What came first, Nothing or Something?

originally posted by: OOOOOO
The Nothing can not be measured, it has no dimension, it is neither large nor small.

Time, the forth dimension is simply, the movement of a 3 dimensional object, in a 3 dimensional space.

It is not possible to be in the Nothing, as there is Nothing there, Nothing, no space to be in. The One is not in the Nothing, the One simply is. That which has always been and will always be.

So the answer to the question is, there was no first.

Ah, but here we are in a four dimensional world.

How did the first three dimensions intersect if time did not exist first?

Time has to be the first dimension. And if it is, we CAN imagine an idea of Nothing existing in a state of time and three dimensional space. And if Nothing existed in that space and time, then Something had to exist along with it perpetually to give it definition in its perpetual state.

Time has to be the first dimension, not the fourth. The first three dimensions could not be 'built' without time first.

Yes. I very much agree with what you said, it echos my own thoughts!

To expound on what you said, 'entropy' is the death of the Universe according to the laws of thermodynamics. But we are driven by a 'survival of the Universe' instinct. Entropy means that all of the matter in the Universe will eventually spread out so far that the forces that cause energy -- like gravitation -- will no longer be propagated.

Perhaps we are perfectly in existence so that energy itself can propagate ITSELF. An intelligent energy. Able to evolve to a point of intelligence that's no longer dependent on matter, but would not have happened without matter (before matter succumbed to natural entropy, that is).

Maybe energy will evolve intellectually to defeat entropy through an evolved intelligence and defy the natural laws of physics?

What great things await us, indeed!

Yea, this is one of my points, an evolved Universe, may be capable of doing something that going against our current theory's.
Plus the process you speak of goes against the propagation of the Higg's Bosons and is it even possible to destroy quarks.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Time is a after thought of space, you don't need time to have space, but to move thru space you need time.

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: Xtrozero

** "nothing" only exists when you are UN-conscious.

Nothing is a term we humans use to explain what we do not know....there is no such thing as nothing. The big bang was not something from nothing, it was something from something. In our universe in the most remote spot there is still something...space/time...

originally posted by: OOOOOO
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Time is a after thought of space, you don't need time to have space, but to move thru space you need time.

But if Nothing occupies the space, it would occupy it moment after moment after moment.

And it could only exist in those moments by comparison to Something existing in space moment after moment after moment.

So maybe the first four dimensions are only one forever intertwined dimension?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The Nothing does not occupy, the Nothing is just not, no space, once you have space it has become Something.

In trying to contemplate the Absolute, you have to realize, things like moments, are non existent, as are, up, down, left, right, right, wrong, this is the premise of the Singularity.

But, I would agree that, the dimensions are forever entwined, I believe that is what they call entanglement. Everything in the Universe is in some way connected.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: Xtrozero

** "nothing" only exists when you are UN-conscious.

Nothing is a term we humans use to explain what we do not know....there is no such thing as nothing. The big bang was not something from nothing, it was something from something. In our universe in the most remote spot there is still something...space/time...

What is outside of our Universe.

It all has to do with our ability to grasp the concept of infinity.
Our minds refuse to accept it, because it can not be rationalized.
I think that is going to change soon.

originally posted by: OOOOOO

What is outside of our Universe.

Tough question since it is outside of our existence. Something we most likely can not comprehend. It is something though...

originally posted by: charlyv
It all has to do with our ability to grasp the concept of infinity.
Our minds refuse to accept it, because it can not be rationalized.
I think that is going to change soon.

Yes, this is a point I try to convey to others, we do not live in a infinite Universe, they have given the atoms in our Universe a number, it's something like 10 to the 81first, but if it's been counted it's not infinite.

In our considerations of the infinite, it is like a number so large it would make no difference if it was even larger, because it wouldn't matter, it would have no effect on the equation.
In our Universe at some point the number could become so large, as to become non-realistic , for any practical purpose.
The same as, say I could slice this a infinite number of times, at some point, it becomes impractical, because your results don't change, you have reached the limits of information, in this Universe.

Our Universe has a end, it is not infinite, though I'm sure Creation is Infinite.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If you could, you would reach the Void, Nothing, until space expands further, into the Void.

Just like Star Trek they said endless space, Space is not endless, it ends.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, I see.

I did say: for a observer to observe something it must occupy Space and time, because the observer occupies Space and time.
If the obsevrer (you or me) dont occupy Space and time. The observer can not exist. Agreed ? So the opposit must also apply to all other subjects as well.

A observer can not observe an Object of any kind if the Object doesn't occupy Space and time.... There are no instuments that would be able to measure anything that does not occupy Space and time either. Agreed? Because how would you do it?


Physically what is nothing?

Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness.

Physically what is nothingness?

Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[2] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

Nothingness is pretty interesting because it describes a specific property. A property of having absolute nothing. Or a state of nonexistence of anything..... And it sounds a lot like a absolute empty vacuum void of Space to me...



Now the question is.... What property existed first? nothing or something?

Well we know that Our universe is 13.79 billion years old. So we know that Our universe did not come first. Because Our universe did not come into existance before it occupied Space and time.

So, something must have existed before Our universe did. And we are only left With one option..... Nothingness.



.........................................................................................

Nothingness represents the property of a absolute vacuum. No other property or state can.

- A absolute vacuum is also the only property and state that can be infinite.

- A absolute vacuum is also the only property and state that can be a absolute constant.

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics.

a reply to: OOOOOO

Time is a after thought of space, you don't need time to have space, but to move thru space you need time.

If you have Space you also have time. No matter how you argue it.

Motion (physics), any movement or change in position or time

In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time

You see Space must have time. Space is a constant background in respect to the motion of the subject. If the background is infinite the subject in motion relative to the observer will appear as being motionless. That is a big difference. But not even that is true. The observer will see the subject having motion unless the obsevrer is also moving With the subject and the background is constant.

Okay they both occurred simultaneously. They both exist within a vacuum. There cannot be something without nothing and there can not be nothing without something.

originally posted by: OOOOOO
a reply to: Xtrozero

If you could, you would reach the Void, Nothing, until space expands further, into the Void.

Just like Star Trek they said endless space, Space is not endless, it ends.

Well actually no it doesn't end...

Space time is infinite you can not fly to the edge of the universe, but the big bang is a 14 billion light year bubble. We can see the cosmic microwave background radiation, but that isn't the edge of the universe which as I said is infinite. Endless space does not mean nothingness, there is still space...space IS something...I know it is hard to wrap your brain around that concept.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

the first "something" was the quantification of "nothing".

Self validating.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The first non-quantification of nothing was something, also, self validated, speaking of validation can you take care of this parking fee for me?

There is nothing and the illusion of separation happens and then there is a 'someone separate' (the first thing) then the whole (nothing) appears to be made of many separate things.
This is a really good explanation of when the first thing seams to begin.


Nothing is no thing. Life is no thing - life is all there is (nothing separate) - nothing and everything.

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: charlyv
It all has to do with our ability to grasp the concept of infinity.
Our minds refuse to accept it, because it can not be rationalized.
I think that is going to change soon.

Yes, this is a point I try to convey to others, we do not live in a infinite Universe, they have given the atoms in our Universe a number, it's something like 10 to the 81first, but if it's been counted it's not infinite.

In our considerations of the infinite, it is like a number so large it would make no difference if it was even larger, because it wouldn't matter, it would have no effect on the equation.
In our Universe at some point the number could become so large, as to become non-realistic , for any practical purpose.
The same as, say I could slice this a infinite number of times, at some point, it becomes impractical, because your results don't change, you have reached the limits of information, in this Universe.

Our Universe has a end, it is not infinite, though I'm sure Creation is Infinite.

I would hold that the universe is infinite, as quantum physics suggests that it is multi-dimensional. Same universe but with infinite granularity in it's instances. Consider them timelines if you will. Asymptotic on both ends. Always something smaller, always something larger. We assign arbitrary numbers to represent the largest and smallest numbers we should work with , but they are human creations that bind us into a working set we can deal with.

We set these artificial limits by coming up with the Googol, which is 10^100 (10 to the power of 100). Not sufficient for today's science, we extend that to the Googolplex, which is 10^Googol (10 to the power of a Googol).

The hint of infinity comes from quantum physics. We know that no matter how far apart 2 entangled photons are from each other, observing one instantly defines and sets the state of the other. Instantly here, is the very essence of infinite. You can think of it as taking infinitely less time to perform the state change. It not zero time, it is an asymptotic relationship that approaches zero, but never gets there.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

the first "something" was the quantification of "nothing".

Self validating.

And if you accept time is the fourth dimension, then Something had to exist in some form occupying space which gave birth to time, by default..because Nothing existed in space simultaneously.

To quantify Nothing as Nothing, there must be Something to compare it to.

So, the contents of everything that is Something are the exact right ingredients that can produce a perpetual Something.


Hence, we have evolution driven by an instinct to be perpetual. It's our destiny to be perpetual even when all the matter in the universe has succumbed to natural entropy and energy cannot be propagated by the laws of physics.

Energy is destined to be self propagating and intelligent through the process of evolution driven by the instinct to be perpetual.