₦airaland Forum

Martian: Does "Nothing" include space

I have said it several times that there is no such thing as nothingness. By very definition it is nothing: it does not exist at all.

or is Space itself something in the same sense that matter/energy is something?

Yes infinite space, locked with infinite time, is indeed THE GREAT SOMETHING.

PhysicsQED:

You impose an eternal external timeline on the universe with no evidence. Why is this idea so necessary for you?

In WHAT could it all exist? In nothingness?

Martian: It could be a "god".

Could be.

It could be the universe itself as always existed in one form or the other,

Could not be: as we are speaking of what it is expanding into.

it could be a universe in sea of universes,

Could be: I have always subscribed to this: nevertheless they all (universes) would still be existing in a pre-existent space that I speak of.

An infinite space.

it could be the result of the singularity inside a black hole.

All that must needs still exist in a pre existent infinite space.

It could be all of it or none of it. We don't know yet.

Indeed, my brother. Now let me go make some money. Lawyer don turn to trader.

Billyonaire: In seeking to understand the maker of the Universe, you will meet a dead end, because you seek the wrong thing. But if you seek how the universe was made and the makers of the Universe, then we can be able to deduce the truth from fiction. In essence, the Universe was not made by God, it was made by the Gods, (not gods). Although the gods (humans) have been co-creators by changing Petroleum to PMS and Palm oil to soap etc. There is no one God, there are several of them in the legion and they are the higher intelligence than their creation called man, Humanoids are just an experiment of Gods, we are simply advance sexual clones of the Originals, placed on this earth under their observation and control. In essence, humanoids are lab rats. I need to stop here, until I get express permission to continue revealing this hard truth.

Also I need to point out that even the Raelian revelation does nothing to speak of the maker of all things: it rather speaks of already existing humans within this universe who became so advanced that they created we on this planet as an experiment. It also says that their own scientific advancement is only 25, 000 years old. A split-second, considering the age of the universe. So there is more than they know - if at all the revelation is true.

Billyonaire: In seeking to understand the maker of the Universe, you will meet a dead end, because you seek the wrong thing. But if you seek how the universe was made and the makers of the Universe, then we can be able to deduce the truth from fiction. In essence, the Universe was not made by God, it was made by the Gods, (not gods). Although the gods (humans) have been co-creators by changing Petroleum to PMS and Palm oil to soap etc. There is no one God, there are several of them in the legion and they are the higher intelligence than their creation called man, Humanoids are just an experiment of Gods, we are simply advance sexual clones of the Originals, placed on this earth under their observation and control. In essence, humanoids are lab rats. I need to stop here, until I get express permission to continue revealing this hard truth.

You Rael?

http://www.rael.org/home

Martian: So the void "outside" the universe and "eternity" combine to form "god"? You call it ineffable then give it attributes of being "void" and "eternity".
I personally think, you should just stick to decribing "god" as a possiblity that is ineffable(I do this) instead of trying to describe it by presenting ideas that you regard as fact without any evidence but your sentiments.

But think about it. What else could it be? Really, really think!

If divinity is a "particle", then it must be physical. Agree?
And why describe something supernatural like the divine in physical terms?
is the "divine particle" just an idealized elementary particle created to support your beliefs or is there a way to see if this particle exists?.................CERN would be interested.

Oh no, sorry if I have misled you: I do not use "particle" in the sense that CERN does. I used that word to describe what I perceive to be the fine and most elementary intangible substance which comprises essential reality: and which is the substance of divinity: or God.

plaetton: Correction, the woman develops milk because she is already pregnant. An event has already occured to trigger pregnancy and the subsequent development of both foetus and her body.She cannot develop milk just by wishing to have a child or just by having sex unless conception occurs.

Exactly. Which simply conveys the point I was making. Even if an external observer did not know that the woman was pregnant, she actually WAS pregnant. As such, in relation to the Horizon example, even if we cannot observe the pre-trigger, it necessarily must have been there already.

In short, nothing happens by magic.

plaetton: You dont seem to get it. You are too quick with the trigger. In my first statement, I acknowledged the problem of defining nothingness. Nothingness in my context simply denotes inertness, sameness,no differentiation, zero flux. I used it just to convey my point.

Well find another word, because that is NOT nothingness. In no way whatsoever. You will confuse things in a delicate discussion such as this one, if you use words carelessly. The OP has a specific conception of nothingness with regard to the maxim ex nihilo nihil fit. That definition refers to total nothingness. Therefore in this discussion it will be misleading to begin to use the word "nothingness" to mean "something in equilibrium". . . VERY misleading. Hope you catch my drift.

PhysicsQED: then "effects" precede "causes."

Causes, nonethelss. Hic, hic. Goodnite bro.

PhysicsQED: The point of the example is that claims about what constitutes the "normal" sequence of events are ultimately based on assumptions which have not been proven to be superior to all other assumptions.

And I already discussed this in that other thread, but if you view things from the perspective of a positron and if a positron is in fact an electron going "backwards" through time, then "effects" precede "causes." I don't see why the same couldn't be the case here.

I did not say the change in the horizon was uncaused. I said the "effect" would be actualized before the "cause." Has it occurred to you that a black hole is so strange an object that it could possibly surmount supposedly normal temporal restrictions on its behavior?

Nah, nansense. . . . hic, hic.

But will discuss, hic, hic, tomorrow.

Hic, hic, dont't agree. Hic. . .hic, this whiskey is strong.

Later bro.

I am quite tipsy on whisky and have alot of work tomorrow. . . so gnite.

I will. revert. . .

But seriously, you guys are far worse than the religionists. . .

PhysicsQED: It's just a mental abstraction for now as far as I can tell. Do you have evidence of it existing?

Lol. What are we existing in. What is the universe existing in. What is everything existing in.

No. But I see no reason to assume that cause would precede effect when another formulation can be constructed quite well without need of that hypothesis.

Yeah, no reason that cause would precede effect? And you want me not to regard you as some herbalist or shaman? Be scientific, for crying out loud.

LAAAAWWWWD!

PhysicsQED: This is a bad comparison.

O NO, on close examination, it is not.

I'm not a gynecologist and I don't think you are either, but it seems obvious here that hormonal changes of some kind would bring about lactation in a woman's b.reasts because of the pregnancy itself. In other words you can go back in time and say that the fertilization of her eggs is the root cause for the lactation.

The example seeks to show you the absurdity in what you say: no horizon will mysteriously rise to meet something without an impetus: the fact remains that you may not have observed the physical attractions that would have caused such: and not that it was uncaused: or preceded its cause. Such is illogic, my friend.

My point was that ruling out the "first cause" or "prime mover," whether that prime mover is a God like entity or not, on the basis of it needing a prior cause may not necessarily the case. Basically I disagree with the assumptions underlying the argument of the opening post of this thread.

If you disagree with the OP's conclusions from ex nihilo nihil fit, then we are on the same page.

But it seems to me that you seek to say that causal relations may not be as we perceive them. This is fine. So long as we acknowledge that causal relations DO exist in the finite and contingent realm.

PhysicsQED: As far as I can tell, eternity is a concept, not something existing or self-existing.

O, so do you assert that eternity exists only in our minds?

Tell me that.

This is not about perception, but occurrence.

And you know this while observing from perception?

PhysicsQED: Right. So how does that "defeat my postulation"?

As above. That there was already a pre-existent trigger for such a happening. Obviously.

Just to add, so you understand: somethings in nature occur because of a thing yet to occur. That in itself shows that the first "occurrent" thing had a cause: the future "occurrent" thing. A vague and crude example would be a woman developing milk in her breasts for a yet to be born baby. The fact is that the triggers were there for the yet to be born baby. Simples.

PhysicsQED: No one said that there were no "causes." My point is about the position in time of apparent "causes" and "effects".

And the point of that excerpt is that the horizon grows because matter reaches it, but according to our ordinary thinking it should grow when the matter reaches it. But the horizon does so before the matter reaches it, putting the effect before the cause. The author (Thorne) is not asserting that a black hole is some sort of conscious entity waiting in the background, planning to swallow up matter.

Still discloses a cause, mate, pre or post.

PhysicsQED: The horizon grows in anticipation that the matter will soon be swallowed and will increase the hole's gravitational pull.

In addition, assuming that this is correct, these words (bolded in red) already disclose a cause, and as such, defeat your postulation.

plaetton: Most of the confusion in this issue comes from individual definitions or assumptions of nothingness.

When any system is in equilibrium, it can be described as nothingness relative to its own environment. In a state of equilibrium, there is no differentiation, no point of reference because every opposing force is cancelled out.If and when any of the equilibrium factors are altered, flux ensues and activity begins, then we have differentiation because the system desperately wants to regain its original equilibrium state.this is natural law of physics.

The big bang altered the equilibrium state of the pre-unverse(the assumed state of nothingness).In the case of the universe, the flux in energy is what we call creation. The system is still trying to regain its original state of equilibrium or zero energy flux, that may be why the universe is expanding from our own vantage point in the universe. It is actually a back and forth contraction and expansion ,perhaps within a finite(?) space.

Sorry, you have it all confused. Nothingness does not refer to what you suggest: real nothingness means the absence of the existence of anything whatsoever. Period.

That knocks off the rest of your post, mate.

It astonishes me that you can speak of somethings such as when you refer to an equilibrium state of a pre-universe - - - and then say that this is nothing.

For heaven's sake.

Equilibrium is NOT nothing. The very word connotes balance between existent things.

Please stop messing around nonsensically with words.

PhysicsQED: I should point out, in light of certain comments earlier on this thread, that we are always operating under certain assumptions and these assumptions may not always hold for every situation.

Take for example, the idea that "cause" precedes "effect" with respect to anything that progresses "forward" through time. This assumption does not always hold in all situations, a good example being this:

"They [Penrose and Israel] especially could not conceive of jettisoning it [the apparent horizon] in favor of the absolute horizon. Why? Because the absolute horizon - paradoxically, it might seem - violates our cherished notion that an effect should not precede its cause. When matter falls into a black hole, the absolute horizon starts to grow ('effect') before the matter reaches it ('cause'). The horizon grows in anticipation that the matter will soon be swallowed and will increase the hole's gravitational pull. Penrose and Israel knew the origin of this seeming paradox. The very definition of the absolute horizon depends on what will happen in the future: on whether or not signals will ultimately escape to the distant Universe. In the terminology of philosophers, it is a teleological definition (a definition that relies on 'final causes'), and it forces the horizon's evolution to be teleological. Since teleological viewpoints have rarely if ever been useful in modern physics, Penrose and Israel were dubious about the merits of the absolute horizon. . .Hawking and James Hartle were able to derive, from Einstein's General Relativity laws, a set of elegant equations that describe how the absolute horizon continuously and smoothly expands and changes its shape, in anticipation of swallowing infalling debris or gravitational waves, or in anticipation of being pulled on by the gravity of other bodies." - Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, p. 419 (Chapter 12: 'Black Holes Evaporate')

[Penrose = Roger Penrose, Israel = Werner Israel, Hawking = Stephen Hawking]


In a different area of physics (quantum entanglement), the Klyshko advanced wave model and other advanced wave models exhibit a similar kind of thinking with respect to sequences of events.

Anyway, the point is, the "cause" for some things may not have to follow the standard temporal behavior that seems to apply to most things.

Such only holds true for self existent things, my friend. Such as eternity, and its consequences.

You should also note that there is a difference between the occurrence of events and the perception of occurrence of events.

jayriginal: Lord Babs, Plaetton and Deep Sight, kind words indeed.

It was mainly a summary of the contributions on this thread.

In my opinion, if someone needs for god to exist, you can do precious little about that fact. Any argument is bound to be met with obstinacy. Early on, I used to ask the question "what will it take for you to stop believing in god ?". The answer is usually that they will never stop.

In an episode of the Simpsons, one day after Homer gets an IQ boost by getting a crayon removed from where it was stuck in his brain, he accidentally proves that there is no god. He shows Ned Flanders his proof as Ned is about to go to church. Ned reads the proof and realises that the calculations are irrefutable and god actually doesnt exist.

What does Ned do ?

He destroys the paper and goes to church.

That is the attitude of those who need god. There is a difference between needing god and believing god.

Deep Sight, no offence intended, but you come across as one of those who need god.
Like I said, no offence and I hope non taken.

I do not "need" a belief in God: I have advanced my belief on this forum severally that even atheists stand excellently in creation so long as they live with a good conscience.

The belief in God, as I have severally shown, is a logical construct, a logical necessity, simple.

In fact, in my philosophical evolution, i was once very close to atheism: until i recognized what the compound of infinity was: God.

Most people in my everyday life who do not know me well actually call me an atheist. Funny.

jayriginal: I'd like to state clearly what I perceive to be the problem. Before I do so, I'd like to state that the stances between Plaetton and Deep Sight seem to be similar. The obvious difference is that Plaetton does not assign any properties to "god", whereas Deep Sight gives his god many qualities, intelligence and consciousness being a sample.

Now the topic is a question.
I'd like to modify it slightly to bring out what I think is the true intention.

For the sake of argument, if we assume that the premise that nothing comes from nothing is true, does that refute god's existence ?

On one side, it is argued that
1)Nothing comes from nothing.
2)We know there is something (we exist for example).
3)That means there has always been something (because if there was a time when there was nothing, then something would never have emerged).

The issue is what that something is, and how it can be if we accept the first premise.
This is a problem cos we need to know where that something comes from since it cannot come from nothing (remember, we are all accepting this premise for arguments sake).

The theist/deist proponents call that something "God", which ordinarily should not exist since it cannot come from nothing and if it came from something, it cannot be god (also we must necessarily keep going backwards to investigate the origin of something).

To resolve this problem, god is allowed to be self existent/not needing a beginning or creation or cause. The opposition shouts foul. This is ad hoc reasoning and is only employed to save the theory that something cannot emerge from nothing. One might as well say of a blind person, "Mr X sees very well except when he doesnt".

There is nothing preventing anyone from resolving this problem in any other way such as saying nothing comes from nothing except the first time it happened. In other words, we make a general rule and save it from its fallibility by creating an excuse.

Now it is one thing to accept the first premise for arguments sake and its quite another to argue that something can come from nothing. It was caezar who acknowledged that the first premise is difficult at best to prove/disprove (which made me think there was hope for him), and this is quite true.

So far, I believe everyone has accepted (for the sake of argument) that nothing comes from nothing. God which is something, cannot exist since it cannot come from nothing (some solve this by bestowing self existence on god). But wait, says Caezar, it also invalidates our existence since we cannot come from nothing and we clearly exist, so in the long run, there must have been something. In other words, if there was nothing, there would always have been nothing since (for the sake of argument) nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, there was something and that something did not come from nothing, rather it was always there. So what was that something ?

Deep Sight : The oneness of infinity. An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence.
Plaetton: Pure energy which only changed form, birthing the Universe as we know it and which is indestructable.

Wahala !!

If we follow the trail to the end and if we accept the conclusion then that some self existing thing/concept existed then we are left with the problem of WHAT? And how can the "what" be verified?

Why is there a need to assign qualities of intelligence and consciousness to this god (this after "saving" it from the brink of non existence by an ad hoc postulation)?

Interesting question. If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that the Universe did have a cause, however, that cause was mechanical or physical in nature, perhaps pure energy; in short, the cause was devoid of intelligence and consciousness. would you call it god ? (A hypothetical question but should bring up interesting responses).




Bear in mind that the foregoing argument is hardly relevant to reality. Whatever is, is. No matter how much we want something to be, it wont if it isnt. No matter how "logical" our arguments are, it has no bearing on reality. If we could learn things just by "thinking" about them, we would have no electron microscopes, no Large Halidron Coliders, no sensitive telescopes etc.
We could all just sit down and come with what works best for us and leave it at that. Nature in no way has to pander to our notions.

Great post, but I would like to remind you that I have not argued for intelligence or consciousness in this thread.

Those are further constructs down the line when one extracts the basic truth from the nothing equation.

Kay 17: The extension could be likened as an inflated bubble

And in your experience, inflated bubbles expand into nothingness, or into already existing environments around them? ? ? ? ?

Kay 17: @deepsight

God can't be eternal,

Why? Is eternity finite?

because Time itself has a beginning,

Absolutely not: time has no beginning. The notion that it does is contradictory nonsense. I already discussed this in detail here -

https://www.nairaland.com/577313/thehomer-now-lets-discuss-big

to assume an absolute time will lead to the logical absurdity of infinity; and infinity on its own, can't exist in reality.

What's absurd about it? That is exactly what God is and that is exactly why God is said to be transcendental.

Also, for God to be the uncaused cause, he has to be the most basic and simplest entity, thereby stripping/preventing him from exhibiting a complex personality and self. In order words, the building blocks of existence.

And that is the definition of Divinity. The purest and simplest particle of existence.

^^^ O, and your link talks about voids being created or formed after the ba.ng. That is not the void I refer to, for I refer to that which the elements from the bang are dispersing into?

Is that a space that can be -

1. Created?

2. Limited?

Martian: But a void does connote emptiness/nothingness. I mean this if "area" contains "nothing", then it's a "void".
So our spacetime continuum is expanding into nothing/void.

It is the very substance of that which is self existent: an element of the ineffable God.

plaetton: @Deepsight:

Few questions for you.

1. What is your definition of energy?

Primordial light and its subsequent manifestations and gradations.

2. Do you think energy transcends or is just confined within the physical universe?

Evidentially transcends the universe as the big bang discloses an open and not closed circuit.

3. Would you consider energy as self existent or is energy a creation just like the universe? In other words, since our physical universe began with the big bang, was there energy before the big bang?

Same answer as above.

davidylan: What i seem to recall here is that for many of you, "insults" = anything that does not agree with your over-inflated opinions of your own selves. Read my post again... where have i insulted the OP? Calling out his posts for what they are - inane jumble of meaningless words is not an insult but a fact. Calling him out for the intellectual immaturity he shows in most of his threads is a fact not an insult. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "idiocy" either... over here in the US it is not regarded as a personal insult.

So go figure. I would typically not dignify self-righteous pontificating from individuals like you with a response but sometimes some clarity is needed for others who might be reading.

Daffidi! You norr fit change o!

jayriginal: If I have one I'll give it. I'm not averse to listening. What I'm averse to is turning opinion into fact without solid basis.

As I mentioned once, these arguments will not validate or invalidate the existence of god.

If it is, then it is and if it was, then it was.

Very well said, I must say.

ebamma: I that dwelleth in the secret tower of aso rock,shall hide under the umbrella of pdp. I will say of Obasanjo,he is my godfather and my fortress,in him i trust. Surely he delivered me from deputy governor to governor and from vice president to president.He shall cover me with pdp's umbrella,and only him shall i trust.I shall not be afraid of the kidnappers in the east,nor agberos in the west nor bokoharam in the north.A thousand shall die in Jos,and ten thousand shall die in Borno state,but it shall not concern me,because am always safe inside asorock .No evil shall befall me and no bokoharam bomb shall come near my aso rock,for many policemen and army always guide me.I shall tread upon the lion and the dragon,because obasanjo my godfather loves me.He shall call me and i will answer him and i will deliver him when efcc try to arrest him,with my life will i serve him and show him my appreciation.

Lolzzzz

Lord Babs: I've read all comments and accompanied with a pitiable laughter at most. It's unfortunate there isn't a luxury of time on my end to reply all, due to some pressing matters. There have been bulky insertions, assertions, assumptions, conjectures, fallacies and fantasies. Forgive me if i can't respond to all. First, on the issue of eternity, it falls under the category of fantasy and fallacy(red herring-deviation)...how far can you prove there is eternity? What is the concern of this thread with eternity stuff? Back on the status quo, the proponents of 'self-existence' have only succeeded in demonstrating their clownish feats, because their arguments are verily contradictory to the underlying maxim, serving as the basis of this argument. The only stronghold of these theistic stance rests on the so-called 'self-existence'; that is their only straw. A Self-existent entity is not within the province of reality. Far be it! We talk of energy, we talk of reality, we talk of photosynthesis, that is real; we talk of causality, that in itself is reality. What the h'ell is infinity?! And what the f**k is self-existence?! Are these 2 part of reality? NO! Can they be empirically proven? NO! The truth is that, you don't create what has no beginning and call it a creation/creator/something: it is overly precipitous, fictitious and dubious.
A local teacher asks a pupil: who born you? The pupil replies: nobody. Again, EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT (OUT OF NOTHING COMES NOTHING) is a saying, which if applied correctly, means for something to exist, there must be something. Which instantly translates that if God is to be regarded as 'something', then 'it' must have come from 'something'. This is a primary school logic! Lol! I don't understand how it is hard to understand. The major problem of theistic advocates is their obsession with INORDINATE INQUISITION. . .a deliberate, misguided and subconscious foray into the realm of infinity, in which they themselves don't officially subscribe to. Trying to reason outside the box is an untenable fallacy indeed. Nontheless, I'm sincerely impressed by the intelligent and unintelligent responses of everyone(including myself). I'll try and find more time to descend wonderfully to this arena sooner. Thanks.

I am learning not to bother reading your posts. I only read the first three lines of this one, and i will no longer be so masochistic as to subject myself to reading more.