21 Nov '09 13:42>1 edit
A thought experiment.....
One thing we do know is that something happened. Life exists. Existence "is". Stuff began. The Universe is a reality. We exist. Existence exists. The Big Bang "banged".
A thought that always occurred to me when I grew up was this. What if nothing had happened? No existence. No life . No reality. No Bang. Nothing to cause a bang. Unreality. Non-existence.
(At this point in order to really get this you have to let yourself really get into this idea and feel it.)
So instead of Everything - Nothing. The absence of reality. No nothing. Everything just "wasn't". What I imagined was that instead of Existence existing - existence just never got going at all. Infact there would be nothing to "get going" anyway.
What I basically imagined was that instead of everything existing. Nothing existed. A void so completely empty that even to call it a "void" or an "it" would be far to substantial. No space/time , no energy , no nothing.
If you have followed this thought experiment through fully and not just dabbled with it in a distant , intellectual way you will probably be feeling a bit wierd. Then again maybe many of you have had similar thoughts?
Anyway , what this idea left me with was a very strong logical conviction. It seemed self evident to me , considering my "what if" scenario , that if nothing had actually existed (instead of the existence we know) then that would be it for existence. I figured that there could be "no way back" for existence and that actually life (by life I mean EVERYTHING) would be done for. There would have been no reason for any beginning or any Big Bang. It could never get going. Eternal nothingness would have reigned in a void of non-eternity.
This of course lead me to logically conclude that life must have always existed in some form or other. Because if nothingness ever was - we would never be.
Simlarly , if existence was ever obliterated into nothingness (ie a true void of anything) then that would be it also. Life / existence/everything would have sighed it's last breath - never to be redeemed - ever. Life RIP.
This is why I find the idea of saying that the Big Bang is the beginning of everything a bit silly. The reason ? Because unless there is something there it seems illogical to conclude that Life just "gets going" somehow. How does life "get going"? When the logic of this posiiton suggests that if it hadn't "got going" then nothing would have existed.
My feeling is that what happens is the essence of this argument (which is based on logic and a philosophical hypothesis) is side-stepped by some who use physics and maths to say things like "but there was no before" or "nothingness cannot exist without space/time" . To me they have just missed the bigger picture and use wordplay to avoid the obvious logical problem. Life cannot just "begin" to exist. If there ever was nothing there would always be nothing.
No beginning.
One thing we do know is that something happened. Life exists. Existence "is". Stuff began. The Universe is a reality. We exist. Existence exists. The Big Bang "banged".
A thought that always occurred to me when I grew up was this. What if nothing had happened? No existence. No life . No reality. No Bang. Nothing to cause a bang. Unreality. Non-existence.
(At this point in order to really get this you have to let yourself really get into this idea and feel it.)
So instead of Everything - Nothing. The absence of reality. No nothing. Everything just "wasn't". What I imagined was that instead of Existence existing - existence just never got going at all. Infact there would be nothing to "get going" anyway.
What I basically imagined was that instead of everything existing. Nothing existed. A void so completely empty that even to call it a "void" or an "it" would be far to substantial. No space/time , no energy , no nothing.
If you have followed this thought experiment through fully and not just dabbled with it in a distant , intellectual way you will probably be feeling a bit wierd. Then again maybe many of you have had similar thoughts?
Anyway , what this idea left me with was a very strong logical conviction. It seemed self evident to me , considering my "what if" scenario , that if nothing had actually existed (instead of the existence we know) then that would be it for existence. I figured that there could be "no way back" for existence and that actually life (by life I mean EVERYTHING) would be done for. There would have been no reason for any beginning or any Big Bang. It could never get going. Eternal nothingness would have reigned in a void of non-eternity.
This of course lead me to logically conclude that life must have always existed in some form or other. Because if nothingness ever was - we would never be.
Simlarly , if existence was ever obliterated into nothingness (ie a true void of anything) then that would be it also. Life / existence/everything would have sighed it's last breath - never to be redeemed - ever. Life RIP.
This is why I find the idea of saying that the Big Bang is the beginning of everything a bit silly. The reason ? Because unless there is something there it seems illogical to conclude that Life just "gets going" somehow. How does life "get going"? When the logic of this posiiton suggests that if it hadn't "got going" then nothing would have existed.
My feeling is that what happens is the essence of this argument (which is based on logic and a philosophical hypothesis) is side-stepped by some who use physics and maths to say things like "but there was no before" or "nothingness cannot exist without space/time" . To me they have just missed the bigger picture and use wordplay to avoid the obvious logical problem. Life cannot just "begin" to exist. If there ever was nothing there would always be nothing.
No beginning.