What is more reasonable, the existence of the universe, or the non-existence of the universe?

What is more reasonable, the existence of the universe, or the non-existence of the universe?
observingman
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 31, 2011 - 9:34 AM:
Subject: What is more reasonable, the existence of the universe, or the non-existence of the universe?
Here is my guess for the meaning of the whole existence; Let me explain it to you:

Some time ago, I asked myself:

What should have been more LOGICAL to happen , the "the whole" or "the nothingness" ?

Regardless of our obvious perception that the reality is here, and that there is "something", the question before, seems to be difficult to answer.

Imagine that the second option (nothing exists) have become true; apparently it does not break any logic rules ... EUREKA!

Well, my theory is that "in reality, there is nothing" (what an irony of language), in the way we see it in our everyday life (the brain likes - wants - believe to see what "it" predicts, at all the levels, both for genetic and cultural reasons), but "what exists" could be only the logic itself.

This is a subjective assessment with my limited sense of human consciousness, not a belief, because I am opposed to this absurd idea of "believe" in something without reasoning it.

As the only irrefutable thing is the logic's existence, you come to the conclusion that our existence is the same as "the logic", which is "logical" that exists by itself. It is not logical, however, the assumption that there is a "physical" reality. What for ? why ? no answers.

The study of this logic, developed and standardized by the "human mind" is what we call mathematics.

Then, The world is seen as it should be, logically. And consciousness, or life, would be an "important" consequence when applying pure logic; As if one could conclude that it must exist.

We are discovering, that everything we know can be explained by a mathematical model as it deepens in the models. Do you realize? Reality is not "physical", the reality is, say, abstract in itself. No more, no less. That is why the universe seems so great, "and the matter seems to being subdivided into an infinite number of parts. It has no beginning or end, as it is "logical".

I'm NOT talking about the world of shadows and the world of Platonic ideas, or the Matrix virtual reality and the real world controlled by robots, or parallel universes or ideals and physical "instances" of the universe, either.

I'm talking about a single reality, the LOGIC reality, to be understood through the development of mathematics as a pure science, with the help of the unvaluable "scientific method" (the best "discovering" or tool the human being haves).

Everything that exists on the other hand it is logical, mathematical, if I may express it "as a huge and infinite equation".

It includes and justifies both, the great achievements of humanity and the most terrible atrocities. EVERYTHING. I'm not saying that there is no free will, but that "things that exist", existed or that "will exist", cannot be changed because they are is the result of a "logical consequence."

The dimensions in this world are meaningless in themselves, since everything is infinitely large and small, as the logic itself.

Maybe when we were able to look in detail at the reality of matter with the new particle accelerators like the LHC and other means, we would realize the truth.

So, I can give you the answer to the question, although not the "how to do it" ... yet:

The answer is "YES", I suppose you could create "something from nothing", if by that "nothing", you mean something that don't physically exists.

In reality, we were creating something in an "unusual way", manipulating the reality, and looking as we were creating it from nothing. It would be again, another "logical / physical" trick.

But, let's look closer to the question again: Can I create something from nothing?

Many questions have no answers because they, themselves, are not well constructed; their base is absurd, or poor defined.

What does mean "nothing" ? Something that does not exist?

when? let's say, in an exact moment...

where? ... on an exact location

If we reach the proper detail level, we find that it is IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE there is a logical contradiction. Do you see ? it's impossible at the logical level.

Another situation would be if something appears on one place where nothing existed before just milliseconds before. Again, it could be caused by an unknown (until today) physical (logical if I'm right) effect, But remember: what cannot be logically possible, should be impossible.

Perhaps this could be a reasonable approximation for the truth of the existence.

But if all this is only a paranoia, I hope that it doesn't get worse when I grew old 8-D.

Did you noticed ?, I tried to answer a question, and I ended up explaining the essence for the whole existence ... I've told you at the very beginning.

Can you imagine the existence of a secret group of people ?... A sect that already knows the truth, and that at any moment ... OOOPS ! Somebody is knocking at the door ... very strange, it's so late, who could it be ? ;-D

I hope you liked it.grin

Edited by observingman on Jul 8, 2011 - 12:16 PM. Reason: Change the title to be more clear
observingman
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Apr 11, 2011 - 7:19 PM:

Not a single reply ?

My topic looks so absurd / simple / senseless ?

I'm starting to think that my mind raves and I'm unable to realize for myself confused
owleye
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 11, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 47
#3 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Apr 11, 2011 - 10:26 PM:

Perhaps it would have helped had you posed your first question as: What is more reasonable, the existence of the universe, or the non-existence of the universe? If this were the question, you might decide the non-existence of the universe if you yourself do not exist, since were that the case, there is no universe for you. But, if you do exist, then you become part, if not the whole, of the universe. In any case, I don't see logic playing a role in the answer, unless of course you think there's something illogical about existence or non-existence.

James
observingman
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 8, 2011 - 12:20 PM:

owleye wrote:
Perhaps it would have helped had you posed your first question as: What is more reasonable, the existence of the universe, or the non-existence of the universe? If this were the question, you might decide the non-existence of the universe if you yourself do not exist, since were that the case, there is no universe for you. But, if you do exist, then you become part, if not the whole, of the universe. In any case, I don't see logic playing a role in the answer, unless of course you think there's something illogical about existence or non-existence.

James


Thanks James, I changed the title as you suggested.

If you don't see the logic in the answer is because (IMHO) in fact we do not understand the logic of the consequence that there is something that exists... OR, it is not logic, but real (sounds unlikely/not logic to me) haha nod

jedaisoul
exponent of reason

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 14, 2008
Location: UK

Total Topics: 129
Total Posts: 3960
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 8, 2011 - 12:49 PM:

observingman wrote:

If you don't see the logic in the answer is because (IMHO) in fact we do not understand the logic of the consequence that there is something that exists... OR, it is not logic, but real (sounds unlikely/not logic to me) haha nod

1. It seems to me that you are using the word "logical" to mean "plausible" or "probable".

2. In my opinion, you wrote far too long an OP for a simple question.

3. Splitting up nearly every sentence as a separate paragraph is almost as bad as writing one huge paragraph.

I think these factors may have contributed to the lack of a response. By the way, welcome to the forum.

InfinitRelative
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2011

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 233
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 8, 2011 - 5:02 PM:

Jedi is right about the length/structure of the post, he is always very astute in his observations I find. As for the OP question, I'd argue that the idea of non-existence is only valid as a conceptual opposite to existence. In other words, since the concept and thus ability to speak about and reference "non-existence" exists, then the idea is a clear contradiction and is not self-consistent. since something lacking all manner of existence couldn't be referenced or interacted with in any fashion the only thing doesn't exist paradoxically is non-existence as an actualized state. That is beyond the conception of or ability to conceive of it in reference to what it can't be, there is no such thing as "non-existence".

Existence in and of itself is a self-proving thing more or less as well. By this i mean that any argument that shows the possibility that our reality is fake, must by necessity present the argument in a fashion that dictates no distinction between real and unreal. This means the main claim of the reality isn't real argument is "reality is not reality". This means that the definition of reality is its opposite, which just means that in the case of the nothingness claim "non-existence" is "existence" and nothing about reality changes, only the terminology used to dictate the state of existence. Meaning the state itself can never be denied, only re-named, hence it proves itself as the only valid notion, while the opposite notion is an invalid one.
endim
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2011

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 10, 2011 - 3:24 AM:

I am not fully sure what the definition of "logic" or "existence" is here.  I think of logic as a list of rules which can apply to some hypothetical things with specified properties, and is thus not really the hypothetical things it describes.

But in another thread I suggested that perhaps absolute nothingness does not allow for a well-defined property of existence, or lack thereof.  When I try my best, with my limited thinking, to comprehend absolute nothingness and the property of existence, it would seem that the property of existence requires some sort of system of reality as a foundation to define whether something exists or not.  I don't know what that might be, an observer, a "space-time fabric" or whatever, but something.  So with absolute nothingness, every possible variation of universes would be in an undefined state as to whether it exists or not.  If you were in one of these universes, it would exist to you, because you are right in there with it.  But once you step outside of it, we can no longer define whether that universe exists for you or not.

Well, those are my current thoughts, at least.
Nando
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 22, 2011

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 382
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 10, 2011 - 6:17 PM:

observingman wrote:

Well, my theory is that "in reality, there is nothing" (what an irony of language), in the way we see it in our everyday life (the brain likes - wants - believe to see what "it" predicts, at all the levels, both for genetic and cultural reasons), but "what exists" could be only the logic itself.


There is a science theory called the universal nil-potency rewrite system, which is based on a logic of nothing. The theory supposedly already has been applied technically in producing a more advanced mri scanner.

Based upon my limited understanding of the theory...., it goes like, the universe starts with nothing, and at every next step in time the totality is nothing, and it ends up as nothing. Not only are the things in the universe created out of nothing, but the rules are also created out of nothing.

For example if the rule of multiplication is introduced, then the rule of division is automatically introduced with it. The totality of the rule of multiplication and division is nothing. And if A is introduced then B is introduced as conjugate to A, so that the totality remains nothing.

So then you get alphabets of rules and things, where you have to understand that the standard abc alphabet is a collection of alternative letters which can be used to make up a word. The letter at position 1 of This word is 1 of 26 alternatives.

So then the table of elements in chemistry is understood to be an alphabet in that sense, with the added notion that the totality of it is nothing.

The theory starts out with positing the sign 0, but it could start out with any symbol or indeed start out with many alphabets, as long as the totality is nothing. 0 in this case should not be considered as chosen from the alphabet of numbers 0,1,2,3,4 etc. , because that alphabet hasn't been created yet. First there is only 0. To next have something else again, we must abide by this logic of nothing. So it means we can only introduce 1 as being a conjugate to 0. If we introduced 1 as a thing unto itself, then the totality would not be nothing, but it would be 2 things. And what is 2, when that number hasn't even been introduced yet, so that makes no sense. But by introducing 1 as a conjugate to 0 the totality remains nothing. And so on.

What these mathematicians did is supposedly the first time in history the meaning of the number 1, and the boolean logic of 0 and 1 has been explained.

I realize this is more science then philosophy, in any case the philosophical point is then that such a logic of nothing seems applicable, and perhaps it should be liked because it works.
InfinitRelative
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2011

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 233
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 10, 2011 - 10:43 PM:

That sounds like more philosophy then science... That is as there is no scientific process here. Rather this is a set of outcomes deduced from the axiom that the totality of reality must equate to nothing. The issue that I take with it is that nothing is described by it's opposition to property, this would mean that no property can be derived from nothing, even if the totality of those properties equates to nothing through there negation when applied to the same object. Since multiplication and division equate to nothing only when applied perfectly inverse to each other, and with respect to the same set of number, they have to maintain a separation of property to maintain being. This would mean that nothing can't give rise to multiplication even if it gives rise to division as there is no separation of property to be had, as again a nothing has no property to split into two resulting opposites. The alphabet situation is a good example as well, because it makes a set of 26 letters equate to nothingness, but must make the assumption that this is the case. Why based on the properties of an alphabet is that proposition true? I ask as the alphabet doesn't contain a set of opposites, it's just a set of sounds, the only opposite readily defined is vowel and consonants, which there are a clear unequaled number of, as such doesn't equate to nothing. The establishment of "b" as a conjugate doesn't necessitate "b" as an opposite, as a conjugate can be a pair in which there is a clear likeness to meaning, or just a pair of things operating with each other, not necessarily in opposition of. This is given the set of 5 different definitions of conjugate given by the marriam-webster. That is there is more then just the mathematical mode of conjugation, there is a linguistical mode to a conjugate as well. Basically I see no real method for something to come from nothing just because of the presence of opposite properties with a reality, which is a set of objects under some dimensional limitation. In other words, how is it that the lack of property is suppose to give rise to property pairs? These properties certainly don't cease to exist because we have an understanding of an opposite property.

I suppose I'll have to read up more on the logic presented for the idea, maybe the scientists working on it will surprise me.
NICE_1
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 07, 2011

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 11, 2011 - 4:13 AM:

observingman wrote:




What should have been more LOGICAL to happen , the "the whole" or "the nothingness" ?


The answer is "YES", I suppose you could create "something from nothing", if by that "nothing", you mean something that don't physically exists.


What does mean "nothing" ? Something that does not exist?



Hi

I would say that everything is always present as in what we are "is" all there is . For there to be "nothing" in existence would mean that what we are is absent, which could never be.

In so called nothingness everything is present.


locked
Download thread as
  • 20/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.