Explain How and Why the Universe Exists

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

lol bull. Zero is the only infrastructure capable of supporting infinity. Zero is the engine. the probability engine. It is what powers all of existence by sheer possibility alone. Also, consider. Two molecules cannot occupy the same space without damaging one or the other, else being displaced. Therefore, "something" absolutely MUST exist in "nothing". there cant be something else there. "something" displaces the "nothing" in the same way that we displace air or water.

its interesting to see you proclaim you "cant start from zero and get to one." why not? the number line disagrees with you. you have to have zero before any one is acquired. You could say then that zero is in fact the prerequisite for ALL ones. especially a billion trillion of them.

its also interesting to see you muse about metaphysical realities, self-as-concepts. Imagine- what is the Prime Concept, the Original? could it be anything but a concept of conceptualization? indeed, possibility itself. This is the ONE which emerged from Zero. emerged from it the way a butterfly emerges from a cocoon.

There was matter, in the form of subatomic particles
and that came from eons of conglomeration of what
ever matter and energy that was present
in the proto-universe.

Entropy at the beginning was so great that
there were no atoms. Eventually a chance
event occurred and matter and
energy were at equlibrium while
expanding the space we live in.


a reply to: LucidWarrior

a reply to: ThatDidHappen

Gobbledygook
2nd

Eh, on second thought, let me break what you said down. So... Matter... Formed from matter. Before there was any matter?

A chance event occurred in a universe that didn't even exist yet?

And that is supposed to make more sense than zero becoming possibility? Ohhhkay.

a reply to: LucidWarrior
Objects don't have existence... Existence has objects.

The field is the sole governing agency of the particle. Albert Einstein.

Explain How and Why the Universe Exists

So that it can prove that it is smarter than anything trying to describe it

- Intelligence for its own sake

a reply to: LucidWarrior

My friend,

There is no such thing as "nothingness". It has never been observed in reality. If it ever did exist, as soon as you try to observe it you destroy it because you need "something" to measure it. It is impossible for there to be a state of "nothingness".

It is even more impossible for "something" to come from "nothing". If in fact the universe existed in a state of "nothingness" in the beginning that would mean everything you see, all the billion trillion stars in the sky, are made of bits of "nothing", but we know that is not accurate. You can't make anything out of nothing.

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
Therefore, "something" absolutely MUST exist in "nothing".

That is contradictory. If there is "something" in it, then its no longer "nothing".

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
Zero is the only infrastructure capable of supporting infinity.

No, zero can't support anything, it isn't a thing, it doesn't exist. Only one can support infinity, because one exists, and it can be divided into infinite parts. You can have an infinite number of values after the decimal. 0.999...

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
you have to have zero before any one is acquired.

You can't acquire anything from zero. There is nothing to acquire. However, if you start with one, you very much can divide it into smaller ones, and have an infinite amount of smaller ones. 0.111...

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
Imagine- what is the Prime Concept, the Original? could it be anything but a concept of conceptualization? indeed, possibility itself. This is the ONE which emerged from Zero.

This is where we slightly agree. However, the one didn't emerge from zero. It was always one.

a reply to: AlienView


You think... therfore you are.
I think... therefore i am..

Cant be explained much better than that friend.

originally posted by: defuntion


a reply to: AlienView


You think... therfore you are.
I think... therefore i am..

Thinking happens and thought assumes a thinker that is separate from thought... lol.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1
The one is not a thing.
The one is emptiness forming.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1
You state that nothingness does not exist.
Everything is appearing....
Now look the other way to what is seeing the appearance..... nothing will be found!!

Without the perceiving no appearing thing could appear..... yet when looking at the other end of perceiving there is nothing.

Everything is made of nothing.

The deepest fundamental is not zero, it is mathematical difference, denoted by the - sign.
A self negating negative. ie
1st there was NOT then it negated it's self and there was NOT NOT
ie the universe.
A logical paradox, but not that surprising.

originally posted by: rom12345
The potential for the Universe to exist, existed before the universe did.

. . . as did the counter-potential [that the universe would not ever exist]. The default ramification of this instant of relative juxtaposition was the immediate emergence of the Relative Being State. That first-ever change/event launched the continuing chain reaction [of change quanta and the default residual fact sets reflecting each occurrence of change quanta] that has - in individual and collective pursuit of raw survival of holon identity - resulted in the progressively developing material and informational matrix that we've termed Physical Reality.

Of course, most cosmologists refuse to even examine the physical geometry that had to exist to host their Big Bang event, but that doesn't mean that such a geometry wouldn't have been necessary. And their refusal to address that dilemma doesn't mean that this is not an examination that needs to be engaged in. Ceding that examination to the adventurous musings of mystics, religionists, and semanticists is a big mistake that has had crippled the growth of our species in ways too numerous to list here.

originally posted by: AlienView
Explain How and Why the Universe Exists

So that it can prove that it is smarter than anything trying to describe it

- Intelligence for its own sake

smart is a very subjective label, and generally doesnt apply to natural phenomena.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

There is no such thing as "nothingness". It has never been observed in reality. 

It has never been observed in physical reality, sure. But it is 100% observable nevertheless.

 If it ever did exist, as soon as you try to observe it you destroy it because you need "something" to measure it. It is impossible for there to be a state of "nothingness". 

Well, you can imagine Zero, yes? Please humor me and do so. Specifically, imagine Zero observing itself. I slightly agree with you- except instead of " destroyed" I prefer "displaced"- but I'll get into that further on. For now though I'll use your terminology. Imagine what would happen when zero uses its own consciousness to measure itself. It gets destroyed... And something else emerges.

The thing that emerges is in fact the first " thing" it is said Prime concept, which is consciousness aka possibility. This is how you get something from nothing, this very process which you describe.

If in fact the universe existed in a state of "nothingness" in the beginning that would mean everything you see, all the billion trillion stars in the sky, are made of bits of "nothing", 

That is, in fact, EXACTLY what I believe. Tell me, what is it that allows physical bodies to translate through space? Your sitting. Your body is occupying space. You move... And suddenly that space is empty and you are occupying a different space.

That space was never destroyed... Only displaced. Nothingness is the same... Only it is displaced by space itself.

That is contradictory. If there is "something" in it, then its no longer "nothing". 

That's equivalent to stating "I'm alive" therefore "not alive" doesn't exist anymore. When in fact not alive very much exists, else you'd never die. Existence is temporary... Did you ever play assassins creed? "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." That doesn't mean there is no truth. It means Nothingness is the only truth... And "everything" aka existence... Is only permitted to exist.

No, zero can't support anything, it isn't a thing, it doesn't exist. Only one can support infinity, 

How can a part of the whole contain the whole? ONE is a component of infinity, it cannot contain it. The only "thing" (yes it isn't a thing but the concept of it is) that can support infinity is zero because zero is the only thing that "exists"(exists AS nonexistence) outside of infinity... Zero is the end and beginning of infinity. It is in fact greater than infinity because it encapsulates it.

How can a part of the whole contain the whole?

I would imagine this question has driven more than a few people crazy.

I have heard that if you shatter a glass hologram, all the shards contain the full hologram.

a reply to: rom12345

Id imagine that'd be more akin to a worm split in half than a part of a whole containing the whole. Once its in fragments its not exactly a whole anymore...

As an engineer I understand zero.
Zero's origins most likely date back to the “fertile crescent” of ancient Mesopotamia. Sumerian scribes used spaces to denote absences in number columns as early as 4,000 years ago, but the first recorded use of a zero-like symbol dates to sometime around the third century B.C. in ancient Babylon.

Also dividing by zero equals
infinity. Multiplying equals zero.

Proof of the proto-universe not
being empty is our existence,
matter and energy, which began
from this stuff in The proto-
universe.

There was and had to be matter
before the universe
began.


reply to: LucidWarrior

zero is the absence of quantity.
anything divided by zero is not infinity, it is undefined.

Explain How and Why the Universe Exists

In a word: ENTERTAINMENT


There I was, all by myself , ONE as part The ONE as described in both Eastern and Western religions and philosophies.

Perfect, without a care in the World, mainly because there was no world, yet.

B-O-R-I-N-G - I could stand it no more - I mean just how long can you exist just contemplating how perfect you are

and not get bored to death, and remember since there was no life yet, there was also no death!


So i decided to gamble, take a chance, and I created the entire Univese, not in seven days as they would like you to
think - No I did it in an instant - a sudden Big Bang and voila the universe existed.

So now ATS'ers you've learned not only why the Universe exists - but also why you can not predict its final destiny
as the uncertainty of gambling was derived and created at the start.

- AlienView,
writing for God

a reply to: ThatDidHappen
You only mentioned one part of the story of zero. The Babylonians, and subsequently the Mayans a bit later only used that as a placeholder. The concept of its measure as nothing was discovered in India, where we also interestingly enough have ancient stories about star wars type battle and a very thorough description of nuclear weapons.

These early counting systems only saw the zero as a placeholder—not a number with its own unique value or properties. A full grasp of zero’s importance would not arrive until the seventh century A.D. in India. There, the mathematician Brahmagupta and others used small dots under numbers to show a zero placeholder, but they also viewed the zero as having a null value, called “sunya.” Brahmagupta was also the first to show that subtracting a number from itself results in zero. From India, the zero made its way to China and back to the Middle East, where it was taken up by the mathematician Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi around 773. It was al-Khowarizmi who first synthesized Indian arithmetic and showed how the zero could function in algebraic equations, and by the ninth century the zero had entered the Arabic numeral system in a form resembling the oval shape we use today.

The zero continued to migrate for another few centuries before finally reaching Europe sometime around the 1100s. Thinkers like the Italian mathematician Fibonacci helped introduce zero to the mainstream, and it later figured prominently in the work of Rene Descartes along with Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz’s invention of calculus. Since then, the concept of “nothing” has continued to play a role in the development of everything from physics and economics to engineering and computing.

For what it's worth I am very much aligned with the philosophy presented here by noreaster. It was almost like reading him type up what has been in my head for some time.

The pages of worthless argument by members frequently trying to one up each other with insults and mockery was quite annoying though. A simple alert to a mod would have nipped it in the bud and saved me about fifteen -twenty minutes of reading time as I went through this entire thread.

It has been a lovely presentation and discussion though otherwise.