Nothing to something

[Abrosz]

Can I see your proof that nothing cannot be a possibility?

What is there to see? Can you imagine to point as “something” and declare: “lookee, there nothing”! Nothing is just another concept, right next to “nowhere” and “never”. If there would be an ontological “something”, it would be “something”, not nothing. Is this not obvious?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

There’s absolutely no reason “regress is impossible” other than “Aristotle said so”. He also said everything was made of a combination of earth, wind, water and fire (and heart! Goooooo Planet!). The “proofs” demonstrating the impossibility of regress invoke special pleading or they beg the question in their premises.

Where does a circle begin? Perhaps our universe is a product of another infinitely cyclical universe that produces and recycles other universes.

As said earlier, pick a card.

The infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, regress is impossible.

What does that even mean?

The parts of the universe moving away from you faster than c are unreachable. So I guess they don’t exist?

 

[STT]

What is there to see? Can you imagine to point as “something” and declare: “lookee, there nothing”! Nothing is just another concept, right next to “nowhere” and “never”. If there would be an ontological “something”, it would be “something”, not nothing. Is this not obvious?

I am afraid that that is not an argument.

 

[Abrosz]

I am afraid that that is not an argument.

It is the same kind of argument which asserts that there is no reverse side of the Mobius strip. Can you sow me an ontologically existing “nothing”.

 

[STT]

What does that even mean?

Infinity and regress sort of the same thing. We are dealing with an infinity when there is a regress. Infinity cannot be reached. For example in the case of time, you cannot reach infinite future by waiting. For example, you cannot reach by counting to infinity too.

The parts of the universe moving away from you faster than c are unreachable. So I guess they don’t exist?

We are talking about regress in time. Universe is, however, infinite. You can have an infinite amount of mass out of nothing provided that you have the same amount of anti-matter in the same time. This is a possibility.

 

[STT]

It is the same kind of argument which asserts that there is no reverse side of the Mobius strip. Can you sow me an ontologically existing “nothing”.

What I am arguing in here is that nothing to something is possible if no physical constrain/principle is broken. You can have the same amount of matter and anti-matter without violating any principle. Now just imagine two universes, one made of matter and another made of anti-matter, which are connected together at the point of Big Bang (BB). Just reverse the time. What do you see? They, two universes, nullify each other at BB and everything vanishes.

One can say that there was only mater at BB so there was something instead of nothing.

So there are two scenarios: 1) There was nothing at BB and 2) There was something at BB.

In both case there is no need for God. By Occam’s razor, there is no God.

 

[Hume]

Infinity and regress sort of the same thing. We are dealing with an infinity when there is a regress. Infinity cannot be reached. For example in the case of time, you cannot reach infinite future by waiting. For example, you cannot reach by counting to infinity too.

Yeah… this concept of “reaching” infinity. That’s what doesn’t make sense.

The idea that things must have a discrete beginning and end is refuted by a simple circle. There is no beginning, there is no end.

We are talking about regress in time. Universe is, however, infinite. You can have an infinite amount of mass out of nothing provided that you have the same amount of anti-matter in the same time. This is a possibility.

So when does time “end”?

After all, time represented by a ray (has an origin and never terminates) is still eternity. It’s just a half-sized eternity to a line that never terminates in either direction.

 

[Hume]

Infinity and regress sort of the same thing.

Just wanted to point out that time is an apparent characteristic of the universe.

As to what exists before and beyond our universe, we have literally zero information. Claims of what is and is not possible are based on ideology rather than fact as, again,

we have zero information.

Infinite regress is impossible because you arbitrarily don’t want it to be.

 

[Veritas6]

There is no need for God in the first case since the process of nothing to something is possible.

I would say it makes no logical sense that something can come from nothing on its own. Do you have an example of “something” appearing out of the philosophical understanding of nothing?

Without God, there are no things, or no existence at all. If God exists, and defined as Pure Actuality, everything that is logically possible comes from Him. We can say all creation is actualized by Him.

So there is no “nothing” if God exists, there is only Him who holds existence in reality. In this case it seems nonsensical to think about nothing “existing” and considering if something can come from it.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

I would say it makes no logical sense that something can come from nothing on its own. Do you have an example of “something” appearing out of the philosophical understanding of nothing?

This. The very fact that there is something implies that there always has been something namely God.

 

[Abrosz]

It’s an assertion.

Empty assertions are dime a dozen.

Fair enough. Yet, it stands on the assertion of God’s self-revelation.

This self-revelation is just another empty assertion. But this alleged self-revelation also happened within the space-time universe, and as such you have a problem. Maybe you wish to say that God simultaneously exists in the space-time reality and also in the non space-time realm - which is just another contradiction.

Also, the request needs to be repeated: define these two – without reference to temporal dynamics – and I’ll answer your question!

Again, action and non-action are abstract concepts - they do not explicitly refer to the space-time reality. Since God was supposed to “act”, and supposed to have walked in the Garden, and is supposed to maintain this spatio-temporal universe. So you have yet another logical contradiction.

The whole no-space and no-time and YET physically active existence is logically incoherent. But if you wish to argue a logical nonsense, go ahead. The major problem for you is that the Biblical God and the God of the philosophers are mutually exclusive / contradictory.

Maybe you also believe in the existence of married bachelors. I would not be surprised.

 

[Abrosz]

What I am arguing in here is that nothing to something is possible if no physical constrain/principle is broken.

Sorry, it also demands the ontological existence of “nothing”. Your thought experiment of the two universes colliding is interesting, but there is a problem. Take two simple “universes”, one containing one proton and one other one containing one anti-proton and let them collide. The result is not “nothing”. The result is energy (photons) - and it is also not nothing.

The concept of nothing, or the concept of zero or the concept of empty set are great and useful abstractions. But none of them can exist ontologically.

 

[Abrosz]

Also, the request needs to be repeated: define these two – without reference to temporal dynamics – and I’ll answer your question!

It is impossible, because act and non-act are inherently tied to temporality. So your answer should have been: “I cannot”. Now there is a favorite assertion, namely “God eternally willed the universe to pop into existence.” So I will re-phrase: "what is the difference between ‘WILLED’ and ‘not-WILLED’. The temporal reference cannot be avoided.

 

[o_mlly]

Nothing to something is either logically possible or it is logically impossible.

Must be possible.

Science claims often use the euphemism “emergent property” or “brute fact” to describe just such an event. “Microbe to man” implies that a creature having the attributes of sentience, intelligence, sexual reproduction, reason, locomotion, etc. obtained these “somethings” from a creature that had “nothing”. (We’ll leave aside the abiogenesis problem for now.)

 

[pohandes]

We nead things to create a new thing. Why we must think God needs things like us? He need noting to create a new thing!

 

[Gorgias]

What is the constrain that prohibit nothing to something possible?

Can you show a natural process that does this? Can you show any examples of this happening naturally? (No.)

There are infinite number imaginable possible universes that can come true from nothing without breaking any constrain.

OK… so, this isn’t an “argument”, it’s just your imagination. Got it.

What make the process of something out of nothing impossible? Nothing.

Conservation of matter and energy, perhaps?

Moreover, the picture of baker is a classical way of thinking.

So? That doesn’t make it wrong.

How about the creation of electron and positron?

Not from ‘nothing’; from the quantum substratum.

Can you tell me whether there is a point in eternity that the universe doesn’t exist?

There aren’t “points” in eternity. That’s the whole idea.

Empty assertions are dime a dozen.

You must have plenty of dimes, then.

But this alleged self-revelation also happened within the space-time universe, and as such you have a problem.

Not a problem. We assert that God can act within space-time, but is not contained within or constrained by it.

Maybe you wish to say that God simultaneously exists in the space-time reality and also in the non space-time realm

See? I can’t believe you keep doing it without being aware you’re doing it! Are you sure you’re not sealioning?
(Hint: ‘simultaneously’ means “at the same time”. Eternity is outside of time; the universe exists within a temporal framework.)

[God was] supposed to have walked in the Garden

Your hyper-literalistic interpretation of Scripture is your problem, not mine. I’m not asserting it (nor, as it turns out, is the Catholic Church asserting it), and therefore, I’m not beholden to argue for it.

[God] is supposed to maintain this spatio-temporal universe. So you have yet another logical contradiction.

You’ve shown no contradiction, but merely claimed it exists.

The whole no-space and no-time and YET physically active existence is logically incoherent.

As they say, “quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”.

The major problem for you is that the Biblical God and the God of the philosophers are mutually exclusive / contradictory.

I love this claim by atheists! (Psst… the ‘god of the philosophers’ isn’t what you think it is. )

(Double psst… the ‘Biblical God’ isn’t who you think He is, either. Keep working on it, though… you might get there eventually!)

 

[Gorgias]

act and non-act are inherently tied to temporality

action and non-action are abstract concepts - they do not explicitly refer to the space-time reality.

I take back all I’ve said about your notions regarding ‘incoherence’. Apparently, “incoherence” is your specialty! Contradict much, eh?

It is impossible

Thank you for finally admitting that you cannot enter into this discussion rationally. Your honesty – finally! – is refreshing!

I will re-phrase: "what is the difference between ‘WILLED’ and ‘not-WILLED’.

Everything that is, is willed by God. There is nothing that is, which is not willed. That which is ‘not willed’ by God, does not exist. There ya go!

 

[STT]

Yeah… this concept of “reaching” infinity. That’s what doesn’t make sense.

The idea that things must have a discrete beginning and end is refuted by a simple circle. There is no beginning, there is no end.

The idea of cycle cannot resolve the problem of beginning. Let’s say that we are in the current cycle which has a period T. There was before cycle with period of T too. And before, etc. This time we are dealing with a regress in cycle. Therefore there should be a beginning cycle. Therefore, time has a beginning.

So when does time “end”?

Never.

After all, time represented by a ray (has an origin and never terminates) is still eternity. It’s just a half-sized eternity to a line that never terminates in either direction.

We cannot reach from eternal past to now as we cannot reach from now to eternal future.

 

[STT]

I would say it makes no logical sense that something can come from nothing on its own.

Why? What is your proof?

Do you have an example of “something” appearing out of the philosophical understanding of nothing?

Example? Big Bang. Nothing to something is possible if it does not violate any principle. Big Bang is a very special moment at which there was nothing before. Nothing moves to something without any need for a mover if the motion doesn’t require any force.

 

[STT]

Sorry, it also demands the ontological existence of “ nothing ”.

I can prove that there is no God. There was a beginning, therefore there was a point that there was either nothing or something, by something I mean the material entity.

Your thought experiment of the two universes colliding is interesting, but there is a problem. Take two simple “universes”, one containing one proton and one other one containing one anti-proton and let them collide. The result is not “nothing”. The result is energy (photons) - and it is also not nothing.

You are talking about annihilation of two particles in physical vacuum which is different from nothing. Matter and anti-matter. Positive energy and negative energy. Negative charge and positive charge. Etc.