It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is it possible that everything that exists is... impossible?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:24 AM
IDK, I find it hard to follow the train of though of something from nothing. If nothing was capable of creating something, then it would indeed be something itself. This would lead back again to the point that non-existence is not a possibility.

I was thinking about plasma's and the different states of matter.

Wish I could draw in the comment, but picture the symbol for infinity. Label one end - (cold) and the other end + (hot)

I just read a paper that gas at ultra cold temperatures behave as a nearly perfect fluid just as gas at really high temperatures.


Now put each stage of state of matter where it belongs in between each temperature variation along the figure eight symbol.

If matter is composed of an aether/quantum foam being the ultimate ultra cold state of matter, we can then map out how matter forms into solids. IDK, just tinkering around thinking about different ideas. I found this idea quiet interesting so I'm currently toying around with it.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:44 AM
Nothingness can't create! True? : Within our logic of thinking that is a true statement.

Imagine a space with nothing inside it. How long would you have to wait for something to turn up inside that space?

How many billions of years do you think it would take for something to turn up?

Imagine 0.
What would it take for zero to change to 0.9 or minus 0.1. Or into anything?
That would demand a intervention from a outside source of some kind to make 0 change.

Can 0.9 or minus 0.1 ever become zero?

No not ever. There is no connection between 0 and 0.9 or minus 0.1
They are only close to nothing. But can never become 0.

So if there was nothing to begin with. There must have been a outside source of some kind that that made nothing change into something.

Now lets go back to who is imagining this empty space. Who is the observer of the empty space?

That would be the observer right. The observer is looking into a space of nothingness. And the observer is the one who has to make the changes to the empty space. Because emptiness cant change on its own.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:15 AM
I'm so tickled that someone posted this question. This is something I've pondered since in grade school. Even if everything started from a piece of dust...How did that get there? God put it there, right? How did God get here? He must have been created somehow? Something can't come from nothing. It's not physically possible....I want to know...

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by spy66

That doesn't make much sense. If the observer was initially required, then who observed the observer or why should the observe not require to have been observed?

I prefer the more simpler answer that everything just exists as non-existence isn't possible. We have no proof that nothing can come from something. Including the first observer.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by spy66

An observer is not necessary to make something be there. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it may not make a sound, but it still fell regardless if someone was around.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:30 PM
We don't even know if the Big Bang is more than a theory. In fact there is no reason to suppose a limitation to the universe at all except that it can be terrifying to consider a infinite and eternal universe wherein you are so small you practically vanish into nothingness.

It's impossible for us to fully comprehend. We can only imagine infinity or eternity for so long as we hold these ideas in our minds, they are perpetually expanding ideas. We can experience it directly through the experience of pure Being, but we cannot bring that experience to the level of mentation and think about it or describe it to anyone in an adequate way. Those who have experienced it, know, those who have not, are lost in the abyss of thought.

Can you imagine a universe where nothing exists forever? I can't, because if the universe is eternal it cannot be created or destroyed on its most ultimate level, and if its infinite then there is an endless wellspring of potential for creation to occur. The chance of existence occurring and not occurring is therefore infinitely small and infinitely large simultaneously, but we are only cognizant of the infinitely large chance that existence will happen since we are here, we fall into that chance that existence can occur.

So what your recognizing here is the possibility that "you" could have fallen into the infinitely large chance that existence could not occur rather than that it could have occurred. However this is impossible, since for you to exist to contemplate such things you must fall into the category of the infinitely large chance of existence, and thus it could be no other way for you.

So yes, its impossible that everything exists but also it could be no other way. Hope that helps

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by spy66

But the question is whether or not anything ever did spring from nothing. How do we know that everything we see isn't nothing?

When there is no gap to bridge, no physical substance to be powered, etc, why does a nueron require either matter or energy?

I grant that it's way out in left field, has not been proven, may or may not even BE proveable (although I suppose it could explain why neutrinos seem to spontaneously appear in emptiness) and is particularly suspect because it's not readily falsifiable. But it does have a certain appeal to me, in that it is a rare answer to the question of something seeming have to existed infinitely.

However, another more compelling thought occurs.

We always question this matter in terms of "what was before that". What came before the beginning, etc.

But time is a spatial dimension. Before the advent of space there is no time, and therefore linear cause and effect is not a challenge.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:37 PM
This question is easily answered and backed by the new scientific results that we in fact may be living in a hologram.

This existence was created by the Creator plain and simple. We in our attempt to understand and become "wise" are looking for any other explanation other than a Creator.

Stop searching for answers that do not compute. You are a created being and so is this existence.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

Yikes, interesting idea, but IDK about the interpretation of time thrown in.

Time as a separate fundamental of the universe has never actually been proven as such. We have no measure of time itself and only use measures of rate of change in matter itself. I would hazard a guess that due to this problem, perhaps time doesn't exist and what is at play is only cause and effect and this is what we measure.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:39 PM
You just asked the same question I have been thinking about for years. Something cannot come from nothing. So in the beginning, if there was nothing but open space, how did the first ever piece of matter come to be?

Its definetly something to think about.

We have billions of stars and planets, but where did those stars and planets come from? And wherever they came from, where did THAT come from? And so on and so forth.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by Jess_Undefined

I am inclined to believe it is and always has been. The universe I mean. Stars die and are reborn etc etc etc. Just finite man can't wrap his mind around infinite things so he seeks to make them finite like him. Thus, the Big Bang theory.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by Jess_Undefined

Glad to ask it. I've spent years trying to wrap my head around it and it just seems like there is no answer.

And I don't believe it's just "man" cannot comprehend something coming out of nothing; something coming out of nothing is simply an impossibility, whether or not mankind is involved.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by ineverknew

I definetly agree. From what physics and science tells us, its that something cannot come from nothing. So I would really like to get feedback on how this could be possible. Its definetly a question worth thinking about.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Jess_Undefined
From what physics and science tells us, its that something cannot come from nothing. So I would really like to get feedback on how this could be possible. Its definetly a question worth thinking about.

Indeed. This is why science will never have all the answers, and why a 'theory of everything' will never be formulated.

The problem is that these concepts are themselves defined by humans. If we come to a consensus on what the words 'nothing' and 'something' mean, then we must also come to a consensus about the possibilities which these definitions allow. If it is true that 'nothing' means a state which has no existential properties whatsoever, then it is inevitable that 'something' can never manifest from it.

We are forced into the position of accepting that existence itself has always existed.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by spartacus mills

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:45 PM
It is this exact thought process that stumps me every single time. It also humbles me a lot into realizing I really know nothing at all.

I believe it's just as impossible as it is possible for us and the rest of existence to be here. To try to sum all of that up into the big bang theory, evolution and, yes, even Genesis is sorely inadequate (and that's an understatement).

It makes me utterly emotional (even right now) to try to really grasp what that means. Matter from nothing. Consciousness creating matter. How utterly beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

I'm sorry for being so blunt and this is just my opinion, but it's questions and thoughts like these that I believe lead some people to NEED religion. And I honestly don't blame them at all.

edit: correct typo

[edit on 8-10-2009 by nunya13]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:54 PM

the human mind cannot comprehend the concept of eternity

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:28 PM
I've read this thread based on the excellent question posed by the OP. Nicely done, S&F for you!
I've collected some thoughts from my blog about the topics of possibility, existence, the reality of it, etc...
Specifically I have chosen a passage that attempts to explain how questions of this sort are not exactly answerable, at this point. I realise posting is lame and beg your apology, but as you can plainly see there are only five distinct paragraphs and two of them are original
Although this one does seem to be prattling on a bit...

God vs. the Big Bang, (edit)
If you look at it religiously or spiritually you run the risk of dangerous offenses. If you look at it scientifically you must have proof. It's the double standard of the fickle programming. You can't win. There isn't any answer possible in the current reality.

We've reached an impasse for either the mystical or scientific argument for it takes a leap of faith to reasonably explain both the smallest and largest components of either camp. (Note I say mystical, not religious, let us separate Religion as an idea from the idea of God, furthermore let us stipulate that "God" shall be defined as "Creator" and nothing more. I do this as the idea of God as creator is common among current and historical definitions. There's also the ease of contemplation in terms of equality with the ease of understanding.

I don't have the faculty nor the time to understand the true nature of the big bang, I must take it on as much faith as I do God. And I do... The evaluation of why I do, perhaps we will discuss some other time. Religion, on the other hand, let us define as the catagorization and distribution of a much finer definition of God with all the accoutre one would expect. (For eg: "God is such and such or God expects this and that.") So by the defining of our terms we can now claim that our God vs the Big Bang paradigm is equally reliant on faith. It doesn't mean that we must pick one or the other. It means we must remember what faith means.

What's it mean?
Basically, all that can be said is there are things that are, and there are things that are not. We're going to fill in any blanks we feel we need to, however we please. (Some ideas become popular, these are called "exemplars") Sometimes the "things" we use to fill in the blanks are based in a logical reality, sometimes they are not. Time is necessary for what existence needs to "be" in. Time also reveals.
What will be revealed to you, Friend?

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by ineverknew

But what was before the Big Bang? A small little volume of unbelievably heavy mass? How did that get there? What came before that? The simple answer seems to be nothing.Thoughts?

Stephen Hawking once said, "Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is one mile north of the north pole." As we travel back in time, the very concept of "time" iteself seems to "fuzz out." As we look closer and closer at space, on the quantum level the same thing happens. The tiniest particles appear to show "tendencies to exist" expressed in probablility ripples, rather than black-and-white existence/non-existence. At the most fundamental level, time and space may be the same thing, with the smallest particles truly being "neither here nor there" and actully making micro-jumps backwards and forwards in time rather than progressing in straightforward linear time as we know it.

These are hard concepts to wrap one's head around, because they "go beyond" our limited spectrum of existence. What does ultraviolet or infra-red light "really look like?" What does a dog-whistle "really sound like?" These are unanwerable questions, from a human perspective, because the answers exist beyond the bounds of the human visual/audio specta. Fundamental questions about the nature of time and space may be functionally unansweable because they appear to go beyond our perceptual and cognative spectra, or at least our linguistic abilities. The closest approximations are mathematical or perhaps spiritual/intuitive.

[edit on 10/8/09 by silent thunder]

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:19 AM
I tend to agree with Silent Thunder. If we do not posess the ability to comprehend and quantify "infinity" or Timelessness(which is a form of stagnant "infinity" which is a contradictio in terminae to be honest..) understanding wil not be ours.

Maybe we are destined to some day rise above this "finite" Time-bound body and mind, ascend so to speak, maybe thén and only then, will we have an inkling of the way The universe really functions. Already it is more weird than any sci-fi writer, or scientist ever imagined...

We are Time-bound creatures, as such we percieve time only because we are wired like that. An infrared camera will not show You the real colour(let alone the "realness"of any colour..different discussion..) of an object, simply because the receptors for it are not there. For all I know, time could be just a staggered range of single, multi-dimensional, infinitely small, non-moving moments..

"What's our framerate" I once asked my physics&Philosophy professor..he couldn't tell, despite the fact he just explained the dependability of time's existense upon our perception.(both in a metaphysical, and a purely mathematical, and to me completely baffling, incomprehensible, way..I am NOT a good mathematician, or physics specialist. I might even be the most rotten example of both, humanity has ever spawned

Maybe time is thousands, millions of moments in stasis, strung together in parallel, and our brains "choose" the next "moment".

Infinite parallel universes are a mathematical possibility, if one accepts 11-dimensional mathematics.(that's what I understood from some lectures about quantum mechanics..) However, it is still an abstract "tool" that egg-heads use to make sense of the universe and everything (wasn't that , like, 43????
) Not some Prophesy about our "Godlyness"as f.i. "What the Bleep" dissolved into..(shame they couldn't leave the dubious "channeling"sect-leader out of it..)

If the basic premise of that "tool" turns out to be wrong..we are in a heap of trouble, and all nice, shiny theorems will fall mor "branes"no more "strings" no more parallel universes...all will falter...

Look at it this way:
On a discussion about "infinity"among peers, someone stood up, walked to the flip-over and drew a circle, stating:"Here, Infinity. No end, no beginning.
Someone else scratched his beard and dryly remarked, :"Soo, You are God now...You "created" Infinity...., however ,You drew the circle first, so it begins with You..still not infinity. Infinity goes both ways, it is an intrisic, if not the only quantifiable value of infinity"

Sure enough the whole discussion derailed into a quarrel about "God-->creation-->infinity" contra "order out of chaos out of nothing".

Well, it was great fun anyways..

[edit on 10/9/2009 by diakrite]

[edit on 10/9/2009 by diakrite]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in