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: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Would you say that you are seeing something?




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



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


I also believe in a perpetual system.
This article on Integrated Information Theory (IIT) adds a new twist to what we call reality. Sorta of like realizing there is another side of the coin..

m.huffpost.com...

Not saying the article answers the original question, but it definitely answers alot of misguided attempts to resolve your OP.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Would you say that you are seeing something?

Not necessarily. I don't see the forces of energy -- though they can be visualized. But they are Something none-the-less.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Would you say that you are seeing something?

Not necessarily. I don't see the forces of energy -- though they can be visualized. But they are Something none-the-less.

The opening title of the thread is 'what came first - nothing or something?
What is the something that you are referring to?

Right now there is something appearing as sight - this text is part of the whole 'something' which is appearing as vision.
This 'something' is not being seen by 'something'.
Can that which is seeing be seen?


edit on 24-9-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The opening title of the thread is 'what came first - nothing or something?
What is the something that you are referring to?


A totality of everything that is not nothing. Something.

'Everything' is included in the totality because it is the exact right combination of ingredients to produce a perpetual 'Something.'

Now, perhaps 'matter' was only necessary temporarily to create space for energy to move through time. And one day, matter will reach entropy but, by then, energy will have had time to evolve to perpetuate itself independent of matter via an evolved intelligence.

Or maybe a gazillion years ago, 'life' already evolved to such an advanced state that it figured out a way to set the 'Something' in perpetual motion -- like a Torus shape.

But in order for the totality to perpetuate itself along a torus where everything is sucked into a torus vortex, and then spit out on the other side -- only to repeat the cycle endlessly -- intelligent life realized it would have to get sucked in, too, and then be reborn to evolve all over again from the beginning.

Since totality and everything it includes is driven by an instinct to not just survive -- but to be perpetual -- intelligent 'life' having 'personality' is evolving to become perpetual, too. In other words, intelligent forms are evolving to survive the vortex...or whatever perpetual course we are on.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The never ending debate... can something come from nothing?

As time goes on, the idea we are just a simulation seems so logical.

When you go to the roots of this question, you can't find an answer. We're not there yet.

Our understanding is limited to our perception of space and time. We really have no idea WTF is going on or has gone on in the past.

My mind gets tired just thinking about it.
edit on 24-9-2015 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
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.

What if all of space was in the same place, would time then still exist.

I must be thinking of Metaphysics, as this seems beyond your perspective.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: OOOOOO
Space time exists together which explains how different aspects of "human perceived linear time" can exist in the same place at the same time (the crusades are happening next door, just cannot see them).



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There's no such thing as nothing in my opinion.

Nothing is an impossible state of affairs and is merely a human expression. There always was something and there always will be. Nothing, in a sense, is like PERFECTION, a human concept that doesn't describe anything real.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.


The problem is not the lack of my understanding, it seems you are the one who's brain does not understand, to begin with if you are looking back and seeing something that occurred 14 billions years ago, that, what you see has moved on, and is now 14 billion years beyond what you see. So the question is do you get it, got it.

As I said before this Universe we arein, is not infinite, it is finite, it has been defined, it's numbers have been counted. The number of atoms in this Universe are somewhere around 10 to the 81 first, pleasee don't quote me, I'm not going to look it up you can if you wish.

Space ends with the end of space/,time. Our space is not empty, it contans about a minum of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, if you go out side of our Universe's space therre is nothing there, it does not exist yet.

This universe will have it's time and then it will end, simple as that. But that does not mean it's the end of the story.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object? We are all prisoners of words, definitions, and limitations of our senses and brain. When I think about it I don't know what "something" and "nothing" really mean? Also, when you ask about a "first" the definition of time, or the lack of time and space, enters the discussion.


And your answer is obviously: the Multivac … ;-)

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: OOOOOO

As I said before this Universe we arein, is not infinite, it is finite, it has been defined, it's numbers have been counted. The number of atoms in this Universe are somewhere around 10 to the 81 first, pleasee don't quote me, I'm not going to look it up you can if you wish.

Space ends with the end of space/,time. Our space is not empty, it contans about a minum of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, if you go out side of our Universe's space therre is nothing there, it does not exist yet.

This universe will have it's time and then it will end, simple as that. But that does not mean it's the end of the story.


I guess my point is the number of atoms does not means that is the limit of the universe, but it is the limit of matter in the universe. That matter can continue to expand, within space, without a end to that expansion, and that is one hypothesis, that matter will continue to expand as gravity continues to be spread out more and more weakening whatever hold it may play in our universe.

If you found a cube of space void of all particles it is still not a cube of nothingness. It is a cube of space/time.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: spy66
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.

What if all of space was in the same place, would time then still exist.

I must be thinking of Metaphysics, as this seems beyond your perspective.


Lets say we have a Spaceship traveling at 20 000 km/h smak in the middle of a Wast infinite Empty Space that is infinite in all directions. The Spaceship will always be smak in the middle no mater how fast the spaceship moves, and it dosent matter in what directions it moves... it will always be smak in the middle. Do you know why ?

Because the Wast empty Space surrounding the spaceship is infinite in all directions.


The Space it self is not moving.... A Space that is infinite will not move anywhere. It already takes up all Space possible.


But the spaceship on the otherhand is traveling at 20 000km/h. So the Spaceship has motion through this wast infinite empty space.
For the individuals inside the spaceship it will appear as they are not moving at all if they look out the... window. But that is only a illusion, because they are traveling at 20 000km/h through this was infinite empty Space. They can not see or observe motion because they have no referance points.

But if the spaceship had traveled With 20 000km/h and stopped after 1 hour. I bet that they have traveled 20 000km through the wast infinite empty Space non the less. You cant argue With that..

The Irony is that the spaceship would still be smak in the middle of the wast infnite empty Space. I know that you dont understand why.



For you to observe this from a distance and Write about it. You become the observer... Right?

You are stationary point A .... and you are looking at..... and observing the spaceship B treaveling at 20 000km/h.

Are you now going to tell me that the spaceship traveling at 20 000km/h is not going to travel away from you?

If you think so... Than it is you who dont grasp this.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

here it is.. in a topic i posted years ago on here about just what u guys are talking about. demonstrating the power of perspective and the nothing to something relationship. i also have a guide to the creation of mathematics and natural mathematics thats waiting to be typed out.. some time.. when im not feeling too lazy lol

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: OOOOOO

Please keep in mind that 27% of the universe is made of dark matter, dark energy accounts for about 70%. We have absolutely no idea what that is. I don't think we have "defined" the universe yet since all branches of science only deal with 5% of "normal matter".

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
This sounds like a good question for Schroodinger's cat...if he exists...



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There's no such thing as nothing in my opinion.

Nothing is an impossible state of affairs and is merely a human expression. There always was something and there always will be. Nothing, in a sense, is like PERFECTION, a human concept that doesn't describe anything real.


The Nothing is what the Something is expanding into, the Something is everything, the possibilities are infinite it would seem, you would need a very large place, to put all that stuff. It kind of works out well, that the Nothing has no dimensions, you can't measure it, it's neither large nor small. I notice some of you have stated it is a vacuum, but it's not, it's nothing.

People are so caught up in this existence, they are not able to see past it, people try to understand, but too grounded in this reality.

Real, what is real, we are walking around on spheres, floating around in who knows what, where? This is Real, help me Mr. Wizard.
edit on 24-9-2015 by OOOOOO because: t



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
This sounds like a good question for Schroodinger's cat...if he exists...


Yea, he's dyeing to talk to you.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OOOOOO

But we don't know that the area the Universe is expanding into IS nothing, we certainly don't know that it is infinite. That's thing about it being infinite, we'd never find out if that's true until we hit the wall, so in a way its a stipulation that can only be proven false and never fully proven true.

There may some kind of area the Universe is expanding out into that does have limitations or features which differentiate it from the concept of nothing.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Beautiful post. The simplest definition of Taoism I have ever encountered is "dark implies light and light implies dark". I thought that was so cool and you have nailed it in your thread. And it amuses me that so many people wage war on darkness, ideologically speaking, because darkness is what gives their light it's strength. With less shadow comes less light. One of those bitter ironies that tickle me so much.




top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join