Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you're back to semantics again. What I mean to say is precisely
There is a distinct difference between saying:
1. There is nothing outside the universe.
and
2. There is no such thing as outside the universe.
Put another way.
1. There is nothing before time began and therefore time came from nothing.
or
2. There is no such thing as before time began so to talk about where time came from is nonsensical and meaningless.
what I say, that there's nothing beyond our universe (or if it's a
multiverse construct, then at some point you reach the nothing, which is
exactly that: nothing).
I think you have a hard time accepting the thought that there is no need
for something to "exist" beyond the borders of our universe. Or maybe
I'm crazy for so easily accepting this thought. My mind automatically
wants to think of some sort of space beyond our universe, but the idea is
that nothing exist beyond this border. The border is very much there,
but it doesn't separate one body of space from another, but rather is the
point where space cease to exist entirely and then there is no space left.
At the same time, since there's nothing there the universe can keep
growing indefinitely as the universe defines the very concept of space.
Your last point is perhaps correct in the sense that since there was
nothing before a certain point in time (in my belief) and there is nothing
beyond a certain spacial dimension, it makes no sense to try and define
or explain that nothing. It's an argument that will crash in on itself
because at the very moment I try to speak about that nothing, I'm using
the term nothing as if it were something. Which clearly it is not. Forget
the semantics and accept the nothing as the complete absence of
anything at all, and you're pretty much in line with how I think. (At the
moment this is the one hypothesis - if I may be so bold as to call it
that - that makes the most sense to me from my limited perspective.)
2 edits
There are a lot of ambiguous statements going on here, and some down right silly ones. I think it's important that we define 'universe' as some people seem to think it is a volumetric entity, others a metaphysical one and others still a vague thing of unreachable boundaries. We should also consider what 'nothing'means as some are suggesting it includes something in some way and I believe this is an epistemic error.
I think the easiest way of understanding what sort of entity the universe is should be as the totality of existence. It encompasses everything, there is nothing it does not consist of and that consists therein and to think otherwise is a futile exercise in misadventure. If you can think of 'nothing', by the mere thought process you are thinking of something. 'Nothing' cannot be achieved, concieved, explored, extended, or understood in any real way. 'The universe is everything there is and there is not anything it is not.
From here it should be an easy logical step to consider the notion of 'nothing'. 'Nothing' is a semantic concept used to designate the absence of something from a particular field, area, context or set etc. It does not designate a real and measureable anything on any level. You cannot have an absence of something from the set of 'eveything', it is just impossible; everything is just that, there is no 'nothing' which is in any way considerable as inclusive in the set of everything.
We can talk about nothing in a contextual basis within the universe, certainly. For example 'There's nothing that can be done about it'. This is a claim which resides upon the context that there is a set of one or more things (designated by 'it'😉, which reside in the universe about which there is an absence of something, in this case a solution to a particular problem. In this case 'nothing' is a semantic entity which is used to refer to the absence, within a confined set, of some particular entity or concept, which could exist outside that set.
I hear some of you who understand such thing (I'm not claiming to be one such) saying 'What about the set of things which are universes? Can we not have 'nothing' used as a concept within such a set, to decribe those things which are not universes?'
Well, this is where I'd be inclined to say that if the set of universes is (by definition) one and the same thing as 'the universe', there is no such thing as that which is not a universe or a part thereof and to consider anything such is, on a very pragmatic level, nonsense. It would be logically contradictory to suggest there is a set of all things which are not all things.
Originally posted by eatmybishopAre you responding to me? It's not clear.
why does god have to play a role in all this....? your statement is illogical for a number of reasons... for one, you've put restrictions on our universe, this is navie.... most scientists are now in agreement that the universe is eternal and goes on forever.... your second notion is also navie, the universe is not expanding into something else, it is ge ...[text shortened]... as flaws - does a lot better than a religious one which has yet to explain where it all started
Originally posted by Starrman'The universe is everything there is and there is not anything it is not.
There are a lot of ambiguous statements going on here, and some down right silly ones. I think it's important that we define 'universe' as some people seem to think it is a volumetric entity, others a metaphysical one and others still a vague thing of unreachable boundaries. We should also consider what 'nothing'means as some are suggesting it includes so ...[text shortened]... suggest there is a set of all things which are not all things.
....so are you saying that if God did exist for you he would be part of the universe?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHowever although you may see the beginning as a boundary that does not imply the existence of anything beyond said boundary.
That depends on what you mean by boarders and boundaries. I personally see no problem with for example time being finite and having a beginning. However although you may see the beginning as a boundary that does not imply the existence of anything beyond said boundary.
[b]The problem with that word “nothing”—although I don’t think stocken is committing ...[text shortened]... thing as before time began so to talk about where time came from is nonsensical and meaningless.
WHITEY
But the beginning of time must be a boundary of sorts and it must boundary against either something or nothing otherwise it doesn't make sense to talk of a boundary at all.
Another way of looking at this is (since you are so fond of refuting external time lines) to say that time having a beginning is a meaningless concept because to have a beginning you must either have a boundary which defines that beginning or an external timeline with which to measure said beginning.
Originally posted by twhitehead1. There is nothing outside the universe.
That depends on what you mean by boarders and boundaries. I personally see no problem with for example time being finite and having a beginning. However although you may see the beginning as a boundary that does not imply the existence of anything beyond said boundary.
[b]The problem with that word “nothing”—although I don’t think stocken is committing ...[text shortened]... thing as before time began so to talk about where time came from is nonsensical and meaningless.
and
2. There is no such thing as outside the universe.
Put another way.
1. There is nothing before time began and therefore time came from nothing.
or
2. There is no such thing as before time began so to talk about where time came from is nonsensical and meaningless.WHITEY
I get what you are saying , but the point of asking the "meaningless" question is to illicit the answer- "The beginning of time is an uncaused event - there is no reason for it to start nor is it dependent on anything at all to start - it just starts, period" This is the beginning of contemplating an uncaused , non reliant entity. Very meaningful I think.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have not said anything about beginnings. However, it presents us with two options:
but part of the known universe with it's defined beginning? How could that be? God has no beginning by definition.
1) God had a beginning and your definition is incorrect
2) God doesn't exist
3 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanIf the universe is everything there is and "nothing" cannot be
I think the easiest way of understanding what sort of entity the universe is should be as the totality of existence. It encompasses everything, there is nothing it does not consist of and that consists therein and to think otherwise is a futile exercise in misadventure. If you can think of 'nothing', by the mere thought process you are thinking of somethi in any real way. 'The universe is everything there is and there is not anything it is not.
understood, then there is no border to nothing. This means you need to
think of the universe as an eternal body of space that never ever end, or
it doesn't work. This is as hard to envision as a border next to nothing.
You must somehow explain how there can be no limits, just like I have
to explain how something can start and expand in nothing. Equally hard
to understand. Feel like I write tanka. No real sentences. What is
happening? Oh, that's right, I never write real sentences. Good. Problem
solved. Back to nothing.
.............
No, wait. That is something. Here is nothing. Starting here. Now. Ok, here
it is. No, there it is ->
|
\/
....
Erm, what I'm saying is that just because it's impossible for us to truly
comprehend or make sense of the concept of nothing, doesn't mean it's
not possible. I find it more plausible than the concept of something
eternal in space and time. How many times have I written that now? Must
stop repeating myself. Must start writing real sentences. Can't. Overload.
Destroyed there ->
Originally posted by stockenNo border to nothing? That's gibberish. Read my post again and try and consider what implications such a view would have on your bizarre notion of borders.
If the universe is everything there is and "nothing" cannot be
understood, then there is no border to nothing. This means you need to
think of the universe as an eternal body of space that never ever end, or
it doesn't work. This is as hard to envision as a border next to nothing.
You must somehow explain how there can be no limits, just like I have ...[text shortened]... ating myself. Must start writing real sentences. Can't. Overload.
Destroyed there ->
I am under no obligation to explain limits whatsoever, the universe has no limits as it is all that exists.
Your last part is nonsense, if you read my post again you'll see that I clearly distinguish between contextaul absences (as you are suggesting) and 'nothing' in the universal sense. You're creating a paradox when you say we can apply a 'something value' to nothing. If that's the case, the nothing is something afterall and you're mistaken about your claim that nothing might exist.
Originally posted by StarrmanForgive my limited intellectual capacity, but if you claim that the universe
I am under no obligation to explain limits whatsoever, the universe has no limits as it is all that exists.
has no limits whatsoever, you don't necessarily have to explain how
that's possible, but you can't get away from the fact that you take it on
faith, like Christians do the eternal God and I do the unthinkable
nothing. Your hypothesis is no more plausible than the other two, the
way I see it.
But then again, this is such a far out subject I think I may be
misunderstanding you. Perhaps we should smoke some pot and we will
understand each other perfectly.
Peace, man.
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut since you yourself admit that the question is meaningless, the answer you are trying to illicit is similarly meaningless.
I get what you are saying , but the point of asking the "meaningless" question is to illicit the answer- "The beginning of time is an uncaused event - there is no reason for it to start nor is it dependent on anything at all to start - it just starts, period" This is the beginning of contemplating an uncaused , non reliant entity. Very meaningful I think.
As long as it is meaningless to ask what is before time, it is meaningless to talk of the cause of time.
If I say that time is uncaused what I mean is that it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time and not that time 'just happened' without a cause.
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenWhat exactly do you consider the universe to be then?
Forgive my limited intellectual capacity, but if you claim that the universe
has no limits whatsoever, you don't necessarily have to explain how
that's possible, but you can't get away from the fact that you take it on
faith, like Christians do the eternal God and I do the unthinkable
nothing. Your hypothesis is no more plausible than the othe ...[text shortened]... erhaps we should smoke some pot and we will
understand each other perfectly.
Peace, man.
Unless you perscribe to the idea of multiple universes are we agreed that only one universe exists? Even if we consider multiple universes do exist, either they are utterly unknowable, being outsided our universe, or they are knowable and as such are a misnoma, since they now lay withint the boundaries of our own universe. Either way there is only one totality of existence of which we are a part. What would you give to the set of the totality of existence, if not 'universe'?
Originally posted by stockenI am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that space is infinite in all spacial directions?
If the universe is everything there is and "nothing" cannot be
understood, then there is no border to nothing. This means you need to
think of the universe as an eternal body of space that never ever end, or
it doesn't work. This is as hard to envision as a border next to nothing.
As far as I know the big bang theory implies it is finite.