Theory of Nothingness

[randomman]

What are your thoughts on this theory to explain origin of big bang ... that's before big bang?

 

[Hnefi]

What theory is that? Do you mean the hypothesis that the big bang - or the singularity that preceded it - appeared ex nihilo? Well, I think it's an interesting hypothesis but that it holds no particular value as it seems to be unfalsifiable. When someone figures out a way to test the hypothesis, I'll be interested.

 

[randomman]

What theory is that? Do you mean the hypothesis that the big bang - or the singularity that preceded it - appeared ex nihilo? Well, I think it's an interesting hypothesis but that it holds no particular value as it seems to be unfalsifiable. When someone figures out a way to test the hypothesis, I'll be interested.

it attempts to answer what happened before big bang .... the only logically valid explanation is nothingness. and then it goes on defining nothingness. so nothingness is not really nothing. it is no-thing, in the sense that this universe is thing.

google Roger Ellman The origing and its meaning

i found his arguments fascinating

they are similar to islamic belief in God

 

[Hnefi]

I don't know who Ellman is. Why don't you post the arguments you find most convincing and we'll discuss that?

For instance, you say there had to be nothingness before the big bang. Why? There is nothing inherently illogical about the concept that there has always been something.

 

[quatona]

it attempts to answer what happened before big bang .... the only logically valid explanation is nothingness.

Care to outline the logic with which you (or whoever says so) arrive at this conclusion?

and then it goes on defining nothingness. so nothingness is not really nothing. it is no-thing, in the sense that this universe is thing.

Sounds like he first made an argument without defining the keyterm, and then went on surprising everyone with a funny definition of the keyterm. That´s not how a good argument works.

 

[The Nihilist]

it attempts to answer what happened before big bang .... the only logically valid explanation is nothingness.

Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory#Big_Bang_Theory

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Nothingness has only really been viable in Sartre's phenomenology. =(

 

[randomman]

The theory of nothingness is a general theory in philosophy. It tries to consolidate and bring together science and religion.

I specifically referred to that person because i found is arguments very interesting.

you can google "nothingness theory" for other views by other philosphers.

from our religious point of view ... nothingness is God ... that is God is unlike anything that exists in our world

 

[Eudaimonist]

What are your thoughts on this theory to explain origin of big bang ... that's before big bang?

If there was "nothing" before the Big Bang, there wouldn't even be time "before" the Big Bang. The whole subject of nothingness preceding the Big Bang is utterly meaningless and invalid. I don't think that one can meaningfully speak of anything before the origin of spacetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[randomman]

If there was "nothing" before the Big Bang, there wouldn't even be time "before" the Big Bang. The whole subject of nothingness preceding the Big Bang is utterly meaningless and invalid. I don't think that one can meaningfully speak of anything before the origin of spacetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

we are not talking about a world of our fantasy. we are talking about a real world that we live in. if it started at some point, what was before that point? there must be an answer. because the world exists for real.

nothingness is the only logically valid answer and potentiality of time and space are attributes of nothingness. that nothingness is not constrained by space and time.

 

[Hnefi]

You keep asserting that, but has yet to offer any kind of convinving argument to support it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

if it started at some point, what was before that point? there must be an answer. because the world exists for real.

Yes, the world exists. And nothingness is nonexistence. To speak of a time "before" existence is to speak nonsense, because time is something that applies to existence.

nothingness is the only logically valid answer and potentiality of time and space are attributes of nothingness.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for nothingness to have attributes. Only entities can have attributes, and that is how we recognize that they are entities. As Aristotle said, "to be is to be something". It is in virtue of the possession of attributes that we say that an entity exists. No attributes, no entity, nonexistence.

What you are doing is saying that nonexistence is not nonexistence at all, but rather a form of existence that possesses attributes. And that just pushes the problem of explaining the universe back a mysterious step.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[peter22]

Yay ultimate contingency. Seriously, I'll just say the human mind can't comprehend nor even articulate pre-big bang very well, which leads to the confusion we have here. "Oh nothing eh?" doesn't mean a big vacuum with a really heavy ball of singularity in it. It means nothing.