Nothing and The Creation

[Ant Sinclair]

I was recently scrolling down a group's posts who's page name was Intelligent Design, one member of the group had posted telling "Atheists: Life Created itself from Nothing", to which I replied "Do others believe it is impossible for nothing to exist?". The OP replied "I agree, there is no "nothing". I suppose the word Nothing could be highly debatable in itself,  but let's presume Nothing means No Energy, Absolute Zero, absence of Atoms, Particles or Electromagnetic Fields, what remains?

I read quite a while ago of the Chaldean account of creation in the Chaldean Chronicles, of how the Invisible Spirit at some "time" became aware/sentient, but where was the Invisible Spirit before it became aware/Sentient?

The OP quoted at me the following when I told him I was endeavouring to find out what happened at the very beginning when "nothing" became "something";

"That beginning is already there

As Vedas say "that which exists can never cease to exist. That which does not exist can never begin to exist "

You have been miseducated"

I agree there has to be "something" and it is impossible for "something" never to have existed, but, I also believe "nothing" has existed. Something came from Nothing, but how?

Edited January 18, 2024 by Ant Sinclair
Grammar

[Ant Sinclair]

The conversation with the OP I mentioned above continued, another quote he made was "All that exists is part of God", to which I replied "where did the All originate from?"

If there was as I mentioned earlier no Atoms, Particles, Electromagnetic Fields, Absolute Zero K, Zero Energy, what would remain - Dimensions and Potential?, if there was a Capacity or say a Volume, and say that Volume was shaped as a Cube of 1m side length, it's Volume would be 1mx1mx1m = 1m³, but what else is present?  When you look at the Cube it contains a point to point line, a square and a Cube, could this be written 1m¹+1m²+1m³, would this equal 3m⁶ equalling 729m? 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Ant Sinclair

[Bufofrog]

23 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

When you look at the Cube it contains a point to point line, a square and a Cube, could this be written 1m¹+1m²+1m³, would this equal 3m⁶ equalling 729m? 

No.

[Ant Sinclair]

Would you please expand on your reply? 

[Ant Sinclair]

It's said "a linear quantity cannot be added to an area to a volume.",  does the Cube contain all three? Is the Cube not a sum of all 3 values, they all exist within it?

 

[exchemist]

32 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

It's said "a linear quantity cannot be added to an area to a volume.",  does the Cube contain all three? Is the Cube not a sum of all 3 values, they all exist within it?

 

No.

[Ant Sinclair]

42 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No.

So youre saying the Cube doesn't contain a line, an area and a Volume, some could say "No" is very vague

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

So youre saying the Cube doesn't contain a line, an area and a Volume, some could say "No" is very vague

That wasn’t your original assertion.

“When you look at the Cube it contains a point to point line, a square and a Cube, could this be written 1m¹+1m²+1m³, would this equal 3m⁶ equalling 729m?”

The equation is incorrect. Nonsensical, in fact. It is in no way the equivalent of saying a cube contains a line, area and volume.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Ant Sinclair said:

So youre saying the Cube doesn't contain a line, an area and a Volume, some could say "No" is very vague

No I’m not saying that.  Your previous statement was different and made no sense.

Neither “a line” nor “an area” are “values” unless specified, which you did not do. And you can’t add a linear measurement to a measured area. Both of these things are obvious.

[Ant Sinclair]

I believe the Sumerian language holds the answer to the question I posed in my op, here are two "modern" words; math and theory, a man I consider to be wise once told me when we were discussing ancient tongues "phonetics are king when translating the older languages" and I agree with his statement. 

Ma was the Sumerian word meaning Vessel and Ti meaning Life with Ti/Th being pebbles and smooth stones, also the word theory has a direct phonetic translation from Sumerian as follows; Th-E-O-Ry meaning Life-Temple-Ring-Place.

Are nature's laws always present with or without an observer, anything of substance or any form of energy? In the original emptiness were they both always there, that emptiness being a potential for math and theory to create?

Edited February 7 by Ant Sinclair

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Ma was the Sumerian word meaning Vessel and Ti meaning Life with Ti/Th being pebbles and smooth stones, also the word theory has a direct phonetic translation from Sumerian as follows; Th-E-O-Ry meaning Life-Temple-Ring-Place.

This is exactly as meaningful as numerology. You're assigning importance for a modern word by using an ancient language that has no correlation. It's exactly as meaningful as translating "Th-E-O-Ry" into Klingon and finding out it means "Battle-Fight-Scream-Stronghold".

17 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Are nature's laws always present with or without an observer, anything of substance or any form of energy? In the original emptiness were they both always there, that emptiness being a potential for math and theory to create?

We observe that they're always present, and things don't change significantly when we aren't observing. 

Always there? We don't know, can't know at this point. 

 

[Ant Sinclair]

Phi for All, many Sumerian words survived into modern languages, a Dam was a Lady and every American serviceman loves a Dam-e, Nam meant Order, a word to classify or nam-e something, Su meant the colour Red and how is the American tribe the Sioux pronounced? The word God also must originate from Sumerian, there was no letter O in their 17 letter alphabet but there was the letter U, Gud was the word for Bull which signified strength as in the title Gud-Ea, Ea being another name for Enki(some say). A string of words from Sumerian, En-Gi-Ne-Er meaning Lord-Scribe-Essence-Power, a title I own.

Now going back to the word Math, we have that word via the Greek "Mathermatike" which in itself has a direct  Sumerian phonetic translation, I think you ought to diverse a little away from your original scientific field. 

 

Edited February 7 by Ant Sinclair

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Phi for All, many Sumerian words survived into modern languages, a Dam was a Lady and every American serviceman loves a Dam-e, Nam meant Order, a word to classify or nam-e something, Su meant the colour Red and how is the American tribe the Sioux pronounced? The word God also must originate from Sumerian, there was no letter O in their 17 letter alphabet but there was the letter U, Gud was the word for Bull which signified strength as in the title Gud-Ea, Ea being another name for Enki(some say).

Now going back to the word Math, we have that word via the Greek "Mathermatike" which in itself has a direct  Sumerian phonetic translation, I think you ought to diverse a little away from your original scientific field. 

It still doesn't tell us about whether the universe came about "from nothing". Perhaps that's the problem, assuming there was nothing, then something? 

Also, Intelligent Design has been famously debunked, so if they're calling their whole page that, I wouldn't take it too seriously. Most of those folks think the universe is only about 6000 years old.

[Ant Sinclair]

Phi for All, I agree with the Hindu texts in that there as always been something, that something was empty of anything material and so the only thing(s) that could have existed at first were the theoreticals that became laws of nature including equations etc.

How those laws/equations created what followed the emptiness is my final need to know in science. I have a start on this enigma but the "keystone" eludes me so far.

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Phi for All, I agree with the Hindu texts in that there as always been something, that something was empty of anything material and so the only thing(s) that could have existed at first were the theoreticals that became laws of nature including equations etc.

But our best model of the universe, Lambda Cold Dark Matter, shows that the early universe was ONLY material. It shows that it took a while before the universe was big enough for space BETWEEN matter to appear. The early universe was NOT empty of all material, the exact opposite in fact. It was jam-packed.

29 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

How those laws/equations created what followed the emptiness is my final need to know in science. I have a start on this enigma but the "keystone" eludes me so far.

You have it backwards, you know, that's your keystone. The laws and equations are based on what we observe had been created, not the other way around. We observed and experimented and predicted, and then created ways to make our observations meaningful, and mathematics to explain and quantize them.

[Ant Sinclair]

Phi for All, "our best model"/"Universe" - the JWST is showing that our models need adjustment at the bare minimum, when we speak of the Universe we only discuss what is visible to our instruments and how we translate their readings. What is visible could be absolutely minute compared to what is out there which I believe is highly likely, our multiverse(partly visible to our instrumentation) could be one of trillions. It's what happened before the first multiverse came into existence that I seek. How did math/equations/laws cause the creation the first sentience/consciousness, if they did? Many of the ancient texts tell it was this first consciousness(the Chaldeans'/Brahmins' Invisible Spirit) that brought forth material structure into existence, I can see their logic in this but not yet how.

You say I have it backwards, I disagree, I believe we didn't create the laws/equations that fit our observations, we stumbled across what has always been.

 

Edited February 7 by Ant Sinclair

[Phi for All]

47 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

I believe we didn't create the laws/equations that fit our observations, we stumbled across what has always been.

We definitely created the laws and equations. The maths allow us to quantize what we observe in nature (aka "what has always been"), using a language of numbers and symbols that didn't exist until we came up with it. We used languages of words to describe the laws we observed in nature. Stumbled across? How about we observed and wondered, then devised accurate ways to describe and explain what our senses and reason were telling us about "what has always been"?

[Ant Sinclair]

Phi for All - "We definitely created the laws and equations", who is the "we", advanced trigonometric equations have been found on Cuneiform Tablets, is that where the Greeks gained their knowledge from which in turn is the root of our modern science because those same Tablets tell of man being created as an hybrid of an existing hominid of earth and those "who from heaven came to earth", if those Cuneiform Texts are not "myth" and portray the truth I again say who are the "we"?

The laws we accept as truth today could be the laws of an Adromedan civilisation we haven't discovered yet, isn't the law of gravity considered to be multiverse wide and so therefore Universe wide? Either way it's a chicken and egg scenario.

[Genady]

43 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

advanced trigonometric equations have been found on Cuneiform Tablets

No, they have not.

 

44 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

is that where the Greeks gained their knowledge

No, it is not.

 

45 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

which in turn is the root of our modern science

No, it is not either.

[Ant Sinclair]

Genady, so is this gentleman misleading folk?

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2017/08/mathematical-mystery-of-ancient-clay-tablet-solved

Edited February 7 by Ant Sinclair

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Genady, so is this gentleman misleading folk?

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2017/08/mathematical-mystery-of-ancient-clay-tablet-solved

No, he is not. You are. For example, there is not even a mention of the word "equation" in the article. So also, the rest of your claims.

[Ant Sinclair]

Gonady give over with the play on words, the Sumerians obviously knew of advanced trigonometry which makes the rest of your "no it's not" garbage.

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Gonady give over with the play on words, the Sumerians obviously knew of advanced trigonometry which makes the rest of your "no it's not" garbage.

You are the one playing with words.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Phi for All, "our best model"/"Universe" - the JWST is showing that our models need adjustment at the bare minimum, when we speak of the Universe we only discuss what is visible to our instruments and how we translate their readings. What is visible could be absolutely minute compared to what is out there which I believe is highly likely, our multiverse(partly visible to our instrumentation) could be one of trillions. It's what happened before the first multiverse came into existence that I seek. How did math/equations/laws cause the creation the first sentience/consciousness, if they did? Many of the ancient texts tell it was this first consciousness(the Chaldeans'/Brahmins' Invisible Spirit) that brought forth material structure into existence, I can see their logic in this but not yet how.

You say I have it backwards, I disagree, I believe we didn't create the laws/equations that fit our observations, we stumbled across what has always been.

 

I agree with @Phi for All. The so-called "laws of nature" are man-made models for the orderly behaviour we observe in nature. Often these "laws" are only approximate and they are all provisional, in the sense that we might one day find out something new that shows they are not a complete picture. This has often happened in the past.

But we don't know if there is a reason for the orderly behaviour we observe. As far as science is concerned, It just is. If you want to speculate about that, you can but it will be metaphysics and not science, because there are no observations that we can make which could test the validity of the speculations.

Edited February 7 by exchemist

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Phi for All - "We definitely created the laws and equations", who is the "we",

Humans.

2 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

advanced trigonometric equations have been found on Cuneiform Tablets, is that where the Greeks gained their knowledge from which in turn is the root of our modern science because those same Tablets tell of man being created as an hybrid of an existing hominid of earth and those "who from heaven came to earth", if those Cuneiform Texts are not "myth" and portray the truth I again say who are the "we"?

Again, in the context of this discussion, humans.

2 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

The laws we accept as truth today could be the laws of an Adromedan civilisation we haven't discovered yet, isn't the law of gravity considered to be multiverse wide and so therefore Universe wide? Either way it's a chicken and egg scenario.

You really need to make the distinction between "human science based on observation and experimentation of the universe" and "the way the universe behaves". The former is all made up by humans, the latter seems to hold true no matter where you are (as far as we've observed). 

Let me put it this way. Before we needed numbers to describe the way planets orbited the sun, we needed numbers to tell how many sheep were in our flock. We had to invent new names for higher numbers as we needed them. Did the concept of those numbers exist before we named them? Sure, there were that many trees in a forest, or shells we found on the beach. But arithmetic didn't exist until we invented it. Does that make sense to you?