Something from Nothing! Considerations...

[tas8831]

Yes matter and energy in the Universe cannot be created or destroyed by anything IN the universe.

E=mc^2

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Don't just complain. Star to work on it.
You can start to define: "nothing". Then we will see what could be the next.

If you want to try to build arguments based on definitions of words, be my guest.

BTW: Can you show us any major practical discovery in the world that started with arguing the exact definitions of words?

 

[juvenissun]

If you want to try to build arguments based on definitions of words, be my guest.

BTW: Can you show us any major practical discovery in the world that started with arguing the exact definitions of words?

Normally, an idea does not begin with an exact definition of any terms involved. BUT !, if it is becoming an important idea, then it WILL go back to set a very rigorous definition.

Want an example? There is a knowledge system called petrology. It is VERY IMPORTANT to have a very rigorous definition on what a rock is, right at the beginning. In fact, take a look of any serious study, the chapter ONE is always an introduction of many basic definitions.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Normally, an idea does not begin with an exact definition of any terms involved. BUT !, if it is becoming an important idea, then it WILL go back to set a very rigorous definition.

Want an example? There is a knowledge system called petrology. It is VERY IMPORTANT to have a very rigorous definition on what a rock is, right at the beginning. In fact, take a look of any serious study, the chapter ONE is always an introduction of many basic definitions.

What you miss is that scientific books give actual real evidence that corresponds to the real world right from the first chapter. What you very frequently do is try to build whole arguments on marginal definitions of words with no actual facts at all.

 

[juvenissun]

What you miss is that scientific books give actual real evidence that corresponds to the real world right from the first chapter. What you very frequently do is try to build whole arguments on marginal definitions of words with no actual facts at all.

It is perfect to have a definition without having a fact.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

It is perfect to have a definition without having a fact.

Have you ever considered writing things that actually make sense? You should give it a try sometimes; it can be remarkably effective in debate.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

E=mc^2

mc^2=E

 

[Ophiolite]

Want an example? There is a knowledge system called petrology. It is VERY IMPORTANT to have a very rigorous definition on what a rock is, right at the beginning.

Well, I can certainly agree that a rigorous definition of a rock is a great convenience, but that's all it is. Petrology has several examples of rocks whose definitions have changed signficantly over time, thus demonstrating those definitions are not rigorous. In a couple of instances IIRC the original rock/specimen on which the type was based no longer fits the current definition.

If I'm reading a paper and the authors mention a monzonite and the nature of that monzonite is important to their argument, I don't accept it as a monzonite. I look at their data, which will include a chemical anlysis, and satisfy myself that it is a monzonite, or determine its correct classification.

As I said at the outset, if all authors had always used the same definition of a rock from the outset, it would be easier, but that's all the inconsistencies are - a matter of inefficiency. I think that likely applies to all the science i.e. definitions are a time saving shorthand to encapsulate detailed information in a word, a phrase or a paragraph. They are not the beginning of a scientific investigation. They are an end point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, I can certainly agree that a rigorous definition of a rock is a great convenience, but that's all it is. Petrology has several examples of rocks whose definitions have changed signficantly over time, thus demonstrating those definitions are not rigorous. In a couple of instances IIRC the original rock/specimen on which the type was based no longer fits the current definition.

If I'm reading a paper and the authors mention a monzonite and the nature of that monzonite is important to their argument, I don't accept it as a monzonite. I look at their data, which will include a chemical anlysis, and satisfy myself that it is a monzonite, or determine its correct classification.

As I said at the outset, if all authors had always used the same definition of a rock from the outset, it would be easier, but that's all the inconsistencies are - a matter of inefficiency. I think that likely applies to all the science i.e. definitions are a time saving shorthand to encapsulate detailed information in a word, a phrase or a paragraph. They are not the beginning of a scientific investigation. They are an end point.

If I am not mistaken you seem to be implying that it is the classification of rock as monzinite which might be in error, not the deffinition of monzonite?

If I say Granite, you know what I am talking about precisely because granite has a specific meaning. Otherwise science is lost as anybody can claim any rock is granite without a precise meaning....

 

[Ophiolite]

If I am not mistaken you seem to be implying that it is the classification of rock as monzinite which might be in error, not the deffinition of monzonite?

No, I am stating that the definition of a monzonite has changed over time. Moreover, in petrology the definitions are the classification.

If I say Granite, you know what I am talking about precisely because granite has a specific meaning. Otherwise science is lost as anybody can claim any rock is granite without a precise meaning....

If you say granite I have only the vaguest idea of what you mean, since granite has (and had) multiple meanings and its definitions have changed over time.

As H.H.Read famously remarked "There are granites and there are granites." Are you talking about granites sensuo stricto, or are you talking rather of granitoids and thus include granodiorites and trondjhemites and others? Do you consider the quartzo-feldpsathic extract in migmatites derived via metatexis to be granites, or do you require anatexis to be complete? Are you following the definitions of granites produced by the British Geological Survey, or that of the USGS?

I could go on. In practice, however, if you were a sound geologist, you would either point me to the specific definition you were using (probably excluding or adding a sub-set for the purposes of the present context), but more likely provide a detailed mineralogical, textural and compositional specification. You wouldn't just say, except in the most generic of conversations, this is a granite.

 

[Kaon]

Osho, The Great Zen Master Ta Hui, says “Only nothingness can be infinite; somethingness is bound to be finite. Only out of nothingness is an infinite expanse of life, existence, possible - not out of somethingness. God is not somebody: He is nobody or, more correctly, nobodiness. God is not something: he is nothing or, even more correctly, no-thingness. He is a creative void.

Never for a single moment think that nothingness is a negative state, an absence, no. Nothingness is simply no-thingness. Things disappear, only the ultimate substance remains. Forms disappear, only the formless remains. Definitions disappear, the undefined remains.

The awakening of a buddha is total. In that total awakening there is a luminous awareness surrounded by a positive nothingness. It is not empty, it is overfull. Things have disappeared... and what has remained is inexpressible. We try to express it as blissfulness, as ecstasy, as eternal joy, but these are just faraway echoes of the real thing.”

In the west we try to rationalize nothingness as being Non-Existence but that is not always true. These are often different. Just as when approached with options and urged to make a choice, to NOT choose IS a choice in itself (though not usually an option presented), the lack of thingness does not necessitate non-existence.

A vacuum exists and alleged by many is the epitome of non-thingness (though some Quantum physicists would disagree with that). The Toaists see non-thingness as ultimate utility, and thus something real and useful, where non-existence has no utility or usefulness. On the other hand, most modern materialists cannot even comprehend in this realm of thought, it is comprehensibly beyond their depth, and outside their frame of reference. Because that is so with the materialist does not make the early Toaists incorrect.

Out of what does not appear to be, that which is comes forth, and then disappears back within. Taken to its logical conclusion the ultimate reality is not something we can consider a THING. Things are mere figures against the ground. All that IS (that we perceive as thing) is dependent on how we perceive. How we perceive is dependent on apparatuses that have already come into being. When there were no eyes or ears the Universe still existed. The range in which eyes and ears can see or hear are extremely limited. If or when we can see or hear in ranges beyond the eye and ears present capacity, the Universe becomes something entirely different. There may be color, geometries, or sounds outside of our perceptual construct ability that are no less real. The still limited but wonderful advances in technology and instrumentation prove this to be true. Once in the past we called lifeforms invisible to us spirits and we claimed many of these caused diseases and disorders now we know these true and call them by other names. This does not mean the former observers were not correct. It is a fact that invisible life forms (now some being visible by instrumentation) were causing disease and disorder.

So when philosophers and scientists, and the general public, discuss “nothing” they first must define what it is they are speaking of and agree to the meaning of the terms they are using. Apparently this is almost impossible. So when we discuss the possibility or probability of the something coming from the nothing we are actually discussing if or how the presently knowable arose from the presently unknowable but does not necessitate that the presently unknowable is or was not equally real.

Think about this...

In QFT, vacuum energies are real. Scalar energy is real.

However, it is still foolish to diminish something and glorify nothing. There does not have to be balance. In fact, there is no balance.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I can certainly agree that a rigorous definition of a rock is a great convenience, but that's all it is. Petrology has several examples of rocks whose definitions have changed signficantly over time, thus demonstrating those definitions are not rigorous. In a couple of instances IIRC the original rock/specimen on which the type was based no longer fits the current definition.

If I'm reading a paper and the authors mention a monzonite and the nature of that monzonite is important to their argument, I don't accept it as a monzonite. I look at their data, which will include a chemical anlysis, and satisfy myself that it is a monzonite, or determine its correct classification.

As I said at the outset, if all authors had always used the same definition of a rock from the outset, it would be easier, but that's all the inconsistencies are - a matter of inefficiency. I think that likely applies to all the science i.e. definitions are a time saving shorthand to encapsulate detailed information in a word, a phrase or a paragraph. They are not the beginning of a scientific investigation. They are an end point.

You call yourself Ophiolite. It is an definition to start with.
I don't agree you should be called Ophiolite for a reason. That is an discussion of a definition.
It takes some effort to have an definition (that is your argument). After that, the definition goes first in any follow-up discussion.

Something made of nothing.
Here, "nothing" has been defined. We need to explore what is the definition of that FIRST.

 

[Ophiolite]

You call yourself Ophiolite. It is an definition to start with.

In the context of this forum it is most certainly not a definition; it is a name. It was selected to suggest an interest in geology and in specific branches of geology - specifically igneous petrology and plate tectonics. It also has personal connotation that are irrelevant to forum members. I repeat it is not a definition and has nothing to do with definitions.

I don't agree you should be called Ophiolite for a reason.

You can disagree all you like, it will not alter the fact that I named myself Ophiolite for specific reasons, some of which I have shared above. Are you choosing to call me a liar? Do you insist that I did not have those reasons for adopting that name?

That is an discussion of a definition.

What? That makes no sense.

It takes some effort to have an definition (that is your argument).

At last. It is indeed my argument. Do you agree with it?

After that, the definition goes first in any follow-up discussion.

No. That was part of my point. Often the definition is omitted and context or specification are expected to bring clarity. Often it is changed from previously accepted definitions. Sometimes multiple definitions are brought into play. All in all definitions in petrology are a two edged sword. When used wisely they promote understanding and help develop an argument. All too often they create ambiguity, or (in the presence of detailed specifications) are completely redundant.

Something made of nothing.
Here, "nothing" has been defined. We need to explore what is the definition of that FIRST.

That may be the case. I was specifically addressing your claim in regard to definitions in petrology, where it does not apply. I then noted that I suspect that is true of other sciences.

However, what I suggest you are actually aiming for here is not a definition of "Nothing", but a specification, or even a range of specifications of it in this context. Definitions are too often constraining.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I am stating that the definition of a monzonite has changed over time. Moreover, in petrology the definitions are the classification.

If you say granite I have only the vaguest idea of what you mean, since granite has (and had) multiple meanings and its definitions have changed over time.

In all instances it has become more specific, not broader and less specific. The opposite of evolutionary definitions. Because one is science, the other science- fiction.

As H.H.Read famously remarked "There are granites and there are granites." Are you talking about granites sensuo stricto, or are you talking rather of granitoids and thus include granodiorites and trondjhemites and others? Do you consider the quartzo-feldpsathic extract in migmatites derived via metatexis to be granites, or do you require anatexis to be complete? Are you following the definitions of granites produced by the British Geological Survey, or that of the USGS?

As I said, each one is more specific, not broader in scope.

I could go on. In practice, however, if you were a sound geologist, you would either point me to the specific definition you were using (probably excluding or adding a sub-set for the purposes of the present context), but more likely provide a detailed mineralogical, textural and compositional specification. You wouldn't just say, except in the most generic of conversations, this is a granite.

Ahhh, now you want a speific definition when you were just arguing against specific definitions....

So which is it, would I point you to a specific definition, or one that is broad and general?

 

[juvenissun]

In the context of this forum it is most certainly not a definition; it is a name.

A name has a definition. A definition gives a name.

 

[childeye 2]

Osho, The Great Zen Master Ta Hui, says “Only nothingness can be infinite; somethingness is bound to be finite. Only out of nothingness is an infinite expanse of life, existence, possible - not out of somethingness. God is not somebody: He is nobody or, more correctly, nobodiness. God is not something: he is nothing or, even more correctly, no-thingness. He is a creative void.

Never for a single moment think that nothingness is a negative state, an absence, no. Nothingness is simply no-thingness. Things disappear, only the ultimate substance remains. Forms disappear, only the formless remains. Definitions disappear, the undefined remains.

The awakening of a buddha is total. In that total awakening there is a luminous awareness surrounded by a positive nothingness. It is not empty, it is overfull. Things have disappeared... and what has remained is inexpressible. We try to express it as blissfulness, as ecstasy, as eternal joy, but these are just faraway echoes of the real thing.”

In the west we try to rationalize nothingness as being Non-Existence but that is not always true. These are often different. Just as when approached with options and urged to make a choice, to NOT choose IS a choice in itself (though not usually an option presented), the lack of thingness does not necessitate non-existence.

A vacuum exists and alleged by many is the epitome of non-thingness (though some Quantum physicists would disagree with that). The Toaists see non-thingness as ultimate utility, and thus something real and useful, where non-existence has no utility or usefulness. On the other hand, most modern materialists cannot even comprehend in this realm of thought, it is comprehensibly beyond their depth, and outside their frame of reference. Because that is so with the materialist does not make the early Toaists incorrect.

Out of what does not appear to be, that which is comes forth, and then disappears back within. Taken to its logical conclusion the ultimate reality is not something we can consider a THING. Things are mere figures against the ground. All that IS (that we perceive as thing) is dependent on how we perceive. How we perceive is dependent on apparatuses that have already come into being. When there were no eyes or ears the Universe still existed. The range in which eyes and ears can see or hear are extremely limited. If or when we can see or hear in ranges beyond the eye and ears present capacity, the Universe becomes something entirely different. There may be color, geometries, or sounds outside of our perceptual construct ability that are no less real. The still limited but wonderful advances in technology and instrumentation prove this to be true. Once in the past we called lifeforms invisible to us spirits and we claimed many of these caused diseases and disorders now we know these true and call them by other names. This does not mean the former observers were not correct. It is a fact that invisible life forms (now some being visible by instrumentation) were causing disease and disorder.

So when philosophers and scientists, and the general public, discuss “nothing” they first must define what it is they are speaking of and agree to the meaning of the terms they are using. Apparently this is almost impossible. So when we discuss the possibility or probability of the something coming from the nothing we are actually discussing if or how the presently knowable arose from the presently unknowable but does not necessitate that the presently unknowable is or was not equally real.

Think about this...

The lie exists to subvert the truth, hence the truth was before the lie. The lie usurps from the truth. All things are built upon faith that the Truth is Eternal and the lie is not. Faith is necessary since the temporal cannot ever prove nor disprove the eternal. Some might say that if it were true that there was no truth that would still be the truth. But such a statement is simply obscuring the original meaning through semantics and circular reasoning. If there is no truth then there is no such thing as knowledge thereof, nor does ignorance have any relative meaning.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

"The Great Zen Master Ta Hui" is in aitch.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well what I have perceived so far is that it seems to be ok to have no definitions, unless we want to talk about something specific, that for example the mere term granite would not suffice but I must be more exacting in what type of granite.

So, what type of nothing are we discussing?????

 

[pat34lee]

Since there's nothing outside it, then God/Energy has nothing to worry about.

The laws of thermodynamics prove that energy is running
down, therefore it will not last forever, therefore it could
not be eternal. It had to begin at some point. If the universe
were infinitely old, the energy would have become useless
long ago. The bonds holding atoms together would have
come apart, and all matter would disintegrate. Without
energy or matter, time would mean nothing.

 

[pat34lee]

Your problem is given by the definition you used. It is not good enough.
You defined "nothing" to be the non-existence (of ???)

Thing:
material,
energy,
force,
and ???

thought,
information,
life,
time.