Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI didn't ask for an answer , just the most likely scenario
I don't know the answer. But this is a great sci-fi plot!
And what if you additionally had a something-a-tron, which continuously pumped out existence? And what if the nothing-a-tron and the something-a-tron were continuously locked in an unending struggle? In particular, the nothing-a-tron continuously tries to negate, not just existing things, but ...[text shortened]... space age! But is it really any more farfetched than scientology with all the Xenu nonsense?
Originally posted by petrosianpupilSurely an everything o tron would create itself and start spewing out a universe. PUPIL
Surely an everything o tron would create itself and start spewing out a universe.
Mind you I thought that about the only law of physics that doesn't get broken is the fact that energy is just converted, not destroyed.
...and how would something that doesn't exist create itself?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am sorry but you cannot choose for me. Your claim is that there are two choices and that they are the only choices therefore everyone must subscribe to one or the other.WHITEY
I am afraid you cant hide behind the speech excuse. Your entire thought experiment relies directly on a time component still being there in the nothingness or the options become totally meaningless.
[b]I have said that the nothing-o-tron sucks everything up including time (if it exists?). You sound like you would not subscribe to B and would see A as t ou claim that they are equivalent. Please either give your reasoning or stop making the claim.
So give me the third choice I have omitted then ..it's quite easy.
Originally posted by knightmeisterChoice number 3:
I am sorry but you cannot choose for me. Your claim is that there are two choices and that they are the only choices therefore everyone must subscribe to one or the other.WHITEY
So give me the third choice I have omitted then ..it's quite easy.
"Yea. And the Great Nothing-O-Tron sucked Knightmeister until he disappeared forever. And it was good."
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour entire thought experiment relies directly on a time component still being there in the nothingness or the options become totally meaningless. WHITEY
I am afraid you cant hide behind the speech excuse. Your entire thought experiment relies directly on a time component still being there in the nothingness or the options become totally meaningless.
[b]I have said that the nothing-o-tron sucks everything up including time (if it exists?). You sound like you would not subscribe to B and would see A as t ...[text shortened]... ou claim that they are equivalent. Please either give your reasoning or stop making the claim.
So do you think time cannot be destroyed then ...that in theory if the nothing-o-tron really did exist it would be impossible for it to make time non-existent? Do you mean that even non-existence needs time to non-exist in?
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo it does not. There is nothing wrong with supposing that time and existence might have an end. The strawman in your thought experiment is to then claim that time and existence then proceed beyond the end of the previous time and existence to give some state of nothingness.WHITEY
I have already said as much.
[b]Which would imply that you think it's logically and theoretically impossible for existence to be annihilated? Existence is permanent.
No it does not. There is nothing wrong with supposing that time and existence might have an end. The strawman in your thought experiment is to then claim that time and existence then proceed beyond the end of the previous time and existence to give some state of nothingness.[/b]
Nonsense! There is no such thing as a "state of nothingness" that exists the words only make sense loosely and phiolosophically but are not scientific descriptions.
What on earth do you mean by "time and existence then proceed" ??? This is obviously nonsense. Nothing proceeds cos' it's all.....erhem ..gone! You imagine that I actually think there is a "timeline" running from existence to non-existence???? Duh! Non-existence doesn't exist that's the whole point ...it's gawwwnn! All of it! The nothing-o-tron is flawless and doesn't make mistakes. I do not believe in any "proceeding" at all. I think A has to be the only rational response in the absence of a decent reason to pick B
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not nor have ever in any of these threads, subscribed to the idea of S from N. However I do subscribe to the idea that finite time is a possibility. They are not equivalent ideas. WHITEY
I am afraid you cant hide behind the speech excuse. Your entire thought experiment relies directly on a time component still being there in the nothingness or the options become totally meaningless.
[b]I have said that the nothing-o-tron sucks everything up including time (if it exists?). You sound like you would not subscribe to B and would see A as t ...[text shortened]... ou claim that they are equivalent. Please either give your reasoning or stop making the claim.
And this is where I have always thought that your cheese slid off it's cracker. I need some clarification here..
Do you think that finite time/existence has a beginning?
What does the word finite actually mean to you?
How does existence having a beginning not logically lead to the conclusion that there is nothing at the point of it's beginning?
Originally posted by knightmeisterAgain you are assuming that your A and B are the only possible responses and therefore one must be rational even though both are irrational.
Nonsense! There is no such thing as a "state of nothingness" that exists the words only make sense loosely and phiolosophically but are not scientific descriptions.
What on earth do you mean by "time and existence then proceed" ??? This is obviously nonsense. Nothing proceeds cos' it's all.....erhem ..gone! You imagine that I actually think there is ...[text shortened]... A has to be the only rational response in the absence of a decent reason to pick B
Look at them again:
A. That this machine has delivered absolute death on all existence and that it's impossible for anything to ever exist again.
B. That there is a reasonable chance that existence will somehow find a way to re-exist from absolute non-existence?
Now please explain for each of them how they are not directly implying in their statements that a state of nothingness is somehow 'existing'. Look specifically at B and the word 're-exist'. This implies that an external timeline is there as it is implying an 'after'. Now look at A that you claim is rational and the word 'again'. Surely that too implies an 'after'.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think it is possible for time to be finite. I think that it is possible for time to be finite and have a beggining. I also think that it is possible for time to be finite and be circular or spherical and have a minimum.
Do you think that finite time/existence has a beginning?
What does the word finite actually mean to you?
In this case we are saying that if we assign labels to observed measurements of time then measuring time in the negative direction will result in a finite result.
How does existence having a beginning not logically lead to the conclusion that there is nothing at the point of it's beginning?
It simply doesn't. It is the job of the claimer (you) to prove that it does.
However we can claim that at any intersection of all dimensions there is actually nothing as any point in space time has zero width/hight/time etc etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, it wouldn't.
If the whirlpool never stopped sucking, and the ocean never got more water, wouldn't it over time?
Kelly
A whirlpool is a large, swirling body of water produced by ocean tides.
A whirlpool is water, it doesn't reduce the amount of water in the ocean.
In the Hindu belief system, all that exists is just a manifestion of Brahman. Therefore, it would be impossible for a part of Brahman to reduce the totality of Brahman (just like the whirlpool which is water trying to reduce the total amount of water).
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow please explain for each of them how they are not directly implying in their statements that a state of nothingness is somehow 'existing'.WHITEY
Again you are assuming that your A and B are the only possible responses and therefore one must be rational even though both are irrational.
Look at them again:
A. That this machine has delivered absolute death on all existence and that it's impossible for anything to ever exist again.
B. That there is a reasonable chance that existence will somehow ...[text shortened]... that you claim is rational and the word 'again'. Surely that too implies an 'after'.
This is pedantry in the extreme!! You criticise the way I have explained the options and yet I couldn't have been clearer in this thread and in others what it is that I mean by the term nothing. If anything I have worked harder than you to try and clarify the term. I even resorted to using phrases like the "(non)-existence of nothingness" in order to clarify things.
At this point your objections become a farce based on the limitations of language. There is no way one can describe nothingness adequately because all our language is existence based . It's like asking a race of aliens who don't have eyes to describe colour(except it's much harder than that)
Your objection is disingenuous too because you offer not one hint of an idea as to what phrases I should be using instead. You are like one of those guys at the back of the hall in a meeting who always finds a spoke to put in the wheel but can't offer an alternative solutions. It leaves me wondering if your arguments are entirely based on linguistic objections rather than actual objections.
Are you really saying that nothing can't exist because the words nothing and exist don't really fit together logically? Do you really , really think that I don't know this? My God man , wake up and smell the coffee!
Let's see how this works...."Because nothingness is virtually impossible to describe adequately using existence based language then any arguments based on this concept are invalid." Good argument matey!
Regarding the time thing...
The HUUUUUUGE problem that you have got is that you don't accept that I am using the phrases "again" and "re-exist" and other time based terms PURELY DESCRIPTIVELY .
Let me say that again unless you missed it...I am using the phrases "again" and "re-exist" and other time based terms PURELY DESCRIPTIVELY.
I DO NOT BELIEVE TIME EXISTS LIKE YOU DO SO THESE PHRASES DO NOT IMPLY ANY SCIENTIFIC REALITY OR EXTERNAL TIMELINE AT ALL TO ME.
What I also don't get is that in reality you ACTUALLY AGREE with me. The term "again" in option A and "re-exist" occur in the part of the options which I think impossible. I don't think anything could ever "re-exist" because once everything is gone that's it. I don't think anything "could ever exist again " for the same reason.
You would no doubt agree with this because you don't think time could exist and therefore nothing could exist . "A" must be your choice. If you think that what I am describing is ridiculous then you are right , I agree , it's ridiculous. That's why A is the obvious choice.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterPlease stop trying to claim that I have chosen A when I have repeatedly stated that A cannot be chosen.
You would no doubt agree with this because you don't think time could exist and therefore nothing could exist . "A" must be your choice. If you think that what I am describing is ridiculous then you are right , I agree , it's ridiculous. That's why A is the obvious choice.
My claim is that there can never be a point at which nothing 'exists'. Therefore your nothing-o-tron is an illogical and impossible concept so any conclusions you may be reading from the thought experiment are null and void.(excuse the pun)
You cannot possibly have a situation where true nothingness prevails (exists just doesn't cut it), as without a timeline, current existence must necessarily be included which is something not nothing. So whether you are talking about 'before the beginning' or 'after the end' you are either proposing a continuing timeline or what you are talking about is meaningless.
I think the real problem is your failure to comprehend dimensions. Within a straight line, there is nothing outside of it (a parallel line for example). And by that I do not mean the existence of a 'nothingness' all around the line but instead that it is meaningless to discuss 'outside the line' while still restricting ourselves to one dimension.
If the line is wrapped around into a circle then it can be finite in extent and still not have a beginning or end.
The same applies to two dimensions, three dimensions, four dimensions etc.
Your claim appears to be that whatever number of dimensions you take there is always another measurable dimension within which the universe has a finite width and outside which you posit the 'existence' of nothing.
Your references to nothing 'before' the beginning and 'after' the end cannot possibly be referring to along the time dimension as you yourself have specified that there is no time in the nothing you are talking about.