Where Did it All Come From?

[r6r6]

bartholomew--Try to imagine two points with "nothing" in between them.

. . = two points --as defining finite occupied space Universe --depending on ho we agree to define them--- with seemingly nothing inbetween them is not a difficult concept to imagine or visualize.

o o = two points from a close point-of-view of them with seeming nothing in between

Try and try and try... After doing this can we still try to say that "nothing" is a reasonable possibility?

Yes, as long as we are considerate of gravities { metaphysical-3 } existence ---ergo mass-attractive force-- between those two points ---ex (o)( )( )( )(O) and beyond the finite Universe defined by only those two points.

= macro infinite of set of non-occupied space

(O) = occupied space of gravity embracing/surrounding all other occupied space aspects/properties of our finite, eternally existent Universe.

Something { occupied space } does not come from non-occupied space { nothing }.

It is irrational, illogical and lack of common sense to think that something { occupied space } can come from nothing { non-occupied space }.

Some humans believe many irrational, illogical and lack of common sense concepts much of the time. Why do humans believe irrational, illogical lack of concpets? The reasons vary.

The uncertainty principle means we can not know speed and location at same time, it does not mean we cannot know speed or location seperately at differrent times.

Universe is wholistic set of cause and effect orderly and deterministic processes. That humans cannot find the order sometimes does not mean that the order does not exist.

Uncertainty of mind does necessitate chaos.

An non electrician home owner may look into their electric service panel and think what a disorderly mess of wiring. The electrtician will see the order within a shorter time than the non-electrician.

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Well, gee, quantum physics says we (our bodies) are 99.99999% empty space.
Also...there is no empty space...there is something there, of course.

That's nothing, my head is even more empty space then that!

But yes, there is something there in all that empty space, although I don't know if thing is the right word for it??. But putting that aside, there seems to be a lot of disagreement over just how much is there. Some say there is infinitely much energy in each zero point of empty space (I tend to like that). Nevertheless, for some reason, when they measured it (i.e. when they were looking for it), they got a very tiny number. Hmmmm very interesting. Any thoughts as to why that could be?
Could it have anything to do with the moon. Extra Karma points for anyone who gives a coherent answer!!

https://www.askamathematician.com/20...-the-universe/

[TerramineLightvoid]

Originally Posted by ketzer

That's nothing, my head is even more empty space then that!

But yes, there is something there in all that empty space, although I don't know if thing is the right word for it??. But putting that aside, there seems to be a lot of disagreement over just how much is there. Some say there is infinitely much energy in each zero point of empty space (I tend to like that). Nevertheless, for some reason, when they measured it (i.e. when they were looking for it), they got a very tiny number. Hmmmm very interesting. Any thoughts as to why that could be?
Could it have anything to do with the moon. Extra Karma points for anyone who gives a coherent answer!!

https://www.askamathematician.com/20...-the-universe/

Just gonna say I've never seen anyone suggest that. Quantum Fluctuations don't necessarily have a specific set amount of energy, hence why they are called Fluctuations. Yes by default the amount is low, regardless. But it fluctuations between a median.

From here it's hypothesized that the fluctuations could stretch up to extremely high level. Including the hypothesis/theory that Quantum Fluctuations could perfectly explain the Big Bang. The math shows that about the time it would take, as many rolls of the dice for QFs to suddenly generate the same amount of energy as was contained in the BB. would take approx 1 Googol years. Which is the same length of time estimated for the Heat Death of the universe to occur.

Quite peculiar, looks an awful lot like another BB will generate about as soon as this universe dies.

Although I have my own scientific /theory/. That the 1st dimension aka Zero Point, is really a hole in spacetime which leads to another fabric of the universe of which I refer to as Light with a capital L. Which is a mirror image of the Light aspect from the classpect system I've talked about here. It's my theory on what the Holographic Principle is saying. This fabric/plane of existence is none other than the Quantum Electrodynamic Wave itself. The QED isn't a wave, it's a Fabric or fundamental aspect of Reality, just like Space and Time.

[TerramineLightvoid]

Originally Posted by Gem

The Krauss idea that something comes from nothing was mainly, not to validate nothingness, but to explain why God is not necessary as the cause of the universe. Hawkins had already said that science does't disprove God's existence; it only shows that God is not necessary for the universe to be.

I was using Krauss to validate my point, in fact my words are practically identical to what he says. He himself is the one who first among the scientific community tried to say that "Nothingness itself IS also a Something".

Which is true. Currently the scientific community scoffs at his conclusion but it's spot on. To whatever extent Nothing exists, it exists as a subsection of Existence. In the same way that Time and Space do. It's even arguably that in a roundabout way, Nothingness is a fabric of existence... in a paradoxical sense that the lack of a physical plane of existence begets Form/Boundary/Limitation. In religion and metaphysics this would be the equivalent to saying that the Void, was created by the Light... not the other way around. So to answer the OP. Did something come from nothing? Nope, it's the other way around. Nothingness came from Existence.

Anyways about God. It depends on your definition. If you define God as the one who CREATES the universe, then most certainly Science will disprove God. But this is absurd. It's clearly obvious that God means RULER of the universe. As in the most powerful being in existence. That he is Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc. Or the closest thing to it. In that regard science PROVES God, as the secular universe is PRIME to be a Throne for those who seek to dominate it. Or by a higher force of consciousness which may already be present.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by TerramineLightvoid

He himself is the one who first among the scientific community tried to say that "Nothingness itself IS also a Something". Which is true.

False. No rational logical common sense in such a statement.

Something { somethingness } = occupied space

Nothing { no things /nothingness = non-occupied space.

These concepts dont get any simpler than this, yet few can such simple rational logical common sense even after years of my explaining clearly.

It appears some humans are afraid of truth or at least rational, logical common sense pathways of thought. Why?

The reasons vary from person to person but there may exist a common theme to those who 'believe all kind of nonsense 100 times a day before breakfest'. Go figure.Or not.

It is almost as tho some people fear their brain may go into convulsions or epeletic siesure if they were to follow a rational, logical common sense pathway of thought. Go figure. Or not. Most choose 'not'.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

False. No rational logical common sense in such a statement.

Sorry R2D2 but I am afraid that does not compute.

Let me say it as clear as I can.

Dog + Cat = Fish - Frog + $# over &% to the power of <f>

You can argue with me but you can't argue with the math!

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Let me say it as clear as I can.

I look forward to that. Could be interesting and of relevant signifcance to some. If you have some truths to offer even better.

Something { occupied space } does not equal nothing { non-occupied space }.

Rational, logical common sense does not equal irrational, illogical lack of common sense.

Concave -> ( <- convex inherently a priori and complementary i.e. the one cannot exist without the other is and eternal { inviolate } truth.

[RamDam]

Originally Posted by Philos_Tone

What have you postulated about the beginning of things?

Hello.
I believe that the beginning of any thing comes from thinking the thing into existence. To conceive a thing is to conceptualise it.
You have to think about a 'concept' before the 'thought thing' can appear. So there must already be totally present an awareness of the 'thought thing' before it can appear to be made 'known' to have a conception/beginning.
That to me is how beginnings and endings of things are born. That is what I call having 'knowledge' of some known thing.

But for me, there is no knowledge of any beginning nor ending of what is actually being aware of a 'thing thought' and that is the ultimate mystery right there, and there seems to be no approach or stepping beyond the horizon to directly capture the mystery head-on because two minds can never meet.
So there is no stepping beyond the mystery to get a look at what the mystery IS...in that the mystery can never be known or solved, nor can it reveal itself because the self is a concept born of the same mystery that it's trying to solve.

So for me, I've decided that being alive is no different to being dead, there's just this ever elusive mystery of being that has no concept of itself except what 'thought' puts there. I have no knowledge of how 'thought' happens.

So what is this 'me' that ponders it's existence? who asks questions about beginnings?

You have to think about a 'me' before it 'appears'.

For the 'me' I have no knowledge of the beginnings of a 'thinking me' but I do have knowledge of the 'thought's I am thinking' because I can 'think' of them and know them.

And so only a 'thought' can inform me of my existence, for without 'thought' I have no knowledge of myself.
And yet at the same time, I need no knowledge of myself to BE.
Therefore, I am neither alive or dead. Without beginning nor end.

You can answer any life questions you have by just observing the world around you because everything that has ever happened that has effected mankind and reality has an ecco in lessor form that can be found in life.

[r6r6]

Philos_Tone--We seem to experience this "nothing" every time we sleep.

Seeming is key concept here
Before sleep the biological/soul exists with access{ awareness } via the ego { i } ergo { * i * }.

After sleep the bioloigcal/soul stilll exists with less access { awareness } via ego ergo { * * } i.e the ego is absent not obliterated.


At death the ego is obliterated.

Time seems to pass in an instant.

Passing is ObservedTtime/motion/momentum and change /\/\/\/\/


Time is not instant ergo not instantaneous.

All of a sudden the next day is here. I dunno what I'm getting at, but here is something I realized, today, while writing this.

Once that did happen to me. I recalled to others later how all I recall is blinking my eyes in bed and it was already the next morning.


People under anetheisa probably also often experience this. Ive heard people often awaken and say to doctor, I'm ready to go for operation and the operation has already be completed.

The Tao Te Ching kinda says that life fist originated from mystery itself. A very provocative and bold statement.

It is a mystery. We only see biological/soul coming from a previous biological/soul life. We have no evidence of any first biological/soul life.

Do yiu agree? What have you postulated about the beginning of things?

Our finite occupied space Universe has no source/origin and does not come from nothing{ non-occupied space } and there is not one shred of evidence that it does.


...Space( Time ) | ( Time )Space.....




...Space( ^v^v ) | ( v^v^ )Space.....




...Space( \/\ ) | ( /\/ )Space.....