Hi
am not very good at getting my thoughts out in words so all i can do is try my best
I want to bring up the issue of nothingness.I cant comprehend this concept at all.
For instance every thing that has a start has an end and everything that can be described has width and height and depth.
so there for the universe must have a begining and an end and so must all space and time and when it ends there will be nothing.
but how can there be nothing.nothingess cant be described as the colours white or black or any colour and it cant be described as spaciaus or small because by describing nothingness we are making nothing into something becuase if you can describe it it becomes an object or concept or theory which makes it something.
and before the universe was made and when there was nothing in the begining.how could there be nothing?
you cant describe it and if it is nothing how does it make something by becoming something it must have been something becuase nothing cant make something.
for instance to have a baby there first need to e people to make it and then when its made it can also make babys when delveloped enough but if there wasnt anyone to make babys how was there ever the first baby?
another example if the universe before it was made never had a single atom how is there now millions
heres another idea. if the universe can be described it the has hieght width and depth.which means unless it is a sphere it becomes an object floating in some exterior matter just like our galaxy floats in the universe.
i m not very good at describing what i think cause somethings are incomprhensiable to describe
anyways some oppinions would be good
thanx
Hi,
A lot questions being asked there but all of them have the same feeling of intensity.
Something had to have existed before our universe came into being, otherwise we will spend the rest of our time in a chaotic feeling struggling to understand what cannot be understood. My own experiences have show me some large scale stuff, like our Universe having a boundary, a membranous like skin enclosing the Bubbleverse. I saw and experienced other bubbleverses that are exterior to our's. I began to understand something from the interactions I was witnessing. When two bubbleverses touch they set off a massive amount of energy, enough easily for a big bang scenario, which then creates baby-verses. Each one of those grows and expands as it matures. Because of this perception I began to consider that each bubble-verse may be a being in it's own right, getting born, growing and learning..... which it must do if it has awareness, and, itmust have awareness because all animated life is self-aware. So if we are portions of this bubbleverse, creations within it by itself then it has awareness too.
Just my 2.5 cents worth for inflation
thank you for your reply.
what is a bubble verse?
what is a baby verse?
when the to bubble verses touch and let out the energy do they destruct themselves or be destroyed or simple just create another babyverse.
when people mention the big bang they usally mention it as if it was a destructive force rather than appriciating the life it gave them and the creation.
although at one point in time there would of had to been nothing?do you agree?
Yes, but based on our current understanding of Science, it would actually be IMPOSSIBLE for nothing to give birth to a property that can have the definition of something. The Big Bang is a proven fact, but something must have set it off. Whether it's a creator, or another Universe, we might not ever know.
For the creator argument, you can say that he would be timeless and does not consist of our form of matter so he wouldn't be affected by anything.
For the other Universe argument, you could say that perhaps, matter was squeezed out of a wormhole from another Universe? And maybe it has different laws than ours so we would never be able to know exactly how that happened.
I think this video may be a somewhat scientific explanation of what Tayesin is talking about:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3014_06.html
ok then we cud look at it from a diffrent point of view
lets forget about what was here before this whole universe and plane was made and what will be after and instead think of it in terms of perception
when man and all forms of perception is eradicated from these planes (if ever) then there would be nothing because with no one to percieve it how can it be any thing.my wall doesnt know any thing exsists out side of it coz its not alive and it doesnt know that the floors connected to it coz its not alive
and so both my floor and my wall have no relation becuase they have no perception coz there not alive.
so when man and all means of perception goes this universe goes with it becuase then it is just floating rocks n mud n spheres of gases.
so in do you agree that would be the equivalent of nothing?
also it would be timeless becuase time is a man made concept
time is what man uses to mesure so we can get an idea of how long.
of course the planets take orbit and night becomes day but none of that is time all of that is natural courses that just happen but when man put measurements on it does it become time.
so do you agree with out perception it would also be timeless?
Maybe not if the universe is a conscious being with perception. It might not need man's perception to exist. Maybe it's just nice enough to let us perceive a little bit.
thats true i never thought about it like that
but if it was concious why doesnt static objects strike us down when we do things wrong to them such as when we spit on the ground,
but on they otherhand mabye global warming and other catastophys like cyclones is the worlds concious way of gettting us back for been nasty lmao
Quote from: Fourthdimension on June 09, 2009, 16:54:38
thats true i never thought about it like that
but if it was concious why doesnt static objects strike us down when we do things wrong to them such as when we spit on the ground,
but on they otherhand mabye global warming and other catastophys like cyclones is the worlds concious way of gettting us back for been nasty lmao
Hi 4-D. I didn't read all the answers so please forgive me if I say things you already know.
First, space isn't empty. Because of perception we tend to think that space is a form of 'nothingness', but scientists have found that 'vacuum' is actually a thing. They even have differentiated the vacuum that's in the universe (I think they call it 'excitable vacuum or something like that') which is not nothingness.
So you can say that nothingness does not exist, because all that exists is something, including space. Mind blowing but follows a certain logic.
And, the Big bang theory doesn't say there was 'nothing' before the big bang- it says that there was no timespace, but near-infinite energy. Since there was nonlocal energy, it wasn't 'nothing' - it was 'something nowhere'. Only sounds like nothing, because it was nothing like what we have now.
Sorry if it didn't clarify.
Concepts are interesting that way.
:-)
hi cft thank for your reply
what is vacum?
do you agree that at one point in "time" there could have been nothing after all you have to start from something small to get something more developed and even that will be big compared to the "biological or energetical construction" of the small-big object lol?
but on they other hand. you cant make gold from nothing if you could we'd all be rich so how can nothin make something?
but also if theres never been nothing how can there have always been something?
thanx
Quote from: Fourthdimension on June 10, 2009, 16:53:01
hi cft thank for your reply
what is vacum?
From ol' wiki:
"A vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty," but in reality, no volume of space can ever be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept that is never observed in practice. Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space" in this context, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum. The Latin term in vacuo is also used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum.
...
In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is defined as the state (i.e. solution to the equations of the theory) with the lowest energy. To first approximation, this is simply a state with no particles, hence the name.
Even an ideal vacuum, thought of as the complete absence of anything, will not in practice remain empty. Consider a vacuum chamber that has been completely evacuated, so that the (classical) particle concentration is zero. The walls of the chamber will emit light in the form of black body radiation. This light carries momentum, so the vacuum does have a radiation pressure. This limitation applies even to the vacuum of interstellar space. Even if a region of space contains no particles, the cosmic microwave background fills the entire universe with black body radiation.
...
More fundamentally, quantum mechanics predicts that vacuum energy will be different from its naive, classical value. The quantum correction to the energy is called the zero-point energy and consists of energies of virtual particles that have a brief existence. This is called vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum fluctuations may also be related to the so-called cosmological constant in cosmology. The best evidence for vacuum fluctuations is the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
Quotedo you agree that at one point in "time" there could have been nothing after all you have to start from something small to get something more developed and even that will be big compared to the "biological or energetical construction" of the small-big object lol?
Not necessarily. If time began existing, it's because space began existing. Once there was a point in which something could exist, all the energy then tried to exist in that one point. Only the point wasn't large enough for the amount of energy we're talking about, hence << BANG>> and then whoosh. So yes, it sounds like you're describing entropy (or something like it) but I'm not sure if the word 'nothing' ever applied here.
Of course, I really don't know nuthin', this is only theory.
Quotebut also if theres never been nothing how can there have always been something?
Define 'always'. For 'always' time is a factor, but I'm talking 'before time'.
Quotethanx
You're welcome, I think.
:-D
lol thats mind boggling cft :-D]
well what was before the point of exsistence? lol
so vacuum is baiscly never empty becuase energy is always on the move. i think thats what he meant.
lol i just ramble on alot lmao sorry
lol thanx for helping
To simplify your question (OP) is basically like asking,
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
yh lol ur right
Quote from: Fourthdimension on June 10, 2009, 19:56:41
lol thats mind boggling cft :-D]
well what was before the point of exsistence? lol
Non- existence. :lol: Or I Don't Know. Take your pick. :lol:
Quoteso vacuum is baiscly never empty becuase energy is always on the move. i think thats what he meant.
Sort of. The possibility of particles is always there provided you put in the energy. I can use a simple (and outdated) model to explain it, but some 'real' particle physicist would probably come in and accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, which is true. :lol:
But I like to think of these things anyway. :-P :lol:
Quotelol i just ramble on alot lmao sorry
So do I so no worries.
Quotelol thanx for helping
Well I wouldn't go
that far. :-D
lol i think that non exsistence is mind bogggling lmao at the minute i cant really think of much else to ask or say about nohingness but i ll have a think when am wide awake and let you know
thank again
see ya
well I was thinking that nothingness could be explained by thinking of what it is like when you go to sleep and wake up and can't recall any dreams.
Quote from: Fourthdimension on May 25, 2009, 19:18:10
i m not very good at describing what i think cause somethings are incomprhensiable to describe
I hate it when you ask someone what they're doing and they respond with "Nothing"... because NO!! You're not doing nothing... even if you were dead, you're still doing something. You're being dead. ;)
In any case... trying to describe something that is incomprehensible and impossible to describe is kind of a waste of time. Wouldn't you agree? ;)
As humans we'll never understand the idea of "nothingness". At least not using our very limited language and ideas.
I don't know- I like to think and sometimes discuss, when the mood strikes me, of things that make no sense- makes life more interesting.
A lot of Eastern religions pose unanswerable questions to meditate on in an effort to bring about a certain experience.