How everything got here from nothing - the answer you have never heard of before, I bet!

[ecman51`]

The String Theory?

Let's forget for a moment about the actual details how it got here and what it is made up of, and first concentrate on why it is even here, and if it makes sense that it should be here.

There is the age-old argument that you can't get something from nothing. (Although a Dr. Huth has theorized that is exactly what DID happen - Discover Magazine article, from some years back).

But here is my elementary education level take on it all:

Something very important, that has been overlooked, I think. ( I haven't read about it any way). If I told you something was hot, on what basis would you believe me? There is one answer; you have to have something cold to compare it to! Compared to cold, you then can have hot. Okay, without further explanation along these lines: Peace-war, love-hate, hard-soft, cold-hot, straight-crooked, thin-thick, up-down, in-out, over here-over there, shiny-dull, pretty-ugly, smooth-coarse, empty-full, etc., etc., etc., for everything. This is how we can define anything in existance! - by opposites. Without a comparative opposite we would not be able to label the first thing! Scientists forgot this one, I think!

Therefore, you cannot even HAVE nothingness, without somethingness! They both co-exist and always had to have, because there could never have been nothing. Because to even say it was nothing is something! I'm serious. Therefore, scientists IMO are wrong, and there was always the building blocks for our universe out there, or in there, or whereever.

Therefore - scientists I think need to rethink how everything got here, because I'm convinced, by my philosophical rationalization, that there always had to be something to go with the nothing, just like there is for all the other stuff I listed.

Stephen Hawking (and anyone else) - what do you think?

 

[TJ73]

Neutral

 

[Penumbra]

The String Theory?

Let's forget for a moment about the actual details how it got here and what it is made up of, and first concentrate on why it is even here, and if it makes sense that it should be here.

There is the age-old argument that you can't get something from nothing. (Although a Dr. Huth has theorized that is exactly what DID happen - Discover Magazine article, from some years back).

But here is my elementary education level take on it all:

Something very important, that has been overlooked, I think. ( I haven't read about it any way). If I told you something was hot, on what basis would you believe me? There is one answer; you have to have something cold to compare it to! Compared to cold, you then can have hot. Okay, without further explanation along these lines: Peace-war, love-hate, hard-soft, cold-hot, straight-crooked, thin-thick, up-down, in-out, over here-over there, shiny-dull, pretty-ugly, smooth-coarse, empty-full, etc., etc., etc., for everything. This is how we can define anything in existance! - by opposites. Without a comparative opposite we would not be able to label the first thing! Scientists forgot this one, I think!

Therefore, you cannot even HAVE nothingness, without somethingness! They both co-exist and always had to have, because there could never have been nothing. Because to even say it was nothing is something! I'm serious. Therefore, scientists IMO are wrong, and there was always the building blocks for our universe out there, or in there, or whereever.

Therefore - scientists I think need to rethink how everything got here, because I'm convinced, by my philosophical rationalization, that there always had to be something to go with the nothing, just like there is for all the other stuff I listed.

Stephen Hawking (and anyone else) - what do you think?

I've seen some religions assert that before.

The breakdown of your particular assertion of it is that you're confusing the ability to define something with the ability of that same thing to exist. Nothingness can exist, but of course it wouldn't be able to be identified as nothingness. If nothingness were the case, its inability to be defined wouldn't bring something into existence just for the sake of definition.

 

[connerb]

still does not explain where the something and nothing came from or how they started

 

[outhouse]

it did not start from nothing

what you need to understand in roughly 14.6 billion years ago is a long time to go back and piece something together

the matter didnt magically appear like creationist want to pretend happened.

all the space and the universe was created from the big bang, what was the catylist we dont know. it could have been a big massive black hole that exploded.

its all guesses really but the sharpest minds the world has are working on it. we are developing science right now to help work the math out.

we are at the infancy of our understanding for the universe give them time there working on it lol

onething is for certain there was not a mythical being that said magically "poof" there it is!

 

[outhouse]

not really a religious debate

it will probably get moved lol

 

[emptybe]

Check out the hermetic principle of Polarity.. Right along the same lines as this I think

 

[ecman51`]

onething is for certain there was not a mythical being that said magically "poof" there it is!

One thing certain is it is UNcertain. Otherwise there'd be no debate in all this. Ummmm.....if you get right down to brass tacks, didn't the Big Bang supposedly go "POOF!" ?

 

[outhouse]

One thing certain is it is UNcertain. Otherwise there'd be no debate in all this. Ummmm.....if you get right down to brass tacks, didn't the Big Bang supposedly go "POOF!" ?

we dont know what the catylist was but i can state with %100 certainty that nothing magically appeared and all the matter and space didnt come out of nothing.

14.6 b years is a long time to map out the past



I understand the string theory slightly but it has more to do with time and the bending of space then creation of matter.

 

[outhouse]

Scientists forgot this one

there to brilliant to miss anything. Its our grasp on it that is lacking to the math at hand.

Therefore, you cannot even HAVE nothingness, without somethingness!

I agree but what your forgetting is were two demensional beings in a 3 [or more] demensional world

 

[ellenjanuary]

Ah, no. You know something is hot because you get burnt. And if you're smart, you know not to do it again. I ain't too smart. Anyway, you know something is cold because you get burnt. Wha? Yeah, kinda; frostbite is kind of a burn, only worse. Moving on... there is a temperature scale called Kelvin, which uses the same size degree as Centigrade, only zero K is -273 (and some change, .15 I think) degrees C. So, blood runs around 310 K; too much lower or too much higher, ain't gonna be good for the human whose blood this is. But this scale starts at a theoretical number called absolute zero; and goes all the way up to big. Thing is, however; it is a measurement of energy. And there is no - as yet determined - absence of energy. So... fail.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Blends of extremes.

There is no Hot or cold.
No something or nothing.
or
How or how not things came around.

We view this as so only because we "exist" that way.

 

[Thief]

And this is posted under religious debates, and no one seems to think God had something to do with it.

Neither did I see the word...'void'.

All things have a beginning...including the universe....'one word'....

The real mystery is to think when there is nothing to think about.

In the beginning...."I think,therefore I am"...
would be something more than a casual statement.

More like a 'big bang'.

 

[freethinker44]

Compared to cold, you then can have hot. Okay, without further explanation along these lines: Peace-war, love-hate, hard-soft, cold-hot, straight-crooked, thin-thick, up-down, in-out, over here-over there, shiny-dull, pretty-ugly, smooth-coarse, empty-full, etc., etc., etc., for everything. This is how we can define anything in existance! - by opposites. Without a comparative opposite we would not be able to label the first thing! Scientists forgot this one, I think!

Therefore - scientists I think need to rethink how everything got here, because I'm convinced, by my philosophical rationalization, that there always had to be something to go with the nothing

This isn't a science issue, it is a language and perception issue.

Hot/cold, up/down, in/out, left/right, and even something and nothing - none of these things actually exist. They are all human constructs, created by humans to help humans understand human problems. All of their definitions depend on some subjective perception of them, more specifically some subjective human perception of them.

The universe wasn't built for us, we weren't even built for the universe, we were built to survive in the universe and we don't even do that very well.

 

[Civil Shephard]

Hi all... I found this thread by searching the word nothingness. I've my own pet theory of nothingness as the birth place of I AM. My theory asserts that nothingness was an infinite and eternal void where time and space have no meaning other than using infinity and eternity to help describe nothingness. In my theory I like the name God gave to Moses... I think of I AM as the original awareness of being.

So to me it is a question of being and non-being.

I've no theological education but from a young age I remember thinking of nothingness and infinity a lot. As a 5 year old I remember asking God if he were between me and the ceiling of the room I was supposed to be taking a nap in. Nothingness defined itself in my mind as that space betwixt me and the ceiling. As I got older I played off and on with this sensation and as a result of reading too many sci-fi novels even wrote a few short stories on the subject.

Anywho... I'm rambling. I will look around more for an appropriate thread on this. My feeling is simple I believe... that I AM is the original awareness of being and that nothingness may well have been the womb of our creator.

 

[tumbleweed41]

In order for there to be "something", there has to be space and time for it to exist in.
In order for there to be "nothing" there has to be space and time for nothing to exist in.
Before the rapid expansion and cooling of the "Big Bang", space and time did not exist.
Therefor speculating on the "before" and "what" in the absence of space/time is theoretically imposable.

 

[bobhikes]

The String Theory?

If I told you something was hot, on what basis would you believe me? There is one answer; you have to have something cold to compare it to! Compared to cold, you then can have hot. Okay, without further explanation along these lines: Peace-war, love-hate, hard-soft, cold-hot, straight-crooked, thin-thick, up-down, in-out, over here-over there, shiny-dull, pretty-ugly, smooth-coarse, empty-full, etc., etc., etc., for everything. This is how we can define anything in existance! - by opposites. Without a comparative opposite we would not be able to label the first thing! Scientists forgot this one, I think!

what do you think?

The problem is opposites are man made and don't exist in reality. Hot is a temperature that exceeds a tolerance. Cold is a temperature that exceeds a tolerance. They are both temperatures. Same as everything else you mention and not only that but worse the tolerance varies. When is something shinny(reflectivity of light) when is it dull(reflectivity of light) is there a range where it is neither. Pretty and Ugly I would like to see you come up with a valid standard of each that anyone else but you would agree to.

Opposites don't really exist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Indeed. Heat is energy. Cold is the absence of heat. When you remove all heat, you get absolute zero. (−459.67°F). There is no lower temp., because there is no more heat to be removed.

Similarly, light is merely particle/waves of visible radiation. In the absence of such light, there is dark. Not an opposite of light, just the absence of it.

 

[bobhikes]

Why does nothing have to exist. It curently does not exist why did it ever have to exist. Whose to say that something has existed forever and will continue to exist forever. I'm going with some form of energy not matter.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Why do people assume that there was originally "nothing" in the first place? it's entirely possible that there was always something and the universe is just that somethings current form. I believe that people just can't wrap their heads around the concept of something lacking a beginning.