Doesn't say what you say it says.
Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Very good.bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:21 pm The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
It’s paradoxical how substance, which is being, is insubstantial. And yet anything of substance arises from this insubstantiality.
The Buddha however, might say it neither exists nor does not exist.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
It says the same thing. I am making a metaphysical argument that something that is created eventually gets destroyed. Quantum fluctuation referes to a phenomenon that which a pair of particle-antiparticle are created from the vacuum and eventually destroyed. The time that they could exist, Delta t, is calculated from the uncertainty principle, Delat t * Delta E ~ hbar, where Delta E is the energy of the pair and hbar is the plank constant.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
No, something can be created from nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuationbobmax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:21 pm The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
No, something can be created from nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuationbobmax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:21 pm The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Speculationbahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:48 amIt says the same thing. I am making a metaphysical argument that something that is created eventually gets destroyed. Quantum fluctuation referes to a phenomenon that which a pair of particle-antiparticle are created from the vacuum and eventually destroyed.
The time that they could exist, Delta t, is calculated from the uncertainty principle, Delat t * Delta E ~ hbar, where Delta E is the energy of the pair and hbar is the plank constant.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
A = Creation.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:43 pm Let's assume that something can be created (this is a process and let's call it A). Let's assume that something can be destroyed (this is a process and let's call it B). B can happen because of A. Why? Because the reverse process of A is also a possible process and this process is B.
B = Destruction.
B (destruction) does NOT happen BECAUSE of A (creation).
BUT, B (destruction) CAN happen BECAUSE of A (creation). That is; BECAUSE some thing HAS BEEN CREATED, then that thing CAN BE DESTROYED.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Have you NOTICED that an amount of your so-called "arguments" are based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:34 pmI just assumed that the process of destruction is B. I have to show that B is possible.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:59 pm It’s all wrong: you already assumed that it can be destroyed, so what’s the point of showing it as a conclusion?
And, you EVEN USE the WORDS, paraphrased, BECAUSE I ASSUME 'such and such', then I now HAVE TO show 'this or that'.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Specutaltion on my argument or in physics?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:09 pmSpeculationThe time that they could exist, Delta t, is calculated from the uncertainty principle, Delat t * Delta E ~ hbar, where Delta E is the energy of the pair and hbar is the plank constant.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
No.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pmA = Creation.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:43 pm Let's assume that something can be created (this is a process and let's call it A). Let's assume that something can be destroyed (this is a process and let's call it B). B can happen because of A. Why? Because the reverse process of A is also a possible process and this process is B.
B = Destruction.
B (destruction) does NOT happen BECAUSE of A (creation).
But you have to provie it.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
You have to strt the argument from something.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:13 pmHave you NOTICED that an amount of your so-called "arguments" are based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:34 pmI just assumed that the process of destruction is B. I have to show that B is possible.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:59 pm It’s all wrong: you already assumed that it can be destroyed, so what’s the point of showing it as a conclusion?
And, you EVEN USE the WORDS, paraphrased, BECAUSE I ASSUME 'such and such', then I now HAVE TO show 'this or that'.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
What are you saying "No" to here, EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pmNo.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pmA = Creation.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:43 pm Let's assume that something can be created (this is a process and let's call it A). Let's assume that something can be destroyed (this is a process and let's call it B). B can happen because of A. Why? Because the reverse process of A is also a possible process and this process is B.
B = Destruction.
B (destruction) does NOT happen BECAUSE of A (creation).
What are you on about here?
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
How about starting ANY and ALL arguments from what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY, INSTEAD off from what you just ASSUME might be true, right, or correct ONLY?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:09 pmYou have to strt the argument from something.
In other words WHY NOT just make that 'something', some 'thing', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY?