|
|
| Pages (3): [1] 2 3 next » |
|
 The existence of all things explained at last. |
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| User Profil |
Message:
 | composed: 31-10-2021 10:39 |
 |
|
|
|
People often wonder why things exist. It is really very simple.
First of all, people falaciously assume that "nothingness" - or "non-existence" - is the natural state. Hence we get questions like "How can something come from nothing?"
Well, it just can't, can it.
If something cannot come from nothing, and we have evidence to show that there is something, then we must conclude that something has always existed and does not require an origin.
The fact that people are born and die seems to have lead to the idea that something must have come from nothing, just as we ourselves seem to have come from nothing. Well, the fact is you didn't come from nothing, and anyway you should stop imposing the facts of your own tiny existence onto the canvas of the entirety of Existence.
The second question is, if we accept that Something exists (which it does) and that it did not come from Nothing (which it simply bloody didn't) then what is that Something and why should It exist instead of some Other thing?
One could argue that God chose this Something (our Universe) to exist. However, as an Something, God hisself has to be brought into exist before God can be the Chooser, thus begging the question "Who chose God to Exist then?"
Actually, it does not make sense that Something should exist and not Some Other Thing. Therefore, what exists is Everything, where everything is Everything That Could Possibly Exist. ETCPE, being a wholesome encompanyment of Infinity, is also the perfect opposite of Oblivion, or the Nothingness that we stupidly assume Something must have come from.
While it makes no sense that Something should exist rather than Some Other Thing, it also doesn't wash that Infinity should exist instead of Oblivion, without something to choose between them. Or does it? Hang on, another way to describe Oblivion is Non-Existence: and Infinity, being the ultimate, uncensored expression of what can possibly exist, is better decribed as Existence; that which Exists.
With nothing to choose which is better to exist between Oblivion and Infinity, we have to assume that they both exist at once. Well, Non-Existence, by it's very nature, doesn't exist. Also, Oblivion doesn't take up any room, leaving plenty for Infinity to stretch it's legs in. You can also consider that One plus Zero equals One (1+0=1) and therefore, if Infinity and Oblivion both exist, added together they equal only Infinity.
The number One is a good representation of Infinity because, in this argument, Infinity is the ultimate Whole Number. Our universe, every part of it, and we ourselves, are expressible by the value 1/Infinity, which is to say that we are all of equal value and should stop squabbling over bits of dirt and who gets the faster cars. Our Universe is not the ultimate expression of Infinity, only 1 of them, suggesting that there must be an infinite number of universes. Also, God would have to exist as well. I came up with all this when I was high back in 1995.
Discuss.
I deserve money, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 11-08-2021 01:46 |
|
|
Break Man
|
|
|
|
| Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
| If something cannot come from nothing, and we have evidence to show that there is something, then we must conclude that something has always existed and does not require an origin. |
Unfortunately most any other scientific law dictates that there must be an origin, displacement, and destination, for just about any given thing. For things as elementary as motion, to the reproductive cycles of any given life form. This is why it is theorized that there had to be a beginning to the universe, as thus far we've yet to behold conceptual creation of anything that was 'already there'.
This, of course, is just another way to theorize things. As it's simply judging in relativity to what we already know. (Which isn't always a good thing, I will admit. Although the theory of relativity has helped significantly in the science of physics.)
| quote: |
| With nothing to choose which is better to exist between Oblivion and Infinity, we have to assume that they both exist at once. |
The difference between "space" and "matter", per se? This would actually not mean a thing in regards to either argument, whether you believe there could never have been a "beginning" or if there was a "beginning". But it's still a very interesting way to conceptualize the universe.
For one, if we have Oblivion and Infinity existing at once, then it still allows the theory that the Universe is ever growing. (A theory proposed by studying how galaxies tend to drift away from one another so oddly.) Simply that infinity is slowly outstetching itself to encompass Oblivion. Although this would essentially mean that there must be a central focal point that must be continuing to "create" matter in this Universe. (Unless you do not believe that the universes mass would eventually collapse, in which case the creation of more and more matter in our universe could have stopped long ago.)
Unfortunately, despite both your and mine observations, no possible conclusion can be made. If you argue about God, then people will simply say "God" always existed, in which case goes to show that at least your theory works. That while the matter around us may not have simply "always existed", something out there genuinely has, in order to manipulate everything from creation of "infinity" to the law of physics it follows.
... Oh, and hello again everyone. Sheesh, this forum is so dead now. >_<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 11-08-2021 09:58 |
|
|
Thepal 
|
|
|
|
| Location: Gold Coast, Australia |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Original von Break Man
If you argue about God, then people will simply say "God" always existed, in which case goes to show that at least your theory works. |
*blinks*
Bah. That actually makes sense. *grumbles* Well... I s'pose as long as I don't help the religious people with their argument I can still argue with them <_<
Not that I don't believe in God (not that I do either). I just like arguing.
Hmm... So, these are my current "possibilities":
1. God has always existed, and is the "infinity"
2. The universe is in an infinite loop, and therefore something always exists beforehand
3. Everything exists at once (ie, time doesn't matter, it's just a part of our perception)
-==Thepal==-
"We have nothing to do with the mass of men, we two. We walk across the many worlds; by our actions, entire nations crash down or are saved from death." - Mors Gotha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 16-08-2021 13:24 |
|
|
Break Man
|
|
|
|
| Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
In regards to point #1:
If god truly has always existed, then what is his perception of time? If he is infinite, then why does his principles seem to change when regard the Old and New versions of the Bible? Does that not indicate the power of change over time?
In such a case, even if something is infinite, it could still be under the everpowerful constant of change over time. I mean... This would make sense, if everything in the universe has always existed, and can still shape and mold into different things, then time must have some meaning in some sense. Even if it cannot be used to dictate an actual "age" to the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 17-08-2021 07:22 |
|
|
Thepal
|
|
|
|
| Location: Gold Coast, Australia |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Original von Break Man
In regards to point #1:
If god truly has always existed, then what is his perception of time? If he is infinite, then why does his principles seem to change when regard the Old and New versions of the Bible? Does that not indicate the power of change over time? |
Ah, but you see, point 3 could be used to answer that. Time is something from our perception, and as infinity he would be outside time.
As for Old and New testament, that could be a failing of man. Only thing I can think of is that Jesus isn't really the son of God, since he preaches peace and love, and God tells people to KILL KILL KILL!!! <_<
| quote: |
| In such a case, even if something is infinite, it could still be under the everpowerful constant of change over time. I mean... This would make sense, if everything in the universe has always existed, and can still shape and mold into different things, then time must have some meaning in some sense. Even if it cannot be used to dictate an actual "age" to the universe. |
But being infinite, it exists outside of time, and therefore cannot change as it always is as it always was, because what it was is what it is always. >_> <_<
-==Thepal==-
"We have nothing to do with the mass of men, we two. We walk across the many worlds; by our actions, entire nations crash down or are saved from death." - Mors Gotha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 23-08-2021 16:03 |
|
|
aubergine
|
|
|
|
| Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
Thread Starter 
|
|
| quote: |
Original von Break Man
Unfortunately most any other scientific law dictates that there must be an origin, displacement, and destination, for just about any given thing. |
Observable scientific law applies to this universe, but it doesn't explain it. For example, we learn that elements react together in a certain way, and call that a law, but it does not explain why they react that way, it's just an observation of what is, and that is governed from our perspective. To come to the conclusions I have tried to convey in the first post, you pretty much have to ignore yourself, humanity, the world and the entire universe. Shouldn't be hard for gamers.
| quote: |
| The difference between "space" and "matter", per se? |
No. Under my definitions, what we call "space" qualifies as something. It exists. Perhaps it only exists as something relative to something else, or perhaps it exists as something which simply isn't anything else, but it is not oblivion.
The stuff about oblivion is more to challenge our preconceptions of how things must be, that there must be a beginning, and therefore there must have been nothing. It's bullshit, its not true. Something can't come from nothing, there's another explanation.
You need to be thinking more about this universe as a concept, not as the hard matter you experience it as. Don't go thinking you might suddenly turn into a teapot or something, but I don't think that reality is really so hard and fast as we like to think. I don't think that's mysterious, there's logical reasons for it, and it's not possible for us, in our form, to directly observe the workings of our universe and the workings behind our universe.
I deserve money, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 03-09-2021 17:52 |
|
|
Break Man
|
|
|
|
| Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
| The stuff about oblivion is more to challenge our preconceptions of how things must be, that there must be a beginning, and therefore there must have been nothing. It's bullshit, its not true. |
Either that, or it could be true. Emphasis on "could". It seems you are favoring the opposing extreme to the scientific theory of relativity, in which things cannot be what we "think" they may be. Whereas the theory of relativity explains this away quite simply.
Our current science revolves around relativity, and any educated scientist will make that clear to anyone. That is to say, that what we know, teach, and explore, can only be regarded from the perspectives we have. And while our place in the universe becomes clearer, oh so gradually, and our relative perception becomes slightly broader, I have sore doubts we will survive to see the day of a true enlightenment to this universe.
That said, the concept of "Oblivion" begins to lose focus. Because it needs to be relative to something. In this case, it's relative in time. Therefore, Oblivion becomes a thing, a thing of the past in time, relative to what we have now in time.
| quote: |
| Something can't come from nothing, there's another explanation. |
Ah, but isn't that a presumption on the same ground as when scientists claim that something did come from nothing? After all, you're once again relying on basic, elementary, perception of what we see, feel, and touch. We've never observed a true creation or destruction of matter. Simply change. And from this extremely tiny speck of the universe we've explored, to presume that such is not possible because we have not seen it demonstrated is just as bad as to claim it must have happened.
| quote: |
| I don't think that's mysterious, there's logical reasons for it, and it's not possible for us, in our form, to directly observe the workings of our universe and the workings behind our universe. |
Sounds a bit like an oxymoron, though. If we cannot understand it, then "mysterious" could not be more appropriate. The universe is currently a huge mystery to us all. Even if there is a logic to it, until that logic is studied, mapped, and understood, then it is utterly mysterious in every sense of the word.
At least, in regards to relativity. Otherwise, if you truly want to view things in such a broad manner, not via relativity to something conscious like you, me, or even a possible omnipotent (Like God), then "mysterious" loses it's meaning entirely.
| quote: |
| For example, we learn that elements react together in a certain way, and call that a law |
Wrong. There are no scientific "laws" in regards to how elements combine and react together. Sure, when you combine Element A with Element B, you get Element C. But that's not written as a law. Just as a result, an expectation. An expectation that is never written in stone due to the external possibities that could've interfered to make Element C. Which is why some of the most mundane elements are studied, experimented on, re-experimented on, again and again. Simply put, because such things have far too many factors, too many unseen influences, to ever be regarded as a "Law". Thus they are written, re-written, revised, and even thrown away completely due to mere experimentation.
True scientific laws are changed very, VERY, rarely. These include, and are not limited to, Newton's laws of motion. And as such, these laws function very separate from "elements", and are not things we learn, per se. They are methods we use for the purpose of learning, studying, and understanding the universe more.
Think of scientific laws as something more of a path... They remain a thing of relativity, of course. But they can always expand in time, when it comes to understanding more.
Of course, you can still argue this path is a dead end. As you're still using one concept to understand another concept, which is utterly incapable of recreation with our current understanding. But I just wanted to point out that scientific laws are not explanations, but rather means to get explanations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 05-09-2021 16:04 |
|
|
aubergine
|
|
|
|
| Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
Thread Starter
|
|
| quote: |
Original von Break Man
| quote: |
| The stuff about oblivion is more to challenge our preconceptions of how things must be, that there must be a beginning, and therefore there must have been nothing. It's bullshit, its not true. |
Either that, or it could be true. Emphasis on "could". It seems you are favoring the opposing extreme to the scientific theory of relativity, in which things cannot be what we "think" they may be. Whereas the theory of relativity explains this away quite simply. |
Relativity regards the relationships of matter, time and energy within the observable confines of this universe. But all our scientific theories and calculations break down regarding infinity. Relativity has no relevance to the idea of a before and after of the universe - all of our laws and observations break down under those circumstances.
| quote: |
| quote: |
| Something can't come from nothing, there's another explanation. |
Ah, but isn't that a presumption on the same ground as when scientists claim that something did come from nothing? After all, you're once again relying on basic, elementary, perception of what we see, feel, and touch. We've never observed a true creation or destruction of matter. Simply change. And from this extremely tiny speck of the universe we've explored, to presume that such is not possible because we have not seen it demonstrated is just as bad as to claim it must have happened. |
If there's a presumption there it's that mathematics is valid and that logic is absolute. For a state of oblivion to have existed , without cause, and for it have suddenly changed state to the universe, again without cause because there can be no cause or effect in a true state of oblivion, is preposterous. If you can't see that, there's no much chance of getting anywhere.
It makes more sense to say that the Universe always existed and changes state over time, but even that is not the whole story as it doesn't explain why the universe should have these particular attributes that we observe it does.
Mathematics remains absolute though. 5 pieces of fruit remain five pieces of fruit no matter what your reality is like, but some universes might not have apples.
| quote: |
| quote: |
| I don't think that's mysterious, there's logical reasons for it, and it's not possible for us, in our form, to directly observe the workings of our universe and the workings behind our universe. |
Sounds a bit like an oxymoron, though. If we cannot understand it, then "mysterious" could not be more appropriate. The universe is currently a huge mystery to |
Poor wording. I mean it in the sense of knowledge unattainable, indeciperable, supernatural or otherwise defying maths and logic. Like Spontaneous Generation, if you're familiar with that.
| quote: |
| quote: |
| For example, we learn that elements react together in a certain way, and call that a law |
Wrong. There are no scientific "laws" in regards to how elements combine and react together. Sure, when you combine Element A with Element B, you get Element C. |
No you don't. Different elements can combine to make molecules, materials and substances, but the elements themselves do not change in such reactions.
What I mean is why should an atom with x protons, neurtons and electrons have these wildly different attributes that an atom with x+1 protons etc. It's like when you are programming a game and you call Item00001 a sword and Item00002 a shield, it's as if the actual nature of atoms is just some arbitrary catalogue system for attaching rulesets to.
I deserve money, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 25-09-2021 18:54 |
|
|
Break Man
|
|
|
|
| Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
| If there's a presumption there it's that mathematics is valid and that logic is absolute. For a state of oblivion to have existed , without cause, and for it have suddenly changed state to the universe, again without cause because there can be no cause or effect in a true state of oblivion, is preposterous. If you can't see that, there's no much chance of getting anywhere. |
I see what you mean. But the idea of it being "prepostrous" is what I find to be the presumptuous part.
Considering the nature of oblivion is clearly beyond us, then certainly we can't say that it's "prepostrous" by any means beyond the theory we present and assume. It's prepostrous, of course, to assume that the Universe had started within the exact definitions we present by saying: "First there was nothing. No matter, light, or darkness. Just nothing. Then suddenly there was!" It's a weak argument, no doubt about it. Because all you're really doing there, is simplifying down a much more complex theory. (Kinda like an abridged novel, things are left out that are essential for the overall idea.)
With your example, you're saying oblivion is essentially "0". And since "0" is across the board, nothing could possibly be formulated to become anything else. My attitude, is that you're making a judgement on something based on the fact that the theory is presenting that suddenly, through some strange force beyond our mathematics, that the "0" had become something else. Whereas I feel that it isn't quite "0" changing into "1" without any formula to cause it, but rather there being an equation involving oblivion in the nature of our universe that we cannot replicate.
Kinda like current scientific laws compared to those centuries ago. We cannot simply explain such things yet with what we know currently. Which is why I will reserve all judgement regarding "prepostrous" theories.
| quote: |
| What I mean is why should an atom with x protons, neurtons and electrons have these wildly different attributes that an atom with x+1 protons etc. It's like when you are programming a game and you call Item00001 a sword and Item00002 a shield, it's as if the actual nature of atoms is just some arbitrary catalogue system for attaching rulesets to. |
Never quite saw it that way, but then again, I never got into programming much. 
I suppose it could make sense. But then again, the slightest difference in just about anything causes a chain reaction that results in a wildly different outcome than undisturbed. A single change in many types of mathematical formula, even if you just add a 1 somewhere in there, could possibly result in an equation far beyond that you would recieve otherwise. In such a case, it may not be quite as much a catalogue system, as it is simple math. Besides, we're still in the theorizing/hypothesizing/conjectural stages with atoms. The concept behind the electron's orbital pattern alone has changed often enough that no school I ever went to could keep up with it. So as far as I'm concerned, there's still a significant amount of data behind study at the atomic level that we're simply unaware of at the moment, and therefore a bit dangerous to assume it's just the absence/presence/addition/removal of an extra proton that makes all the difference.
| quote: |
| Mathematics remains absolute though. 5 pieces of fruit remain five pieces of fruit no matter what your reality is like, but some universes might not have apples. |
Of course, if you were to assume a universal, potentially omniscient, perspective.
If I lay 5 pieces of fruit down on the table, side by side, in a straight line, and look at it from the top down, then I see 5 pieces of fruit. You, however, look at it from the side, and if you were to assume all the fruit were the exact shape and size, you would only see one fruit.
This is also assuming I did not inadvertently stack more than one fruit on top of another. In which case, your perspective changes and mine does not. If the fruit closest to you is stacked, you see two. But if one or more fruit behind it is stacked, you see two, with the potential of at least one more. Thus causing the question, just what exactly is raising that fruit up? Should we assume it's another fruit? Maybe I stacked it on a raised portion of the table? Maybe it's a veggie? It's data unknown to you completely, but at least you have the question. From my perspective in that case, I see absolutely nothing different from the top angle, (Assuming I don't notice the height difference, but I bet you know exactly what I mean.
) therefore no question to be answered and no extra data to the equation. I only see 5 fruit, and that's it.
That's why I feel nobody can truly say "5 pieces of fruit will always be 5 pieces of fruit". You have no idea what's behind, inside, or just plain out of sight of them. At best we can say that we've "observed and noted" 5 pieces of fruit.
And that's why I feel that simply saying oblivion = 0 and nothing can come from that is presumptuous. It's probably a much better idea to say: "If nothing can come from 0, then maybe oblivion isn't 0 after all." Although that would certainly be redefining our perspective of "oblivion", it's still a matter of relativity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 30-09-2021 16:45 |
|
|
aubergine
|
|
|
|
| Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
Thread Starter
|
|
| quote: |
Original von Break Man
That's why I feel nobody can truly say "5 pieces of fruit will always be 5 pieces of fruit". You have no idea what's behind, inside, or just plain out of sight of them. At best we can say that we've "observed and noted" 5 pieces of fruit. |
jesus dude, five pieces of fruit are five pieces of fruit, regardless of whether they are being looked at by some kind of perspectively challenged person or not. I'm not looking at the pieces of fruit right now, I'm just telling you that there's five pieces of f*cking fruit.
This is the part of the conversation where it gets quotable on humour sites.
| quote: |
| And that's why I feel that simply saying oblivion = 0 and nothing can come from that is presumptuous. It's probably a much better idea to say: "If nothing can come from 0, then maybe oblivion isn't 0 after all." Although that would certainly be redefining our perspective of "oblivion", it's still a matter of relativity. |
The point at which oblivion ceases to be empty is the point at which it ceases to be oblivion. You can't just change the definition of it on the fly to argue a point.
I don't think it (oblivion) exists - it neatly ties in that non-existence should not actually exist anyway. The point was and still remains that any philosophy or argument based on the idea that something had to come from nothing is fallacious, if you prefer that to "preposterous."
I deserve money, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
