Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[bahman]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

[Impenitent]

don't tell that to welfare recipients...

poof! magic! free stuff from the government!

-Imp

[commonsense]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

Therefore spacetime has always existed.

[bahman]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

Therefore spacetime has always existed.

No. Infinite regress is logically impossible. You can read it here.

[LuckyR]

don't tell that to welfare recipients...

poof! magic! free stuff from the government!

-Imp

This is also accurate for corporate welfare.

[Age]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

So, now that you have concluded that 'nothing to something' is even a logical impossibility, let alone how 'nothing to something' could even be a physical possibility, then we can move along and proceed to find out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is instead.

Quite simply, there has never existed 'just nothing', only.

Matter has always existed, which means that energy has always existed as well. Which also means that what is sometimes Wrongly referred to as, and called, 'time' has also always existed.

[Age]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

Therefore spacetime has always existed.

No. Infinite regress is logically impossible. You can read it here.

How do the words, 'spacetime has always existed', equate to 'infinite regress', to you "bahman"?

To even just imagine that it does is at the highest level of absurdity, let alone actually presuming or believing that those words equate to 'infinite regress'.

If 'regress' to you means, 'the action of returning to a former state', (which let us not forget that your definition here is not necessarily what is agreed with and accepted by absolutely anyone else here let alone all here), But anyway, if you want to use 'this definition', and also say and claim:

'Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.'


Then, what you call 'infinite regress' has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Universe, Itself. And this is just because the Universe, Itself, is never in any other state. The Universe is always only in the one 'constant state'. That 'constant state' is just A state of constant-change. What this now mans that the 'current state' that the Universe is in NOW has been and will be forever-always.

Now, are you able to comprehend and understand 'this'?

Whether you choose to accept 'this' however is another matter.

[Advocate]

The existence of nothing as an alternative to something has no possible evidence, empirical or logical, to support it.

[Age]

The existence of nothing as an alternative to something has no possible evidence, empirical or logical, to support it.

Although what you say here is true, right, accurate, and correct, it would be more true, right, accurate, and correct if you had just added the 'only' word between the 'nothing' word and the 'as' word. And, if you explained that the 'something' word there is applying to physical or material things only then you would be on your way to showing and proving an actual irrefutable Truth, and Fact.

See, there are areas of the always existing Universe, which are made up of nothing, that is; no physical things.
Although these areas are made up of no physical nor material things, they are areas still of 'something', namely; 'nothing'. An area of 'nothing' is still 'some thing'.
So, the existence of nothing exists in areas alternative to the existence of physical things in other areas.
Therefore, the existence of nothing, only, as an alternative to the existence of physicality, only, there is no proof for, nor is there any even logical way that there could be a possibility of either one, only.

[bahman]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

So, now that you have concluded that 'nothing to something' is even a logical impossibility, let alone how 'nothing to something' could even be a physical possibility, then we can move along and proceed to find out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is instead.

Quite simply, there has never existed 'just nothing', only.

Matter has always existed, which means that energy has always existed as well. Which also means that what is sometimes Wrongly referred to as, and called, 'time' has also always existed.

Matter cannot have existed since otherwise we should be in death heat right now. Time also cannot have existed always since that leads to infinite regress.

[bahman]

Therefore spacetime has always existed.

No. Infinite regress is logically impossible. You can read it here.

How do the words, 'spacetime has always existed', equate to 'infinite regress', to you "bahman"?

If time has always existed, then it means that there is always a time before any time that you assume. That is the very definition of infinite regress.

To even just imagine that it does is at the highest level of absurdity, let alone actually presuming or believing that those words equate to 'infinite regress'.

If 'regress' to you means, 'the action of returning to a former state', (which let us not forget that your definition here is not necessarily what is agreed with and accepted by absolutely anyone else here let alone all here), But anyway, if you want to use 'this definition', and also say and claim:

'Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.'


Then, what you call 'infinite regress' has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Universe, Itself. And this is just because the Universe, Itself, is never in any other state. The Universe is always only in the one 'constant state'. That 'constant state' is just A state of constant-change. What this now mans that the 'current state' that the Universe is in NOW has been and will be forever-always.

Now, are you able to comprehend and understand 'this'?

THe universe always changing but that is not the point. The question is whether the universe has always existed.

[Age]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

So, now that you have concluded that 'nothing to something' is even a logical impossibility, let alone how 'nothing to something' could even be a physical possibility, then we can move along and proceed to find out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is instead.

Quite simply, there has never existed 'just nothing', only.

Matter has always existed, which means that energy has always existed as well. Which also means that what is sometimes Wrongly referred to as, and called, 'time' has also always existed.

Matter cannot have existed since otherwise we should be in death heat right now.

I do not understand what you are saying here, will you elaborate?

Time also cannot have existed always since that leads to infinite regress.

But you do not yet know what 'infinite regress' is, exactly. So, how could you know what, supposedly, leads to what you do not yet know?

[Age]

No. Infinite regress is logically impossible. You can read it here.

How do the words, 'spacetime has always existed', equate to 'infinite regress', to you "bahman"?

If time has always existed,

But you do not yet know what 'time' is, exactly, "bahman". So, why do you wonder how long 'time' has existed for?

then it means that there is always a time before any time that you assume.

But I do not assume 'any time'. Do you assume 'any time'?

If yes, then what could 'assuming any time' even mean, or could be referring to, exactly?

That is the very definition of infinite regress.

So, to "bahman" 'now', the 'very definition of 'infinite regress' is: 'There is always a time before 'any time' that you, readers, assume'.

Now, if absolutely any of you, readers, would like to go back over "bahman's" assertions and claims throughout this forum, then there you will find and see irrefutable proof of just how much a person with beliefs will try just absolute any way of re-wording things just in the hope that something/anything will back up, support, and/or justify their position and belief.

As will be clearly seen, even without one skerrick of proof, some will still believe and maintain that they know what the actual Truth is, exactly.

And, what can be clearly seen with 'this one' here is, it is not even trying to argue for one particular thing here, and this is because it has absolutely no idea about what could even be possibly true here, let what is actually True here.

To even just imagine that it does is at the highest level of absurdity, let alone actually presuming or believing that those words equate to 'infinite regress'.

If 'regress' to you means, 'the action of returning to a former state', (which let us not forget that your definition here is not necessarily what is agreed with and accepted by absolutely anyone else here let alone all here), But anyway, if you want to use 'this definition', and also say and claim:

'Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.'


Then, what you call 'infinite regress' has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Universe, Itself. And this is just because the Universe, Itself, is never in any other state. The Universe is always only in the one 'constant state'. That 'constant state' is just A state of constant-change. What this now mans that the 'current state' that the Universe is in NOW has been and will be forever-always.

Now, are you able to comprehend and understand 'this'?

THe universe always changing but that is not the point. The question is whether the universe has always existed.

So, you agree and accept that the Universe is always changing, right?

If yes, then the answer to the question, 'Whether the Universe has always existed?' (which by the way is not the best written question going), but, anyway, if what you are actually asking is; 'Has the Universe always existed?', then the irrefutable answer is, 'Yes'.

And, before you resort back to some thing about 'infinite regress', (from whichever definition you want to choose, and/or use at any time), the Universe is always in one state, alone. And, IS, eternally-forever.

[bahman]

So, now that you have concluded that 'nothing to something' is even a logical impossibility, let alone how 'nothing to something' could even be a physical possibility, then we can move along and proceed to find out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is instead.

Quite simply, there has never existed 'just nothing', only.

Matter has always existed, which means that energy has always existed as well. Which also means that what is sometimes Wrongly referred to as, and called, 'time' has also always existed.

Matter cannot have existed since otherwise we should be in death heat right now.

I do not understand what you are saying here, will you elaborate?

It is about the second law of thermodynamics. This law says that the entropy is constantly increasing. The ultimate state of the universe is when the energy is distributed equally so no further process is possible as a result of equal distribution of energy, that is heat death. Tthe process in the current state is possible as a result of the energy not being distributed equally in space.

Time also cannot have existed always since that leads to infinite regress.

But you do not yet know what 'infinite regress' is, exactly. So, how could you know what, supposedly, leads to what you do not yet know?

What do you mean? I know what infinite regress is.

[bahman]

How do the words, 'spacetime has always existed', equate to 'infinite regress', to you "bahman"?

If time has always existed,

But you do not yet know what 'time' is, exactly, "bahman". So, why do you wonder how long 'time' has existed for?

I know what time is but it is off-topic.

then it means that there is always a time before any time that you assume.

But I do not assume 'any time'. Do you assume 'any time'?

If yes, then what could 'assuming any time' even mean, or could be referring to, exactly?

By assuming any time I mean any time that you consider.

That is the very definition of infinite regress.

So, to "bahman" 'now', the 'very definition of 'infinite regress' is: 'There is always a time before 'any time' that you, readers, assume'.

Yes.

To even just imagine that it does is at the highest level of absurdity, let alone actually presuming or believing that those words equate to 'infinite regress'.

If 'regress' to you means, 'the action of returning to a former state', (which let us not forget that your definition here is not necessarily what is agreed with and accepted by absolutely anyone else here let alone all here), But anyway, if you want to use 'this definition', and also say and claim:

'Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.'


Then, what you call 'infinite regress' has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Universe, Itself. And this is just because the Universe, Itself, is never in any other state. The Universe is always only in the one 'constant state'. That 'constant state' is just A state of constant-change. What this now mans that the 'current state' that the Universe is in NOW has been and will be forever-always.

Now, are you able to comprehend and understand 'this'?

THe universe always changing but that is not the point. The question is whether the universe has always existed.

So, you agree and accept that the Universe is always changing, right?

If yes, then the answer to the question, 'Whether the Universe has always existed?' (which by the way is not the best written question going), but, anyway, if what you are actually asking is; 'Has the Universe always existed?', then the irrefutable answer is, 'Yes'.

And, before you resort back to some thing about 'infinite regress', (from whichever definition you want to choose, and/or use at any time), the Universe is always in one state, alone. And, IS, eternally-forever.

Sure, but that does not mean that the universe has eternally existed.