‘Must all things come to an end’ [part II]

[Amorphos]

‘Must all things come to an end’ [part II]

If we arrived at the ‘place’ where everything has ended, then nothing could have ever existed, its like the notion of something from nothing in reverse. If we end up with nothing then there couldn’t have ever been anything.

Equally in the particular can anything come to an end, with QM it seems that no quantum state can have spatial locations until that position is arrived at, its as if there only exists ‘middles’ but beginnings and endings make no sense and cannot exist.

It must only be possible for reality to be eternal?

_

[Suzera]

There is no logical reason that everything couldn’t just stop existing at any particular instant. The only reason you would think otherwise is because of irrational emotional attachment. The only argument is really whether it is useful to consider that it might in any particular case. Generally the logical answer to that is “no” because there’s nowhere to go from that and it does nothing of use for us.

It’s also possible there has only been nothing at some point before now. Either direction, there is nothing that says our currently discovered physical laws must hold.

Must they come to/from nothingness though? No. Currently it seems likely that it will not ever come to nothingness either based on what we know of things if they hold for eternity. Thus there will never really be an end of all things, regardless of quantum mechanics. Conservation of energy assures us of this, even if all that is left is heat.

[Amorphos]

There is no logical reason that everything couldn’t just stop existing at any particular instant.

If it did then define that place. How could nothing contain all the events of history? How can nothing not eradicate the very fact that we once existed? It would be entire there would be no room for anything bar it. Equally how can we even arrive at that, what would make things stop when you would have to have something else there to stop it?

It’s also possible there has only been nothing at some point before now. Either direction, there is nothing that says our currently discovered physical laws must hold.

I agree with the latter, but the nothing could not have ever existed imho, because you cannot get something to arise once it is all there is. We even have to ask if that plausible, how can there be is-ness and non is-ness.

Conservation of energy assures us of this, even if all that is left is heat.

Hmm well I don’t see how you can have an infinite coldness [heat?], something else would have to occur.

[Suzera]

@Amorphos

If it did then define that place.

Do I need to? If everything simultaneously just ceases to exist, it doesn’t seem like a place for that would need to be defined.

How could nothing contain all the events of history? How can nothing not eradicate the very fact that we once existed?

That could also cease to exist if you require it to not exist to be “the end”.

It would be entire there would be no room for anything bar it. Equally how can we even arrive at that, what would make things stop when you would have to have something else there to stop it?

Cause and effect would also cease to exist. Thus, it would need no cause. It would merely happen.

I agree with the latter, but the nothing could not have ever existed imho, because you cannot get something to arise once it is all there is. We even have to ask if that plausible, how can there be is-ness and non is-ness.

The trivial explanation is that there once was nothing and then suddenly there was. That is all that is required for a theory. However, that is unsatisfying in our cause/effect demanding brains and universe that seems to support it, so the best I can say there is that possibly things have always existed so there is not a beginning, or that we have just not yet figured out how something came from nothing if we even can without also being that first “nothing”.

Hmm well I don’t see how you can have an infinite coldness [heat?], something else would have to occur.

Conversion of mass to energy would essentially be the conversion of all matter into heat. The reverse could also occur, or something inbetween. The point is, as long as energy is conserved, mass is just a different form of energy, and there is no “negative energy” to cancel out all of our energy and mass, there will be something around into eternity no matter if it is all energy, all mass, or something between.

[Amorphos]

Suzera

Do I need to? If everything simultaneously just ceases to exist, it doesn’t seem like a place for that would need to be defined.

True, I should have put ‘place’ in quotes, I was actually asking about the philosophical state/statelessness there.

That could also cease to exist if you require it to not exist to be “the end”.

True but how does that change the eventualities? My former premise appears to still holds.

Cause and effect would also cease to exist. Thus, it would need no cause. It would merely happen.

isn’t that a contradiction? Though I see your most interesting point. Something would have to make it happen imho. Problem is when it just happens, where does that leave us and with what? Lets say we somehow arrive at the end of things, is that then an eternity/infinity of some kind, and how can it be.

The trivial explanation is that there once was nothing and then suddenly there was. That is all that is required for a theory. However, that is unsatisfying in our cause/effect demanding brains and universe that seems to support it, so the best I can say there is that possibly things have always existed so there is not a beginning, or that we have just not yet figured out how something came from nothing if we even can without also being that first “nothing”.

My point is that there is never something from nothing nor something to nothing, that’s just implausible/impossible. Anything else is unsatisfactory, so I’m going with your no beginning [or endings, necessarily] philosophy.

Conversion of mass to energy would essentially be the conversion of all matter into heat. The reverse could also occur, or something inbetween. The point is, as long as energy is conserved, mass is just a different form of energy, and there is no “negative energy” to cancel out all of our energy and mass, there will be something around into eternity no matter if it is all energy, all mass, or something between.

isn’t mass empty? I agree there will always be something around, but a perpetual residue heat/coldness doesn’t seam likely, I’d expect cyclicity at least [via black holes collectively?] ~ expansion - contraction.

_

[Suzera]

@Amorphos

True, I should have put ‘place’ in quotes, I was actually asking about the philosophical state/statelessness there.

I’m still not sure in what sense you would find this applicable to say.

True but how does that change the eventualities? My former premise appears to still holds.

Any eventualities could also cease to exist.

isn’t that a contradiction? Though I see your most interesting point. Something would have to make it happen imho. Problem is when it just happens, where does that leave us and with what? Lets say we somehow arrive at the end of things, is that then an eternity/infinity of some kind, and how can it be.

It’s not really a contradiction, just difficult to comprehend, if possible. One could conceive of it as cause and effect never truly having existed, it all just happened to act as such until that moment at which point everything showed it’s true nature then up and vanished. However, this isn’t unnecessary unless you consider cause and effect to be entirely immutable.

Infinity doesn’t actually exist, even now, so that’s ok already. Time itself could stop existing, and that would do away with eternity. It’s already questionable if time really exists. We know it isn’t constant nor objective via relativity at least.

My point is that there is never something from nothing nor something to nothing, that’s just implausible/impossible.

Implausible perhaps, but why impossible? You might not like that violation of what you consider true, and it might not have much use beyond the statement “yeah, it’s technically possible” but that doesn’t make it false outright.

Anything else is unsatisfactory, so I’m going with your no beginning [or endings, necessarily] philosophy.

Me too.

isn’t mass empty? I agree there will always be something around, but a perpetual residue heat/coldness doesn’t seam likely, I’d expect cyclicity at least [via black holes collectively?] ~ expansion - contraction.

Mass technically may not exist as a physical entity rather than mass being empty per se. What I mean by heat is that all matter could possibly be burned into energy somehow, but that is unlikely.

If everything were absolutely cold (i.e. absolute zero) and no matter existed, then there is probably nothing physical in existence in current physics theory.

[Amorphos]

Hmm ok, so what if we attempt to define that kind of nothing which would exist after all things come to an end, what would that be?

Though incomprehensible, when I consider this I am always left with the feeling that we end up having to describe the very same problem as something from nothing. That ‘space’ or void has to describe itself in some way, and when it does it is no longer nothing ~ in a manner of speaking.

[finishedman]

@Amorphos

Hmm ok, so what if we attempt to define that kind of nothing which would exist after all things come to an end, what would that be?

Though incomprehensible, when I consider this I am always left with the feeling that we end up having to describe the very same problem as something from nothing. That ‘space’ or void has to describe itself in some way, and when it does it is no longer nothing ~ in a manner of speaking.

When thinking about the matter is there, you are there. As long as the you is there, there’s a sense of an entity there: the attendance of one that is an experiencer of the thoughts and ideas. When thought is not there, you cease to exist with no concern for anything at all, hence, nothingness. It’s those gaps of nothingness in between thought that creates your notion of nothing in the ‘universe’ of your own mind.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

One thing I’ve been thinking is that the physical realm is actually the minor and negative aspect of two realms colliding.

The physical is naturally inert and passive.
It collided with a realm which grows and naturally expands.
It didn’t collide with the center of the expanding realm, it just hit a part of it.
The two forces became one.

The result is a realm which has two principals instead of one.
We have both life-like and death-like principals.
The physical tends towards minimalism, whereas the other aspect tends to grow and make more instead of breaking down and becoming less.

These two natures confuse the mind when the mind seeks to find only a single one instead of two or more.

[finishedman]

The body is not interested in thought’s perpetuation at all. The actions of the body are responses to the stimuli, and it has no separate, independent existence of its own. Unfortunately, time is the one that has created the beginning and the end, and it is interested in permanence, whereas the functioning of the body is immortal in its own way, because it has no beginning, it is not born, so it has no death… So there is a death to the thought, but not to the body. I don’t know if I make myself clear.

Thought perpetuates itself. It does not want to come to an end. Whatever the mind is, it wishes to believe it’s immortal. It is interested in creating an artificial immortality – of an entity, soul, self, whatever you want to call it. It knows in a way that it is coming to an end somewhere along the line, and its survival, its continuity, its status quo depends upon the continuity of the body. But body is not in any way involved with the thought, because it has no beginning, it has no end. It is the thought that has created the two points – this is the birth and that is the death.

The body exists, the brain exists, but has no beginning and no end… So since the body is not born, so it has no end. It is the thought that has created the body, and established a point and says it’s born here, and is going to end there. So it is the thought that has created the time factor. We are caught up in the field of logical thinking, and that there is no beginning, that there is no end, is something which shatters the whole fabric, the foundation of our logical thinking. It’s probably difficult to accept.
.
Some talk as if the body is separate from the totality of the universe or totality of nature, or whatever you want to call it. It is the thought that has created the body, a separate entity, and tells that this has a beginning, this has an end. It has created the space. Thought creates the space, thought creates the time. So it cannot conceive the possibility of anything outside the field of space and touch. Actually, the thought is the one that has created the space and experiences the space, but actually there is no such thing as space at all. What is there is a space-time-energy continuum, which is a continuum, but it has no end.The thought cannot conceive of the possibility of a movement without a beginning and without this point where it is going to arrive someday or sometime

[Rigdon1]

@finishedman

The body is not interested in thought’s perpetuation at all. The actions of the body are responses to the stimuli, and it has no separate, independent existence of its own. Unfortunately, time is the one that has created the beginning and the end, and it is interested in permanence, whereas the functioning of the body is immortal in its own way, because it has no beginning, it is not born, so it has no death… So there is a death to the thought, but not to the body. I don’t know if I make myself clear.

Thought perpetuates itself. It does not want to come to an end. Whatever the mind is, it wishes to believe it’s immortal. It is interested in creating an artificial immortality – of an entity, soul, self, whatever you want to call it. It knows in a way that it is coming to an end somewhere along the line, and its survival, its continuity, its status quo depends upon the continuity of the body. But body is not in any way involved with the thought, because it has no beginning, it has no end. It is the thought that has created the two points – this is the birth and that is the death.

The body exists, the brain exists, but has no beginning and no end… So since the body is not born, so it has no end. It is the thought that has created the body, and established a point and says it’s born here, and is going to end there. So it is the thought that has created the time factor. We are caught up in the field of logical thinking, and that there is no beginning, that there is no end, is something which shatters the whole fabric, the foundation of our logical thinking. It’s probably difficult to accept.
.
Some talk as if the body is separate from the totality of the universe or totality of nature, or whatever you want to call it. It is the thought that has created the body, a separate entity, and tells that this has a beginning, this has an end. It has created the space. Thought creates the space, thought creates the time. So it cannot conceive the possibility of anything outside the field of space and touch. Actually, the thought is the one that has created the space and experiences the space, but actually there is no such thing as space at all. What is there is a space-time-energy continuum, which is a continuum, but it has no end.The thought cannot conceive of the possibility of a movement without a beginning and without this point where it is going to arrive someday or sometime

I see what you’re saying… I think. It sounds like you are saying that we are a part of the whole. We are not separate from the existence of what makes up the universe. Our minds tell us that were come into existence at our birthdate, but actually we were always there and that when we die we do not cease to exist, but our mind does… Am I understanding correctly?

The way we try to immortalize our thoughts is through legacy, but this could possibly be a finite value if all of our knowledge ceased to exist.

Reminds me of an oration by Terrence Mkenna. He talked of how when something new is created that the universe conserves that novelty, because it doesn’t ever actually destroy anything, so that everything new created is added to the universe. If that is true, then nothing ever actually comes to an end, we just put that label on it.

[Amorphos]

finishedman

The body exists, the brain exists, but has no beginning and no end… So since the body is not born, so it has no end. It is the thought that has created the body, and established a point and says it’s born here, and is going to end there. So it is the thought that has created the time factor. We are caught up in the field of logical thinking, and that there is no beginning, that there is no end, is something which shatters the whole fabric, the foundation of our logical thinking. It’s probably difficult to accept.

I was more thinking about the whole of existence reality even, but anyway you make sense here in personal terms. I am unsure where reductionism in physicalism gets us, it seems that energy occurs where it is required, even if that’s in two places at once.

Perhaps we are looking at the whole thing in the wrong way [though very useful], while we exist at least there is no beginning nor end to us. Perhaps we should be looking at it all as though each being or entity has its own reality map, I don’t know how that would all pan out, but I don’t think its right to see things in finite terms anymore, but rather that there are only entireties and never parts or whole [like ½ an orange or a whole, but the tree is the entirety as are we].

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Amorphos

I was more thinking about the whole of existence reality even, but anyway you make sense here in personal terms. I am unsure where reductionism in physicalism gets us, it seems that energy occurs where it is required, even if that’s in two places at once.

Perhaps we are looking at the whole thing in the wrong way [though very useful], while we exist at least there is no beginning nor end to us. Perhaps we should be looking at it all as though each being or entity has its own reality map, I don’t know how that would all pan out, but I don’t think its right to see things in finite terms anymore, but rather that there are only entireties and never parts or whole [like ½ an orange or a whole, but the tree is the entirety as are we].

Sadly humans can’t tap into their whole.

For example there is vast nuclear energy trapped in your solid bodily parts.

Entireties are only for people that can think big. You have to be especially smart before this type of thinking is possibly useful.
For the common person, a world of subworlds is all there is. That is just how they manage.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Amorphos"

‘Must all things come to an end’ [part II]

If we arrived at the ‘place’ where everything has ended, then nothing could have ever existed, its like the notion of something from nothing in reverse. If we end up with nothing then there couldn’t have ever been anything.

That would only depend on your perception. And isn’t that a nihilistic way of viewing things? And wouldn’t the notion of “arrived” speak to having "occupied space " somewhere and doesn’t somewhere bespeak something? Insofar as "reality’ goes, can something ever derive from nothing?

Equally in the particular can anything come to an end, with QM it seems that no quantum state can have spatial locations until that position is arrived at, its as if there only exists ‘middles’ but beginnings and endings make no sense and cannot exist.

I don’t think it is the arriving" that does it but the “seeing” that brings it into existence. Unless I’m misunderstanding you and QT. Maybe there are no beginnings endings nor middles…maybe they are just part of the reality ‘map’ (but not the reality itself) to give us an estimate, in physical, human forms, of where we stand in the present moment which is actually the only place we can stand in - and where your ‘something else’ also lies and emerges from.

It must only be possible for reality to be eternal?

If the “eternal” is part of "reality, no?
Almost finished with S.E.

[Suzera]

@Amorphos

Though incomprehensible, when I consider this I am always left with the feeling that we end up having to describe the very same problem as something from nothing.

I don’t find “nothing” to be particularly incomprehensible. It might make me a little uneasy at times, but I find it really easy to comprehend that we’re always potentially 1 instant whose duration is so small we can’t perceive it away from complete oblivion of everything.

I was more thinking about the whole of existence reality even, but anyway you make sense here in personal terms. I am unsure where reductionism in physicalism gets us, it seems that energy occurs where it is required, even if that’s in two places at once.

Not sure where you’re going with “energy occurs where it is required”.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@Amorphos

‘Must all things come to an end’ [part II]

If we arrived at the ‘place’ where everything has ended, then nothing could have ever existed, its like the notion of something from nothing in reverse. If we end up with nothing then there couldn’t have ever been anything.

Equally in the particular can anything come to an end, with QM it seems that no quantum state can have spatial locations until that position is arrived at, its as if there only exists ‘middles’ but beginnings and endings make no sense and cannot exist.

It must only be possible for reality to be eternal?

_

There is no reason to think reality must obey logic since reality existence is not backed by logical necessity. Which means they very fact that reality exists is unreasonable, or without reason. Existence is absurd… and no this is not nihilistic at all. Feel free to challenge me on that.

[Amorphos]

Dan~

I tend to agree. Though perhaps tapping into the whole is not tapping into your nuclear or any other energy, ~ consider that they are parts and not whole.
I think the whole is a mind thing, that the reality map describes that, and by entirety by different means, which should when understood encompass the material and immaterial. If we can ever understand such things.

Arcturus Descending

That would only depend on your perception. And isn’t that a nihilistic way of viewing things?

It is on a personal level, but I am more thinking about everything.

And wouldn’t the notion of “arrived” speak to having "occupied space " somewhere and doesn’t somewhere bespeak something? Insofar as "reality’ goes, can something ever derive from nothing?

Hmm good point, it does seem impossible to ‘arrive’ at nothing as there would always be something prior to that nothing. I had to make a logical jump, to just go to the idea of what that ‘place’ would be like. By eliminating that void it forces eternity upon the reality map.

I don’t think it is the arriving" that does it but the “seeing” that brings it into existence. Unless I’m misunderstanding you and QT. Maybe there are no beginnings endings nor middles…maybe they are just part of the reality ‘map’ (but not the reality itself) to give us an estimate, in physical, human forms, of where we stand in the present moment which is actually the only place we can stand in - and where your ‘something else’ also lies and emerges from.

‘Seeing’ as in ‘observing’ I assume you mean. mostly I agree but don’t we end up with a ‘part-real’ problem if we un-include the observed presence as if like an illusion? Unless if I get you right, the appearance of things [middles] are made real because they pertain to their reality map [particular and/or universal] which is the actual reality.

If the “eternal” is part of "reality, no?
Almost finished with S.E.

‘Something else‘? I tend to jump from that to this to ‘the other’. we’ll end up with the same story.
Eternal is not a part of reality imho, and reality is eternal ~ same thing described from different perspectives.

Suzera

I agree nothing is only problematic when we try to see it as something.
I meant by “energy occurs where it is required”, as in QM, e.g. plant cells direct light from the outside to the inside of them for photosynthesis, by using the lack of spatial locations of quantum energies like light. …a scientist said on the documentary; ‘how long is a piece of string’ [google it if you don’t already know, which I expect you do].

WW_III_ANGRY

There is no reason to think reality must obey logic since reality existence is not backed by logical necessity. Which means they very fact that reality exists is unreasonable, or without reason. Existence is absurd… and no this is not nihilistic at all. Feel free to challenge me on that.

Challenge you? Surely I have to find a midway point between our differences. lol

Reality probably doesn’t obey logic, as that would infer logic was there first etc. its more that absurdity just so happens to produce what we absurd entities call logic and reason. A different absurd reality would produce a completely different ‘logic’, thus logic and reason just as reality itself don’t exist.

…but they do exist! …?

[WW_III_ANGRY]

WW_III_ANGRY

There is no reason to think reality must obey logic since reality existence is not backed by logical necessity. Which means they very fact that reality exists is unreasonable, or without reason. Existence is absurd… and no this is not nihilistic at all. Feel free to challenge me on that.
[/quote]

@Amorphos

Challenge you? Surely I have to find a midway point between our differences. lol

Reality probably doesn’t obey logic, as that would infer logic was there first etc. its more that absurdity just so happens to produce what we absurd entities call logic and reason. A different absurd reality would produce a completely different ‘logic’, thus logic and reason just as reality itself don’t exist.

…but they do exist! …?

Well, logic is an abstraction, through the capability of consciousness. With that, they exist only as an abstract concept, but they are not necessarily always an abstraction of the physical, as opposed to a further abstraction of an abstraction… such as “good is not bad”, by definition, being a logical deduction. Or perhaps a better example would be quantifying the world, this too is pure abstraction and logical. 1+1=2 is pretty logical. Perhaps there is some sort of reality where every time you add 1 and 1 together you get three, because of some weird law of physics where the physical reality is affected by you doing the math in your head, but I doubt it. Would that in turn mean 1+1 = 3 to be a logical necessity? I don’t know, it might be recognized as illogical, mysterious, or whatever, but we simply would not have enough information available to postulate the conditions about such a weird reality, and making one up to suit an argument would be in vain, when there are no rules to follow, meaning we would then to make up anything we want to justify whatever we want.

[Suzera]

@Amorphos

I agree nothing is only problematic when we try to see it as something.

It’s also possible that everything ends for many separate amounts of time measured in septillions of years through our subjective day, before winking back into existence and we pick back up on our subjective timeframes none the wiser and with no way of knowing.

I meant by “energy occurs where it is required”, as in QM, e.g. plant cells direct light from the outside to the inside of them for photosynthesis, by using the lack of spatial locations of quantum energies like light. …a scientist said on the documentary; ‘how long is a piece of string’ [google it if you don’t already know, which I expect you do].

I hadn’t, actually. I do know many of the things it looks like the video would talk about though (and a few of them are purely theoretical things that don’t really seem to be born out by evidence). The plant cell thing is awesome and might have great applications for solar power if we can utilize it. However, that’s more of a beginning than an end!

More topical, that’s not really energy being where it is “required” per se, but I get what you mean now.

[James_S_Saint]

Nothing is also a problem when you try to see it as a state or situation.