Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[daniel777]

dble.

 

[MaxP]

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.

That one sentence ruins your ENTIRE theory. Because in nothingness there is no time. If nothingness actually existed, it could not go from nothingness for the mere fact there is no chance for progression due to a lack of time to progress. If time existed, then something existed and there's still the question of where that came from. If nothing existed at one point, it still would. Basic stuff.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Long post, apologies.

actually, the latter is the state of 'no-thing'.

Which would appear to be where our vocabularies diverge. What you call "the state of 'no-thing'" appears to be what I call 'nothingness'.

exactly. . . . and i assumed you meant "nothingness" as well when you said "nothing lacks all restrictions".

that's basically all i was trying to do, show how the statement "nothing lacks all restrictions" is wrong. it's your statement, and isn't that your premise?

My premise is that no thing exists (i.e., we have a state of nothingness), and then pondering what happens next. The 'nothingness lacks all restrictions' follows from that premise.

didn't you claim that nothing lacks all restrictions? if you agree with me on my definitions, then your premise is essentially "nothing is something".

I'm still not sure how you go from the former to the latter: how do your definitions and my premise lead to paradoxical 'nothing is something'?

really? i don't remember any of that?

Well, of course not: if you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

first, my logic is flawed because i'm actually using logic.

As far as I can tell, your logic is specious.

second, my logic is flawed because you say so without any reason...

I have given my reasons in this and other posts. Let us stick to the issue, instead of meta-analysing the thread.

well, i did since you said that "nothing lacks all restrictions"

so nothing doesn't lack all restrictions?

Ostensibly no, but not because of my statement ("But the point is that nothingness is not restricted by anything else because, by definition (and thus beyond mere tautologies), there cannot be anything else.")

and how exactly is that "state" supposed to produce something if nothing is nothing?

in other words, how is the state of lacking all things supposed to produce "something"?

It doesn't: the thing which is produced, produces itself.

nothing as itself is enough to prevent something... where would "something" come from inclusive to "the state of the lack of all things".

It wouldn't come 'from' anywhere, since there isn't any 'where' whence it could come.
Nothingness doesn't produce something, since it doesn't do anything.

your revised premise is that "nothingness lacks all restrictions except the restriction of identity"

I prefer the term 'clarified', since my premise hasn't actually changed.

what you're failing to realize here is that when you say "nothing lacks all restrictions except identity" is that a restriction is an absence.

for instance:
when i say "a rock is restricted from becoming a butterfly". i'm telling you something that the rock cannot do because of what the rock "is not".

the rock "does not" have the capacity to become a butterfly.
the rock is restricted to having the capacity to become a butterfly.

john can not continue running because he hits a wall.
john is restricted from continuing to run because he hits a wall.

so, saying that nothing lacks restrictions is essentially saying that nothing lacks absence.

No. A restriction is neither an absence nor a presence per se, because it is not an extant thing. It is a property of a thing, not a thing unto itself.
A rock cannot become a butterfly because it does not contain a 'bufferfly-ification' property: there is no way for the system to go from being a rock to being a butterfly. There is a restriction inasmuch as what it means to be a 'rock' has certain ramifications. That is, the rock is restricted from being a butterfly because of what it is, not because of what it is not.
Likewise, our friend John cannot run because of a presence (the wall), not because of an absence (some nebulous 'capacity' that ceases to exist).

Basically, a restriction is not a thing itself, not an absence of some thing.

Thus, when I say 'nothingness lacks restrictions', I am refering to the fact that there is no thing which

however, nothing is absence, so nothing cannot lack absence.

Only inasmuch as it makes no sense to 'lack absence'.

labeled out for you:
2 points to understand before the argument:
i. nothingness is a negative term, meaning it's defined by what it isn't. nothingness is the absence of everything.
ii. restriction is also a negative term of sorts, meaning it defines what the object in question can not do, or be.

I'm not sure I'm convinced by this 'negative term', but I'll go with it.

argument:
1. nothingness is the state of absence
2. restrictions are explanations of absences towards the object in question.
3. therefore, since nothingness is the state of absence, nothing has all restrictions.

i'm about to go into more detail with 3, but first do you understand that? let me know if you need me to go over anything.

I disagree that restrictions are explanations: they're statements.

a restriction is firstly an explanation, and since it's an explanation:

3. nothingness doesn't have restrictions in the sense that there is no one their to label them. (this lies on the word "explanation".)
3. nothingness does have restrictions in the sense that there actually are defined restrictions whether we know about them or not, based on the law of identity.

I agree that the laws of logic still apply, but the lack of people doesn't mean other restrictions don't apply. "1 + 1 = 2" is true regardless of whether anyone knows it. Likewise, "nothingness can't not be nothingness" is also true.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The whole issue is irrelevent unless something things about it. Where does the truth value of 1+1=2 exist apart from the mind?

I don't believe it exists at all.

I understand what you are asserting in the abstract, but in real, concrete terms, I don't see even the "truest" of mathmatical equations existing at all apart from a mind to conceive of it.

An interesting worldview. I shall probe you further . What, to you, does it mean for a statement to be 'true'?

I see your point here. While I do believe there is reason to suggest time began with the Big Bang (see Hawkings), there is clearly the philosophical issue of "before the universe." Now, whether asking that question really is like asking "what is north of the north pole?" I don't know. The "before" question creates something of an actual infinite into the past, which I am still grappling with, for I reject the notion that an atemporal being can create anything, let alone a temporal universe and then selectively interact with it. Perhaps it would be most prudent to just say "we don't know."

True, but that doesn't mean we can't ponder.

 

[tcampen]

An interesting worldview. I shall probe you further . What, to you, does it mean for a statement to be 'true'?

A statement is true if it accurately corresponds with reality, or is true by definition.

But statements themselves can't happen apart from a mind.

True, but that doesn't mean we can't ponder.

Pondering is awesome! That's why I'm here.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A statement is true if it accurately corresponds with reality, or is true by definition.

If a statement is true by definition but doesn't accurately correspond to reality (e.g., "1 + 1 = 2"), in what way is it true? What does it mean when we say "1 + 1 = 2" is true?

But statements themselves can't happen apart from a mind.

How does a statement 'happen'? What changes when a mind exists? Do statements exist?

 

[MaxP]

Sorry If i'm cuttin in, but just thought I'd point out:

Ostensibly no, but not because of my statement ("But the point is that nothingness is not restricted by anything else because, by definition (and thus beyond mere tautologies), there cannot be anything else.")

You refer to nothing as something by saying "anything else." You, by treating nothing as something, which you do by giving it ability to become something, give it thus potential, and thus existence. Then it's not nothing. Then we're back to square one. Nothing is nothing is nothing. No existence. No potential, at all, for existence. Not because theres a law telling it that, but because that is simply what nothing is. Nothing.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If a statement is true by definition but doesn't accurately correspond to reality (e.g., "1 + 1 = 2"), in what way is it true? What does it mean when we say "1 + 1 = 2" is true?

"1+1=2" is a true statement in the same way that "murder is morally wrong" is a true statement. It is defined as true by virtue of the very concepts involved in the statement. Mathematics, in a way, is just another language, and as such creates a framework of reference rather than to rely on something that's already there. All language is ultimately self-referential.
The fascinating thing about mathematics is that it seems to be able to describe the physical processes around us more accurately than virtually any other language. Maybe that's because certain patterning processes are hard-wired into our brains in order to render us capable of dealing with the world that surrounds us, and mathematics is the simplest way to vocalize those processes.

 

[mpok1519]

nothingness doesnt exit.

empty space is still something; its empty space.

thats something. hence, not nothing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You refer to nothing as something by saying "anything else."

I don't see how that means I'm referring to nothingness as something. I think I made it clear that there is no thing (hence the name, 'nothingness').

You, by treating nothing as something, which you do by giving it ability to become something, give it thus potential, and thus existence.

I don't give it the ability, since nothingness is not a thing which can be ascribed properties. The point is that the 'something' pops into existence on its own accord; nothingness is just the name we give when nothing exists. We go from nothingness to somethingness, but not because the former enacts some event.

Nothing is nothing is nothing. No existence.

Agreed.

No potential, at all, for existence.

Why?

Not because theres a law telling it that, but because that is simply what nothing is. Nothing.

But you haven't explained why nothingness precludes the possibility of something existing in the future. I accept that, once something exists, we no longer 'have' a state of nothingness. But that doesn't mean some thing can't come into existence spontaneously and without prior cause (as we see in the world today).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"1+1=2" is a true statement in the same way that "murder is morally wrong" is a true statement. It is defined as true by virtue of the very concepts involved in the statement.

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain what 'true' is. Why is "1 + 1 = 2" a true statement, and "1 + 1 = 3" a false one? What is different between the two?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain what 'true' is. Why is "1 + 1 = 2" a true statement, and "1 + 1 = 3" a false one? What is different between the two?

Our mutual agreement that the symbol "3" signifies something that is made up of "1+1+1". "True" is basically synonymous with "in accordance with the agreed-upon definition". It is a way of patterning our sensory input, of "making sense".

 

[R3quiem]

nothingness doesnt exit.

empty space is still something; its empty space.

thats something. hence, not nothing.

As far as the Big Bang goes, evidence shows that it created space as well. Space itself is currently expanding in our universe.

That is, before it, even empty space as you know it may not have existed.

 

[R3quiem]

That one sentence ruins your ENTIRE theory. Because in nothingness there is no time. If nothingness actually existed, it could not go from nothingness for the mere fact there is no chance for progression due to a lack of time to progress. If time existed, then something existed and there's still the question of where that came from. If nothing existed at one point, it still would. Basic stuff.

I think it's somewhat awkward to try to form definitive arguments about whether something could or could not have formed prior to the Big Bang.

With our current technology and understanding, anything that occurs prior to the Big Bang is speculation. Did nothingness exist? Possibly. Did our universe exist in some other form prior to the Bang and caused it to come into existence? Possibly.

Time as we know it began with the bang, but that doesn't mean things couldn't progress under a different time stream or under a different manner. It's all just speculation until a theory can be proven with evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Our mutual agreement that the symbol "3" signifies something that is made up of "1+1+1". "True" is basically synonymous with "in accordance with the agreed-upon definition". It is a way of patterning our sensory input, of "making sense".

So, truth by definition simply means 'this thing is the same as that thing'?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As far as the Big Bang goes, evidence shows that it created space as well. Space itself is currently expanding in our universe.

What evidence shows that the Big Bang created space?

That is, before it, even empty space as you know it may not have existed.

Perhaps, but the truth is we don't know what, if anything, happened before the Big Bang.

 

[MaxP]

I don't see how that means I'm referring to nothingness as something. I think I made it clear that there is no thing (hence the name, 'nothingness').

More of a word game, actually. You said "anything else," implying there is something.

I don't give it the ability, since nothingness is not a thing which can be ascribed properties. The point is that the 'something' pops into existence on its own accord; nothingness is just the name we give when nothing exists. We go from nothingness to somethingness, but not because the former enacts some event.

Once a thing has the possibility to become something, it has potential. Potential is an inherent property of existence(name something existent that does not have potential), and since potential can only be realized by progression, there has to be at least something to progress from. IS there a law telling nothing this? Yes, the fact that it is nothing and by its nature a comparative state(we have know something to know nothing). So the laws of something govern nothing simply because the laws of something govern something.

Agreed.


Why?

Because potential is an inherent quality of existence. If it does not exist, it does not have potential. If it exists, it has potential.
If nothing has potential, it is not nothing but simply potential something. Like a hunk or marble is not "not a statue," but "potentially a statue." But with that potential is implied the ability to become, which makes it existent.

But you haven't explained why nothingness precludes the possibility of something existing in the future. I accept that, once something exists, we no longer 'have' a state of nothingness. But that doesn't mean some thing can't come into existence spontaneously and without prior cause (as we see in the world today).

Well, to address your last statement, us observing things without apparent causes has two problems, one being that we could simply not understand this universe of ours completely(we don't), and thus be missing the cause, and another thing is that the apparent causelessness only occurs in certain environments. Which means, as far as any observed or theorized causelessness is concerned, existence is a prerequisite.
I believe I answered your first couple sentences above.

 

[R3quiem]

What evidence shows that the Big Bang created space?

Perhaps, but the truth is we don't know what, if anything, happened before the Big Bang.

Well, from what I know and the physics classes I've taken, physicists generally understand that the Big Bang created space itself.

That is, they can observe that space itself is currently expanding.

The three main evidences that the Big Bang even occurred are:
1. Space is expanding
2. Cosmic Background Radiation
3. Small atoms making up most of the universe

So, it's not like there is evidence that shows the Big Bang created space. More specifically- space is expanding, and if extrapolated along with the evidence, shows that it must have come from an infinitely small point. So the fact that space is expanding is evidence of the Big Bang, not the other way around.

 

[mpok1519]

As far as the Big Bang goes, evidence shows that it created space as well. Space itself is currently expanding in our universe.

That is, before it, even empty space as you know it may not have existed.

Its a funny concept; when we think of the big bang we see this colapsing star in our minds, collapsing, and contracting until a giant explosion of existence....but, hat existed, outside of that collapsing mass known as the universe?

 

[R3quiem]

Its a funny concept; when we think of the big bang we see this colapsing star in our minds, collapsing, and contracting until a giant explosion of existence....but, hat existed, outside of that collapsing mass known as the universe?

I'm not sure where you're getting the collapsing star from... the big bang is not theorized to be anything like a super nova (an exploding star).

It's a general misconception that the big bang happened somewhere in the universe. But as the theory suggests, it happened everywhere in the universe because space sprang from the bang. As this following article calls it- it was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.

Misconceptions about the Big Bang: Scientific American