What came first, Nothing or Something?

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
There is no such thing as nothing period!

Correct.

But, none-the-less, the Idea of Nothing had to manifest because you cannot have an Idea of Something without an Idea of Nothing to compare it to.

I don't know about comparing, as there is Nothing to compare, to me it would be, with out the perspective of the Something, the Nothing, could not, not exist.

Plus with the vastness of the Something, where else could you ever put it.

Nothing is what Something is not. As long as there is Something, there is Something to compare to Nothing -- It is everything Something is not.

There is Nothing to compare, how could Nothing be everything, all it is void.

The Something is expanding into the Nothing, but the Nothing is not getting smaller.

It is not anything the Something is not.

Nothing is only represented by an Idea.

I am talking about the Idea of Something and Nothing. That's what definitions by comparison are -- Ideas.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

but the idea of nothing is still something. you have an idea of something for reference purposes, and the conceptual placeholder that represents the lack of conceptual or actual anything.

I come back to this thread now and then and ask myself the original question to see if I can come up with anything new.

Today I asked "what came first?" And in my head, I thought:

"I dunno, but I'm here right now and I'm going to make the most out of whatever this all is. I'm going to figure out how to hack and manipulate the hell out of the world around me, as that seems like a fun way to pass time in this 3-D monkey body..."

a reply to: MystikMushroom

that approach depends on whether you are a humanitarian or a sociopath.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MotherMayEye

but the idea of nothing is still something. you have an idea of something for reference purposes, and the conceptual placeholder that represents the lack of conceptual or actual anything.

Yes! I agree. I agree that the Idea of Nothing is something. It's an Idea that cannot be brought into existence because what it represents exists -- Nothing cannot exist. So the Idea has to be made to exist some other way: In Time thanks to Minds. The Idea of Nothing could never exist materially in Space.

That would explain why Minds evolved: to cause the Idea of Nothing to exist in the fabric of Time.

I've also been wondering about a possible larger dimension that I can only describe like this: It's where the Idea of 0+1=1 has always existed as 'Truth.' (And all Ideas of truthful Math). All Ideas are like numbers produced by equations.

In other words, like 0+1=1 is just some amazing absolute truth with some completely unknown 'origin', every Idea that exists in Space and/or Time and will ever exist in the future of Space and/or Time is actually as true and certain as 0+1=1.

So maybe a dimension of Mathematical truth, so to speak? You are just in a state of absolute truth until you come into being as an actual Idea.

Or something like that.

I think a better question would be, "did the universe give rise to consciousness or did consciousness give rise to the universe?"

As the OP stated earlier, "nothing is only represented by an idea".... without consciousness there is what? Nothing... not even the idea of nothing.

Max Plank (the originator of Quantum physics) said: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."

This is a great thread.... :-)

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
I think a better question would be, "did the universe give rise to consciousness or did consciousness give rise to the universe?"

As the OP stated earlier, "nothing is only represented by an idea".... without consciousness there is what? Nothing... not even the idea of nothing.

Max Plank (the originator of Quantum physics) said: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."

This is a great thread.... :-)

I think you stated that beautifully.

Quantum mechanics are such an interesting reflection of two ideas being entangled. As soon as one entangled electron is defined, the other defines itself as an opposite by comparison.

Exactly like the two entangled Ideas of Something and Nothing.

double post

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I disagree. My statement was science as it has been demonstrated that we have no real memory of an event and only remember we remember. To demonstrate, "I remember I am god". The question is, what was god, and if you remember it are you it.
I remember I am a vet but am I a veteran or a veterinarian ; ) ? God would remember, but I would not, an absurdum infinitum.
Or would God remember that he did not remember?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I do do whah diddy daddy.

Who said anything came first?

originally posted by: cryptic0void
Who said anything came first?

No one. You are welcome to the opinion that neither ever happened or that both happened at the same time, too.

Also, please don't assign your archaic beliefs to me. It's so mormon. I decide my own beliefs. You aren't being cute by asserting that what I conclude conforms to your religiosity. Frankly, it's very rude, too.

In fact, I feel I just wasted my time explaining this to someone who is likely too simple-minded to understand. Take hours, days, weeks, or more to let it sink in before you ask me to re-explain what I just wrote. My patience is limited for the aforementioned reason.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
I think a better question would be, "did the universe give rise to consciousness or did consciousness give rise to the universe?"

This is the weird part; consciousness always existed, it just had to figure out how to form itself into something understandable (matter etc.) in order to express itself.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
I think a better question would be, "did the universe give rise to consciousness or did consciousness give rise to the universe?"

This is the weird part; consciousness always existed, it just had to figure out how to form itself into something understandable (matter etc.) in order to express itself.

Disagree.

The universe gave rise to consciousness. That answer is not weird at all. It makes sense.

Why go with what's weird and try to make it logical when it isn't?

(BTW, I hope my confrontational questions don't make you feel like I don't appreciate your thoughts or that you want to think deeply and DO think deeply. Even if we disagree. I admire anyone who has a desire to discuss this stuff because a lot of people shy away from these subjects.)

originally posted by: cryptic0void
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I disagree. My statement was science as it has been demonstrated that we have no real memory of an event and only remember we remember. To demonstrate, "I remember I am god". The question is, what was god, and if you remember it are you it.
I remember I am a vet but am I a veteran or a veterinarian. ; ) ? God would remember, but I would not, an absurdum infinitum.
Or would God remember that he did not remember?

Neither does a neutrino. It changes its identity with great frequency and doesn't remember what it was a nanosecond ago. Of course you have real memories of events (physical, in linear time) recorded in that awesome brain of yours, you also have others that are of the dream (out of body memories). Both are real as you experienced them on purpose (its your contents table to the book you are writing about yourself). You cannot remember being God as you are God in its expression NOW. Cryptic? I am just a Veteranhumanbeing.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MystikMushroom

that approach depends on whether you are a humanitarian or a sociopath.

Or a Copacetic Dragon.

Check this out....

Quantum Experiment Shows How “Time” Doesn’t Exist As We Think It Does (Mind-Altering)

Just as the double slit experiment illustrates how factors associated with consciousness collapse the quantum wave function (a piece of matter existing in multiple potential states) into a single piece of matter with defined physical properties (no longer a wave, all those potential states collapsed into one), the delayed choice experiment illustrates how what happens in the present can change what happens(ed) in the past. It also shows how time can go backwards, how cause and effect can be reversed, and how the future caused the past.

Like the quantum double slit experiment, the delayed choice/quantum eraser has been demonstrated and repeated time and time again. For example, Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, the findings were recently published in the journal Nature Physics. (source)www.collective-evolution.com...(source)

Even events that occurred in the past can be influenced by observations/actions in the present.

If we accept that the act of observing can collapse realities that exist in superposition, and we accept that observations/actions taken in the present can define that which occurs in the past, then we must accept that consciousness manifests reality.... and if we accept that as truth, we must accept that consciousness gave rise to the universe.

Here is more experimental evidence that reality does not exist until it is observed.....

Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesnt Exist Until Measured

This is what the ANU team found in its experiment.

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

Truscott's team first trapped a collection of helium atoms in a suspended state known as a Bose-Einstein condensate, and then ejected them until there was only a single atom left.

The single atom was then dropped through a pair of counter-propagating laser beams, which formed a grating pattern that acted as crossroads in the same way a solid grating would scatter light.

A second light grating to recombine the paths was randomly added, which led to constructive or destructive interference as if the atom had travelled both paths.

When the second light grating was not added, no interference was observed as if the atom chose only one path.

However, the random number determining whether the grating was added was only generated after the atom had passed through the crossroads.

If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott.

"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behaviour was brought into existence," he said.

This stuff isn't really new.... we're just rediscovering it...

a reply to: vethumanbeing

On a side note, we have multiple personalities and we change instanly all our makeup at a quantum level as we shift.
A recent science fact confirmed by studying the iris.
PS: I have talked with you before but can't reclaim that identity so I was having a bit of fun with my new, more sinister meme ; )

a reply to: MotherMayEye

My thoughts in reverse.
Except I don't think.
I just have thoughts.

Nothing is forming - emptiness is form - form is emptiness.