this hum drum universe can say with confidence that our own something embedded in everything there is has always existed.

Now all we need is the Nova documentary or the YouTube video substantiating it with ample evidence. Or, as is often the case in forums like this one, a "world of words" assessment...the logic of which invariably going around and around in "metaphysical" circles.

Or, as he encompasses it:
“Nothing” is dreamed up in the world of something, in the brains of philosophers etc. on a little blue planet orbiting an ordinary yellow star in a certain spiral galaxy. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that nothing could not in theory “exist,” but seems to me that it hasn’t. We’ve never been that dialed down, folks. Just didn’t happen. We live in the something universe, either in our tidy little Big Bang universe or in a Big Bang bubble within the Multiverse, and no amount of deletion of the elements and forces of this universe would ever get us to a condition of absolutely nothing.
OBVIOUSLY, 'absolutely nothing' COULD exist. BUT, because there IS 'something', there was NEVER a time when ONLY 'nothing' existed.

This IS a PROVABLE Fact.

BUT, while one BELIEVES there was 'a beginning', that one is NOT ABLE TO LEARN and SEE this Fact.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am Okay, admittedly, this certainly seems to be the must reasonable set of assumptions to me as well. You know, for what that's worth. The existence of nothing? Then -- poof! -- the Big Bang bringing into existence everything that revolves around this:
Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:

"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.
Talk about one basing ALL of their views here on their OWN BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

LOL Besides the Fact that it is NOT 'beyond the imagination' of a species to grasp just the size of the Universe, it is a Fact that the size of the Universe is ALREADY KNOWN, and that 'that size' IS IRREFUTABLE.

And this is not even stating the Fact that 'what' the Universe is fundamentally made up of, and 'how' the Universe actually works is ALSO already KNOWN. Well for some of 'us' anyway, and obviously NOT for the one known as "iambiguous" here.

That one is still in the DARK AGES where people BELIEVED the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the Universe began and was expanding.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am As for situating "I" in all of this...?
Again, ALREADY DONE, and IRREFUTABLY KNOWN. As well as it was a Truly SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, also.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am And this:
It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.
So what?

Has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the Universe IS infinite AND eternal.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am But...

Really, how can anything just always exists?
VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am Do you know anything that has?
YES. Thee one and ONLY Universe, Itself.

It could NOT exist in ANY other way.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 am How is that not equally way, way, way beyond actually being demonstrated. We're just partial to it because something is what we are a part of now.
The Fact that the Universe IS ETERNAL is BEING DEMONSTRATED and SHOWN, ALL OF THE TIME. But, just like the BELIEVERS of "a flat earth" or "geocentric universe" could NOT SEE what was actually DEMONSTRABLY True so to the BELIEVERS that the Universe BEGAN, and/or IS EXPANDING, they too also can NOT YET SEE what is actually DEMONSTRABLY True, either.
:lol:

NO, seriously.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

:lol:
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:00 am
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post
So, then, why is there something rather than nothing? There just is. The is-ness of the universe is one of its interesting features. Sorry if that isn’t satisfactory. It is because it is. Let’s move on.
This is perhaps the optimal answer. It really comes down to whether any of us here are [realistically] able to confront the gap between what they think they know as this "infinitesimally tiny speck of existence" and all that would need to be known about existence itself...and still convince themselves that the answer is within reach.
LOL The answer is NOT just within reach, it, contrary to popular belief in the days when this was being written, had ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED, and GRASPED.

The BELIEVERS, however, were BLIND and DEAF to this Fact.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am With or without God. With God the answer is already known. Without God and it almost certainly never will be. By us. Or, at any rate, not in our lifetimes.
Well, at least, 'you' are OPEN to 'it ALMOST certainly never will be'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am For example, Frank Drake, the man "who led search for life on other planets" just died.
So what?

Human bodies come and go. No REAL loss in the scheme of things.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Is there life on other planets?
How are 'you' defining the 'life' word here?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am And, if so, how does that factor into an understanding of existence itself?
That would all depend on what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you want to understand regarding 'existence', itself.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am There may be civilizations out there with brains actually able to solve it. But that's now all moot for Frank. Just as exchanges like this will one day be moot for all of us.
I found it moot that 'you' would even mention and talk about what is SO PLAINLY OBVIOUSLY Factual.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Unless, of course, there is a God.
WHY, what DIFFERENCE would that make?

Oh, and by the way, how do 'you' define the 'God' word?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am
Obviously there remain huge cosmological questions, like the fate of the universe.
One would only ask a question about 'the fate of the Universe' if they were under some sort of ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that the Universe actually BEGAN.

SEE, and OBVIOUSLY, thee ALWAYS existing Universe becomes 'what it WILL, ALWAYS'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am And we’d all like to know what happened before the Big Bang, but I’m fairly persuaded by the Hawking notion that time itself begins at the Big Bang and there’s no “before.”
LOL Okay.

A LOT of 'you', human beings, were also PERSUADED that the other human made up notions of 'the flat earth' and the 'geocentric universe' were real and true things as well. That was, anyway, until human beings collectively 'grew up' or evolved further.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am There’s no boundary. The universe is finite but unbounded, like the 2-D surface of a sphere.
Please. Time is easily one of most boggling aspects of reality itself.
LOL NO it is NOT.

'Time', when LOOKED AT, properly AND correctly, FITS IN PERFECTLY with the REST of the Universe, Itself.

The notion of 'time' is only so-called 'boggling' to some of 'you', human beings, because 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things' Falsely, Wrongly, or Incorrectly.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Is there really a, what, set of mathematical equations and/or scientific experiments that can leave no doubt that it came into existence with the Big Bang?
NO.

Because NEITHER 'time' NOR the 'Universe' came into existence with 'A bang'.

The 'big bang' was just a made up word anyway to just "explain" what was NOT YET KNOWN.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am If so, by all means, link me to them.

On the other hand, who is kidding whom, here. How many or us are able even to grasp the conjectures of those like Hawking?
That one human being known as and labeled "stephen hawking" 'conjectured' up things that were NOT True, because like ALL 'conjectures' they were based on INCOMPLETE information.

"stephen hawking" like "others" had NOT YET become privy to what IS actually and irrefutably True, Right, AND Correct.

WHERE those people made THEIR MISTAKES can be VERY EASY SHOWN and DEMONSTRATED.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Instead, it just seems entirely implausible that there could be nothing -- no time, no space, no matter -- and then it all just "popped" into existence, "inflated", and over 13 billion years became the universe as we know it today...about "93 billion light-years across".
It 'seems' entirely implausible', BECAUSE it IS entirely implausible.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am One light year alone being 6 trillion miles. That's the equivalent of going around the Earth about 40,160 times.
So what?

What SEEMS big or large to 'you', IS just normal or natural to 'us'.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:54 am Come on, the only thing more unfathomable still, perhaps, is that all of this was simply always around forever and ever.
WHY is 'thee One and ONLY ETERNAL Universe' more UNFATHOMABLE to the very small and narrowed viewed 'you', within that very small and tiny little human body?

WHY, EXACTLY, are 'you' completely and utterly UNABLE to FATHOM that the Universe IS ETERNAL?

What is STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' from even CONTEMPLATING 'this'?

The ANSWERS, by the way, are VERY SIMPLE and EASY to GRASP and OBTAIN. That is; once 'you' become Truly OPEN enough.
:lol:

NO, SERIOUSLY.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:47 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:10 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post



Still, think about that. How can any definitions that we mere mortals here on planet Earth come up with to encompass "nothing" not start with the fact that we are in a "something" going all the way back to all that we do not know about existence itself?
What 'you' do NOT YET KNOW does NOT mean that 'we' have ALREADY DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED.

See, the definition that encompasses 'nothing' is, REALLY, SO SIMPLE and EASY to come up with. And, the definition that has ALREADY eventuated is one that fits in PERFECTLY with the One UNIFIED GUT and TOE.

That definition, by the way, for those of 'you' who are Truly interested, can be explained in Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY terms.

Oh, and by the way, OF COURSE there is a 'something', which, so-called, 'goes all the way back to the eternal NOW'. See, contrary to popular belief by some, Existence, Itself, IS ETERNAL.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm It would be like those in Flatland defining the third dimension in order to grasp it as we do. Defining it into existence. And the novella Flatland was a satirical account of the rigid class morality that was Victorian England. So, let's define morality into existence in order to determine which actual behaviors we choose are right or wrong.
This is a bit like defining the things that one does NOT YET KNOW as being IMPOSSIBLE for ANY one else to be able to define, uncover, nor KNOW.

See, what 'you', do NOT YET KNOW about Existence "iambiguous" is ALREADY old knowledge for some of 'us'.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Then the part where whatever we define "nothing" to be, it's then definitions all the way down...
LOL If 'you' are to STUPID to be able to define a word, or even be able to look it up in a dictionary, then so be it, but the rest of 'us' are NOT that STUPID.

Also, talk about letting one's own made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS affect the way they LOOK AT and SEE things from then on.

LOL Your CLAIM that the definition of 'nothing' is then 'definitions all the way down', could be SAID and CLAIMED about the definition for ANY word. But if you want to SAY or BELIEVE otherwise, then 'what', EXACTLY, is the DIFFERENCE?
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm

All the way back to, "okay, but what came before nothing at all?"
LOL WHY would ANY one think, believe, assume, or imagine that there was, let alone even could, 'nothing at all'?

What makes 'you', people, think of things could be true when they are, obviously, LOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm Define that into existence please.
The 'thing' of 'nothing at all' can NOT be defined into existence. But the definition, itself, which FITS PERFECTLY that conception ALREADY EXISTS.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm

How about this then from Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Only we really have no idea "here and now" if the human brain itself, as but one component of a mind-numbingly vast multiverse is even capable of pinning something like that down.
What IS IRREFUTABLY True regarding the Universe, Itself, is ALREADY KNOWN by some of 'us'.

But, SEE there are those who are YET TO SEE, and who BELIEVE it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE. These ones REMAIN back in the OLD DAYS, in and with APE thinking.

The word 'multiverse' was just MADE UP to explain what was ONCE impossible to explain. The word 'multiverse', as ALREADY EXPLAINED, only moves what some of 'you' are STILL yet to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm We don't even know whether, if it does, it was never able not to in a wholly determined Reality.
'you', "iambiguous", may not YET know these, and other, things, but that CERTAINLY DOES NOT mean nor even imply that 'we' have NOT YET ALREADY COME-TO-KNOW, what 'you' DO NOT.
iambiguous wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:32 pm

We can't leave Him out, right?

He just does. Presto! God and His "mysterious ways" account for everything.
Talk about introducing CRAP, in order to just 'try to' BUILD UP and SUPPORT one's OWN BELIEFS.
:lol:

No, SERIOUSLY.
This here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting their OWN CLAIMS and BELIEFS in any way, shape, nor form.

All this one can say and claim here is:

The Universe could NOT have come from nothing, and, the Universe could NOT exist forever.

But "iambiguous" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, AT ALL, to back up and support this CLAIM, and BELIEF here.

"iambiguous" has absolutely NO control over BELIEVING and CLAIMING this. "it" is NOT capable of being able to CHOOSE for, and by, "itself".

Just like I had absolutely NO control over UNCOVERING what the Universe IS fundamentally made up of, how the Universe IS ACTUALLY infinite AND eternal, and how the Universe ACTUALLY works as well, correct "iambiguous"?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:06 pm

This here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting their OWN CLAIMS and BELIEFS in any way, shape, nor form.

All this one can say and claim here is:

The Universe could NOT have come from nothing, and, the Universe could NOT exist forever.

But they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up and support this CLAIM, and BELIEF.
On the OTHER hand, what still ASTONISHES me is that out of nothing, if OUT of nothing everything CAME, it includes minds like YOURS.

ONLY my whole point is that in regard TO questions like this, NONE of us are ABLE TO back UP our own claims here OTHER than in WORLDS of Words.

AFTER all, we are PHILOSOPHERS, aren't We?

Your WORDS however are TO ME particularly lacking in either 1] NOTHING 2] something 3] anything or 4] EVERYTHING.

UNLESS OF course, I'M wrong.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:06 pm

This here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting their OWN CLAIMS and BELIEFS in any way, shape, nor form.

All this one can say and claim here is:

The Universe could NOT have come from nothing, and, the Universe could NOT exist forever.

But they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up and support this CLAIM, and BELIEF.
On the OTHER hand, what still ASTONISHES me is that out of nothing, if OUT of nothing everything CAME, it includes minds like YOURS.
Here is ANOTHER example of the 'mind' word being used but with absolutely NO idea NOR clue of what 'it' is, EXACTLY, being obtained FIRST. For example, if this was asked for CLARITY about what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, then they would FAIL and FALTER, again.

So, what is this 'mind' thing, EXACTLY, "iambiguous"?

Also, the Universe can NOT come out of nothing. So, there is NO need for the 'if' word above.

The 'if' word is just making you look like you are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of LEARNING and DISCOVERING.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm ONLY my whole point is that in regard TO questions like this, NONE of us are ABLE TO back UP our own claims here OTHER than in WORLDS of Words.
OBVIOUSLY.

Unless, OF COURSE, there was some MORON here who actually 'thought' that it was possible to be transported, physically, to see with their own eyes exactly HOW the Universe could NOT have begun, from ANY thing, let along NO thing.

Is there ANY one here who thought this?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm AFTER all, we are PHILOSOPHERS, aren't We?
Who and/or what does the 'we' and the 'We' word refer to, EXACTLY?

And, what does the 'philosopher' word even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm Your WORDS however are TO ME particularly lacking in either 1] NOTHING 2] something 3] anything or 4] EVERYTHING.

UNLESS OF course, I'M wrong.
Wrong about 'what', EXACTLY?

If words, to some one, are either lacking or not lacking in ANY 'thing', then that IS what 'it' IS.

There is, OBVIOUSLY, NO right NOR wrong here.

If you STILL can NOT YET comprehend and understand that it is your current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true, which is what is STOPPING and PREVENTING you from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what I am EXPLAINING here, then so be it. It IS what 'it' IS.

See, unlike you, I KNOW I can back up and support what I say and claim here.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:43 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:06 pm

This here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting their OWN CLAIMS and BELIEFS in any way, shape, nor form.

All this one can say and claim here is:

The Universe could NOT have come from nothing, and, the Universe could NOT exist forever.

But they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up and support this CLAIM, and BELIEF.
On the OTHER hand, what still ASTONISHES me is that out of nothing, if OUT of nothing everything CAME, it includes minds like YOURS.
Here is ANOTHER example of the 'mind' word being used but with absolutely NO idea NOR clue of what 'it' is, EXACTLY, being obtained FIRST. For example, if this was asked for CLARITY about what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, then they would FAIL and FALTER, again.

So, what is this 'mind' thing, EXACTLY, "iambiguous"?

Also, the Universe can NOT come out of nothing. So, there is NO need for the 'if' word above.

The 'if' word is just making you look like you are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of LEARNING and DISCOVERING.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm ONLY my whole point is that in regard TO questions like this, NONE of us are ABLE TO back UP our own claims here OTHER than in WORLDS of Words.
OBVIOUSLY.

Unless, OF COURSE, there was some MORON here who actually 'thought' that it was possible to be transported, physically, to see with their own eyes exactly HOW the Universe could NOT have begun, from ANY thing, let along NO thing.

Is there ANY one here who thought this?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm AFTER all, we are PHILOSOPHERS, aren't We?
Who and/or what does the 'we' and the 'We' word refer to, EXACTLY?

And, what does the 'philosopher' word even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm Your WORDS however are TO ME particularly lacking in either 1] NOTHING 2] something 3] anything or 4] EVERYTHING.

UNLESS OF course, I'M wrong.
Wrong about 'what', EXACTLY?

If words, to some one, are either lacking or not lacking in ANY 'thing', then that IS what 'it' IS.

There is, OBVIOUSLY, NO right NOR wrong here.

If you STILL can NOT YET comprehend and understand that it is your current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true, which is what is STOPPING and PREVENTING you from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what I am EXPLAINING here, then so be it. It IS what 'it' IS.

See, unlike you, I KNOW I can back up and support what I say and claim here.
Hmm...

You don't seem to grasp that my posts above are...tongue in cheek?

Look, others here may take you seriously. And for good reason. But I'm not one of them.

Continue to respond to my posts if you must but, as with attofishpi, as far as I'm concerned, we're done.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:14 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:43 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm

On the OTHER hand, what still ASTONISHES me is that out of nothing, if OUT of nothing everything CAME, it includes minds like YOURS.
Here is ANOTHER example of the 'mind' word being used but with absolutely NO idea NOR clue of what 'it' is, EXACTLY, being obtained FIRST. For example, if this was asked for CLARITY about what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, then they would FAIL and FALTER, again.

So, what is this 'mind' thing, EXACTLY, "iambiguous"?

Also, the Universe can NOT come out of nothing. So, there is NO need for the 'if' word above.

The 'if' word is just making you look like you are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of LEARNING and DISCOVERING.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm ONLY my whole point is that in regard TO questions like this, NONE of us are ABLE TO back UP our own claims here OTHER than in WORLDS of Words.
OBVIOUSLY.

Unless, OF COURSE, there was some MORON here who actually 'thought' that it was possible to be transported, physically, to see with their own eyes exactly HOW the Universe could NOT have begun, from ANY thing, let along NO thing.

Is there ANY one here who thought this?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm AFTER all, we are PHILOSOPHERS, aren't We?
Who and/or what does the 'we' and the 'We' word refer to, EXACTLY?

And, what does the 'philosopher' word even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:28 pm Your WORDS however are TO ME particularly lacking in either 1] NOTHING 2] something 3] anything or 4] EVERYTHING.

UNLESS OF course, I'M wrong.
Wrong about 'what', EXACTLY?

If words, to some one, are either lacking or not lacking in ANY 'thing', then that IS what 'it' IS.

There is, OBVIOUSLY, NO right NOR wrong here.

If you STILL can NOT YET comprehend and understand that it is your current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true, which is what is STOPPING and PREVENTING you from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what I am EXPLAINING here, then so be it. It IS what 'it' IS.

See, unlike you, I KNOW I can back up and support what I say and claim here.
Hmm...

You don't seem to grasp that my posts above are...tongue in cheek?

Look, others here may take you seriously. And for good reason. But I'm not one of them.

Continue to respond to my posts if you must but, as with attofishpi, as far as I'm concerned, we're done.
So, you come to a philosophy forum, of all places, make posts with statements and claims in them, but when questioned and challenged over those statements or claims, then the best you can come back with is... "my posts are tongue in cheek".

WHY come to a philosophy forum, of all places, to speak 'tongue in cheek'?

By the way, if I recall correctly "attofishpi" has made the claim, "we're done", at least a couple of times to me.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by popeye1945 »

bahman wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:19 pm To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal, (2) the universe has a beginning, and (3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal. This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

(2): This follows from (1). If the universe has not existed since the infinite past then it has a beginning.

(3): Any act requires time. The act of creation includes the creation of time. This leads to a regress since you need time for the creation of time. The regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

Now we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible. We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.
bahman,

Something to nothing must be impossible.
Post Reply