It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What came first, Nothing or Something?

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Here's a fun 'origin' question: What came first, Nothing or Something? My answer: They have both existed perpetually because their existence depends entirely on one another by comparison.

I am going to try go deep here with my thoughts and I am interested in other thoughts. I know some people hate these type questions but I thought this one might be fun to explore because it's such a broad question.

My thinking about the comparative concept of 'Nothingness and Somethingness' somehow giving birth to the Universe (and any other Universes -- collectively referred to in this post as the 'Something-Universe') is that it is an idea not dependent on a 'mind' to realize it. It exists unto its own.

Perpetually there is Nothingness and Somethingness, together. For each quality to exist in a state, the other must exist to compare it to.

The revelations of quantum physics, as I understand them, are that the smallest particles exist in simultaneous states. These states depend on the idea of comparison and observation to define them.

And so Somethingness has existed perpetually alongside Nothingness. And Somethingness is driven by an instinct to perpetually survive, and vice versa. And everything within our Something-Universe is driven by the same instinct.

Both Something and Nothing must exist simultaneously to have definition. The Universe of Somethingness -- which reaches beyond what we can age because it is infinite and perpetual -- has always been there.

Somethingness is perpetually in existence by necessity. Nothingness is dependent on it.

At some point -- now or in the future -- the contents of our Something-Universe had/has to figure out a way to perpetually exist and from that is born the instinct for all things within it to survive perpetually, too.

That limitation set the parameters for the Somethingness we all live in. Every force and quantum particle -- every aspect of Somethingness -- is driven by a perpetual survival instinct and exists because it is suited to do just that. Just as Nothingness is dependent on Somethingness for perpetual survival, and vice versa, every force, species and quality of Somethingness is dependent on something else for survival.

So, I surmise that at some point in our perpetuality, the idea was realized that set the universe on a perpetual course. I believe that course is the Torus. Somethingness in its broadest form to its smallest form travels on a path around a Torus, where it is sucked into the Torus vortex, and then spit out in a fit of energy to allow the collection of matter and the energy forces in our Something Universe, to travel long distances through time, and evolve to an understanding of pertuality. Then it is all sucked back into the Torus vortex and spit out again. And so it goes on perpetually. The Big Bang that scientists 'see' is just the latest exit from the Torus we travel along.

The idea of Nothing and Something has no beginning nor end and it is the perpetual idea behind our Something Universe.

So, how do you answer the question? What came first Something or Nothing or have they both existed perpetually?

edit on 21-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
meh the irony is nothing is something... Let that cook your noodle OP.


Sorry for the one liner...



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bicent76
meh the irony is nothing is something... Let that cook your noodle OP.


Sorry for the one liner...

Not at all. The fact that nothing IS something is what prompted my post.

To reiterate: Nothing is only nothing because it is COMPARED TO SOMETHING.

So yes. I let that question cook.


edit on 21-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So, how do you answer the question? What came first Something or Nothing or have they both existed perpetually?


We have the arrogance of thinking that we are more or less dealing with settled science when we talk about BigBang etc. Ofc atheist had the need for a creation event and a cosmogony to make them slaves as any religious.

Given these two premises I'd say we CAN'T know, but current accepted theories are frankly harder to believe than the assumption that the universe always existed, so there would be no "first" and no "nothing". But Everything out of nothing is religion, not science.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
In any case what we have now is the illusion or the stimulation yet all in all we can only perceive what our senses show us nothing else.. We cannot even understand nothing our logic is used with words we make to help us understand what we feel or think we have figured out...

In order to understand you must have more senses to see it all or feel it all etc. in my opinion..

to me this is an elementary question.. We do not know, the answer to it, nor will we be able to prove it anything, it is an open ended question that will more than likely lead to ignorant arguments or debates on ats over religion or know it all LOL...




edit on 9 21 2015 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So, how do you answer the question? What came first Something or Nothing or have they both existed perpetually?


We have the arrogance of thinking that we are more or less dealing with settled science when we talk about BigBang etc. Ofc atheist had the need for a creation event and a cosmogony to make them slaves as any religious.

Given these two premises I'd say we CAN'T know, but current accepted theories are frankly harder to believe than the assumption that the universe always existed, so there would be no "first" and no "nothing". But Everything out of nothing is religion, not science.


This is exactly how I feel.

'Something' is assigned to a creator -- not out of the necessity of defining 'Nothing' by comparison. Yet both have had to exist simultaneously and perpetually because one could not exist without comparing it to the other.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bicent76
In any case what we have now is the illusion or the stimulation yet all in all we can only perceive what our senses show us nothing else.. We cannot even understand nothing our logic is used with words we make to help us understand what we feel or think we have figured out...

In order to understand you must have more senses to see it all or feel it all etc. in my opinion..

to me this is an elementary question.. We do not know, the answer to it, nor will we be able to prove it anything, it is an open ended question that will more than likely lead to ignorant arguments or debates on ats over religion or know it all LOL...





Ha! Well, in order for Nothing to exist, we can never perceive it. We can only live in Something and trust that Nothing exists, too, by comparison.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Ever have that dream when you was a child of something being so colossal and also so tiny even microscopic at the same time?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So, how do you answer the question? What came first Something or Nothing or have they both existed perpetually?

Neither and No..!

What came first was 18 year old Scotch...

a reply to: The first person to question my logic

Well, then who made the Scotch..? Answer me that Mr. Smarty Pants!

That's just it, nothing made the Scotch, it was born out of Universal need...the only criteria required to exist prior to everything else.




posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Bicent76
In any case what we have now is the illusion or the stimulation yet all in all we can only perceive what our senses show us nothing else.. We cannot even understand nothing our logic is used with words we make to help us understand what we feel or think we have figured out...

In order to understand you must have more senses to see it all or feel it all etc. in my opinion..

to me this is an elementary question.. We do not know, the answer to it, nor will we be able to prove it anything, it is an open ended question that will more than likely lead to ignorant arguments or debates on ats over religion or know it all LOL...






Ha! Well, in order for Nothing to exist, we can never perceive it. We can only live in Something and trust that Nothing exists, too, by comparison.


Pretty much, that is all you get... You can use your imagination I suppose.. Yet doing that on ats is asking for trouble Mother...



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Everything is something, but no thing is nothing. Non-existence does not exist. There is only everything.

Even potential/possibility is something.

Everything is energy, and darkness is just an extremely dim light. That's why scientists can bring Light even from a so-called "void". Link.

Thermal dynamics reveals that Energy is always changing and moving but cannot be created or destroy.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
What if something is bound by nothing, would something need nothing to do anything?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

We have not discovered how to destroy energy, it is not known to us..

Yet I would not be surprised if it can be destroyed..

Black holes come to mind, etc. Coming from the species that believed the world was flat and the universe revolved around Earth.
edit on 9 21 2015 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BestinShow



I'll drink to that!



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

The death of our Something-Universe is ENTROPY.

That means that all matter is so spread out and equally, forces no longer act on one another to perpetuate energy.

But I wonder if 'Something' wasn't endowed with an instinct to 'live' perpetually and everything within 'Something' endowed with the same instinct.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: proob4
Ever have that dream when you was a child of something being so colossal and also so tiny even microscopic at the same time?


My dreams have become exponentially more interesting as I age. I solve problems in my dreams.

I once had a dream that somehow the force of gravity on earth was diminished. I was outside in the downtown area that I live and papers and babies were flying up into the air right out of the hands of people holding them.

The atmosphere was leaving the Earth, too, and with it went oxygen and I was struggling to breathe. I set out to find my family who lived in a high rise apartment near where we live in real life.

As I traveled through the hallways, I saw recycling bins with 2-liter plastic bottles and sucked the air out of them to aid my breathing. When I found my family, I had them do the same.

The next morning, when I reflected on my dream I was impressed that I had the idea to suck oxygen out of 2-liter bottles.

And I was left with a feeling that my dreams are a process of an evolution driven by the instinct to survive perpetually.
edit on 21-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

chances are we are wrong with our understanding of how Everything started we know and understand thru our lives etc.

Not to mention everything alive perceives THIS differently feels differently etc.

One thing is certain all life reacts to stimuli even plant life.. Also all life dies..

So for instance lets look at things like this.. In a sense perhaps the universe reality is alive and we are part of it and it will also die, or end etc.

In any case that is what we can compare nothing and something to as logical imaginary animals..

Yet more than likely we are wrong... Way wrong... On top of that just because we think their is nothing does not mean their is anything there.. We think just because we can sense time, it means something, yet in a sense we are the creators of time, yet without life it is not time....

Sometimes the answers are so simple it is to complicated for the mind to perceive and understand.. We stumble on the truth all the time, yet most times we ignore it and make it harder to try to understand...



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
its a mind f**k question,love how scientists really don,t have the answer but have to come up with something so their best answer to it is everything came from nothing.

really thats the best they have got? i don,t buy it,never will



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
If Our universe is 13,79 billion years old. What did Our universe look like 15 billion years ago? .... What does science say??

What void was Our universe made up of 15 billion years ago? ... What does science say??



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
If Our universe is 13,79 billion years old. What did Our universe look like 15 billion years ago? .... What does science say??

What void was Our universe made up of 15 billion years ago? ... What does science say??



I believe we were in the midst of being sucked in and spit out of a torus vortex. A map of the universe and timeline of the big bang leads me to believe this is a possiblity.

I am driven by the science of it all. And quantum science has uncovered new facts that may actually reflect on a larger scale.




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join