Something Instead of Nothing

Ok so if im correct, nothing is objective and nothingness is subjective?

No sir I disagree with you. First of all speculating is not philosophy and second I do a hell of a lot more than speculating. I can speculate that I may get in this pussy but when Im in it Im no longer speculating. I mean to begin with. That is how I was born by some dude not anymore speculating but doing the thing to some girl.

Or am I alone here?

Logic is definitely not speculative if you have a definitional logic.
You just begin with something real, which is always an action.

barbarianhorde

Yes, this is the way that I was looking at it. The former can be material while the later is ethereal or psychical ~~ though they both call to mind a kind of emptiness.

At the same time, when one thinks of the Universe before there was anything, if that was even so ~~ how can one ever comprehend it, one can call THAT (before all creation) nothing and nothingness… or devoid of space. lol I do not mean to convolute here.

At the risk of showing my ignorance here, what is the valid question if there is one in particular?

What would be the criteria for making a question valid? Would it be the proof in the pudding meaning whether or not the answers which come from it are seemingly valid and not non-sensible…if that made sense.

It does seem paradoxical that we can question “Why something rather than nothing?” given that a second’s thought to the matter makes us realize you can’t have nothing. This says something about the way we conceptualize ‘things’. Even when we contemplate the whole of existence, we make it into a ‘thing,’ and a thing is conceptualized as an entity in existence, not as existence itself. Therefore, it seems incomplete. It seems like there ought to be other things around it, a background from which it came, a source, a greater universe to give existence to it. So to ask “why something?” is to ask: what is the greater existence that spawned the existence we know of? And how did it do it?

Hold on, stop the pony, I just realized the Sun is nothingness.

all the things in it are destroyed constantly, it is just the failure of many things at once to exist impeding each other constantly and destroying. No city can ever be built in the Sun, no hammer forged. No thing can be made.

I find it far off to deny the Sun is a thing, but he is a thing as a negation of thingness. Thats a pretty special (and weird) thing.

That explains Christmas.

So is the Sun the things that are destroyed in it? What is the “it” in which they are destroyed?
The Sun, surely?

Ironically, it is within stars like the Sun that all chemical elements are created.

Every single thing that you might consider to be a thing that would be destroyed by the Sun is historically a product of stars like the Sun.

Is not, also, “destruction” a form of “creation” - albeit a creation of something with more entropy?
Consider the “conservation of energy” that dictates that the energy taken to destroy is equally given off in another form such as light and heat. The light and heat at least are the Sun, surely? It’s all some existent matter and energy behaving in some way or other, no matter how relatively violently and impermanently.

Great reply because it makes it even more interesting for me, I stick with my discovery. Because listen, what gets destroyed the most in the Sun is hydrogen right? And hydrogen isn’t made in the Sun it is what the Sun is made of when a cold cloud collapses.

So the sun is the thing that wrecks the stufflings of which it is made but then …it makes carbon and oxygen because of where it dies and reincarnates into a red giant where all the heavier elements get prepared to get spat out into space when it dies for good and a neutron corpse star remain which is a thing … because… it is totally still and dead.

So when the un-thing or nothingness dies it becomes things.

Still, an understanding of somethingness involves somehow connecting the dots between what some insist was nothing at all exploding into existence into everything there is evolving over billions of years into matter mindful enough to speculate about the meaning of it all here and now.

Then the part where my somethingness topples over into the abyss that some insist is nothing at all, but: But the stuff we started out as.

And how preposterous does that sound?

I’m trying to imagine the star that you came from. This and how star stuff can somehow evolve into pussy.

Or, for that matter, dickheads. :-"

Nothing having ever evolved doesn’t sound like a fairy tale stories. This sounds like relative facts. But still a source upon if we throw again a book at someone like the road to evolution or something. Than there might possibly only one sort of element people are forgetting in the mind. Carbon.

Tell us about Carbon.
Remind me I need to watch the video about how life came out of minerals.

If Serendipper sees this please repost.

Oh this a grande point.

Has not the mind already existed throughout life so much so that only one material based rock can exist and not another? No. Although within the psyche pain still hurts doesn’t it? For have not individualism put into affect acknowledgement of a precursor to date existence back through time. Where if time is hidden, and or if time doesn’t exist nothingness, nothingness exists in it’s place. Time maybe stood still for a moment for a sum amount of people yet out of something that happened and was going to already happen. Relative reasons as to why time evolves and suppose space were to do the same. Not evolve or evolve. Material matter of which we are not all inherently always apart of witnessing daily. Something instead of nothing is constantly happening.

Oh just precursors barbarian. Matter. Matter substance in general, as distinct from mind, body and spirit.

I think matter has spirit
Carbon has spirit “6”

There’s carbon in mindless matter and carbon in the matter that possess minds. Minds able to employ that carbon [and lots of others elements] to [eventually] create computers and internet forums like this one.

And some trace that all the way back to the Big Bang and to stars that exploded. Explosions that spewed out all the somethingness that turned into this.

And these facts are all relative to whatever brought into the existence that very first somethingness of all. Was it nothingness? And, if so, how does the mindful matter of infinitesimally tiny and insignificant mere mortals on this infinitesimally tiny and insignificant rock in this infinitesimally tiny and insignificant solar system in this infinitesimally tiny and insignificant galaxy in what may well be this infinitesimally and tiny and insignificant universe come to grips with that?

What can we really, really, really know about it?

Before, one by one, we tumble over into the abyss that may well literally become nothing at all for “I”. If only for all of eternity.

So, clearly, only the Kids among us really know what’s going on. :wink:

But the universe is nothing…a big nothing.
It only appears to be something, like an inkblot.
It only appears to be going somewhere, like a rat race.
The universe is almost entirely empty space.
And full space is almost entirely empty space.
Backwards and forwards in time, inside and outside in space, the universe is infinitely regressive and divisible, there’s no origin, destination or substance.
It doesn’t repeat itself, so much as it rhymes.
A septillion years from now, the universe will be totally unrecognizable, and a septillion years from then, more unrecognizable still.
And so we are but a means to an alien end.
Our universe is the multiverse, in that it is transformative.
It’s a chameleon, a shapeshifter.

How is this possible?

Sure, I get that. But the matter we see is a result of the space that isn’t empty.

And physicists will tell you that empty space is really filled with particles and waves.

@gib

Because something in the hard sense of the word, means finitely regressive and divisible, which the cosmos doesn’t appear to be.
A first cause and final effect, which’s absent.
An unchanging pattern and/or substance underpinning change, which’s missing.

The particles and waves themselves are almost entirely empty space.

Ah, the universe itself is not a thing. I could hop on board with that (maybe), but it must be filled with things.

(what does finitely regressive mean?)

You have to insert ‘almost’, don’t you? If I mark a dot on a piece of paper, I can say the paper is almost completely unmarked. But I can’t draw the conclusion there is no mark.

However much of ‘something’ there is is a relative matter. If space is infinite, you could say that even a single particle is plenty of stuff… or next to infinitesimal… depending on how far you want to zoom out.

But in all seriousness, I’ve just never quite understood how people can jump to the conclusion that the universe is nothing based on ‘almost’ nothing, or signs of nothing, or a philosophy of balance or opposing forces–at least, as if they themselves understood what they were talking about. It does seem like a ‘jump’ to me–like there isn’t quite enough to draw that conclusion deductively. If the universe really was absolute nothing, we wouldn’t be here even to say it’s absolute nothing.