Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Thief]

We believe in causation -- that is, that everything that happens has a cause, or to put it the negative way, nothing that happens can happen without a cause. People this is just a belief. In our world it seems to be the case, but we can't prove it. All sorts of things happen that are mysteries to us. We assume they had a cause but maybe they didn't.

We do know, at least the scientists know and we are wise to accept their long-held consensus, that at the atomic and sub-atomic level this is not quite the case. Given a single uranium atom, we know that at some point it will decay, but without cause. It will just happen. We can't say it is random either because if we have a large collection of uranium atoms, we can predict very exactly how many will decay each second -- just not which ones.

Science!
for every cause there is an effect

God is the Cause and the universe is the effect

 

[Milton Platt]

We believe in causation -- that is, that everything that happens has a cause, or to put it the negative way, nothing that happens can happen without a cause. People this is just a belief. In our world it seems to be the case, but we can't prove it. All sorts of things happen that are mysteries to us. We assume they had a cause but maybe they didn't.

We do know, at least the scientists know and we are wise to accept their long-held consensus, that at the atomic and sub-atomic level this is not quite the case. Given a single uranium atom, we know that at some point it will decay, but without cause. It will just happen. We can't say it is random either because if we have a large collection of uranium atoms, we can predict very exactly how many will decay each second -- just not which ones.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

essence=God?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....

 

[Milton Platt]

We believe in causation -- that is, that everything that happens has a cause, or to put it the negative way, nothing that happens can happen without a cause. People this is just a belief. In our world it seems to be the case, but we can't prove it. All sorts of things happen that are mysteries to us. We assume they had a cause but maybe they didn't.

We do know, at least the scientists know and we are wise to accept their long-held consensus, that at the atomic and sub-atomic level this is not quite the case. Given a single uranium atom, we know that at some point it will decay, but without cause. It will just happen. We can't say it is random either because if we have a large collection of uranium atoms, we can predict very exactly how many will decay each second -- just not which ones.

Pardon the cut and paste, but it was quicker:

A definite ratio of neutron to proton in the nucleus makes the nucleus stable. If the ratio is away from the stability ratio, the nucleus is unstable. In ²³⁵U, 92 protons and 143 neutrons make a ratio 143/92 = 1.554 is away from the required stability ratio which makes it unstable. The required stability ratio is different for different elements and increases with the increase in number of protons (atomic number) of the element.

When an unstable nucleus like ²³⁵U is bombarded with neutrons, it breaks into two or more smaller pieces. This reaction is called nuclear fission. As the stability ratio in smaller pieces is less, it results in some of the neutrons of ²³⁵U getting detached. These detached neutrons can hit other nuclei of ²³⁵U in the mass of uranium causing a chain reaction which has to be controlled in a nuclear reactor for successful reaction.

So it appears we DO know why uranium decays,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We believe in causation -- that is, that everything that happens has a cause, or to put it the negative way, nothing that happens can happen without a cause. People this is just a belief. In our world it seems to be the case, but we can't prove it. All sorts of things happen that are mysteries to us. We assume they had a cause but maybe they didn't.

We do know, at least the scientists know and we are wise to accept their long-held consensus, that at the atomic and sub-atomic level this is not quite the case. Given a single uranium atom, we know that at some point it will decay, but without cause. It will just happen. We can't say it is random either because if we have a large collection of uranium atoms, we can predict very exactly how many will decay each second -- just not which ones.

But you side step the pure logic outlined and resort to anthropomorphism......because humans are born and die...absolute cosmic existence must have been born and will eventually die... haha. The difference is Frank...we are made of stuff that already exists...and when we die, everything returns to it..the same for a bacteria or a galaxy.......but with absolute existence...where can it go to? Haha

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The universe has surprised us many times. At one time, we took time as linear, now we know it is not like that. And we know only 5% of the universe, 95% is still hidden from us. How can we say that physical energy with which we began at the time of Big Bang is indestructible? For all we know, there may be a relationship between existence and non-existence as mentioned in RigVeda 'Nasadiya Sukta". So, let us not make categorical statements. There is a whole lot more to know in future.

That declaration always amuses me. Do we know what is real and what is unreal? I, sincerely, do not know it. I also do not know who is projecting a finite thinking onto the infinite.

This is logic and reason.....one can use the concept non-existence in the relative sense...but not in the absolute sense. You seem to imply that is is possible to have absolute non-existence....in which case this is just another way of declaring that this reality we know as the cosmos...seen and unseen...which is real....can become unreal...to non-exist. This is an absurd position because logic does not support it.....the real comes from the unreal and the unreal comes from the real.. Haha.

 

[Milton Platt]

But you side step the pure logic outlined and resort to anthropomorphism......because humans are born and die...absolute cosmic existence must have been born and will eventually die... haha. The difference is Frank...we are made of stuff that already exists...and when we die, everything returns to it..the same for a bacteria or a galaxy.......but with absolute existence...where can it go to? Haha

What is absolute existence as opposed to some other sort of existence? I know only of one definition of exixtence. Demonstrate what this other kind of existence is and explain how we can test for it to know it is really true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is absolute existence as opposed to some other sort of existence? I know only of one definition of exixtence. Demonstrate what this other kind of existence is and explain how we can test for it to know it is really true.

Meaning not relative...that which is all that is... nothing else exists beside it... You can test it by logic....name something that is not a part of absolute existence....you can't yes? It is simple logic Milton...yes? Existence on the other hand can imply relativity....the galaxy exists...but it once did not...and in the future it will again not exist...but the the underlying absolute existence is unchanging as galaxies, stars, and all forms come into existence and pop back out again... Existence in this context of cosmic manifestation is not absolute..

 

[Milton Platt]

Meaning not relative...that which is all that is... nothing else exists beside it... You can test it by logic....name something that is not a part of absolute existence....you can't yes? It is simple logic Milton...yes? Existence on the other hand can imply relativity....the galaxy exists...but it once did not...and in the future it will again not exist...but the the underlying absolute existence is unchanging as galaxies, stars, and all forms come into existence and pop back out again... Existence in this context of cosmic manifestation is not absolute..

Sorry, but still not getting the point. I also cannot name anyrhing which is not part of normal existence, so how is absolute existence different, then? What has existed always and how do you demonstrate this? Well demonstrate is not a good word. Lay out rhe steps in your logic so I can see how you came to the conclusion. If this based on logic I would like to examine it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but still not getting the point. I also cannot name anyrhing which is not part of normal existence, so how is absolute existence different, then? What has existed always and how do you demonstrate this? Well demonstrate is not a good word. Lay out rhe steps in your logic so I can see how you came to the conclusion. If this based on logic I would like to examine it.

There are things that exist that you know exist....these are a part of normal existence for you...
There are things that exist that you don't know exist...these are a not part of normal existence for you though you know it is possible that such things exist.
There are things that exist that you don't know exist, but you don't know that you don't know...these also are not part of normal existence for you but in this case you do not know it is possible that such things exist..

Absolute existence does not depend on your knowing or not knowing...on your being alive or dead...or anyone and anything ever...it is the same eternally...

 

[Milton Platt]

There are things that exist that you know exist....these are a part of normal existence for you...
There are things that exist that you don't know exist...these are a not part of normal existence for you though you know it is possible that such things exist.
There are things that exist that you don't know exist, but you don't know that you don't know...these also are not part of normal existence for you but in this case you do not know it is possible that such things exist..

Absolute existence does not depend on your knowing or not knowing...on your being alive or dead...or anyone and anything ever...it is the same eternally...

Okay, that's much clearer. I don't think I agree with you that things I do not know exist differently from tnings I do know. Knowing or not knowing does not materially affect the existence of the thing in question. Existence does not depend on me being aware of the existence. If it exists, the fact of it's existence would be true whether I knew of it or not.

I know of no existence that would depend on me being alive, save perhaps my own existence and my thoughts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Knowing or not knowing does not materially affect the existence of the thing in question.

How can we describe a place where no one has gone before? The logic that time is linear is not absolute. So, to apply today's logic for what we may find out in future is wrong. Newton did not know that we will come to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Let us just say that at the moment we do not know, as we do with what happened before 'inflation'. Going beyond that may not correct. Perhaps existence is a phase of non-existence. We will know in future. I subscribe to what our creation hymn said in RigVeda around three thousand years ago:

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay, that's much clearer. I don't think I agree with you that things I do not know exist differently from tnings I do know. Knowing or not knowing does not materially affect the existence of the thing in question. Existence does not depend on me being aware of the existence. If it exists, the fact of it's existence would be true whether I knew of it or not.

I know of no existence that would depend on me being alive, save perhaps my own existence and my thoughts.

But what you call your own existence is an integral part of absolute existence...you and I and all sentient beings are expressions of that existence...some take this responsibility seriously...others say well it's all only a freak accident of cosmos that we exist and developed self awareness from non-self-awareness...and even a bigger freak accident when nothing exploded and created all that is...let's get in for our cut while it lasts... .

 

[Frank Merton]

Pardon the cut and paste, but it was quicker:

A definite ratio of neutron to proton in the nucleus makes the nucleus stable. If the ratio is away from the stability ratio, the nucleus is unstable. In ²³⁵U, 92 protons and 143 neutrons make a ratio 143/92 = 1.554 is away from the required stability ratio which makes it unstable. The required stability ratio is different for different elements and increases with the increase in number of protons (atomic number) of the element.

When an unstable nucleus like ²³⁵U is bombarded with neutrons, it breaks into two or more smaller pieces. This reaction is called nuclear fission. As the stability ratio in smaller pieces is less, it results in some of the neutrons of ²³⁵U getting detached. These detached neutrons can hit other nuclei of ²³⁵U in the mass of uranium causing a chain reaction which has to be controlled in a nuclear reactor for successful reaction.

So it appears we DO know why uranium decays,

I never said we don't know why. It is when I talked about. These boards are a pain sometimes because people read what they think is being said rather than what is actually said.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sure.....I get all that. My point is that we might make assumptions about what happened before there was a universe as we know it, but we can never truly know. As far as something coming from nothing, we cannot even examine "nothing" as a thing, so we cannot really say much about that state, whatever it is. We cannot even point to empty space as nothing because it is still something....it is space, which has qualities which are related to time and energy. So I am not saying something can come from nothing, I'm saying we cannot possible know that in any meaningful way.

Do you think there is such thing as nothing?

 

[Milton Platt]

How can we describe a place where no one has gone before? The logic that time is linear is not absolute. So, to apply today's logic for what we may find out in future is wrong. Newton did not know that we will come to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Let us just say that at the moment we do not know, as we do with what happened before 'inflation'. Going beyond that may not correct. Perhaps existence is a phase of non-existence. We will know in future. I subscribe to what our creation hymn said in RigVeda around three thousand years ago:

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

It is not necessary that we be able to describe a thing for it to exist. Things do not come into existence at the moment we can describe them. There is no logic in that concept at all. Demonstrate to me that you can make something materially begin to exist through the act of describing it.

Logic is used all the time to forcast what may or may not begin to exist or cease to exist. The laws of quantum mechanics are not material things and do not fall into the realm of material existence. But to address your statement, the laws are a set of rules humans devised to describe how matter works on the very small level. Matter worked this way even in Newton's time. The laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. Mater did not start working this way because somebody wrote the laws.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Demonstrate to me that you can make something materially begin to exist through the act of describing it.

Part of my post was for Ben D. What I am saying is that we do not know if existence and non-existence are just phases; and that the universe may have arisen from 'absolute nothing'. There is no example for this other than mathematical possibilities, which many a times turn out to be true. That is a stage where we have not yet reached. Therefore, to say anything for or against it will not be correct. We cannot use today's logic to support or discard it. It is a thing for future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Modern_physical

 

[Milton Platt]

Part of my post was for Ben D. What I am saying is that we do not know if existence and non-existence are just phases; and that the universe may have arisen from 'absolute nothing'. There is no example for this other than mathematical possibilities, which many a times turn out to be true. That is a stage where we have not yet reached. Therefore, to say anything for or against it will not be correct. We cannot use today's logic to support or discard it. It is a thing for future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Modern_physical

I follow.....but phases of what?

 

[Thief]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....

yeah and Sir Frances Bacon might be the author....
hehehehe

I believe in God as the First in mind and heart.
not just a source of energy

 

[Aupmanyav]

I follow.....but phases of what?

Like H2O is water as well as ice. Perhaps the new age will have its own logic with dimensions and manifolds, as we have Relativity and Quantum Mechanics today. I do not mean that it would be like that but who knows?