• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?

mystery secret riddle

  • Please log in to reply
442 replies to this topic

#1 Bubbles

  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:32 AM


So, why is there something instead of nothing? I find this as the ultimate question, because we realize that after all endless debates, well eventually look at the last resort, which is a GOD, someone or something that our minds aren't created to understand. I'm not sure if not yet or never, but I know I won't be here living to find the answer of this question. And this question can go even deeper and resume itself as a loop, as the answers lies in the question, but we can't see it. Why is there a GOD and the universe instead of nothing at all?

 

Yes, I know about that ultra-resumed answer about this, that " 'nothing' is unstable".  And 'nothing' is a very catchy word. We confuse ourselves.. nothing" is a word that usually describes the missing of something in that place we look before saying the 'nothing'. But in fact, nothing or nothingness doesn't not exist, paradoxically in their meaning, but "nothing" is not something real.

 

So I could assume as well that the question is and will always be wrong. It always was and is, something.



#2 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:13 PM

The wording of this question makes some major presumptions; "Why is there a GOD and the universe instead of nothing at all?" for example. Asking what exists and whether a god exists or even could exist might make more sensible questions. It might be very tempting to resort to solipsistic responses and deny the existence of anything outside of my own experience, but that goes nowhere, so I won't. We need more information.

What do you mean by "nothing"?

What do you mean by "something"?

What do you mean by "god"? Have you read the other topics on this subject and seen the range of views and ideas? 

For example,do you mean "nothing" in the common use sense of a total absence of anything at all, or do you mean something more like the scientific notion of the quantum vacuum?


  • Agree x 1

#3 Bubbles

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:10 PM

You have a good point tho.

 

By 'nothing', I refer to the total absence. However it's very hard to unlearn something that's so integrated in our way of perceiving: think of time - it's very hard to realize that we invented time for multiple reasons, but time itself does not exist, we only 'create' it when we measure it. So, we create something when it's being measured. How can 'nothing' be measured then? It can, when you are the one who decides what a second or an hour means, thus we can see that time is an artificial invention, to help us keep track and organize ourselves and find out more about the world we live in etc. That being said, it only resumes to the way we perceive certain things, as a proof that you asked me if I mean 'nothing' as a total absence or the quantum vacuum effect; sure, you wanted to clarify that, but most (all) people, even geniuses, don't mind about analyzing if certain 'truths' are something they should involve in certain equations, yet they do because they (we) perceive many things as an incontestable truth that are part of us.

 

Total absence does not exist. this statement, is full of paradox because we perceive it like that. it is logical in our mind that for anything, there must be an opposite. good vs bad, up vs down, rich vs poor.. so one would assume that if there is something, then at some point, it was/could be nothing, given that something (existence) is the opposite of "nothing" (total absence).

 

The truth is in our every day life, yet we never see it because we already accept that what we know is good, and that we need to know, what we don't, when in fact the irony of it is that we might ask the wrong questions (think of... how fast can a cat fly?). And now, think of a world where all people would wonder all their life how fast can that cat fly, since they never saw it. They don't consider the obvious answer and fact that a cat's body is not made for flying, but they still want to know how fast it can fly on its own. This example can be perceived a bit retarded, but it has its point with what I'm constructing in here.

 

Tell your companion to look in a drawer and get you your car keys, assuming it's not there already. Most of the times, your companion will say that it is nothing in there. So even if he refers to the fact that your car keys are not in that location, he subconsciously agrees that 'nothing' is in that drawer. So by that, he gives life to a 'nothing', that is becoming an ultimate truth, because he wouldn't be looking 4 times in 1 minute at the same drawer in case the keys appeared and 'nothing' went away. The same way as the ultimate truth that we will eventually die, that an hour has 60 minutes, that if we drink water we won't be as thirsty.. and so on, the very same way "nothing" is created in our mind and is being considered as "something". 

 

And when we look again at this question, why is something instead of 'something', we realize that we are making the wrong question (e.g. how fast can a cat fly).

 



#4 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:13 PM

Bubbles, if you believe in gods, then you'll never been able to rationally approach this question.


  • Agree x 1

#5 Bubbles

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:27 PM

Bubbles, if you believe in gods, then you'll never been able to rationally approach this question.

 

I said the GOD thing because I didn't wanted to have a change of topics, because I would've expect someone to say that God created us all from 'nothingness' and so on, entering into a new discussion. My question isn't really about if God or a so called engineer exists in this universe, if it made us or the universe or simply lives with us or it doesn't exist at all.

 

My talks are basically about the pure nature of the question, something as the whole thing and beyond, or (and by saying OR I just made the error in creating a question with errors)



#6 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:12 PM

This video gives some thoughts on this topic, and I've read the author's follow-up book on the same topic.

 

From empty space it's pretty easy to have a universe emerge, and it appears to be a zero-sum event.  But from true nothingness (in which not even the laws of nature exist) the question cannot be answered.  But perhaps such true nothingness has ever been the situation.  We are trained to believe in time, and a past, but that may not be how nature actually works.  (In fact, I strongly believe time is not fundamental to nature.  The universe makes a lot more sense if time is an illusion, and we live in a constant now.)

 

But the bottom-line is that we may never know the answer to that question, unfortunately giving fuel to religious systems to create supernatural answers.

 


  • Well Written x 1
  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#7 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:34 PM

Bubbles: "Total absence does not exist."  I would agree with this.  I think the issue is the contingent aspect of the world, don't you.  Only a contingent existence may not exist.  But a non contingent existence could always exist.  From truly nothing, nothing comes.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#8 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:15 AM

Bubbles: "Total absence does not exist."  I would agree with this.  I think the issue is the contingent aspect of the world, don't you.  Only a contingent existence may not exist.  But a non contingent existence could always exist.  From truly nothing, nothing comes.

 

I would agree that total absence does not exist. It is the absolute negation of existence, so it does not exist now. Could it ever have existed? I doubt it. If it had existed it is hard to see how existing things could have come about. The quantum physicists' nothing is a different story, though how it came about is another in the infinite regression of questions, but at least answers have been proposed as to how our existence arose from it ( as Lawrence Krauss above). The god-answer answers nothing as it is untestable. 

 

As for time being an illusion; if everything and all events, exist simultaneously, then time travel is theoretically possible. If, on the other hand there is a succession of states of the universe, we can say that time is that procession, and our perception of time is generated by memory from a proposed "time-stamping" of memory events. ( Damasio and others)


Edited by johnross47, 22 July 2014 - 09:16 AM.


#9 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:38 PM

Regarding time being an illusion, what is meant by this is that there is no time particle or field, or time feature of nature.  Time is merely change.  Things change, decay, have cycles, etc, and we've measured that change by inventing the concept of time.  But time is not a fundamental feature of reality.  It's hardwired into our thinking, though, so it's a very difficult concept to abandon.

Not all things exist simultaneously, btw.  And the lack of time explains why time travel has not happened (travelers from our future).  Quite simply, there's no time to travel through.  It's a total red-herring.


  • Agree x 2

#10 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:43 PM

Regarding time being an illusion, what is meant by this is that there is no time particle or field, or time feature of nature.  Time is merely change.  Things change, decay, have cycles, etc, and we've measured that change by inventing the concept of time.  But time is not a fundamental feature of reality.  It's hardwired into our thinking, though, so it's a very difficult concept to abandon.

Not all things exist simultaneously, btw.  And the lack of time explains why time travel has not happened (travelers from our future).  Quite simply, there's no time to travel through.  It's a total red-herring.

 

OMG read my posts on this thread please!

 

http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=657777



#11 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:10 PM

Addx, seems like we have very similar thinking on this.

My thinking is not original, there are a growing number of physicists who have warmed up to the idea that time is not a feature of nature.  Einstein, near the end of his life, wrote a few letters to colleagues expressing this same view.

 

In my opinion, time is entirely counter-intuitive, and unnecessary to the existence of the universe.


  • Agree x 1

#12 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:01 PM

Yet the universe we know is continually changing into something it was not in time.  Movement.



#13 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:40 PM

Addx, seems like we have very similar thinking on this.

My thinking is not original, there are a growing number of physicists who have warmed up to the idea that time is not a feature of nature.  Einstein, near the end of his life, wrote a few letters to colleagues expressing this same view.

 

In my opinion, time is entirely counter-intuitive, and unnecessary to the existence of the universe.

Like a lot of these concepts there are (at least) two distinct ways of using the word time. Time as a thing doesn't exist, as explored in several posts above, but time as a human experience generated by memory of previous states, which is what most people mean by the word, is real, in the sense that the memories exist. Time is an illusory creation of memory. Things change, but there is no non-spatial dimension or medium in which they change. 



#14 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:07 PM

Addx, seems like we have very similar thinking on this.

My thinking is not original, there are a growing number of physicists who have warmed up to the idea that time is not a feature of nature.  Einstein, near the end of his life, wrote a few letters to colleagues expressing this same view.

 

In my opinion, time is entirely counter-intuitive, and unnecessary to the existence of the universe.

 

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this, makes me feel less insane :)



#15 Bubbles

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:37 PM

Do you think that over 10 000 years, we will have a better answer? Given the fact that we entered an era of an avalanche of information, maybe with time, more theories will appear to connect more dots.


  • Good Point x 1

#16 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:34 AM

 

Addx, seems like we have very similar thinking on this.

My thinking is not original, there are a growing number of physicists who have warmed up to the idea that time is not a feature of nature.  Einstein, near the end of his life, wrote a few letters to colleagues expressing this same view.

 

In my opinion, time is entirely counter-intuitive, and unnecessary to the existence of the universe.

Like a lot of these concepts there are (at least) two distinct ways of using the word time. Time as a thing doesn't exist, as explored in several posts above, but time as a human experience generated by memory of previous states, which is what most people mean by the word, is real, in the sense that the memories exist. Time is an illusory creation of memory. Things change, but there is no non-spatial dimension or medium in which they change. 

 

 

Can you have memory without time?
 



#17 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:56 AM

 

Addx, seems like we have very similar thinking on this.

My thinking is not original, there are a growing number of physicists who have warmed up to the idea that time is not a feature of nature.  Einstein, near the end of his life, wrote a few letters to colleagues expressing this same view.

 

In my opinion, time is entirely counter-intuitive, and unnecessary to the existence of the universe.

 

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this, makes me feel less insane :)

 

You are alright



#18 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:17 PM

 


 

Can you have memory without time?

 

 

Of course.

 

Just because we live in a constant state of now, does not mean that things cannot change, including our memory.

 

This is the crux of the difficulty in understanding the idea of no time:  "Time" is so fundamental to our experience that we've based our lives around it.  Everything still changes and evolves, thinks to energy inputs (like stars), and thanks to entropy.  Change happens, but doesn't need time to happen.  But it's the fact that things change that lead to us creating the concept of time.


  • Agree x 1

#19 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 11:44 PM

 

 


 

Can you have memory without time?

 

 

Of course.

 

Just because we live in a constant state of now, does not mean that things cannot change, including our memory.

 

This is the crux of the difficulty in understanding the idea of no time:  "Time" is so fundamental to our experience that we've based our lives around it.  Everything still changes and evolves, thinks to energy inputs (like stars), and thanks to entropy.  Change happens, but doesn't need time to happen.  But it's the fact that things change that lead to us creating the concept of time.

 

A memory means things have changed.  Time is how fast they change.  If things change it  is not now.  I drove from one city to the next at 50 miles AN HOUR.  How old is the cosmos?  "Now," is the answer?  In theology, "now," can be an answer but if the physical world is all there is, the answer is something like 13.8 billion years, give or take a billion.



#20 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 24 July 2014 - 02:32 AM

Perhaps there has always been something and never an abscense of anything.

 

Maybe all the 'stuff' around now existed in a different state before the 'big bang'

 

I cant logically conceive of a state where there was a total abscense of anything at all. As in nothing. No matter, no energy, nothing.

 

We ask the universe is 'x' billion years old and what was before that? I say the universe is timeless, it is not an age that can be measured in linear time. What was before the universe? That question is like trying to understand how to divide by 0. The premise is totally illogical.

 



#21 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 24 July 2014 - 02:25 PM

 

 

 


 

Can you have memory without time?

 

 

Of course.

 

Just because we live in a constant state of now, does not mean that things cannot change, including our memory.

 

This is the crux of the difficulty in understanding the idea of no time:  "Time" is so fundamental to our experience that we've based our lives around it.  Everything still changes and evolves, thinks to energy inputs (like stars), and thanks to entropy.  Change happens, but doesn't need time to happen.  But it's the fact that things change that lead to us creating the concept of time.

 

  I drove from one city to the next at 50 miles AN HOUR.  

 

Not really, you moved from one city to the next while a clock needle moved 360 degrees.

 

 

 

Now you simply replace "clock needle moving 360 degrees" with "1 hour" and voila, you have "time".

 

You can equaly replace your drive from city to city with "1 hour" and say it the other way around: that the clock needle takes "one drive from one city to the next" to complete 360 degrees rotation.

 

Can you see that "time" is just an exchange currency in a way required to express intensity of motion in a dualistic fashion (meters per second).

 

Because in our typical human frame of reference relative speeds are low, the dualism makes math easier and intuitively fits with how we experience the world.

 

But, if you are a photon, time and space are completely interchangeable. You can express any "distance" to an object with a single dimension, time or space. You can say that it takes light one second to get there or 300 000 meters to get there. And you've said a completely identical thing.

 

 


Edited by addx, 24 July 2014 - 02:31 PM.

  • Agree x 2

#22 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 July 2014 - 05:57 PM

There are plenty of articles and books that talk about this...

 

 

Newsflash: Time May Not Exist

http://discovermagaz.../jun/in-no-time

 

 

Is Time an Illusion?
http://www.scientifi...me-an-illusion/

 

 

There is No Such Thing As Time
http://www.popsci.co...such-thing-time

 

 

Admittedly, it's a super hard concept to wrap your head around, and people who do not get it will of course throw out examples like miles-per-hour and memory and radiation decay and other examples that they sincerely believe support the idea that time is a fundamental feature to nature.


Edited by DukeNukem, 24 July 2014 - 05:57 PM.

  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#23 Lewis Carroll

  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 July 2014 - 07:23 PM

 

 

Not really, you moved from one city to the next while a clock needle moved 360 degrees.

 

 

 

Now you simply replace "clock needle moving 360 degrees" with "1 hour" and voila, you have "time".

 

You can equaly replace your drive from city to city with "1 hour" and say it the other way around: that the clock needle takes "one drive from one city to the next" to complete 360 degrees rotation.

 

Can you see that "time" is just an exchange currency in a way required to express intensity of motion in a dualistic fashion (meters per second).

 

Because in our typical human frame of reference relative speeds are low, the dualism makes math easier and intuitively fits with how we experience the world.

 

But, if you are a photon, time and space are completely interchangeable. You can express any "distance" to an object with a single dimension, time or space. You can say that it takes light one second to get there or 300 000 meters to get there. And you've said a completely identical thing.

 

 

 

There are plenty of articles and books that talk about this...

 

 

Newsflash: Time May Not Exist

http://discovermagaz.../jun/in-no-time

 

 

Is Time an Illusion?
http://www.scientifi...me-an-illusion/

 

 

There is No Such Thing As Time
http://www.popsci.co...such-thing-time

 

 

Admittedly, it's a super hard concept to wrap your head around, and people who do not get it will of course throw out examples like miles-per-hour and memory and radiation decay and other examples that they sincerely believe support the idea that time is a fundamental feature to nature.

 

I seem to share a similar view as the two of you (Duke and adxx)

 

Have either of you heard of Robert Lanza or his theory of Biocentrism?

 


Edited by MajinBrian, 24 July 2014 - 07:24 PM.


#24 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:25 PM

MajinBrian:  But, if you are a photon, time and space are completely interchangeable. You can express any "distance" to an object with a single dimension, time or space. You can say that it takes light one second to get there or 300 000 meters to get there. And you've said a completely identical thing.
  Speed is the time it takes to overcome distance. (move)  The photon is not where it was.  At its speed it can be predicted where it will be.  However we are completely off topic.

#25 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:30 PM

 

 

 

 


 

Can you have memory without time?

 

 

Of course.

 

Just because we live in a constant state of now, does not mean that things cannot change, including our memory.

 

This is the crux of the difficulty in understanding the idea of no time:  "Time" is so fundamental to our experience that we've based our lives around it.  Everything still changes and evolves, thinks to energy inputs (like stars), and thanks to entropy.  Change happens, but doesn't need time to happen.  But it's the fact that things change that lead to us creating the concept of time.

 

  I drove from one city to the next at 50 miles AN HOUR.  

 

Not really, you moved from one city to the next while a clock needle moved 360 degrees.

 

 

 

Now you simply replace "clock needle moving 360 degrees" with "1 hour" and voila, you have "time".

 

You can equaly replace your drive from city to city with "1 hour" and say it the other way around: that the clock needle takes "one drive from one city to the next" to complete 360 degrees rotation.

 

Can you see that "time" is just an exchange currency in a way required to express intensity of motion in a dualistic fashion (meters per second).

 

Because in our typical human frame of reference relative speeds are low, the dualism makes math easier and intuitively fits with how we experience the world.

 

But, if you are a photon, time and space are completely interchangeable. You can express any "distance" to an object with a single dimension, time or space. You can say that it takes light one second to get there or 300 000 meters to get there. And you've said a completely identical thing.

 

 

I like the point about the maths. It's a useful convention that makes it easier to compare some aspects of events. You can put time on the graph as one dimension and it gives you a yardstick against which you can say that while one series of events went through 40 changes and another went through 200, using a comparison that at least appears meaningful to others. That doesn't mean it's real. 



#26 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:31 PM

DukeNukem:  There are plenty of articles and books that talk about this.

 

There are also lots of other media.  So...what is the point?  You have shown there is no time, even though everything you do is in it.  Is there a dualistic reality?


  • Ill informed x 2

#27 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:35 PM

A clock measures time it does not create it.


  • Disagree x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#28 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:06 PM

A clock measures time it does not create it.

 

 

It doesn't measure time. It just rotates at an observed steady pace. 


  • Agree x 3
  • Good Point x 1

#29 Lewis Carroll

  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:31 PM

A clock measures time it does not create it.

 

Time is an illusion.

 

Time is a (human) creation used for our animistic understanding / linear way of thinking. 

 

Clocks are simply devices which implement some sort of consistent and countable repetition. 


  • Agree x 1

#30 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 24 July 2014 - 11:32 PM

 

A clock measures time it does not create it.

 

 

It doesn't measure time. It just rotates at an observed steady pace. 

 

At one second (measurement) at a TIME.  It does measure time.  What TIME is it?  It does not cause time any more than a speedometer causes speed.


Edited by shadowhawk, 24 July 2014 - 11:34 PM.

  • Ill informed x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mystery, secret, riddle

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users