How did everything really begin?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Please do not appeal to eternity.

 

And also, to say that nothing has no energy means to me that nothing is not physically affected by it's surroundings, which would mean that nothing exists in perfect equilibrium and hence cannot interact with reality, this is not what I observe. I could be committing several fallacies however

 

To say that any term is clearly defined is false as well, my argument is that 1 is equal to .9r. Therefor, 1 is not 1, but it is the closest thing to it.

[Alan McDougall]

Please do not appeal to eternity.

 

And also, to say that nothing has no energy means to me that nothing is not physically affected by it's surroundings, which would mean that nothing exists in perfect equilibrium and hence cannot interact with reality, this is not what I observe. I could be committing several fallacies however

 

To say that any term is clearly defined is false as well, my argument is that 1 is equal to .9r. Therefor, 1 is not 1, but it is the closest thing to it.

 

Nothing is not empty space or an absolute void of empty nothingness, nothing is nothing, and there was never nothing, there has always been something and that something is existence of which our universe might just be a tiny part of

 

You stated above in red font nothing exists, now that must be the absolute oxymoron

[PeterJ]

There is a view by which 'Something-Nothing' is not a fundamental distinction. For this view the term 'emptiness' would be used rather than 'Nothing', indicating a conceptual void, and not a physical void, which as you say would be an oxymoronic idea.

 

This is a solution for the Something-Nothing problem. Whether it is the correct solution is not decidable in logic, but it works.

 

 

.

[Alan McDougall]

There is a view by which 'Something-Nothing' is not a fundamental distinction. For this view the term 'emptiness' would be used rather than 'Nothing', indicating a conceptual void, and not a physical void, which as you say would be an oxymoronic idea.

 

This is a solution for the Something-Nothing problem. Whether it is the correct solution is not decidable in logic, but it works.

 

 

.

 

It works please inform me how?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Alan McDougall

[PeterJ]

It works plebe inform me how?

 

It's actually very simple, albeit difficult to understand.

 

If we say that the universe begins with or is 'Something' or 'Nothing', then we have adopted an extreme metaphysical position. All such positions are known to fail in logic and can be reduced to absurdity in the dialectic. The solution, as for all such ancient dilemmas, would be to assume that this distinction is conceptual. After all, what do we really mean by 'Something' and 'Nothing'? In everyday life we know well enough, but at the level of absolutes and fundamental the definitions are not so easy.

 

In brief, all extreme metaphysical theories are absurd, and the only solution would be to abandon them.

 

I have a feeling that you;re close to this idea already. It's the only known workable solution for metaphysics.other than to assume that an extreme theory is true and that the world is paradoxical, (which is the approach taken by materialists and theists, to cite two obvious examples}, or to simply assume that the world is paradoxical, which is the approach taken by the Dialethists. I'm not aware of a fourth approach, or it has slipped my mind.

Edited May 29, 2013 by PeterJ

[Alan McDougall]

It's actually very simple, albeit difficult to understand.

 

If we say that the universe begins with or is 'Something' or 'Nothing', then we have adopted an extreme metaphysical position. All such positions are known to fail in logic and can be reduced to absurdity in the dialectic. The solution, as for all such ancient dilemmas, would be to assume that this distinction is conceptual. After all, what do we really mean by 'Something' and 'Nothing'? In everyday life we know well enough, but at the level of absolutes and fundamental the definitions are not so easy.

 

In brief, all extreme metaphysical theories are absurd, and the only solution would be to abandon them.

 

I have a feeling that you;re close to this idea already. It's the only known workable solution for metaphysics.other than to assume that an extreme theory is true and that the world is paradoxical, (which is the approach taken by materialists and theists, to cite two obvious examples}, or to simply assume that the world is paradoxical, which is the approach taken by the Dialethists. I'm not aware of a fourth approach, or it has slipped my mind.

 

Again you make an oxymoron by stating that your idea is actually very simple, albeit difficult?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I agree with peter on the emptiness stance. I think I've expressed it before. Repulsion occurs between two points, the 'jello' surrounding them is contracted as they separate, but there is a void left between them where something recognizable occurs. When the two points are inevitably pushed back together, it would cause flattening of the void.

[PeterJ]

Again you make an oxymoron by stating that your idea is actually very simple, albeit difficult?

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were interested.

 

The opposite of 'simple' is 'complex'. The opposite of 'difficult' is 'easy'.

[SamBridge]

I have 2:

1 for you: The ultimate key to everything = Reflection. You can nag on this while still treating it as a rant or you can take the effort and translate it's meaning into your most favorite language (might be maths but probably not)

 

Disclaimer:

everything=everything-1

 

Now this is getting boring to me causing a similar feeling than I had before bumping into this website.

Are there some psychologists that are willed to serve breakfast?

So in other words the answer is no.

[born]

So in other words the answer is no.

+

 

Three

statisticians are out pig shooting. They see a large boar in the distance, so

they jump out of their truck and level their rifles. The first one fires. A

cloud of dirt erupts one metre to the left of the pig. The second one fires. A

cloud of dirt erupts one metre to the right of the pig. The third one shouts

“we got him!” so they jump back into the truck and drive off.

 

 

for amusement in case humor is allowed in Philosophy while not violating house rules at the same time.

[SamBridge]

+

 

Three

statisticians are out pig shooting. They see a large boar in the distance, so

they jump out of their truck and level their rifles. The first one fires. A

cloud of dirt erupts one metre to the left of the pig. The second one fires. A

cloud of dirt erupts one metre to the right of the pig. The third one shouts

“we got him!” so they jump back into the truck and drive off.

 

 

for amusement in case humor is allowed in Philosophy while not violating house rules at the same time.

So the answer remains "no".

[born]

if it is yours then yes.

[SamBridge]

if it is yours then yes.

It is my answer to what I assume your answer is based on your lack of any viable evidence, or any evidence at all.

[born]

again Prof.,

I gave an answer before even personally for you. Where you did not really ask a viable question at all. Since the answer I gave basically explains(potentially) everything else as well it finally doesnt matter what you make out of it now. Even if you stop thinking at all it doesnt matter.

 

Last time I respond to anything coming from you unless it scratches fields where I am personally "specialised"

[DARK HUNTER]

To the topic:

 

Some questions don't have an aswer (such as The Origin of the Cosmos). I belive that the universe is truly infinite and doesn't have "a begining" (or and end for that matter) (No God involved. No Big Bang involved. No Architect involved)

[pwagen]

To the topic:

 

Some questions don't have an aswer (such as The Origin of the Cosmos). I belive that the universe is truly infinite and doesn't have "a begining" (or and end for that matter) (No God involved. No Big Bang involved. No Architect involved)

You are, of course, free to believe anything you want. However, you also need to look at the facts and evidence available and ask yourself "do these facts and evidence fit my world view?". If they don't fit, there's a problem.

[Alan McDougall]

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were interested.

 

The opposite of 'simple' is 'complex'. The opposite of 'difficult' is 'easy'.

 

Really that is mid-blowing logic. Monocle was not talking about opposites his statement was an "oxymoron" How can something that is very simple , be albeit difficult

[PeterJ]

An oxymoron is a self-contradiction. To say that a problem is simple but difficult is not a self-contradiction. Of course, where these words are used as opposites, as a sloppy speaker might do, then things are different, but I wasn't being sloppy. .

 

Writing things in red doesn't make them any more true.

 

Most metaphysical problems are simple but difficult. It is a characteristic of such problems. The problem that OP raises is simple and could be explained to a child, and children often ask it. Because it is difficult to solve few people go on to find a solution.

 

Why are we discussing nonsense instead of trying to solve it? Do you have no curiosity?

[Alan McDougall]

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were interested.

 

The opposite of 'simple' is 'complex'. The opposite of 'difficult' is 'easy'.

 

Now such intellect to come up with such logicmind-blowingly . Molecule was not stating an opposite what he stated was a clear oxymoron .actually very simple, albeit difficult? An idea or thing that is both Simple and difficult a clear contrition in terms

 

I would add that "complete utter emptiness" is "something"and has at least three dimensions, in these three dimensions our universe does not exist, because space time is not emptiness but a fabric of reality. Emptiness might exist somewhere, but not in our universe.

[SamBridge]

again Prof.,

I gave an answer before even personally for you. Where you did not really ask a viable question at all. Since the answer I gave basically explains(potentially) everything else as well it finally doesnt matter what you make out of it now.

You gave an answer, but you still did not give evidence, which makes the answer somewhat meaningless.

[Alan McDougall]

An oxymoron is a self-contradiction. To say that a problem is simple but difficult is not a self-contradiction. Of course, where these words are used as opposites, as a sloppy speaker might do, then things are different, but I wasn't being sloppy. .

 

Writing things in red doesn't make them any more true.

 

Most metaphysical problems are simple but difficult. It is a characteristic of such problems. The problem that OP raises is simple and could be explained to a child, and children often ask it. Because it is difficult to solve few people go on to find a solution.

 

Why are we discussing nonsense instead of trying to solve it? Do you have no curiosity?

 

I will try again hot and cold are opposites " It is so Hot that it is Cold" is an Oxymoron. Of course I am curious I will address this subject as soon as nonsensical statement stop! I agree that it is much more an metaphysical subject than a scientific one

[CosmosCranium]

This is a great thread. I'll add my two cents:

Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradox?

Say you have a line that is 1 foot long. You are able to divide this line into an infinite amount of smaller lines (0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, etc.)

 

Being that we are living in a four dimensional universe with time being one of the more important ones- Time itself must then have some sort of physical attribute.

If we are able to divide temporal constructs into more and more (infinitely many) smaller portions, does that not conclude that time has a beginning (and an end)?

[SamBridge]

This is a great thread. I'll add my two cents:

Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradox?

Say you have a line that is 1 foot long. You are able to divide this line into an infinite amount of smaller lines (0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, etc.)

 

Being that we are living in a four dimensional universe with time being one of the more important ones- Time itself must then have some sort of physical attribute.

If we are able to divide temporal constructs into more and more (infinitely many) smaller portions, does that not conclude that time has a beginning (and an end)?

You cannot derive everything of an an entire entity merely from a single unit you may use to measure it. We "can" measure one foot of a line and break it down, and we can do that with any other unit of length, and so what? We still don't know how long the line is and we can't physically divide it "infinitely". Technically, a line is infinitely long, but that length is so long we can't physically measure it. Why can't a similar property be true for time?

Edited June 2, 2013 by SamBridge

[Alan McDougall]

This is a great thread. I'll add my two cents:

Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradox?

Say you have a line that is 1 foot long. You are able to divide this line into an infinite amount of smaller lines (0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, etc.)

 

Being that we are living in a four dimensional universe with time being one of the more important ones- Time itself must then have some sort of physical attribute.

If we are able to divide temporal constructs into more and more (infinitely many) smaller portions, does that not conclude that time has a beginning (and an end)?

 

The Zeno Paradox has been solved?

 

Planks Constants indicate that you cannot subdivide and subdivide getting infinitely smaller like suggested,

 

Planck's constant, symbolized h, relates the energy in one quantum (photon) of electromagnetic radiation to the frequency of that radiation. In the International System of units (SI), the constant is equal to approximately 6.626176 x 10^-34 joule-seconds. In the centimeter-gram-second (cgs) or small-unit metric system, it is equal to approximately 6.626176 x 10^-27 erg-seconds.

[Alan McDougall]

You cannot derive everything of an an entire entity merely from a single unit you may use to measure it. We "can" measure one foot of a line and break it down, and we can do that with any other unit of length, and so what? We still don't know how long the line is and we can't physically divide it "infinitely". Technically, a line is infinitely long, but that length is so long we can't physically measure it. Why can't a similar property be true for time?

 

 

 

We do try to measure discrete units of time , by our clocks to mathematical constructs

 

 

Various Wikipedia articles:

 

1 attosecond – the time it takes for light to travel the

length of three hydrogen atoms

 

A googol has 100 zeros.

 

A googolplex is 10 to the 10th to the 100th. There are so many zeroes in a

googolplex, if you wrote a zero on every atom in the universe, it still wouldn't

be enough 0s

 

Planks constant is the smallest measure of time , some speculate that this is the briefest period in which reality can exist?

 

5.39106(32) × 10⁻⁴⁴ s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28time%29

 

 

 

A googolplex is 10 to the 10th to the 100th. There are so many zeroes in a

googolplex, if you wrote a zero on every atom in the universe, it still

wouldn't be enough 0s

 

 

Planks constant is the smallest theoretical measure of time

 

≈

5.39106(32) × 10⁻⁴⁴ s

Multiple

Symbol

Definition

Comparative

examples & common units

Orders of

magnitude

10⁻⁴⁴

 

t_P

The time required for light to travel one Planck

length

5.4×10^-20 ys = 5.4×10^-44 s:

One Planck

time t_P = ≈ 5.4×10^-44

s^[1]

is the briefest physically meaningful span of time. It is the unit of time in

the natural

units system known as Planck units.

10⁻²⁰ ys, 10⁻¹⁹ ys (10⁻⁴⁴

s, 10⁻⁴³

s)

10⁻²⁴

1 yoctosecond

ys^[2]

Yoctosecond, (yocto- + second),

is one septillionth

(short scale) of a second.

0.3 ys: mean life of the W

and Z bosons.^[3][4][a]

 

0.5 ys: time for top quark decay,

according to the Standard Model.

 

1 ys: time taken for a quark to emit a gluon.

 

23 ys: half-life of ⁷H.

1 ys and less, 10 ys, 100 ys

10⁻²¹

1 zeptosecond

zs

Zeptosecond, (zepto- + second),

is one sextillionth

(short scale) of one second.

7 zs: half-life of helium-9's

outer neutron in the second nuclear halo.

 

17 zs: approximate period of electromagnetic radiation at the

boundary between gamma rays and X-rays.

 

300 zs: approximate typical cycle time of X-rays, on the boundary

between hard and soft X-rays.

 

500 zs: current resolution of tools used to measure speed of chemical

bonding^[5]

1 zs, 10 zs, 100 zs

10⁻¹⁸

1 attosecond

as

One quintillionth of one second

12 attoseconds: shortest measured period of time.^[6]

1 as, 10 as, 100 as

10⁻¹⁵

1 femtosecond

fs

One quadrillionth of one second

Cycle time for 390 nanometre

light, transition from visible light to ultraviolet

1 fs, 10 fs, 100 fs

10⁻¹²

1 picosecond

ps

One trillionth of one second

1 ps: half-life of a bottom

quark

 

4 ps: Time to execute one machine cycle by an IBM Silicon-Germanium

transistor

1 ps, 10 ps, 100 ps

10⁻⁹

1 nanosecond

ns

One billionth of one second

1 ns: Time to execute one machine cycle by a

1 GHz microprocessor

 

1 ns: Light travels 30 centimetres (12 in)

1 ns, 10 ns, 100 ns

10⁻⁶

1 microsecond

µs

One millionth of one second

1 µs: Time to execute one machine cycle by an Intel

80186 microprocessor

 

4–16 µs: Time to execute one machine cycle by a 1960s minicomputer

1 µs, 10 µs, 100 µs

10⁻³

1 millisecond

ms

One thousandth of one second

4–8 ms: typical seek time

for a computer hard disk

 

100–400 ms (=0.1–0.4 s): Blink of an eye^[7]

 

18–300 ms (=0.02–0.3 s): Human reflex response

to visual stimuli

1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms

10⁰

1 second

s

 

1 s: 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation

corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the

ground state of the cesium-133 atom.^[8]

60 s: 1 minute

1 s, 10 s, 100 s

10³

1 kilosecond

 

(16.7 minutes)

ks

 

3.6 ks: 3600 s or 1 hour

 

86.4 ks: 86 400 s or 1 day

 

604.8 ks: 1 week

10³ s, 10⁴ s,

10⁵ s

10⁶

1 megasecond

 

(11.6 days)

Ms

 

2.6 Ms: approximately 1 month

 

31.6 Ms: approximately 1 year ≈ 10^7.50 s

10⁶ s, 10⁷ s,

10⁸ s

10⁹

1 gigasecond

 

(32 years)

Gs

 

2.1 Gs: average human life expectancy at birth (2011 estimate)^[9]

 

3.16 Gs: approximately 1 century

 

31.6 Gs: approximately 1 millennium

10⁹ s, 10¹⁰ s,

10¹¹

s

10¹²

1 terasecond

 

(32 000 years)

Ts

 

6 Ts: time since the appearance of Homo

sapiens (approximately)

10¹² s, 10¹³ s,

10¹⁴

s

10¹⁵

1 petasecond

 

(32 million years)

Ps

 

7.1–7.9 Ps: 1 galactic

year (225-250 million years)^[10]

143 Ps: the age of the Earth^[11][12][13]

 

144 Ps: the approximate age of the Solar

system^[14]

and the Sun.^[15]

 

430 Ps: the approximate age of the Universe

10¹⁵ s, 10¹⁶ s,

10¹⁷

s

10¹⁸

1 exasecond

 

(32 billion years)

Es

 

312 Es: Estimated lifespan of a 0.1 solar mass red dwarf

star.

10¹⁸ s, 10¹⁹

s, 10²⁰ s

10²¹

1 zettasecond

 

(32 trillion years)

Zs

 

3 Zs: Estimated duration of Stelliferous

Era.

9.8 Zs: the lifetime of Brahma in Hindu mythology

10²¹ s, 10²² s, 10²³

s

10²⁴

1 yottasecond

 

(32 quadrillion years)

Ys

 

1.6416 Ys: Estimated half-life

of the meta-stable ²⁰⁹₈₃Bi radioactive isotope.

6.616×10⁵⁰ Ys: Time required for a 1 solar mass black hole

to evaporate completely due to Hawking radiation, if nothing more falls in.

10²⁴ s, 10²⁵ s, 10²⁶

s and more