Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[Skepdick]

Please read here.

I am familiar with all of those. The trouble is that if your conception of time has the smoothness property then your "arbitarrily small number" is necessarily nilpotent.

No, that is not correct. An arbitrarily small number is not nilpotent.

And if your infinitesimals are not nilpotent, then they are nothing but the reciprocals of very large numbers.

Yes.

Sorry. Arbitrarily small numbers are not possible without presupposing infinite precision.

Infinite precision requires infinite space/memory to specify the "arbitrarily small number" in question.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%E2% ... e_tradeoff

[bahman]

I am familiar with all of those. The trouble is that if your conception of time has the smoothness property then your "arbitarrily small number" is necessarily nilpotent.

No, that is not correct. An arbitrarily small number is not nilpotent.

And if your infinitesimals are not nilpotent, then they are nothing but the reciprocals of very large numbers.

Yes.

Sorry. Arbitrarily small numbers are not possible without presupposing infinite precision.

Infinite precision requires infinite space/memory to specify the "arbitrarily small number" in question.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%E2% ... e_tradeoff

I am not talking about the programming and I don't think that reality is a simulation.

[Iwannaplato]

So, accepting the OP, there is no time in the past where there was nothing.

No, that does not follow from OP.

Was there, then, a time in the past when there was nothing?

I can show that spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist or be caused.

that seems to fit with there not being a time in the past when there was nothing.

Spacetime however has a beginning otherwise we are dealing with an infinite regress. So we can have spacetime and nothing else. The fact that things exist then means that things are caused in this case. Otherwise, things could pop into existence since the beginning of spacetime.

So, space time did not arise from nothing. What did it arise from?

As I suggested in the above comment spacetime has a beginning so either things have popped into existence since the beginning of time or they are caused somewhere from the beginning of time.

I don't know what the verb phrase 'caused somewhere from' means. Can someting come from the begining of time? If so was the beginning of time before spacetime?

[bahman]

So, accepting the OP, there is no time in the past where there was nothing.

No, that does not follow from OP.

Was there, then, a time in the past when there was nothing?

Sure not. By nothing, I mean no thing at all.

I can show that spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist or be caused.

that seems to fit with there not being a time in the past when there was nothing.

Great, you got the point.

Spacetime however has a beginning otherwise we are dealing with an infinite regress. So we can have spacetime and nothing else. The fact that things exist then means that things are caused in this case. Otherwise, things could pop into existence since the beginning of spacetime.

So, space time did not arise from nothing. What did it arise from?

Spacetime simply has existed and will exist. That is what I mean by fundamental.

As I suggested in the above comment spacetime has a beginning so either things have popped into existence since the beginning of time or they are caused somewhere from the beginning of time.

I don't know what the verb phrase 'caused somewhere from' means.

I mean things are caused at a time between the beginning of time and now.

Can someting come from the begining of time?

What do you mean?

If so was the beginning of time before spacetime?

No, by the beginning of time, I mean the beginning of spacetime.

[Iwannaplato]

Sure not. By nothing, I mean no thing at all.

Thenthere was no time when there was nothing.

that seems to fit with there not being a time in the past when there was nothing.

Great, you got the point.

But then when I said

So, accepting the OP, there is no time in the past where there was nothing.

you seemed to disagree.

Spacetime simply has existed and will exist. That is what I mean by fundamental.

So, it did not arise.

I mean things are caused at a time between the beginning of time and now.

So, things were not created at the beginning of time, but at some point after that?

Can someting come from the begining of time?

What do you mean?

Well, you said

As I suggested in the above comment spacetime has a beginning so either things have popped into existence since the beginning of time or they are caused somewhere from the beginning of time.

the beginning of time seems to have caused spacetime. Though there's still that odd phrase 'caused somewhere from' which, regardless seems to have beginning of time, then things arising from it.

If so was the beginning of time before spacetime?

No, by the beginning of time, I mean the beginning of spacetime.

Well,then how did things arise from that since that would have included them?

[seeds]

I don't think that we will end up in a parallel universe but become omnipresent.

You still don't seem to understand the theory I am promoting.

We don't end up in a parallel universe.

No, what I am suggesting is that we each have been imbued with the ("seed-like") potential of creating a new universe out of the living fabric of our very own being (just as God has done with this one).
_______

I am familiar with your theory.

Well, you may be familiar with my theory, but you certainly don't seem to understand it, otherwise you would not have suggested that we "end up" in a parallel universe as opposed to literally becoming a parallel universe.

Anyway, setting that aside for now, explain to me how we become "omnipresent"?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Ok, I knew that but that is not my concern.

That is your concern. You are applying the (Nothing -> Something) function to cosmology, and ultimately whether reality could've come from Nothing.
Could reality come from The NIhil? Zero.

Does 1 proceed from 0?

Logicians and Computer Scientists are united in saying: No.
Mathematicians stand alone in saying: Yes.

Let the next generation of philosophical warfare begin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_c ... om_nothing

It is not my concern. I am not applying function on nothing. To me, nothing to something is a phenomenon that cannot happen because of the reason mentioned in OP.

Yes, and your OP title clearly states that "Nothing to somthing [sic] is logically impossible".

However, you also agreed with the idea that the ̶s̶o̶m̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ something from which the universe emerged - "always existed" - is also logically impossible.

So, which is it?

Which one of those two "logically impossible" options is true?

Because one of them has to be true, because here we are (existing somethings) that are wondering and talking about how our "somethingness" came about.
_______

[bahman]

Sure not. By nothing, I mean no thing at all.

Thenthere was no time when there was nothing.

By nothing, I mean no thing including time. From nothing comes nothing as Parmenides wisely said.

that seems to fit with there not being a time in the past when there was nothing.

Great, you got the point.

But then when I said

So, accepting the OP, there is no time in the past where there was nothing.

you seemed to disagree.

I don't recall why and where I said that. Could you please provide a link to the post?

Spacetime simply has existed and will exist. That is what I mean by fundamental.

So, it did not arise.

Exactly right.

I mean things are caused at a time between the beginning of time and now.

So, things were not created at the beginning of time, but at some point after that?

Things could be created at the beginning of time as well.

Can someting come from the begining of time?

What do you mean?

Well, you said

As I suggested in the above comment spacetime has a beginning so either things have popped into existence since the beginning of time or they are caused somewhere from the beginning of time.

the beginning of time seems to have caused spacetime.

No, space and time together are part of a manifold so-called spacetime.

Though there's still that odd phrase 'caused somewhere from' which, regardless seems to have beginning of time, then things arising from it.

By things, I mean physical excluding spacetime.

If so was the beginning of time before spacetime?

No, by the beginning of time, I mean the beginning of spacetime.

Well,then how did things arise from that since that would have included them?

What do you mean?

[bahman]

You still don't seem to understand the theory I am promoting.

We don't end up in a parallel universe.

No, what I am suggesting is that we each have been imbued with the ("seed-like") potential of creating a new universe out of the living fabric of our very own being (just as God has done with this one).
_______

I am familiar with your theory.

Well, you may be familiar with my theory, but you certainly don't seem to understand it, otherwise you would not have suggested that we "end up" in a parallel universe as opposed to literally becoming a parallel universe.

Anyway, setting that aside for now, explain to me how we become "omnipresent"?

(Continued in next post)
_______

I don't know how I could become omnipresent. I wish I knew. But to me that is the ultimate goal since you become unified with all other beings.

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

That is your concern. You are applying the (Nothing -> Something) function to cosmology, and ultimately whether reality could've come from Nothing.
Could reality come from The NIhil? Zero.

Does 1 proceed from 0?

Logicians and Computer Scientists are united in saying: No.
Mathematicians stand alone in saying: Yes.

Let the next generation of philosophical warfare begin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_c ... om_nothing

It is not my concern. I am not applying function on nothing. To me, nothing to something is a phenomenon that cannot happen because of the reason mentioned in OP.

Yes, and your OP title clearly states that "Nothing to somthing [sic] is logically impossible".

However, you also agreed with the idea that the ̶s̶o̶m̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ something from which the universe emerged - "always existed" - is also logically impossible.

So, which is it?

Which one of those two "logically impossible" options is true?

Because one of them has to be true, because here we are (existing somethings) that are wondering and talking about how our "somethingness" came about.
_______

First things first, to me spacetime is fundamental (by fundamental I mean it is not caused and did not arise) and it has a beginning. The physical either popped into existence or was caused since the beginning of time.

[Skepdick]

I am not talking about the programming and I don't think that reality is a simulation.

You are talking about a syntax/notation for representing and manipulating infinite precision infinitesimals, coupled with formal semantics + pragmatics.

By any other name - it's a programming language.

[Iwannaplato]

Great, you got the point.

But then when I said

So, accepting the OP, there is no time in the past where there was nothing.

you seemed to disagree.

[/quote]

I don't recall why and where I said that. Could you please provide a link to the post?

viewtopic.php?p=693447#p693447
in response to my post just before that one of yours.

Things could be created at the beginning of time as well.

What are they made out of? Is there a process of making, with a start point?

the beginning of time seems to have caused spacetime.

No, space and time together are part of a manifold so-called spacetime.

So, spacetime is an uncaused cause.

Though there's still that odd phrase 'caused somewhere from' which, regardless seems to have beginning of time, then things arising from it.

By things, I mean physical excluding spacetime.

What is 'physical excluding spacetime''? Can there be things without ST?

[commonsense]

I am not talking about mathematical functions. I am talking about reality.

No, you aren't. You are talking about logical possibility.

Again, I am talking about reality mentioning that nothing to something (the universe) is logically impossible.

The thread title, which you wrote, says nothing about reality or the universe, but clearly references logic and possibility.

[seeds]

To me everything in the universe experiences.

How so?

Please explain how everything in the universe "experiences"?

Well, I have to provide you with the argument for the mind which is based on the fact that change exists. Well, the idea is that any change needs the mind to occur, and to do the change mind has to have the ability to experience and cause. Therefore, there is an experience in any location that there is a change.

No doubt, at this very moment, a near infinite number of "changes" are taking place in the innumerable solar systems and galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away from us.

Whose mind is instigating (or experiencing) those changes?

Or, to bring this a little closer to home, whose mind is instigating the changes taking place on the surfaces of Jupiter or Saturn?
_______

[seeds]

_______



_______