[MEGA] God

[vegan]

suppose there was nothing before the universe.... well as there was no universe at that time, and you are a part of the universe, why would you concern yourself with it? to me it seems like confrontiong an imaginary concept.

why not?
i find fascinating to try to discover what was before what we know and trying to understand strange concepts as nothingness
before, i could pretty much accept the idea of absence of matter before the apparition (if it's the case) of the universe, but i couldn't visualize at all the absence of time
for me, from point zero you just had to count backward in nothingness (of matter), and that was time
but during the experience i mention in the link, i felt what the absence of time could be and how it was possible. it felt like a little internal revolution because i doubt i could have fathomed this just by thinking, without feeling it. and i find it amazing enough to concern myself with it
the things we're not part of may even be more fascinating than the ones we can observe

I'm interested in any books or websites you could recomend that deal with physics and nothingness.

www.answers.com
great portal that gets you answers from other sites about everything you could dream of

I am a philosophical materialist. meaning i believe that all that is real/ reality is made up of only the things that can be experienced by the sences and only when they are experienced by the sences. (If you showed me an apple and then hid it in the closet, i would tell you that the apple no longer existed, .... atleast in that moment and from my perspective.)

is it really your philosophy??!!??

if i hide the apple from your sight but not from mine, you'll say it doesn't exist anymore, but (even if i'm also a philosophical materialist) i'll say it still exists
could one be right and the other wrong?
or if a fire starts in your room. you go out so you don't see it anymore. so according to your philosophy, it doesn't exists anymore
but when you come back, you can observe that all the time you thought it didn't exist anymore, it was still there making damage, and is actually still there
that makes you live in constant contradiction with everyone else on earth, as well as in contradiction with what logic and experience shows us. and is an irresponsible way to act

so I would say that all this jargon about atoms is simply that... jargon. It is a string of catagories and symbols. But again i don't know much about the science and am just guessing.

calling a cat a dog is not enough to make it a dog
calling a demonstration jargon is not enough to make it jargon
observation shows that an atom of hydrogen is made of 99.9999999999992% of free space between the nucleus and the electron
and when this knowledge is used in another process, the results confirm the observation. point. there's no jargon about that

there was a spell there where I saw nothingness and everything as supports of each other rather than opposites

i don't necessarily see them as opposites
if you have a blank page or one with a painting on it, the painting is not the opposite of the blank page. it's a different thing, that can even include areas of blank page
nothingness doesn't allow any existence, but the opposite is not true
existence allows areas of nothingness

There is no way to conceptualize the beginning of the universe, without using a reference point outside of the universe. You need this "outside" reference point because a reference inside the universe would not allow you to witness the absolute time flow of the universe.

what do you mean by this point of reference?
i don't see the need for it
and there's no (need for an) absolute time flow. (but i'm not sure to see what you mean)
i know it's hard to swallow, but we're talking about the origin of the universe here, there's a good chance the answer will be hard to swallow

Why do you think most people assume that there was nothingness before the universe? Do you think it has to do with religious influence or binary thinking in general? or something else? just a philosophical fad?

most things we know have dimensions, have a beginning and an end
so it's much harder for us to conceptualise infinity than the finite
especially when it comes to origin
because as we're not aware of the future or the limits of the universe, we can visualize them as infinite, but our lives and everything that we create has an apparent origin
so even if it leaves many questions unanswered, people started to invent tales about the origin of the universe, which were told as truths through most religions

recently, it's the observation of the universe that replaced the tales in telling us where the universe could come from
and, according to the laws of physics that we know, the expansion of the universe shows that some 13,5 billions years ago it was a singularity with infinite curvature of space time, where these laws themselves couldn't apply
thus, before the instant one after the big bang, the universe as we know it with its laws, didn't exist as such
this hypothesis is pretty widely accepted and taught at school
so most people tend for the idea of an universe that was created at some point. and since they don't know what was before, they opt for the "simplest" option : nothingness

I just don't understand why people (who are a part of the universe) insist on something existing outside of it. especially those who believe the universe is infinite. how could anything exist outside of infinity?

just imagine a line. it's infinite
but there can be an infinity of other lines around it
the universe is just a much more complex system
maybe there are parallel universes that we're not aware of
maybe an infinity of them
maybe totally different ones, with other laws, not even conceivable for us
or maybe there's nothing else

Also it is interesting how when you look at molecules and atoms they resemble solar systems

the observation is quite interesting, but i'm not sure that it's very relevant
because if at first sight such systems look similar, they actually have important differences. one being that they are not governed by the same laws, unless we find a unified theory between relativity and quantum physics

I asked someone this today or somewhat of a modified version and I was saying how the universe is constantly expanding but what left me confused was what exactly is it expanding into.

if the universe is already infinite, then it's just morphing
if it's finite, then it's probably creating space-time as/where it extends. it expends into the space-time it creates

In the beginninmg there was ONLY GOD and the word was with god, this is how the bible starts(i think) so therefore everything that came after that must have been created from god

come on,, we're trying to have a serious conversation here

 

[Judas]

Um... I wasnt too sure about the estimated age of the universe, but for some reason thought it was 18 billions, and didn't check it out. I stand corrected, its what alphanumeric said.

Thanks, I am aware that the rate of time is slower as the speed becomes closer to the speed of light. Law of relativity. Something traveling near the speed of light experiences little change of time and is almost frozen in the same moment. Things moving at sub-light speed experience "normal" time which is what I was referring to as the flow of time of the universe.

When I was discussing the universe, though it has things within it moving all around, some at light speed, and that the universe itself is expanding, the universe itself is not travelling near light speed (assumption on my part.) The universe has a rate at which it is "aging." I was suggesting that this rate today is not the same rate as when the universe started.

I will try to explain what I meant by "outside" reference point. Imagine you're an astronaut floating above the Earth. From your view, one refernce point, you appear to be motionless, stuck in space. Now if there's a second reference point, say a person on the Earth, he'll see an astronaunt flying around very fast (I forget the speed of orbit around the earth.) Now both measure of speed are accurate, you can't say one reference is more correct than another. But the more meaningful measure is the the reference from the person on Earth, because that person can tell the speed of the astronaunt. Similarly, the rate of time of the universe using a reference from "outside" the universe would actually see the movement of time of that universe. A reference within the universe would be "caught" in the rate of time of the said universe.

Sorry if I am not making myself very clear. I don't know the technical jargon associated with explaining this sort of thing.

*edit*
I just wanted to add that the reason why I want to believe in a universe with no beginning is that with a beginning, it necessarily follows that we ask what caused this beginning. Whether its God or the all unifying force, nobody will know.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

is it really your philosophy??!!??

if i hide the apple from your sight but not from mine, you'll say it doesn't exist anymore, but (even if i'm also a philosophical materialist) i'll say it still exists
could one be right and the other wrong?
or if a fire starts in your room. you go out so you don't see it anymore. so according to your philosophy, it doesn't exists anymore
but when you come back, you can observe that all the time you thought it didn't exist anymore, it was still there making damage, and is actually still there
that makes you live in constant contradiction with everyone else on earth, as well as in contradiction with what logic and experience shows us. and is an irresponsible way to act

I was just defining the POV. Are you arguing against the POV or the definition of it. I think you missed the point? or i did?

calling a cat a dog is not enough to make it a dog
calling a demonstration jargon is not enough to make it jargon
observation shows that an atom of hydrogen is made of 99.9999999999992% of free space between the nucleus and the electron
and when this knowledge is used in another process, the results confirm the observation. point. there's no jargon about that

I was explaining the improbability that something as symbolic, abstract, and meaningless could be used to find any sort of truth. Not renaming your term, but discrediting discription od reality in comparison to actual reality

just imagine a line. it's infinite
but there can be an infinity of other lines around it
the universe is just a much more complex system
maybe there are parallel universes that we're not aware of
maybe an infinity of them
maybe totally different ones, with other laws, not even conceivable for us
or maybe there's nothing else

If there is something outside of (X) then (X) is not infinite by definition. The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite. That isnt what infinite means.

 

[vegan]

judas, i'm trying to understand your point, but i honestly don't see the contradiction between not using a reference point outside of the universe and conceptualising the beginning of the universe, or using the concept of time
to use your example, the astronaut (who can't see the earth) may not be able to describe his movement relatively to the earth, but he can easily describe the movement of his right hand relatively to his left hand
we may not be able to describe the passing of time in the universe relatively to an external reference point, but we can describe the passing of time of its components relatively to each other
and i don't see why you'd need the concept of time to conceptualise the beginning of the universe

I just wanted to add that the reason why I want to believe in a universe with no beginning is that with a beginning, it necessarily follows that we ask what caused this beginning. Whether its God or the all unifying force, nobody will know.

i can easily understand that for having shared the same preoccupation all my life. but i was no more happy with the ever existing universe option, since we couldn't explain anymore how the universe could have always existed
my personal preference changed not long ago after the experience i linked earlier made me conceive how a spontaneous creation of the universe was possible. of course this is not part of the logical arguments to which we'll pay attention here

I was just defining the POV. Are you arguing against the POV or the definition of it. I think you missed the point? or i did?

ok, you lost me
could you explain your point again because what i get is pretty much "i can't see atoms, so i'm not interested in them, so i'll consider jargon (nonsense?) and discard demonstrations that will use them", and i sure hope/don't think that it's the case

I was explaining the improbability that something as symbolic, abstract, and meaningless could be used to find any sort of truth. Not renaming your term, but discrediting discription od reality in comparison to actual reality

!!!!
there is nothing abstract, symbolic or meaningless about the demonstration i gave

on the other hand, it spoke against the illusion of reality that we perceive
where you see matter there's actually 99,9999...% of vaccum
that's not symbolic, that's not abstract, and it's really meaningful
it appears to us that we can't pass our hand through the table because it seems full of matter, when it's in fact the electrons of the atoms of the table that repel (through electromagnetic force) the electrons of our hand

Not renaming your term, but discrediting discription od reality in comparison to actual reality

what you consider reality is not reality, it's one subjective perception of reality

a description that doesn't refer to the senses if a much more accurate description of the universe than the common description of what you call reality, since it takes away the subjective filter that are the senses

If there is something outside of (X) then (X) is not infinite by definition. The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite. That isnt what infinite means.

trust me, you have your definition wrong
can you build a box big enough to put a straight line inside?
no, because the line is infinite

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

this isn't bleedingheartcommie...this is his asshole friend...

first of all...don't need the concept of time to conceptualize the beginning of the universe?...it is impossible to seperate the notion of a beginning from time...the entire idea of a beginning, middle, or end hinges on the notion of time...they are reference points w/in a timed structure...
second...this is all irrelevant anyway...
and third...your name is vegan...you got some shit you need to figure out before you talk to anybody about this kinda shit again...

we may not be able to describe the passing of time in the universe relatively to an external reference point, but we can describe the passing of time of its components relatively to each other
and i don't see why you'd need the concept of time to conceptualise the beginning of the universe

8(

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

still bleeding's friend...

are you drunk?

trust me, you have your definition wrong
can you build a box big enough to put a straight line inside?
no, because the line is infinite

 

[FreshFr0mDet0x]

though it is helping us to discuss it with each other over the internet at the moment, ultimately language is an impediment to the understanding of this idea of god = universe. it's an idea i not only like, but one which is in fact true.

ever been to www.everything2.com ?

 

[vegan]

this isn't bleedingheartcommie...this is his asshole friend...

and you're a friend of David too, right?

don't need the concept of time to conceptualize the beginning of the universe?...it is impossible to seperate the notion of a beginning from time...the entire idea of a beginning, middle, or end hinges on the notion of time

there's no need for time until instant one of the universe, and that's not the creation

second...this is all irrelevant anyway...

i don't see what you're doing in T&A if you find this irrelevant

and third...your name is vegan...you got some shit you need to figure out before you talk to anybody about this kinda shit again...

hey, what can i do against such an arguementated point?
oh, my parents gave me my name, if you have a problem with it, talk to my dad. but watch out, he has more toys than your dad

are you drunk?

trust me, you have your definition wrong
can you build a box big enough to put a straight line inside?
no, because the line is infinite

no, it's your language, that i make the effort of using, that doesn't have a one word translation for "droite", which is "infinite straight line"
but the fact that you didn't understand what i meant shows how much you know about maths
google infinite straight line and then find a forum better suited for you

 

[B9]

Now now kiddies kiss and make up.
zophen.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

Sorry

I'm going to make him register a name

he is a dick

also... i don't think i can post here again if you can't wrap you head around the word infinite

... happy thinking....

 

[vegan]

you're mistaking "infinite" and "everything"
a straight line, with the equation Y=aX+b is infinite
X and Y are not finite, they can be any number
and the line never stops
you can't "put it in a box"

once more, google infinite straight line
before saying i can't wrap my head around a word, you could at least check that you know its definition yourself

 

[Dtergent]

Hey haha what happened here? I was kind of enjoying reading this.

bleedingheartcommie, the term "infinite line" holds with it the limitation of the word line, meaning it is infinite in two directions. I know where you are coming from with your concerns about a line not being able to be infinite. vegan, I think what he means here is this: how can something "infinite" exist and still be constrained (even spatially) into something like a line? Meaning, if you are pertaining to infinite in terms of something that is neverending, most people will carry with it the definition of it encompassing everything. Thus, you can see how this definition of "infinite" can see a line as paltry. Meaning graphically representing infinte as bleedingheartcommie sees would be shading the whole piece of paper.

 

[PGTips]

If there is something outside of (X) then (X) is not infinite by definition. The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite. That isnt what infinite means.

That is incorrect. There are numerous types of infinity.

Count 1,2,3,4,5.....

You could continue forever right? There are infinitely many whole numbers. But what about negative numbers? What about fractions? Is that all the possible numbers? No, infact you haven't even scratched the surface. There are countably many fractions (though an infinitly many), and uncountably infinite irrational. An uncountable infinite set is a distinctly different set from a countably infinite sized set (when you put specific definitions on things) yet both are infinite.

Infact, there are infinitely many different infinites!

And that's just set theory and cardinality, Vegan's examples of lines and planes being infinite in length or area but not containing one another is another example.

 

[babble2thenag]

Mr. T can count past infinity

...

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

I was under the impression that we thought the universe was infinite. that's what we're talking about right? the universe? if the universe: all that exists: is infinite: than how come something exist outside of that?

I think that we are misunderstanding each other. when i say the universe...i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe...i'm not putting a box on your line...i'm saying the line is the universe...you're seperating yourself as an onlooker...seeing an image of the line as an observer rather than realizing that if the line is infinite you cannot observe it because you are in fact a part of it...

 

[vegan]

I was under the impression that we thought the universe was infinite. that's what we're talking about right? the universe?

we have no idea if the universe is infinite or no
we were explaining our understanding of "infinite". i gave the example of a line, about which you said :

The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite

no changing the subject please

i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe

it's called the multiverse (the word was redefined since its first use in 1960)
there could be several, or an infinity of universes making up the multiverse
it would be better if you could "restrict your definitions to their current scientific concept" because changing the terms of a problem doesn't solve the problem, whereas using words as you know others understand them makes the conversation easier and more effivient

i'm not putting a box on your line...i'm saying the line is the universe...

we know that the line is infinite, and can't put it in a box
we don't know about the universe

you're seperating yourself as an onlooker...seeing an image of the line as an observer rather than realizing that if the line is infinite you cannot observe it because you are in fact a part of it...

first, let's agree that you mean that as us being a part of the universe, not of the line

we don't know that something is infinite by observing it, even as an external observer
no one has ever been to the "end of a line" to check that it was infinite
we understand that it's infinite by reasoning

and it's the same about being a part or no of the universe
it won't make you any more able to observe if it's finite or no
we'll have to deduce it
and actually, we may get much better hints as being parts of the universe because we're able to observe it, whereas we haven't been able to observe other universes so far, and can guess it would be as hard to observe ours without being a part of it

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

This multi univers that you are talking about is what I meant by universe. we just have two different definitions of what the term universe includes. That was the reason far all of this misunderstanding.

 

[Jamshyd]

bleedingheartcommie: While I have not scruitinized the little discussion you have here with Vegan, I have read enough to get the gist of it, it seems to me like you are taking words (or language in general) for granted.

Language is a human invention. Humans (in their current state) are by no means perfect, and so their inventions cannot be perfect either. And since humans and their inventions are all intra-universal, it would be impossible to use these invention to explain anything extra-universal, be it in space or time.

If you think of "nothing" in purely linguistic terms, then you are right, it makes absolutely no sense.

To connect that to the original post in this thread, I personally tend to see the universe as a metaphor for That Which Is Not. Through everything one realizes nothing, and through nothing one realizes everything. Death is the mediator. Vegan recommended Ayahuasca. That is good for everythingness. I recommend Ketamine. That is good for nothingness .

EDIT: In case you were wondering how I deduced that humans are imperfect... While I do not have an absolute for "perfect" to compare humans to, I can tell you that much: humans are ultimately dependant on plants for subsistance, but plants do not need humans. This means that plants are closer to perfection than humans are, even if plants themselves are still imperfect. And since something is closer to perfection than humans, that means that humans (and therefore thier creations) are imperfect.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

THough I agree with everything you said, your last point is a fallacy.
plants need sunlight and humans do not; does that make us perfect and them not? It's an interconnected cycle. consciousness is not imperfect.... a better word is meaningless. the problem with language and logic and such is that it expects meaning. human consciousness is not an unfortunate accident. you cant get something intelligent out of something stupid. It's an interconnected cycle. They only thing that plants have over us, which makes them closer to the universe, is that their consciousness doesn't need meaning other than to just be. Without language, humans can just be... live to live, and need no other reason to exist.


philosophy is the business of creating problems that aren't really there

 

[Jamshyd]

I am not sure whether you're arguing with my point or not - but, you do argue that language expects meaning, and that I agree with. To put what I said more in perspective for you, when I say "nothing," this means no thing, and a meaning is a thing. However, that in itself should give an ultra-linguistic "meaning" - but of course calling it that is self failing, and therefore I lied in that last sentence

As for my fallacy, I did mention that plants are not perfect themselves:

This means that plants are closer to perfection than humans are, even if plants themselves are still imperfect.

.

Hope this clears it up . I've been called a deconstructionist before. Not sure if I label myself as such, but I do try my best to rip out any meaning taken for-granted in language.