The Void of nothing
17 Jan '07 19:093 editsFor those of you who believe the universe came from nothing I have a few questions....
1) Why did nothingness and non-existence not just continue in nothingness? Is there something about nothingness which makes existence probable/possible?
2) Is there more than one type of nothingness? Would it have been possible to have had a nothingness that completely excluded the possibility of existence? If so would that be more of a nothingness than the nothingness that (somehow) existence emerged from?
3) Is potentiality a thing and what does this word mean? Can it really make any sense in an absolute void of nothingness? If an absolute void is by definition devoid of any potentiality or possibilities how can the universe be possible? Is a void of nothingness with no potential at all different from a void in which a potential universe can emerge?
4) Do you imagine that there was a "time" when there was absolutely nothing at all and then "later" came the existence of the universe? The Big Bang strongly suggests an event of some sort , which in turn would suggest a sequence or some sort or progression from non-existence to existence. Life is at state A (nothingness) and then at state B - (Universe existing). There is change from one state to another (if one may call nothing a state). But if this is not the case then the Universe must have always existed from nothing and must eternally exist or be coming from nothing. If this is true then there can never have been a time when there was "nothing" because the Universe was always there contaminating nothingness with somethingness which contradicts the idea of nothing anyway.
Do we need time for something to happen and can the emergence of the Universe from nothing be regarded as a "happening".If it did happen then it must have happened timelessly because time cannot exist in nothingness. But if this is true and it happened timelessly then it must have always been happening for eternity or not happened at all.(?) We could say that the Universe is eternal itself but then we admit existence is eternal. If it's not eternal then there must have been two states nothingness and somethingness (the universe) . But how do we move from one state to another without there being any time for it to happen in? What happens at the interface between nothingness and somethingness ? Does time stand still ? Is it timeless? And if it does doesn't that mean something from nothingness is happening eternally? Nothingness must be a temporary state in order for the universe to be there.
5) Can anyone help me get life?
6) Item 7 will be my absolute definition of nothing.
8) So have you nothing to say , or does this really make ratrional sense? At least with eternal existence one would have a chance of something existing. Eternity may be mysterious but it sounds more rational to me. The idea of the eternity of existence(forget God for a minute) seems more logical to me because you don't have the same problem. You don't have to explain how something can "come into being" from nothing or how absolute non-existence can stop non-existing and exist. You don't have an effect without a cause because there is no effect. Effects have beginnings whereas eternity has no beginning.No cause is needed because only effects have causes. You do have the other question of "how can something never have had no existence" or "how can something have no beginning (at all)" . This is also a mystery , but one theory has a unity to it and the other seems disjointed to me.
Here's why...
I can just about imagine non-existence just non-existing and there being no existence whatsoever. To me if nothing exists then nothing ever will exist , or would have existed.
I can also imagine existence always existing and never not existing and existence being eternal . What I find much harder is the two states co-existing , ie there being non-existence and existence from nothing. This implies the presence of non existence and existence alongside each other. And also suggests some potentiality in non-existence for existence to come to exist (otherwise why not just carry on non existing?) Which of course contaminates the absoluteness of nothingness.
At least with eternal existence you have something to play with and something for the universe to emerge from ( or maybe the universe is eternally exploding and contracting?) , but with non-existence you have nothing , not even potentiality. This seems the least likely and logical.
So we take our pick.
Either existence happens for absolutely no reason from non- existence . Or existence has just always been there , there was no "happening from nothing" because there never was a "time" when existence didn't exist. Finite existence emerges from infinite existence , rather than existence emerging from non existence. And science has nothing to say really because there's no proof either way , so we just choose. They are both mysterious but one seems more of a unified rational mystery to me. The other just seems illogical.
1) Why did nothingness and non-existence not just continue in nothingness? Is there something about nothingness which makes existence probable/possible?
2) Is there more than one type of nothingness? Would it have been possible to have had a nothingness that completely excluded the possibility of existence? If so would that be more of a nothingness than the nothingness that (somehow) existence emerged from?
3) Is potentiality a thing and what does this word mean? Can it really make any sense in an absolute void of nothingness? If an absolute void is by definition devoid of any potentiality or possibilities how can the universe be possible? Is a void of nothingness with no potential at all different from a void in which a potential universe can emerge?
4) Do you imagine that there was a "time" when there was absolutely nothing at all and then "later" came the existence of the universe? The Big Bang strongly suggests an event of some sort , which in turn would suggest a sequence or some sort or progression from non-existence to existence. Life is at state A (nothingness) and then at state B - (Universe existing). There is change from one state to another (if one may call nothing a state). But if this is not the case then the Universe must have always existed from nothing and must eternally exist or be coming from nothing. If this is true then there can never have been a time when there was "nothing" because the Universe was always there contaminating nothingness with somethingness which contradicts the idea of nothing anyway.
Do we need time for something to happen and can the emergence of the Universe from nothing be regarded as a "happening".If it did happen then it must have happened timelessly because time cannot exist in nothingness. But if this is true and it happened timelessly then it must have always been happening for eternity or not happened at all.(?) We could say that the Universe is eternal itself but then we admit existence is eternal. If it's not eternal then there must have been two states nothingness and somethingness (the universe) . But how do we move from one state to another without there being any time for it to happen in? What happens at the interface between nothingness and somethingness ? Does time stand still ? Is it timeless? And if it does doesn't that mean something from nothingness is happening eternally? Nothingness must be a temporary state in order for the universe to be there.
5) Can anyone help me get life?
6) Item 7 will be my absolute definition of nothing.
8) So have you nothing to say , or does this really make ratrional sense? At least with eternal existence one would have a chance of something existing. Eternity may be mysterious but it sounds more rational to me. The idea of the eternity of existence(forget God for a minute) seems more logical to me because you don't have the same problem. You don't have to explain how something can "come into being" from nothing or how absolute non-existence can stop non-existing and exist. You don't have an effect without a cause because there is no effect. Effects have beginnings whereas eternity has no beginning.No cause is needed because only effects have causes. You do have the other question of "how can something never have had no existence" or "how can something have no beginning (at all)" . This is also a mystery , but one theory has a unity to it and the other seems disjointed to me.
Here's why...
I can just about imagine non-existence just non-existing and there being no existence whatsoever. To me if nothing exists then nothing ever will exist , or would have existed.
I can also imagine existence always existing and never not existing and existence being eternal . What I find much harder is the two states co-existing , ie there being non-existence and existence from nothing. This implies the presence of non existence and existence alongside each other. And also suggests some potentiality in non-existence for existence to come to exist (otherwise why not just carry on non existing?) Which of course contaminates the absoluteness of nothingness.
At least with eternal existence you have something to play with and something for the universe to emerge from ( or maybe the universe is eternally exploding and contracting?) , but with non-existence you have nothing , not even potentiality. This seems the least likely and logical.
So we take our pick.
Either existence happens for absolutely no reason from non- existence . Or existence has just always been there , there was no "happening from nothing" because there never was a "time" when existence didn't exist. Finite existence emerges from infinite existence , rather than existence emerging from non existence. And science has nothing to say really because there's no proof either way , so we just choose. They are both mysterious but one seems more of a unified rational mystery to me. The other just seems illogical.
Back to Top