we do not exist!

[Fr0st2k]

nothing can be created from nothing so 0 + 0 +++++++++0 = 0, always

also...nothing could, "always be". looking at zeno's theory, expand that. instead of a starting point there is a -infinity starting point(not a real point). So thus living "forever" would not allow you to progress into the future. .(see "god cannot live forever")

so we cant exist in the form we believe we do...its impossible.

 

[Dragar]

But I agree that does not necessarily imply something from nothing. But it certainly suggests there is a definite uncertainty about even what is normally considered 'nothing' (a vacuum).

Regardless, I see no reason to think spacetime cannot have existed forever (by which I mean, time has existed for all time).

Dragar

 

[smog]

How about this: there has never been nothing.

Problem solved.

 

[Dragar]

How about this: there has never been nothing

I find this amusing.

'There has never been nothing' is equivalent to saying 'there has never been a point in time when nothing has existed'.

Some would argue that spacetime is a 'something'. Let's go with that for a moment, and remove spacetime from your sentence.

'There has never been a point in time where time has not existed'.

Which is obviously a tautology.

Looking at the other view, that spacetime is not a 'something', quantum mechanics applies, and the above principle comes into play. Which makes it very tricky to talk about a definite time when nothing existed at all.

Dragar

 

[Ondoher]

nothing can be created from nothing so 0 + 0 +++++++++0 = 0, always

also...nothing could, "always be". looking at zeno's theory, expand that. instead of a starting point there is a -infinity starting point(not a real point). So thus living "forever" would not allow you to progress into the future. .(see "god cannot live forever")

so we cant exist in the form we believe we do...its impossible.

Keep in mind that -1 + 1 = 0 as well. There are lots of ways to add up to 0.

 

[Ubercow]

nothing can be created from nothing so 0 + 0 +++++++++0 = 0, always

also...nothing could, "always be". looking at zeno's theory, expand that. instead of a starting point there is a -infinity starting point(not a real point). So thus living "forever" would not allow you to progress into the future. .(see "god cannot live forever")

so we cant exist in the form we believe we do...its impossible.

Nothing could "always be" ergo no everlasting God. gg

 

[madarab]

The concept of "nothing" is almost meaningless in modern physics. If you ask most lay people what "nothing" means to them, they'll usually give you some kind of answer involving something that looks a lot like a box or a region or space that has no matter or energy inside it. The problem with that setup (outside of any quantum mechanically induced virtual particle considerations) is that the boundry and the space-time within it as well as whatever natural laws are existing which keep that region "empty" are all "things" and their existence has physical consequences.

 

[Dragar]

It's not that the laws are 'things'. The laws are descriptions and predictions for how the universe operates.

But the principle I quoted at the top, the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, shows that the more precisely you know the energy, the less precisely you know the time, and vice-versa.

For small periods of time, you have 'virtual' particles popping in and out of existence. Even a vacuum is not 'empty'.

Dragar

 

[madarab]

Dragar, it is outside the topic of this forum (so if you wish to continue this discussion we should either do it through private mail or start a new topic), but you are making a seperation between "descriptions and predictions for how the universe operates" and the universe itself. It is similar to the kind of seperation that someone 100 years ago might have made between space and time. We do not at this time have a complete theory of information, but it is clear from what we do have the the laws of the universe are both "things" and an integral part of the universe itself whose existence has physical consequences rather than something seperate and outside of the universe. It is possible to postulate a universe without the uncertainty principle (and its consequent virtual particles). Such a universe (however odd and inhospitable it would be to life), would still fail to be capable of having "nothing".

In reading back over my post, I find myself guilty of using the term "universe" in its common meaning of being "the set of space-time which we currently inhabit and can see around us" instead of it's original meaning of being everything that exists (literally "one voice"). I suspect that if I used some other term like "continuum" it would confuse more people than not.

 

[Dragar]

Dragar, it is outside the topic of this forum (so if you wish to continue this discussion we should either do it through private mail or start a new topic), but you are making a seperation between "descriptions and predictions for how the universe operates" and the universe itself. It is similar to the kind of seperation that someone 100 years ago might have made between space and time. We do not at this time have a complete theory of information, but it is clear from what we do have the the laws of the universe are both "things" and an integral part of the universe itself whose existence has physical consequences rather than something seperate and outside of the universe. It is possible to postulate a universe without the uncertainty principle (and its consequent virtual particles). Such a universe (however odd and inhospitable it would be to life), would still fail to be capable of having "nothing".

madarab, I'm unsure we're diverging from the topic too much, because we are still discussing the concept of 'nothing'.

You're correct that there is a 'possible world' (an imaginary world which is not self-contradictory) in which any of our known laws of physics do not exist.

I'm unsure of how you can consider the behaviour of a system to be a thing in itself. Certainly, a written down or vocalised (or even conceptualised) set of laws would be a thing in the physical world (marks on paper, pressure differences in the air, reactions in our brains). But I do not understand your position.

In reading back over my post, I find myself guilty of using the term "universe" in its common meaning of being "the set of space-time which we currently inhabit and can see around us" instead of it's original meaning of being everything that exists (literally "one voice"). I suspect that if I used some other term like "continuum" it would confuse more people than not.

You're right; this is something I'm guilty of myself. Perhaps we should use 'universe' for a particular self enclosed region of spacetime, and 'multiverse' for any set of these 'universes'.

Dragar

 

[Murmur]

Does this mean that if I close my eyes, nothing and nobody exists?

 

[Mistermystery]

probably.

 

[Magnus Vile]

In reading back over my post, I find myself guilty of using the term "universe" in its common meaning of being "the set of space-time which we currently inhabit and can see around us" instead of it's original meaning of being everything that exists (literally "one voice").

It's a minor point, and probably irrelevant, but I'm reasonably certain that Universe doesn't mean "one voice". I seem to recall it actually means something like, turned into one, or combined into one, but to be honest my latin sucks so I used dictionary.com for help.

 

[gluadys]

It's a minor point, and probably irrelevant, but I'm reasonably certain that Universe doesn't mean "one voice". I seem to recall it actually means something like, turned into one, or combined into one, but to be honest my latin sucks so I used dictionary.com for help.

Right. It comes from the Latin for one + turn, revolve. If you are into oscillating universes or a multiverse, we are in one phase or turn or universe out of many.

 

[Fr0st2k]

stop thinking scientifically, and think logically. All the laws and theories Everything you tried to combat my arguement with, is all based on the world that we THINK we live in. Its just so damn obvious that nothing could have lived for ever. and its just as obvious that something could NOT appear from nothing. Im not even going to bother with petty algebra or physics. It doesnt matter( no pun intended h4r h4r ).... If you have 0 , granted thats NOTHING at ALL. NO energy, no work, no particles, ...that is...NO WHERE in the universe...(assuming the word universe is describing nothingness) There is no way something could appear.

That being said .. the only thing i was stating is that we CAN NOT exist in the way we believe we do, though im certain we exist in some form.. But its not matter.