Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[seeds]

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.

First of all, what makes you say that we become "unified with all other beings"?

And secondly - then what?

Do we all just collectively twiddle our thumbs together for eternity - trillions of years into the infinite future with no specific purpose?

...Or...

Does this grand unification of our being with all other beings,...

(as in the old "water droplet back into the ocean" ploy)

...mean that we lose our sense of self-awareness and personal identity?

If so, then we're talking about existential nihilism here.

The point is that you are demonstrating the problem of someone who has not bothered to extrapolate the implications of the "ultimate goal" you have in mind to its furthest and most logical conclusion, which basically amounts to this...

"...Oh boy, I can't wait for my personal "I Am-ness" to blink out of existence after it merges back into the ocean of oneness from which it momentarily arose..."

Or, perhaps this...

"...Oh boy, I can't wait to merge with all other beings so that we can all live together for trillions of years on into eternity as a 'Borg-like Collective" with absolutely nothing logical to do to fill the void of infinite time..."

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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.

bahman, all of the following assertions were made by you...

• "I can show that spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist or be caused."
  ----
  "Spacetime however has a beginning"
  ----
  "Spacetime simply has existed and will exist. That is what I mean by fundamental."
  ----
  "No, by the beginning of time, I mean the beginning of spacetime."

Wow! One could get whiplash from being jerked back and forth between those contradicting statements.

Now, if this turns out to be yet another situation where you end up saying...

"...Well, I should have said this, and not that..."

...then, in the immortal words of Johnny Carson,...

"...May a thousand camels throw a party in your underwear..."
_______

[Age]

Please tell me what heat death is if you understand it.

I asked you to inform us of what spacetime is to you, which you did not, but then you want me to inform you of what something else is.

Is there a reason why I should do what you do not?

No, we were not discussing spacetime

Well I was most certainly not discussing 'spacetime', as 'spacetime' has absolutely nothing at all to do with this thread and this thread's title. you, however, have brought in the words 'spacetime' and introduced into your so-called 'argument' as thought it was necessary somehow.

So, if 'we' were not discussing 'spacetime', then let 'us' keep 'this' that way. And, the best way to do this is for you to not bring those words up again in your words again.

but about the universe that cannot have existed in the eternal past.

Remember that 'this' is your own personal opinion only, and thus only what you think is true, which you have absolutely no proof for at all.

I argue

Just so the readers become fully aware, when you say and write the words, 'I argue ...', here, do you mean that what 'you argue' is absolutely true and therefore could never be refuted? Or, are you just meaning that you have presented an argument that could be unsound and/or invalid, and therefore could be false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect in some way/s?

that we could be in the heat death state if the universe existed in the eternal past.

1. Just 'saying', 'we could be in 'the' heat death state', if the Universe existed in the (so-called and very Wrongly called) eternal past', does not mean that you have 'argued' absolutely anything.

2. The word 'the' before the words 'heat death' implies that there is an actual irrefutable 'heat death' happening or going to happen.

3. If the Universe existed in what you Wrongly call the 'eternal past', then this means that the Universe will also never be in any so-called 'death' state.

4. you seem to have so many things backwards or confused here.

You asked about what heat death is and I explained. Now, please tell me what heat death is if you read and understand it.

1. How one so-called 'understands' any thing can be completely and utterly different from another.

2. I could just re-repeat your words, say that this is how I understand it, and then would this satisfy you.

3. you do not seem to comprehend and understand that absolutely whatever is said or claimed about 'heat death' does not mean that the Universe, Itself, is going into some so-called 'heat death'.

4. Why is the so-called 'heat death' going to occur if the Universe, what you call, 'existed in the eternal past'?

5. To you, could the Universe go into what you call 'heat death' if the Universe began?

6. And, why would a so-called 'eternal past universe' just happen, very coincidentally, to be in so-called 'heat death' 'now', in this very moment when human beings are alive, or more coincidentally when you, "bahman", are alive and when this is being written?

6. The Universe 'exists always', which means that there is no so-called 'heat death', 'cool death', nor any other kind of 'death' in regards to the Universe, Itself.

7. The word 'eternal' in relation to the Universe does not mean that the Universe never began but will end. The word 'eternal' here means and refers to 'forever'.

8. Within the very first line of that link you provide me on so-called 'heat death' the so-called 'heat death' is just a 'hypothesis' only. And, a 'hypothesis' by definition is more or less just; a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, only.

[Age]

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

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

You are asking whether it's logically possible to take Nothing as input and produce Something as output.

The people who believe that to be the case - the people who believe that to be possible are called Mathematicians.

Could you provide 'us' with the name of a so-called "mathematician" who believes that from absolutely nothing at all something can be produced?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?

Or, are you just saying that if a so-called "mathematician" just adds nothing (0) to something (1) then they will get something?

Another less common name for such people is Nihilists. Which comes from the Latin "Nihil" - Nothing.

Nihil -> Nil -> Nothing.

So, if 'we' can get 'Nothing' from 'Nil', which comes from 'Nihil', how, exactly, does this relate to getting something from absolutely nothing at all?

Surely you've read Parmenides' arguments? Ex nihilo nihil fit.

[Age]

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.

I know.

And I am trying to Explain to you that the people who believe contrary to you.

Do you believe that you can get something from nothing, "skepdick"?

if yes, then please explain how this could be logically possible?

The people who believe that something can come from nothing are the same people who believe that the number 1 comes from nothing.

It comes from 0.

Mathematicians.

But how could a number, any number, come about if there is absolutely nothing existing?

Surely, even so-called "mathematician" do not believe that numbers could just appear, if there is absolutely nothing existing?

But, if there are some that do, then this might help in explaining why some people believe that God came from absolutely nothing at all, why some people believe that the Universe came from absolutely nothing at all, and/or why some people believe that spacetime came from absolutely nothing at all.

We will just have to wait, to see.

[Age]

I know.

And I am trying to Explain to you that the people who believe contrary to you.
The people who believe that something can come from nothing are the same people who believe that the number 1 comes from nothing.

It comes from 0.

Mathematicians.

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?

Only if and when 0 is first existing, and obviously if and when one is using 0 to precede 1.

Otherwise any and all numbers, including the 0, and even the letter O, do not come from absolutely nothing at all.

Unless, of course, you want to keep believing that they can. And, if you do, then will you explain how this could logically happen, or follow?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then great. Again, we will wait, to see.

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

Why do you presume, or believe, that all so-labeled or so-classed 'groups of human beings' think the exact same way?

Let the next generation of philosophical warfare begin.

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

How does a link about, supposedly, 'nothing coming from nothing', have to do with what this thread was about, that is; something coming from nothing, and how this is supposedly logically impossible.

[Age]

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.

I can only explain it to you - I can't understand it for you.

And, conversely, "bahman" can only explain 'it' to you, "bahman" cannot understand 'it' for you?

Or, does 'this' only work 'one way'?

If you reject the possibility/instantiation of a logical Nothing -> Something then you must reject the existence of the Mathematical successor function.

s: 0 -> 1 does not exist.

Are you not yet familiar with the actual difference between 'absolutely nothing', and, 'an already existing symbol of '0' from which another symbol of '1' can be a successor of, or just logically follow?

[Age]

Something that is logically possible is not necessarily physically possible as well.

But you aren't talking about what's logically possible.
You are talking about what's logically impossible.

Are you suggesting that logically impossible things could still be physically possible?

Perhaps I should have said that nothing to something is physically impossible.

Why?

Something from (absolutely) nothing, or, (absolutely) nothing to something, are both logically, and physically, impossible.

If you 'perhaps' 'should'/could have said some thing different/better, then maybe add the 'absolutely' word in.

I however have an argument in the form of syllogism:

you could use your own personal following so-called 'argument' here, but doing so would be utterly useless. Because of the absolute Falseness, Wrongness, Inaccurate, or Incorrectness of it.

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

[Age]

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

No, that does not follow from OP. I can show that spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist or be caused.

Once again, just 'saying' some thing is not 'showing something.

All you do is say and claim that 'spacetime is fundamental', and that what 'fundamental' means to you is 'just simply exists'. Which just means that to you alone here, 'spacetime just simply exists', and, to you alone also, 'this' somehow means that spacetime could not begin to exist nor be caused, as well.

So, where, exactly, is 'the showing' that 'spacetime, supposedly, was not caused and did not begin to exist'?

Spacetime however has a beginning otherwise we are dealing with an infinite regress.

If I recall correctly, every discussion that we have had in relation to what you say and claim, the more in depth that we go into 'it', the weirder and stranger your claims become. For example just like here, you said and claimed that 'spacetime cannot begin to exist', but then you say and claim that 'spacetime, however, actually does have a beginning'.

So we can have spacetime and nothing else.

Exactly like we can have the Universe, and nothing else. But, and again, so what?

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.

To me, these two sentences do not logically follow, and therefore do not make sense.

Which can be translated into: there has always been something, since there is something now. And before each moment where there was something, there must have been something. So there is an infinite amount of time...so far. Or?

As I suggested in the above comment spacetime has a beginning

But in the preceding comment you claimed, 'I can show that spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist'.

So, which comment of yours are we meant to agree with and accept here?

so either things have popped into existence since the beginning of time or they are caused somewhere from the beginning of time.

Is 'spacetime' a 'thing', to you, "bahman"?

[Age]

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.

When 'you' become unified with all other beings, then obviously there is then no 'other', and thus no 'you'. There is only thee One 'I', alone. Which is who and what is 'Omnipresent' 'HERE' 'NOW', and 'always', anyway.

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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.

So, 'now' this one means that 'spacetime', actually, cannot 'not' have a beginning, but actually has a beginning', 'now'.

The physical either popped into existence or was caused since the beginning of time.

To "bahman", 'spacetime' cannot be 'physical' at all.

So, what is 'spacetime', exactly, to you, "bahman"?

[Age]

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.

First of all, what makes you say that we become "unified with all other beings"?

And secondly - then what?

Do we all just collectively twiddle our thumbs together for eternity - trillions of years into the infinite future with no specific purpose?

Why do you presume or believe that 'you', individually, or 'us', collectively, do not have any specific purpose?

...Or...

Does this grand unification of our being with all other beings,...

(as in the old "water droplet back into the ocean" ploy)

...mean that we lose our sense of self-awareness and personal identity?

If 'you' want to keep that 'illusory separate sense of an individual being and self', then by all means 'you' are absolutely free to keep doing that, and to keep doing absolutely anything else as well.

But when also discovering, or learning, and understanding who and what thee True Self is, exactly, leads to a very good reason to 'let go of' and to
'getting rid of' that 'illusion of a separate self', the 'i'.

If so, then we're talking about existential nihilism here.

Why do 'you' presume or believe this?

The point is that you are demonstrating the problem of someone who has not bothered to extrapolate the implications of the "ultimate goal" you have in mind to its furthest and most logical conclusion, which basically amounts to this...

"...Oh boy, I can't wait for my personal "I Am-ness" to blink out of existence after it merges back into the ocean of oneness from which it momentarily arose..."

Which, if you really had not yet noticed, fits in more or less with your own concluded view that after so-called individual 'death' then 'one' comes to the real and true realization and understanding with thee True One. Which ultimately means merging back into the what you call 'ocean of oneness'.

Or, perhaps this...

"...Oh boy, I can't wait to merge with all other beings so that we can all live together for trillions of years on into eternity as a 'Borg-like Collective" with absolutely nothing logical to do to fill the void of infinite time..."

Why would you even begin to presume or believe that there would be absolutely nothing to do, in an unimaginable size to you home and playground, or Universe?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[bahman]

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,

OK.

coupled with formal semantics + pragmatics.

What do you mean?

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

How come? Could you please elaborate?

[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,

OK.

coupled with formal semantics + pragmatics.

What do you mean?

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

How come? Could you please elaborate?

What I mean is that ALL Mathematics is reducible to some form of symbol manipulation - a computational model.

And manipulating the symbols is all fine and dandy. Until you attempt to convert/read/print the "infinite precision number" x as an actual, human-comprehensible value.

Then you have to represent it. Finitely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra

[bahman]

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?

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

I see, so that is what you said. I thought that was what I said. Anyhow, I am lost and forgot our conversation. Could we please start from your post here?

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

What are they made out of?

According to the cosmological model, it was a very dense and hot form of energy.

Is there a process of making, with a start point?

What do you mean?

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.

Spacetime is uncaused, it is not an uncaused cause since it does not cause anything.

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''?

We first have spacetime that is uncaused. On top of that we physical. It is believed that the physical was a form of dense and hot energy.

Can there be things without ST?

No, that is incoherent since things have to have locations in spacetime.