OK, so some folks appear to be saying that even if “something” can emerge from an existing but completely empty universe–as a quantum vacuum fluctuation, f’rinstance–you need an empty universe to start out with, a vacuum in which for fluctuations to occur, which is different from “nothing”. Whatever the heck “nothing” might be. Or not be. Can an empty universe be distinguished from “nothing”? Can a genuinely empty universe be distinguished from an imaginary or hypothetical one?
Hmm… was kinda tired when I typed the first reply.
The Law of Conservation establishes the axiom for the rationality of rationality. If the Law of Conservation is ‘violated’ chuckle, the person who is trying to make a point is instantaneously contradicting themselves and their argument.
Hmmm… how to explain.
Ok… let’s assume that something can become nothing! (the OP’s reverse). By nothing, I don’t mean morphism of some sort… something just becomes ‘nothing at all’ after a certain duration.
Illustrate this by imagining a single photon blinking entirely out of existence once every 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 milleniums… either on pupose or by accident (it’s kinda hard to avoid nothing if you’re moving around in ‘infinite’ time). After a LONG, LONG, LONG while … two photons are gone; that’s it: nothing. Eventually this process erodes all of the photons, until there are none left. Not only are all the photons absorbed by ‘nothing’, but so are all of our meta concepts. This works conversely with the problems of a sentient being creating our universe. No matter what you throw out:
“But God is Omnipotent, God can do anything”
Nope… no such thing as omnipotence, try again.
Nope, no such thing as motion, try again
Nope, no such thing as precidence, try again
Nope, no such thing as possibility, try again
Nope, no such thing as something, try again
Nope, no such thing as nothing, try again…
We are talking about nothing – the absence of all. There is no concept or thing - there is no catagory or uncatagory that can avoid nothing – IF nothing is said to be: absolute, existent, interactive. If nothing actually exists and actually interacts with our universe in an absolute sense; where something can actually unexist from the universe (be impossible to ever find again or reconstruct) - this creates a serious problem. Obviously, since it is nothing; there is Nothing holding something back from becoming nothing over the course of existence (these statements are hardly meaningful, as talking about nothing is worse than talking about God; there isn’t much to say really).
When all of these ‘somethings’ are dissipating; what brings new ones back to us, to keep the universe in-tact? This is a big question; as time would be one of the ‘somethings’ sucked up – as would motion, form, matter, simulation, consciousness, willpower, potency, energy, etc… Once the last little peice of universe slips into nothing - poof::
This, what we are in right now, all of our thoughts memories and awarenessess collapse into nothing – there is no extra energy which reverberates our memories as an echo upon this collapse … they literally collapse as if they had never been – even though they had been. That’s what nothing does - it erases existence, even the tiniest form of absolute nothing interacting with existence collapses all the basic steps of reason.
If nothing does not interact with anything; than clearly it is being well defined – as it IS nothing. How does nothing interact with something or vice-cersa? There is nothing to interact with – there is NO VIRTULIZATION. That is something. There is NO EMERGENT PROPERTY – that is something.
Do people really earn degrees and reputations declaring that they have proven that something comes from nothing?!!! The whole notion is the very foundation of non-sense. If you don’t draw the line there, there is literally NO LINE. You might as well discard the LINES that you’re using to seperate the words so that you can form symbolic pattern translations to understand this document about how something emerges from nothing; or how the Law of Conservation is being violated — ever!
When the line for the Law of Conservation is crossed; that is supposed to alert someone that they have formed an improper conclusion, because you literally cannot violate that law; and declare rationality at the same time – it’s impossible.
The only way to account for something becoming nothing in an observable universe (there doesn’t even have to exist an observer!) is for nothing to make up for it by creating something.
It is the ultimate black-box; infinitely less transparent than the Biblical God or other such nonsense – it is literally drawing a line and saying:
“You know, we just can’t do it … because I can’t do it – aparently, something DOES come from nothing, which means that all rationality is acausal; thus I have the right and priviledge to completely contradict myself in every conceivable way without ANY accountability, including saying this! What a great idea I just had! Nothing is rational, except when I do it!!@”"
Don’t you people recognize religious structure when you see it?!!
It’s called quitting, not doing the work, removing all accountability by contradicting ones-self with a term that contradicts its symbolic association into absolute non-transparency. With this ‘virtualized nothingness’, they can then go on to claim superiority without accountability - either behaviorally and/or theoretically. It’s the oldest trick in the book for declaring truimph when your life has not amounted to much – you brainwash people with non-transparency and wait for the worshipers to come in.
Of course, I completely disagree with the axiom of existence existing… You cannot compare the number one to the number zero; as absolute zero cannot exist without negating the number one – there is nothing to compare the number one with; which in effect makes the number one – zero. There is NO difference occurring between 1 and 0 in absolutes because 0 cannot be compared to with only one object; the concept of difference formulates when two existent objects are; composed of each-other - perception, when they interact.
When objects ‘go away’, that data must be retrievable in some means, or else the universe couldn’t exist – as it would collapse into nothing eventually (which also means before you were born and right now). Throw in an idea like soemthing coming from nothing on the front end; and it dismantles all logic; creates absolute acuasality and absolute chaos - and as such is STILL not sustainable; as chaos will achieve order (in a universe where something comes from nothing), and order evolves nothing into non-existence; at which point order becomes consumed by it, and nothing collapses into it’s life-cycle of ordered nothingness from its original ‘something from nothingness’. Same result on existence… poof
What does nothing explain?
At least the concept of God attempts to explain something…
-Justhink
“”""""“A materialist doesn’t help his cause by splitting his bet. It merely gives him an additional thing to explain.”"""""""
Selected this snip to point out that ‘non-materialism’ will at a minimum double the redundancy of any materist value. While materialism does have an ‘extra’ thing to explain - it’s a bit shifty to fail mentioning that non-materialist explanations double the frequency of the paradoxes noted here. The concept of sentience and absolute values do not mix logically; as sentience either collapses deterministically or it is judged by other sentiences as being malevolent for not collapsing itself.
These paradozes hit much harder than the standard materialist ones IMO.
-Justhink