I mean “nothing” as an empty set, the absence of atoms in the entire universe.
That was the essense of my question, and may be a better way of putting it. How about just: “Why is there something?”
Now that it seems we essentially agree, what is your opinion on my original conclusion that we don’t need infinity to explain the “beginning” of the universe (the first event)?
Hi Russiantank,
And well observed. Language is the barrier I hit just about every time I argue something at ILP. I find most discussions eventually boil down to arguments over definitions.
Well, this is where we differ. Obviously whilst atoms exist, you are saying that “something” exists, but where do these atoms exist?
Well, there is no beginning to “nothing”. Surely the emptiness that atoms occupy is neither something nor nothing, what came before the “emptiness”? “Emptiness” is essential in order for “something” to be. Why do atoms exist? That question is pointless because the bigger picture is what these atoms lie and occupy.
They exist in nothingness, so what? I’m not sure we really differ, I think it’s a matter of understanding each others point of view.
There is no “before emptiness”, there never was complete emptiness.
The painting of the black horse exist because of the black paint, and because of the paper. For matter to exist there has to be “non-matter”, I agree.
The painting of the black horse could not exist without the white paper, but the white paper could exist without the horse. Atoms could not exist without emptiness, but emptiness could “exist” without atoms. Why are there atoms in the emptyness?
PS! You didn’t answer the last question of my previous post.
Celox, you almost answered the question for me, the emptiness can exist without atoms but atoms cannot exist without emptiness. Are you asking me “why” as in, cause and effect or for a “reason”, cause and effect is not reason, it is only cause and effect. Is there a reason as to why i exist? NO!! but there is a reason in terms of cause and effect. Is there a reason as to why atoms exist, NO!! but there is a reason in terms of cause and effect.
may i ask why you think this question is important?
Exactly, atoms are eternal or they are not, it does not matter anyway because emptiness always “is” anyway.
excuse my grammar.
I’m not asking you. I’m just illustrating a difficult question that can’t (as I see it) be answered. It’s something we just have to accept, no matter how illogical it seems.
What do you mean by that last sentence? That atoms were caused to be? That at some point they did not exist? [Edit: I guess not (seeing your new post).]
It’s not important that it is answered. In fact the point is that it can’t be answered, and that infinite causality does not answer it either.
If you were refering to my “PS!”: The question is important because it creates an alternative to infinity as a real phenomenon. I think the view that something infinite actually exist may limit our ability to understand reality.
Is limitless “space” not enough? Have we not agreed that the existence or non existence of atoms does not make a difference as to whether or not emptiness ‘‘is’’? Why do the atoms matter if it is the emptiness that gives the space to exist.
Can you see that it is not a question of “why something rather than nothing”? If there were no atoms then emptiness as i have said would still “be” or “not be”, however way you want to look at it. Why do atoms exist? As i said, the question is not worth pondering, if it were not atoms then surely there would be something else, only the void allows these “somethings” to be.
Rami.
Rami,
It was not an argument against your position, but against the original post in this thread. Forget our discussion of “atoms” vs. “emptyness” in relation to that question.
I see that, it is a question concerning what caused atoms.
Nothing caused them, they have always been. But not for infinity, because the past is not infinite. That is my argument.
I do not believe there are no moments. We should not apply our illusions to the external, we are the atoms and we are in the void. There are atoms and there is a void. Even if there were one atoms and then there were an infinite number of atoms, that would not change my positon, atoms can multiply etc but they will still only exist in the void.
Rami.
Now I’m confused. I thought that the two of you were disagreeing about what “nothingness” was. It seemed to me that Rami was saying that it was the absence of matter, while celox was saying that it was more fundamental, namely the absence of space itself. Both are acceptable meanings of the same word.
But now, celox, you seems to be agreeing that it is the absence of matter. In this case, you have not resolved the the infinity problem. Only by regarding space and time as having a definite “beginning” (the big bang), can you remove infinity (at least, in the past).
So I resonate with what I thought was your earlier position, that space and time have a beginning, and that, to answer NoelyG, there is a regression of cause and effect to one event, though I would not call that event an infinite cause.
That leaves the question of where the universe is, and what happened before the big bang. But the big bang created both space and time, so words like “where” and “before” do not have their usual meaning. I don’t believe that these are meaningless questions, but I think we need to be very careful as to what their exact meaning is (e.g. talk about “outside” space-time, rather than use “where” and “before”). I don’t pretend to have any answers to such questions.
Sorry for the confusion. I used his definition of “nothingness” to answer the first question.
What “nothingness” is the absence of, depends on the nature of the universe. But I essentially agree with you, and has not changed my original position.
That’s still my position, and I agree.
Exactly.
It is what matter occupies.
What exactly is meant by infintie cause?
The thing is the universe is causal. The universe is always the case. Aspects of the universe come and go just as the habits, desires, feelings, and qualities of a person change. Just like the ocean is constant but the individual waves which are the ocean themselves rise and fall. Just as the days repeat but the sun rises and sets.
We are the universe. Like Alan Watts says, it’s inside us and we are inside it. We are it. A tree is it, a rock is it, the planets and stars are it.
As for nothingness. The beginning and end of time is this: the moment you were born and the moment you will die. That’s all that matters as far as you or I are concerned. The Universe will manifest forever, yet it doesn’t exist at all without us to perceive and measure. Right? How does it? How do we know? We remember this life and that’s it. It’s not because someone flashed us like in Men and Black and POoF - No more. It’s that we are a product of this time frame of existence. Time, the universe began for me on August 8th, 1984 at 8:32 PM. I don’t remember it but I have others who inform me of what was. Am I the same person I was back then? Yes and no. I grew and evolved and I will pass on one day. Sun rise, sun set.
The question of anything beyond this is irrelevant because we are this. We literally are this time frame, this possibility in an infinite universe of possibilities.
That maybe the case but i argue that that void in which atoms occupy remains just that, a “void”. An empty void is a potential for atoms but what exists in the void is not so important because the void can exist alone and everything else occupying the void. I also argue that the illusion of “passing by” and change are not actual “change” in the void or the changing moments of “moments” in the void but just the combination of atoms themselfs.
All these things are not “it” but only the “atoms” occupying “it”, “it” being the void.
I agree the atoms are just altering in combination. To speak of it as change is really another representation however of what is happening. They are both explanations of the same phenomenon, one however, is more understandable from a general human perspective. To say they are changing is also correct if you say the atoms are just altering combinations, they are changing. We have this linear view of time and this fits along that view. The linear view is a fine representation I think though it may not be the case.
The void as well as the atoms occupying it are both the universe. Both are essential for the other. Without emptiness there is nothing and without something, the emptiness has nothing to recognize it’s being whatsoever or to even give it purpose.
To give it purpose? What purpose are the atoms if the “void” is the only thing that trully “is”. Since the “what is” in your universe of atoms can diminish or it may not, but the “what is” of the void cannot diminish.
There is nothing to recognise but what exists, “nothing”.