A001:

I prefer to use the term nothing because I don't regard existence or the Universe as having a beginning and an end.

That doesnt justify the use of the word "nothing" - which tends to violently distort the conversation and the concepts at play.

A001:

Nothing concrete here. It's all vague.

Because I don't say what you say

DeepSight:


That doesnt justify the use of the word "nothing" - which tends to violently distort the conversation and the concepts at play.

AOO1 is wrong!


The universe is not existence!

The universe has a beginning and it will cease when there's no reason to call anything the universe anymore...

A001:

Check the meaning of each of those words in bold in a dictionary and spot their difference. Something can be existing but is not real to you.

Before microscopes were invented in the last century or thereabouts, micro-organisms had been existing, but they became real to humans with the aid of microscopes.

Before the invention of telescopes by Hans Lippershey and Galileo Galilee a couple of centuries ago, planets other than Earth and stars other than the Sun had been existing, but they became real to us with the aid of the telescopes.

Those examples show how existence is distinct from reality. There are countless other examples as well.


I prefer to use the term nothing because I don't regard existence or the Universe as having a beginning and an end.

If it's not real to you,then it doesn't exist to you.....


If it's real to you,then it exists to you.

What else??


I hope wirinet doesn't get brainwashed by your stuff.

DeepSight:


You would only think this way when your opposition to the idea of God derives from the fraudulent idea of religionists that whatever entity instigated this universe or life on Earth must be benevolent or perfect. That idea has no basis in any rational thought whatsoever, and, therefore, should not form competent grounds to repudiate the rational concept of causality as a precept of creationism.

I, who believe that there is some sort of mind behind the universe, often envision that mind as being that of a prankster or even an outrightly sadistic mind.

You will find in Greek mythology, that the gods were constantly described as being involved in a great many pranks, acts of mischief, and even acts of grave wickedness.

Life doesn't make sense.....


The universe is baseless...

Studies are meaningless..


Period...

johnydon22:


How would you know its purpose if there were one?

How would I not know its purpose if there were one


DeepSight

johnydon22:
The universe is not nearly as disorganized as you are passing it out to be, not even remotely.

There is a pattern, there is an order, that is why humans can study the universe and can predict its future. You cannot predict or study randomness, the universe on the other hand is far from being disorganized. It is actually a very ordered place.

Your statement that only a few planets contain life is a very bold one for someone who is a member of a specie that cannot even leave their solar system yet.

And about the earth under constant threat but not yet destroyed, even that is not an accident. The solar system is pretty much stabilized as opposed to its otherwise chaotic past, much like an iron cast cools and stabilizes. Presently, most meteor that make it into the system are pulled in by the gravitational influence of Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn keeping the interior planets relatively free of meteors, not to talk of life ending collisions.

Who predicted the future of the universe

Well, the universe is a group of things that exist anyhow possible...


Studying the universe doesn't make the universe amazing... neither does it make it something with a purpose..

HellVictorinho3:


Who predicted the future of the universe

Well, the universe is a group of things that exist anyhow possible...


Studying the universe doesn't make the universe amazing... neither does it make it something with a purpose..

I mentioned neither purpose nor amazing in that comment.

HellVictorinho3:



How would I not know its purpose if there were one


DeepSight

This is awfully evasive. Lol

johnydon22:


I mentioned neither purpose nor amazing in that comment.

Well, the universe involves randomness, anyway.

johnydon22:


This is awfully evasive. Lol

It means don't ask certain questions

HellVictorinho3:



Well, the universe involves randomness, anyway.

What part of the universe is random? Do you know the very existence of the laws of physics infers order, a pattern that governs how things in the universe behaves.

Anyway, what part of the universe is subject to randomness?

HellVictorinho3:



It means don't ask certain questions

or you'd evade. Lol.

How about, don't make problematic statements you can't even justify, that's a better idea ��‍♂️

DeepSight:


Whilst this is true, you will find that there is much on the Earth that strongly suggests many human civilizations have been wiped out in the past - and likely in several instances by natural or cosmic events. Mainstream history as currently taught leaves much to be desired.

Recorded history which does not reach beyond 6 - 10 thousand years is as a nano second in the spectrum of the total lost history of mankind.

This is interesting, could you point me to some of these Civilizations so I can read up on them?

johnydon22:


This is awfully evasive. Lol

Its not just evasive, it is ridiculous.

johnydon22:


This is interesting, could you point me to some of these Civilizations so I can read up on them?

Never mind. Forget I mentioned it.

DeepSight:


That doesnt justify the use of the word "nothing" - which tends to violently distort the conversation and the concepts at play.

I still prefer the term and will stick to it.

johnydon22:
or you'd evade. Lol.

How about, don't make problematic statements you can't even justify, that's a better idea ��‍♂️

Evading stupid questions........ that's necessary.



Justify


To who??



If you think the universe has a purpose,say that purpose.

johnydon22:


What part of the universe is random? Do you know the very existence of the laws of physics infers order, a pattern that governs how things in the universe behaves.

Anyway, what part of the universe is subject to randomness?

I am talking about the movement of the things that make up the universe.


Physics can't change that.

DeepSight:


Its not just evasive, it is ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous to those that say otherwise.

Agnosticism is not wisdom.

johnydon22:
The universe is not nearly as disorganized as you are passing it out to be, not even remotely.

There is a pattern, there is an order, that is why humans can study the universe and can predict its future. You cannot predict or study randomness, the universe on the other hand is far from being disorganized. It is actually a very ordered place.

Your statement that only a few planets contain life is a very bold one for someone who is a member of a specie that cannot even leave their solar system yet.

And about the earth under constant threat but not yet destroyed, even that is not an accident. The solar system is pretty much stabilized as opposed to its otherwise chaotic past, much like an iron cast cools and stabilizes. Presently, most meteor that make it into the system are pulled in by the gravitational influence of Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn keeping the interior planets relatively free of meteors, not to talk of life ending collisions.

You are talking like Einstein when he posited "God does not play dice with the universe". He had since been proved to be wrong, as Niels Bohr's quantum theory (randomness) rules on the subatomic scale. No one can predict the future of the universe. All we have are speculations.

The universe is indeed a very random, violent and mysterious place. With stars and galaxies colliding, black holes swallowing up whole galaxies, exploding stars with enough energy to affect the whole galaxy, and then there is the issue of dark energy and matter which makes up over 95% of the observable universe.

I know there might be a few planet out there capable of sustaining life, but I doubt there would be many. Why? Because the conditions for life is so narrow and specific that it can only be present in a highly limited number of stars and planets. For example, the star must be of a certain size and stability to allow life start and evolve, the star must be at a certain distance from its star to allow water exist in 3 states (Water is essential for life) ,the orbit of the planet must not be too eccentric to allow narrow range of temperatures, the planet must have an iron core and be rotating to produce magnetic shield to protect against radiation and high energy particles from its sun. These conditions are numerous and without just one of these conditions being met life cannot start.
Even if we have a few million planets capable of sustaining life, that is still a huge waste of resources considering there are trillions of galaxies each with trillions of suns.

I agree with you that the solar system has stabilized over time and the giant planets, mostly jupiter takes the hits for us. Still I agree with HellVictorinho3 that the earth might have been hit by life eliminating impacts in the past that must has destroyed all of life, and life had to start all over again. There is a theory known as the Giant-impact hypothesis, whereby it is postulated that our moon was created as a result of a huge object colliding with the earth, and breaking a chunk off.

A001:

I still prefer the term and will stick to it.

Feel free, especially if your intention is to conflate concepts and confuse your co-discussants.

HellVictorinho3:



It's only ridiculous to those that say otherwise.

Agnosticism is not wisdom.

Assuming that if the universe had a purpose, you, little you, infinitesimal you, would know it, is beyond absurd.

DeepSight:


Feel free, especially if your intention is to conflate concepts and confuse your co-discussants.

This comment shows your understanding of Physics is shallow.

You need to read books written by prominent scientists on the subject of the universe arising from nothing, with Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing a good example of such books.

Some scientists and philosophers such as Einstein and Plato who said reality is an illusion didn't state that just to confuse people. It's just the truth.

A001:

This comment shows your understanding of Physics is shallow.

You need to read books written by prominent scientists on the subject of the universe arising from nothing, with Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing a good example of such books.

I knew you might refer to Krauss. Well acquainted with him. He is a first class iidiot, and his book is nonsensical.
It is just not nonsensical but intellectually dishonest, disingenuous and borders on the illiterate.

Some scientists and philosophers such as Einstein and Plato who said reality is an illusion didn't state that to confuse people. It's just the truth.

Perhaps you missed the post where I said that our reality is very likely a simulation. I am well acquainted with Plato's allegory of the cave also, which hints at the nature of the reality we may be experiencing, and this is in step with a great many ancient schools of thought which hold the same - and it is frankly my personal view that not only is this world illusory, and some sort of simulation, but there might be no way to tell that every other world is not one as well.

An illusion, however, is still not nothing.

DeepSight:

Perhaps you missed the post where I said that our reality is very likely a simulation. I am well acquainted with Plato's allegory of the cave also, which hints at the nature of the reality we may be experiencing, and this is in step with a great many ancient schools of thought which hold the same - and it is frankly my personal view that not only is this world illusory, and some sort of simulation, but there might be no way to tell that every other world is not one as well.

Okay.

DeepSight:

An illusion, however, is still not nothing.

That's why reality is called an illusion: Some things exist which can't be seen with the naked eye and seem like what they're not (nothing) .

A001:

Okay.

That's why reality is called an illusion: Some things exist which can't be seen with the naked eye and seem like what they're not (nothing) .

Well, perhaps the bold word salvages this statement.
Do remember though, that nothingness does not exist. Indeed, if it existed, then that wouldn't be nothingness. An existent thing cannot be nothingness.

HellVictorinho3:



Evading stupid questions........ that's necessary.



Justify


To who??



If you think the universe has a purpose,say that purpose.

I have not mentioned whether I think the universe has a purpose or not.

You are the one who claimed it doesn't have a purpose.

So, I am asking how you arrived at that conclusion.

I am asking if you'd know the universe has a purpose if it indeed does have one?

I mean work me through the thought process that led you to conclude the universe has no purpose.

wirinet:


You are talking like Einstein when he posited "God does not play dice with the universe". He had since been proved to be wrong, as Niels Bohr's quantum theory (randomness) rules on the subatomic scale. No one can predict the future of the universe. All we have are speculations.

I see. Quantum particles may be probabilistic from the human vantage point, this doesn't erode the truth that the macro universe follows well known laws.

We can in fact predict the universe well enough to know when the next solar eclipse will happen, if an asteroid is on a collision course with another object, when the next lunar eclipse will occur, the next season in Mars, how a star should behave around a blackhole.

We can predict that adding 1 mole of hydrogen with 2 mole of oxygen will give you water.

Humans can predict the behavior of the macro universe with pin point accuracy because there is a pattern, there is an order they follow, if this order do not exist, there won't be such a thing as physics or chemistry, or any study about natural science.

The universe is indeed a very random, violent and mysterious place. With stars and galaxies colliding, black holes swallowing up whole galaxies, exploding stars with enough energy to affect the whole galaxy, and then there is the issue of dark energy and matter which makes up over 95% of the observable universe.

LOL. This is like pointing at collapsing building, car crashes, as evidence that human cities or automobile networks are random. They are not. These things you are referring to actually points to the fact that patterns eventually intersect.

That car crashes happen from time to time, or plane crashes, or train derail or ships sinking does not suggest transportation traffic is a random process.

I know there might be a few planet out there capable of sustaining life, but I doubt there would be many. Why? Because the conditions for life is so narrow and specific that it can only be present in a highly limited number of stars and planets. For example, the star must be of a certain size and stability to allow life start and evolve, the star must be at a certain distance from its star to allow water exist in 3 states (Water is essential for life) ,the orbit of the planet must not be too eccentric to allow narrow range of temperatures, the planet must have an iron core and be rotating to produce magnetic shield to protect against radiation and high energy particles from its sun. These conditions are numerous and without just one of these conditions being met life cannot start.
Even if we have a few million planets capable of sustaining life, that is still a huge waste of resources considering there are trillions of galaxies each with trillions of suns.

Again, you are actually the one assuming limits for the universe by trying to box into what you assume must be the limit from your own thought. We know life on earth need water, doesn't mean life elsewhere must. That life on earth is carbon based doesn't mean life elsewhere must be.

Take for instance oxygen, you would say that life needs oxygen but it actually doesn't, at a point, oxygen was extremely toxic to life on earth and has been responsible for a large scale extinction event.

You cannot make a blanket claim about the nature of life based on your experience of life on earth, that is a bold claim for someone with only 1 sample size.

As carl Sagan put it, Life can happen anywhere, we cannot limit the possibilities based on our earthly sample size. There could be life even on Jupiter or Saturn, or Neptune. sure these planets do not possess the specific conditions of earth that can give rise to human life but one thing we know about life is that it evolves to fit into the conditions available.

[On another note, I found this interesting, you are positing that life need specific conditions to occur, indirectly alluding to a universal pattern while still arguing that the universe is random. This is not important but I found it rather ironic]

I agree with you that the solar system has stabilized over time and the giant planets, mostly jupiter takes the hits for us. Still I agree with HellVictorinho3 that the earth might have been hit by life eliminating impacts in the past that must has destroyed all of life, and life had to start all over again. There is a theory known as the Giant-impact hypothesis, whereby it is postulated that our moon was created as a result of a huge object colliding with the earth, and breaking a chunk off.

Like I mentioned above, instances of collisions does not erode the presence of a pattern, it simply points to pattern intersect.

The universe follows sets of physical laws - true.
these laws acting on different bodies can lead to intersection? - True.

Therefore, these intersection does not refute the presence of this pattern anymore than car crashes refute the orderliness of traffic.

HellVictorinho3:



I am talking about the movement of the things that make up the universe.


Physics can't change that.

The movement of things that make up the universe are subject to physical laws. They all fall into that physical behavioral uniformity.

The movement of things that make up the universe literally allude to a pattern, otherwise known as the laws of physics. Referring to them really is you making my point.

DeepSight:


Its not just evasive, it is ridiculous.

I swear. I think I am going to pass the guy. He keeps making these conclusive statement without actually justifying any of them.

DeepSight:


Well, perhaps the bold word salvages this statement.
Do remember though, that nothingness does not exist. Indeed, if it existed, then that wouldn't be nothingness. An existent thing cannot be nothingness.

You clearly don't understand my posts on this issue you've quoting. When something appears mysterious and seem like an empty space, it's right to call it nothing until you know specifically its nature or identity (what it's).

Please, read my earlier post on the subject again, slowly:

"By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence.

We only see an object that light particles (photons) from the sun bounces off into the retina of our eyes.

If the object is too tiny to bounce off photons from the sun into our eyes or it can't even bounce off sunlight photons at all, does that mean such is non-existent?

We simply call such an object or particle nothing as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly.

In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron.

That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino.

Thus, we call such a particle nothing."