Something from Nothing

[alphabetablogger]

Ummm... in what way are natural numbers real? (Pun not intended. No, seriousyl!!)

[rozeboosje]

@alphabetablogger They naturally arise out of no a priori premises

[noudge]

And if you will be perfect, it implies that you are either non-existing or existing in the physical world. Now would it just logically in congruent with what the bible says. I think not. What remain evident to a GOD or his trace is logic, and it will be that impossible to for us search for any physical evidence

[rozeboosje]

@noudge I just told you you wouldn't be speaking to me again. That was not a request. That was a statement of fact. And now you're blocked.

[noudge]

Its actually simple, i can prove to you the logical sense of "Nothing" Let's us put it this way(equation)

Nothing = Existence - Non-Existence or 0= E-NE, Nothing really, means here perfection(conservation)

What physicist studies for all the years are in the areas of Existence however, the Non-existence are not thoroughly been analyzed studied. These are blackholes -where information of existence are all gone including light itself.

Nothing or Zero is actually perfection

[rozeboosje]

@noudge ROTFLMAO

You're nuts. HTH

[rozeboosje]

@noudge By all means enjoy your navelgazing, but don't speak to me again.

[anonymousnamealso]

well something can come from nothing. Science doens't know where the stars or earth or anything else came from, they have an idea without logic. but still they don't know. Here's my proof. The problem Atheist have with Creationist is the whole something from nothing. Well the bible isn't a book about the universe, just about Earth. Before Earth there were stars and other planets, but how do those planets form? What or who forms them? if nothing was there, and now something is, then proof.

[rozeboosje]

@anonymousnamealso **ERR133 - does not parse

[breaneainn]

I guess you're right, the problem is a semantic one. By labelling "nothing" you create an instance that has to be treated as an entity in it's own right. The regression of infinite nested sets relies on the observer being always a second point in the vector no matter what is observed. How do you describe the beginning of the universe as something less than a point? Fractional dimensions? Surely you are forced to go at right angles to the symmetry of time.

[rozeboosje]

@breaneainn In fact I think it's fair to say that the universe has always existed. With "universe" I do mean the totality of ALL of reality, not just our observable universe which could be part of a much larger "omniverse". Even if the universe DOES have a finite extent into the past, if it has only existed for X number of years, it has still always existed. After all, you won't be able to find a moment in time at which it did not ;-)

[breaneainn]

@rozeboosje See your point, there was no place or time of non-existence.

[rozeboosje]

@breaneainn exactly

[breaneainn]

I don't understand my own post, I'll think some more and come back.

[rozeboosje]

@breaneainn LOL

No worries. Looking forward to it.

[breaneainn]

I understand the concept of nested sets, but the real problem is the bracket in between the "nothing" set and the "everything" set. Easier to say that there can be no seamless transition between nothing and everything. (nothing(everything))? Could it look like this? (everything As an open statement? Or am I completely insane?

[stjimmy933499399493]

screw that other guy. your ideas are complex and take along time to formulate and adequately construct and sustain telling you to "hurry it along" is like telling the architect of a towering sky scraper to "hurry along" the laying of the foundation.

[rozeboosje]

:-)

Cheers

[Breakyerself]

Obviously you don't operate very well with the idea of operating in the temporal since 3 minutes in and I still haven't heard you explain anything.

Get to the damn point.

[rozeboosje]

Who said I was here to explain anything. I'm rejecting faux "explanations" because the premises on which they're based are not as "obviously true" as their proponents would have us believe.

I'm quite happy to say "I don't know". And I'm not willing to accept conclusions based on premises I don't accept.

[Breakyerself]

Regardless my point is you take forever to get to the meat of the issue. You have too much set up and not enough meat. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm not claiming that there is anything wrong with your arguments. What I am saying is get to the point a little faster if you want people to watch the whole thing without falling asleep. That's it.

[rozeboosje]

Here's an idea, I make my videos the way I see fit, and you make yours the way you see fit, and I'll keep putting stuff out there that my 2,456 subs are happy to see, and you keep putting stuff out there that your 1 subscriber likes a lot. How does that grab ya?

[Breakyerself]

I haven't made any videos. At this point I just view videos. I viewed your video and gave you feedback. If you can't take it that's your problem. Don't act superior over the subscribers you have. It doesn't invalidate my opinion.

Your video was convoluted. I made a joke about the word temporal because you mentioned the word 3 times before getting to the substance. I doubt I would do better, but I hope my skin is thick enough to learn from criticism.

[rozeboosje]

Why don't you give it a try, rather than being a backseat driver?

[smaerdsdreams]

Keep digging. I'm formulating a similar theory, only mine proves something entirely different. I'd get into it but it's very, very extensive.

Try starting from the conclusion that nothing is 'real', including logic. Let's say, logic is an abstraction, can be proved logically. It's a really large mess, but I believe that is the direction that must be taken, because logic is a creation of man.

Continue thinking and sharing, I appreciate it.

[Holmes245]

And suppose that two plus two isn't really four. Suppose those don't add up to anything at all. I'm sorry, this is a load of crap just to confuse the issue.

[rozeboosje]

And it would be good if you could move beyond "this is a load of crap" and elaborate on why, exactly, it is.

[Holmes245]

Okay, for one, where are you getting your information from? What sources? Otherwise, it just sounds like this is all just popping out of your mind without any real material to back it up. I'm reading a lot of "well, I think this". The irony here is that, while you disagree with what Creationists believe about the beginnings of the universe and it's precise design, er...I mean happenstance, your own views are much based in faith.

[Mathenaut]

Well, what is presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. It is not a difficult concept.

[rozeboosje]

:-)

[Holmes245]

Actually rozeboosje, I do apologize for the remark though. I actually don't appreciate those kinds of remarks from others when trying to make my case so there's no reason for me to do so either. Sorry about that. You saw that and called me on it.

[rozeboosje]

I think the key to understand my position is that I feel most comfortable with looking at reality as a single "holistic" entity, and even here language fails me as it seems like I'm speaking of something external to us. I could say that we are inextricable parts of reality, but that seems to imply we are a small subset that could be isolated away from the "rest" of reality. Whilst practially we can separate and categorise all the time (more...)

[rozeboosje]

in reality it's all facets of reality.

Even "abstractions" are just that. Even if we accept that abstractions exist "only" in the mind, the mind emerges from the neuronal firing patterns in the brain. It is still inextricably part of reality. The logic we devised to describe what we observe in reality emerged from our minds which emerged from our brains which are still physical entities. There is no way to escape reality into a "meta" realm. (more...)

[rozeboosje]

That's why I'm comfortable to declare Natural numbers to be real. There are REAL aspects involved with the mental concept of the number "two". If you have "two" entities, you know you can put them side by side, one above the other, one in front of the other, but never one between ... well, what? The number "two" is described conceptually, but it relates to an aspect of reality all the same.

[rozeboosje]

Good questions, and I wouldn't claim to have all the answers, I'm afraid. Just enough of an inkling to make me reject the confident ontological assumptions and claims that others make. Not because I know that they're wrong, but because I know they cannot justify their claims that they are right.

[rozeboosje]

I don't believe in "forms" or anything "metaphysical". There is nothing "abstract" about the difference between one hand containing two rocks, and the other containing three. The Natural numbers emerge quite literally "naturally" from reality. There is one reality in my book, and I reject dichotomies such as "abstract/concrete" or "subjective/objective".

[robheusd]

Here is some other approach. Consider the question: why is there existence?.

What could fit for an answer. If we assume that X provides an answer, namely because X caused existence, then this merely translates to the question: why is there X?

So this means no existent X (wether it is something physical or non-physical) can provide a real answer. To introduce a deity is of no help here, since it would beg the question: why is there a deity?

But: since non-existence is not, existence is.

[rozeboosje]

You can't argue with that type of iron-clad logic. Thanks for the comment :-)

[UntamedBlueLight]

X always is and always was. But relating this to God is a complete Straw Man fallacy. God is the first mover because he always is and always was and there is nothing that he isn't. God IS infinite regression. God IS the infinte number of sets. The Big Bang can only be started in a reality where Cause and Effect doesn't apply. One of God's more interesting realms.

You're unforuntately thinking God magically made everything appear. Obviously, it isnt like that. Thanks for coming out tho.

[JohnHolmes3000]

There is existence because the thing that exists's parents got wasted hammered drunk and fucked like rabbits on the Olive Garden bathroom floor.

[woweeez]

If God exists outside of our three dimensions (time, space, and matter) When time space and matter began, it was the beginning of time, not the beginning of God.

This argument seems like it is the same as ancient people not understanding the number zero. I have no apples. My zero apples does not exist, but if I think about that apple I don't have as an abstraction within something, then I have one zero apple. Or I could have a million zero apples. In the end that apple still doesn't exist.

[rozeboosje]

Here's an easy concept for you: 0 = 1-1

[woweeez]

I understand 0, ancient people did not. Numbers may be "real" but numbers happen to be a creation by people to rationalize counting, then they evolved into other mechanics. A problem then comes with quantum physics which is starting to show things occurring chaotically, which implies things happen outside our created mathematics. Since our number system ends up being flawed in that sense, it can't be used to understand the abstraction of nothing, since "during" nothing they never existed.

[rozeboosje]

You don't get what I'm alluding at. The point I'm making is purely allegorical, but look at the equation. On the left hand side there is 0, which in the allegory stands for "nothing". On the right hand side you have 1-1, which you could see as "two somethings cancelling each other out". The point is that the equation is timeless and tautological. "something" is simply the logical result of looking at "nothing" differently. Perhaps.

[woweeez]

If "something" is just the logical result of looking at "nothing" differently, then nothing didn't exist because it was something. But then we run in to the problem that that "nothing" never really was "nothing"(since it was something). So it is impossible for "something" to be the result of "nothing." The expression 0=1-1 meaning nothing=something-something, means that something is needed to make nothing, but really nothing is needed to make nothing so I see the problem as this 0/=(anything)

[rozeboosje]

Maybe that is the solution to the problem ... ;-) - There is no issue about "something" coming from "nothing" because the assumption of "nothingness" logically implies the existence of "something", and that boils down to simply this: there always has been "something". See robheusd's excellent comment below.

[woweeez]

Yeah I read that response, and I don't really believe that nothing is possible. I am just trying to better understand it. I honestly can't conceive of real flaws in the argument, but attempting a rebuttal makes is the only real way to be sure I fully understand what is being said.

[rozeboosje]

Excellent. And thanks for subscribing too.

Similarly - I'm not claiming I have any answers here. All I'm doing is making suggestions that should cause somebody who says "something must have come from nothing and that is impossible without a God" stop and think about how self-evident that really is. :-)

[robheusd]

[continued]

Non-being can turn into Being, when we consider them in the unity of opposites.

I can cause a chair into being without any need of the being of a chair. Since I could use wood from a tree, and subsequently I simultaniously cause the being of the tree to turn into nothing.

A pure Being or a pure Nothing all by themselves (outside of their unity) are meaningless terms.

[robheusd]

In the physical sense, we can merely conclude that there is a physical reality, which is a brute fact of reality, since there is no real explenation/cause or reason for there be a reality. A physical cause/reason does not exist, since also that physical reason/cause needs an explenation, and non-material causes do not cause material effects.

It follows also then that physical reality must be eternal.

[robheusd]

Comment on your argument: It is true that also in the mathematical sense a "nothing" does not exist, but the point is of course that we need to show also that (logically!) a "physical nothing" neither can exist. The assumption used is that the universe is not a mathematical structure (the Tegmark idea).

[rozeboosje]

I'm not going to respond to every comment but yes, you hit the nail on the head.

What a viewer of this video must understand is that I make no claims to the truth. I make suggestions. You're right - in order to show that this idea is mirrored in reality we must show that logically a physical nothing cannot exist.

[robheusd]

[continued]

The unity then of being and nothing, their combined truth is in becoming and ceasing to be. It is only in this unity, in which it is understood that both nothing turns into being and simultaniously being turns into nothing, that they have meaning.

Like when I make a chair out of a tree, the non-being of the chair turns into being and at the same time the being of the tree is turned into nonbeing.

[robheusd]

The whole problem already starts out with the fact that a "nothing" is a term which is related to and only usuable in the context of existent being, the terms are defined as a unity of opposites.

In other words, if there is not something, neither there is nothing.

[ Like also light and dark are related, and dark is just the absence of light. Dark then, has no meaning, if there would be no concept of light. ]

[shmeagol77786]

I'm trying to get it, but I don't think my IQ is high enough... cough. I don't know... Is there a "Complete Idiots Guide" to this subject somewhere? I really want to understand.

[rozeboosje]

Don't put yourself down! Just go to a good book shop and check out the science section. There are books on these subjects at all kinds of level. It's seriously addictive though :-)

[adorianvlad]

I recommend you to watch my video and than rewatch roze's video you'll have a better grasp of his ideas.

Cheers

[eniuqvw]

rozeboosje, you're confused. You're simply equivocating with two different senses of 'nothing'. In the ontological sense, it's logically possible for there to have been nothing. If nothingness for you implies the natural number system, you're not talking about nothingness in the right sense because logical implication itself would be precluded. that is, you're committed to the ontologically prior existence of logical implication while claiming to use the term 'nothing' universally.

[rozeboosje]

So let me get this right. I'm wrong, and you're right? Sounds like binary logic to me.

[eniuqvw]

Yes, it certainly does. At no point did i say that binary logic was null. My point was that you've committed yourself to saying this when you use the term 'nothingness'.

[rozeboosje]

Hang on... Don't forget I'm trying to follow the Aquinas acolytes down into their convoluted argument. That requires accepting their premises. Leading to nonsensical conclusions, I'm happy to back out and drop them again.

[eniuqvw]

ok, i'll buy that. i agree the cosmological arguments are terrible - russell also has great responses to them. good to see someone on youtube who's not a blithering idiot.

[rozeboosje]

Thanks :-)

[friendlydiplomat]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is terrible? Then why has it never been refuted or at least replaced by another argument that better explains origins?? (atleast I'm not aware of any that don't end up heavily relying on presuppositions and assertions)

[robheusd]

"In the ontological sense, it's logically possible for there to have been nothing".

This looks quite confusing and self-refuting to me. How can a "non existing state" (there being 'nothing' suddenly be an existing state?

I think the whole problem is that the terms being and nothing only can be used within their unity, and have no meaning outside it.

So neither there is just 'being' Or 'nothing' but there is 'being' AND there is 'nothing', and moreover being turns into nothing and vice versa.

[MarkBH70]

If there was nothing, then neither numbers nor number sets existed. Open your mind and I'll try to open mine as well. You seem like you had a tenet of disbelief before you had reason thus. I did not start this way: I needed God proven to believe.

[rozeboosje]

Nothingness implies the existence of numbers and number sets. This means nothingness is logically impossible.

So do I. I've never seen such proof.

[MarkBH70]

Oh.  Right.

[iwanttowatchsomethin]

"Nothingness implies the existence of numbers and number sets. This means nothingness is logically impossible." I understand the first statement, but not how it relates to the second statement. Actually, I don't even understand the second statement at all. What does "logically impossible" mean? Help me.

[rozeboosje]

You start by assuming "nothing" and, whether you like it or not, by implication you have "the natural numbers" and several other things I would imagine. So try as you might, you can't imagine "nothing". Nothingness is logically impossible. So any argument based on assuming that in "the beginning" there was "nothing" is by definition based on a mistaken assumption.

[iwanttowatchsomethin]

If x implies the natural numbers is this proof that x is logically impossible?

[rozeboosje]

It is if "x" stands for "in the beginning there was nothing, nothing at all, nada, zip, zilch, rien, nichts, niente, not even Natural Numbers." If you then proceed to prove that the Natural Numbers are in fact implied by that same assumption, then you've reached a contradiction. Which means that the assumption is false. If the assumption "in the beginning there was nothing" is false then either there was no beginning, or right from the "start" there was something. You choose.

[iwanttowatchsomethin]

Well, thanks. That was what I needed: your definition of nothing, which explicitly excludes the natural numbers. Seems kind of obtuse of me, but I was curious if maybe one might want to offer, in light of your argument, a new definition of nothing which includes the natural numbers. What other apparent "nothings" imply something? As some say, empty space is not empty. I like your argument BTW. Thanks.

[rozeboosje]

Cheers. It's always good to have them tested. Indeed. Empty space is not empty. The uncertainty principle takes care of that. And that is very interesting in itself :-)

[gmfmusic]

question. why do we(humans) measure things based upon measuring tools we create...we use our bias knowledge to explain things that we can never understand...at the end of the day knowledge and rational is something we measure by our own standadrs,,,,that wasnt a good conclusion there but i don't see how i can end this thought..haha im tired im goin to bed

and ohh by the way in the beginning was the word.....yes im a christian :)

[rozeboosje]

Oh really.

[gmfmusic]

yes and the word was God..

[rozeboosje]

(rolleyes)

[redheadfo847]

One day you will be a devout catholic

[rozeboosje]

ROTFLMAO

[redheadfo847]

I knew you would get a kick out of that. lol!

but hey..its true

[rozeboosje]

Sure. Look! A flying pig.

[redheadfo847]

hallelujah

[rozeboosje]

LOL. Indeed, It is Risen.

[kub73158]

This is sadly limited reasoning.

[rozeboosje]

This is a sadly unhelpful comment

[0neironaut]

is not the problem here a problem of language? the limits of language and symbolic representations in their disclosive possibilities? if we are speaking of metaphysics and Ultimate Reality,how can we be in any position to explain anything if our explanation fundamentally rests upon the inheritance of language systems and previous ways of disclosing the World?

[0neironaut]

our explanations may are, at best, always partial. The logical arrival to any 'absolutes' is always human based; and why should we assume such a special role as potential Knowers of the Universe?

[rozeboosje]

Indeed. Good points!

[arlynculwick]

1) There wasn't nothing to begin with if you believe in God: God was there. That's a definite something.

2)The fact that it's logically impossible to have nothing doesn't mean that nothingness is impossible, it just means that we can't think about it. Can we think about irrational numbers? No, but they 'exist' in a few senses.

Every now & then we have to contemplate empty concepts: whenever we come face-to-face with the transcendent realm and cannot produce and empirical representation of it.

[rozeboosje]

No. If the assumption of nothingness implies something - I illustrate the natural numbers but there is much more than that - then nothingness cannot exist. That means that there has always been something. If you want to call that "God" that's up to you, but don't expect me to assume that that is a creator-god, that its name is Jahweh or Allah or whatnot, that it cares about me personally and that I should worship it.

[RyuJeetKuneDo]

Thank you for your response. Roze

God Bless you,

[rozeboosje]

Haha! Thanks.

[RyuJeetKuneDo]

Well, I must say that you've reached an interesting epiphany there rozeboosje.

However, what relevance must this serve in our lives as physical/spiritual inhabitants of this planet?

[rozeboosje]

It means that none of the established religions based on a Creator God can be true. So if you're searching for spirituality, you can scratch a few candidates off your list and narrow your search. Surely that's useful?

[captncosmos]

i dont understand. is it your argument that because we can concieve a concept of natural number that nothing is impossible. i mean..a number doesn't exist, isnt it like a description of something?

[rozeboosje]

I show that an assumption of nothingness necessarily implies the existence of something, even if it is only the "natural numbers". That then means that "nothingness" cannot ever have existed. And that then obviates the whole (th/d)eist argument "how can something have been created from nothing".

It's not a proof that there is no God. It just shows that a God *may* not be necessary. And if that is the case, it makes sense to demand proof before believing in one.

[no4giveness]

Or you could take nothing and split it in half, then you would have 1 and -1 which still leaves you with nothing.

[no4giveness]

more likely you wouldn't split it in half instead you would turn it inside out,This way you have 1 on the inside and -1 surrounding the 1.. bang

small bang, thin a diddy diddy bang bang

[weirdo593]

So you're implying a negative universe.

[rozeboosje]

huh?

[weirdo593]

I forget the context in which I said that.

[rozeboosje]

No worries. I would like to think that I have quite a positive outlook on life, though ;-)

[no4giveness]

if you have nothing- you can not have anything. but you can have something that is imaginary. After all something that is imaginary is nothing. You can have an imaginary imagination. That is nothing and if this imaginary imagination was to imagine something you would still have nothing becaues anything it imagined would be inside it.

[no4giveness]

Now this imaginary imagination would have a reason to build this universe. It would have a reason to imagine life. He would have a reason to imagine you having an imagination.

After all it is nothing and to be something it needs an imagination to imagine a reality for it to compare it's imagination with.

[no4giveness]

So you could say everything is contained in nothing and still say everything is nothing or nothing is everything. paradox Stop looking at lines draw some circles.

[alwaysblazen]

ok great vid its actually a different argument. the only problem i run into in my mind is. if there is/was any nothing then that would require infinity witch doesnt exist in math. it would seem that if i plug god into this i get my infinity but falsely because infinity still doesnt exist. it would seem to me infinity is required for both answers. god or no god

[rozeboosje]

Cantor made infinity respectable in math, and he worked out how to handle infinity. Worth checking out.

[stmichael71]

Not entirely true. The believer does not claim that nothing was and then something came to be. In fact, the opposite is true. God is, de facto, the something which produced all other beings. Further, the fact that something comes from something is a derivation from the principle of non-contradiction, which derives from the fact that it would be to equate being with non-being if we were to say that being comes from non-being.

[rozeboosje]

> the fact that it would be to equate being with non-being if we were to say that being comes from non-being.

Substantiate that

[stmichael71]

In change, there must be some substrate which is changing and which acquires/loses properties. However, existence is the most basic substrate and the actuality of any possible thing. If nothingness is the substrate in change and being is rather a property, then existence is prior to and at the same time a property of change; a hopeless contradiction. In effect, you deny non-contradiction, placing being and non-being in identity, granting being to non-being.

[rozeboosje]

I'm not "granting" anything. It's a relatively simple mathematical explanation. It works. So your problem with being and non-being is exactly that. YOUR problem.

[stmichael71]

If it contradicts itself, it's YOUR problem. And, further, I don't see how you propose that, seeing that you yourself consider nothingness as non-existent and hence "nihil fit." Hence, nothing comes from nothing. Maybe you/I misunderstood something, but it seems you were arguing exactly the same thing in your video.

[rozeboosje]

You did indeed misunderstand something.

[robheusd]

Hegel, by the way, *does* argue that Being and Nothing are the same. He really means that.

In the abstract sense, neither Being nor Nothing have any determination, and therefore are the same determination (or lack thereof).

It is also true of course that they are each others opposite.

[Rybot9000]

I thought energy could not be created or destroyed, only transformed. That seems to imply that the universe had no beginning. ;)

[rUTokKIN2ME]

I was with you all the way up to the very end. I've not for sometime heard anyone claim that there was once nothing. You supported that claim with a different argument. "nothing is not a logical possility". So if your argument renders the "from nothing, nothing comes" argument illogical, how does that effect the conclusion. I've yet to find anyone who doesn't share the conclusion, deist, theist or atheist. Something exists that had no beginning.

[rUTokKIN2ME]

Sorry, I meant you supported the claim that there has never been "nothing". And did it with a different argument. I just want to be sure I understand you, and that you aren't fighting windmills.

[rozeboosje]

The point is that it is not necessary to postulate a God in order to explain why anything at all exists. The argument that reality in itself is "proof" for a God is thus debunked. One cannot, of course, conclude from that that there is *no* God, but I'm not making that claim.

[rUTokKIN2ME]

Gotcha. But with the conclusion that something exists which has no beginning, what is the path of exploration to look like? Why is one assumption to be preferred? (the assumption as to what exists that is without beginning)

[rozeboosje]

That I do not know. I know a few things, like the Natural Numbers, are timeless truths, but I don't know how far reaching that is. Greater mathematical minds would be able to help out there. But the more that can be derived like that, the less need I would see for a God.

[rUTokKIN2ME]

I would also like to clarify that I am only interested in whether or not there is a creative intellect behind the universe (at this point) and intentionally leaving the consideration of any particular God as described in any particular religion. I find jumping ahead to a detailed description of this proposed God to be counterproductive to the consideration of this question.

[rozeboosje]

In that case I can only say I see no evidence whatsoever for a creative intellect, and until someone can point me toward something of that nature I think we have no justification for moving forward from the position of "I don't know".

[bubonicnate]

I am guna have to mull this one over in my head - good concepts!