Logic that will make your head spin

One thing that I can't agree with is:

#5. Space does not exist.

If two objects are separate from each other, it is said there is space between them. But since each of their atomic components rest alongside air particles (particles in the air, elements), which in turn rest alongside other air particles, and any other material in the air or in the way (atoms, electrons, quarks) until it reaches the second object, by which there is no space between the first object because of these microscopic particles in the way.

Air particles don't rest side to side like a regular solid pattern...they move anywhere and everywhere randomly due to there not being a fixed volume.

reply to post by filosophia


But then again Hawking Radiation is dependant upon virtual particles becoming real particles.

Well the Greeks new about atoms, 'atom' is Greek for "cannot be cut" meaning, I presume, too small to be cut any smaller, they (the Greeks) also new that the world was a globe.

those are pretty interesting for the most part, I've always been a big fan of contradictions.

The first 2 don't make a lot of sense though, I don't think that nothing can exist.

Because the concept of nothingness is in itself something.

The universe is like a giant feed back loop or fractal. It's infinitely large and small to the point where it may just end up existing within itself. I mean why not...infinity allows for all possibilities, except nothingness, which then I guess technically makes infinity impossible, it's another feedback loop. A paradox.

brain hurts...

an all knowing being must know what it's like to not know that it's an all knowing being.

reply to post by filosophia


1. Agreed...It's impossible to die in the sense of becoming nothing ......Yet this is not what any scientist would suggest happens when we die...When we die we simply decompose into a more chaotic form....energy and matter changing form, into food for bacteria...the release of heat energy as you die as thermal radiation escaping your body...etc.

2. The process by which the big bang happened is little understood...yet modern physics allows for things to come from nothing, as in the example of Hawking Radiation....though the very creation of space/time itself is a bit more troubling, as is the event which caused the big bang, so there is indeed a paradox here beyond our reach of knowledge at this time, in my opinion.

3. Zeno assumes this problem as being from the point of view of a singular point which is infinitely small...and in that sense he may indeed be true, but in real life, objects have some sort of length. It is the length of the object itself which can not be divided into an infinite number of steps, because it itself is finite.

4. This one is more hard to explain...but I suppose one could explain it in the same way as I did in the last one...though instead of the size of the object being taken into account, one would have to assume that one can not experience the present moment in an infinitely small amount of time...that the present moment itself takes up space within time so to speak. Or another way to explain it might be that since time is generally dependent upon space, and space is defined as the area between objects, then these two could possibly be explained as being interdependent. A finite object cannot exist in an infinitely small....whether it be time or space.

5. That one hurts my head.

6. See answer to number 5.

7. Honestly this one doesn't even make sense to me....I suppose I would answer it as being an Idea. An Idea can be a universal concept, and anything that falls within that concept can be called as such. So there can of course never be a 'universal' horse...but there can be an Idea of what a 'universal' horse is, and those things that fall within that Idea are horses in the particular. Perhaps I'm missing the point of this paradox?

Did you also know that we cannot see anything?

We see only light, not objects.

Thus, there is not a time when you were able to 'see' anyone or anything, merely had the light bouncing off its surface reflecting back into your eyes...

Cool thread, op.

where does a single thought come from?

From nothing, Inspired or from another source?

Something can't come from nothing. Even given the example of virtual particles popping out of the quantum vacuum then disappearing again. They didn't form from nothing, they formed from the quantum vacuum which is still something. If it were nothing then it wouldn't be able to contain anything.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia

 

Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?

Valid point, but virtual particles don't strictly come from nothing, they borrow energy to exist...

This is in accordance with the uncertainty principle which allows existence of such particles of borrowed energy, so long as their energy, multiplied by the time they exist, is a fraction of Planck's constant.

source:wiki

and using Virtual Particles...

At each vertex in a Feynman diagram energy and momentum are conserved.

I here what you're saying about knowing though. If there was a space completely void of any kind of particle or energy, whatever came in to existence must be made up of other things. If there are no other things, then they can't make anything. Sounds good logically, but a small part of me still thinks that something can be created from nothing.

Good old logic though eh, I love it

#1 Matter, anti-matter
#2 Matter, anti-matter, no soul just death and decay, nonsensical 3rd paragraph.
#3 plank length
#4 plank time
#5 Total misunderstanding of the nature of matter.
#6 repeated from 3rd paragraph of #2
#7 Nonsensical use of language and confusion about representatives (or in object orientated language a class)

Basically all the illogical assertions are actully a total misunderstanding of physics and warped use of language.

Could I offer a thought as to what universe is, and thus what all created within in it is?

The universe is a crytaline dense packed near solid.
At all scale there is a recursive geometry that the substance of the dense packed universe is composed of.

The geometry of this creates geometric pathways that is the basis of multiple dimensions.
We are a consequence of the 3D geometric pathways within that crystal, but are also in 4D.
our 4D selves occupy the local area about the 3D and utilise the 3D to experience.

The 3D has little comprehension of the 4D, except as in dreams etc.

Originally posted by BlackPoison94
One thing that I can't agree with is:

#5. Space does not exist.

If two objects are separate from each other, it is said there is space between them. But since each of their atomic components rest alongside air particles (particles in the air, elements), which in turn rest alongside other air particles, and any other material in the air or in the way (atoms, electrons, quarks) until it reaches the second object, by which there is no space between the first object because of these microscopic particles in the way.

Air particles don't rest side to side like a regular solid pattern...they move anywhere and everywhere randomly due to there not being a fixed volume.

I dont agree to this. The different components that make up our air is controlled by pressure.
The components that make up our air do not move about freely.

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia

 

Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?

Do they spring from nothing or do they spring from somewhere else?

From Our vantage point, I would say they spring from nothing. Of course, if it is something - say another dimension - which We cannot otherwise detect... There is no way of determining. But for the intent of the Greeks, and in the spirit of working with the observable universe... I say We can safely put them into the category of springing from nothing.

reply to post by filosophia

Im just going to say something crazy lol Our universe is but a cell growing in a living organism.

Originally posted by filosophia
The ancient greeks had some crazy theories, like how movement is impossible, and how a multi-verse is a contradiction of both nothing and infinity. For thousands of years people have attempted to disprove these, not because they seem illogical, but because they appear so logical as to be nonsensical. See if you can comprehend the logic, or if you are a skeptic, to crack the code and show where the logic is faulty (they could be, these are my summaries of the theories in my own words, so I may have missed something).

#1. Nothing can come from nothing. Consequently, something can not become nothing.

Before anything there was nothing.
And everything that is, obviously arose from it.
Not only does something come from nothing,
but actually everything at some point was nothing.

it's impossible for you to die in the sense of becoming nothing.

yes, since you can't lower your entropy, you can only become more complex.
Information theory dictates information can't be destroyed, it always lives on.

#2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.

Since something infinitely small can not be compared with something infinitely large,

As above so below, microcosm macrocosm.
Can always compare things of different scales,
due to the holographic nature of creation.

#3. Movement is impossible.

obviously movement occurs...

finite is merely several infinites pressed together.

#4. Aging is impossible (similar to the theory of movement).

as above...

#5. Space does not exist.

If two objects are separate from each other, it is said there is space between them. But since each of their atomic components rest alongside air particles (particles in the air, elements), which in turn rest alongside other air particles, and any other material in the air or in the way (atoms, electrons, quarks) until it reaches the second object, by which there is no space between the first object because of these microscopic particles in the way.

there is plenty of vacuous space between air-particles...

#6. The universe must be either finite or infinite, and not both.

If the universe consists of finite atoms, the universe can not be infinite since finite things can not add together to reach infinity. If the universe is finite, there is room to grow, but the destination will never be reached, and so it is never a true unchanging thing, and so saying "the universe" is about as illogical as saying "the day" which you know will change into "the tomorrow".

If the universe is infinite, no finite atoms can exist, because an infinite thing can not consist of finite things. Thus there is no such thing as finite bodies within the infinite universe.

however a finite thing can consist of several infinite things.

We know that quantum particles are infinite, due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle,
we can't give a finite location and speed, due to their infinite nature.

#7 "Particulars" are not "Universals"

A universal 'horse' is not a particular horse, because the universal refers to all horses and not one horse. Similarly, one horse can not describe the universal horse. Thus, there is no logical reason to call a particular horse a 'horse.'

Horses have a large amount of genes in common,
anything with a sufficiently high percentage of these common genes, can be called a horse.

reply to post by filosophia


All of your arguments (OP) assume cause and effect, a beginning, and an end. If you simply assume that the Universe, like nature, is cyclical and eternally changing form, then it basically negates all of the arguments.

The concept of nothing cannot exist because people are incapable of actually having thoughts because there aren't really any people, thus people=nothing and nothing cannot conceptualize nothing ... either that or nothing thought up everything thus creating people and created itself.

You getting all of this?

Reality is ... and always was.
There has never been a time or place of nothingness and there never will be.

Originally posted by filosophia
The ancient greeks had some crazy theories, like how movement is impossible, and how a multi-verse is a contradiction of both nothing and infinity. For thousands of years people have attempted to disprove these, not because they seem illogical, but because they appear so logical as to be nonsensical. See if you can comprehend the logic, or if you are a skeptic, to crack the code and show where the logic is faulty (they could be, these are my summaries of the theories in my own words, so I may have missed something).

#1. Nothing can come from nothing. Consequently, something can not become nothing.

If nothing can come from nothing (a well known axiom of Greek thought), then if you are something because you are alive, you must have come from something. Similarly, when you die, it's impossible for something to go into nothing, and thus it's impossible for you to die in the sense of becoming nothing.

#2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.

If the universe is a thing, then the building blocks of the universe must have come from something prior. That thing must have come from something prior, and on, and on, infinitely, until the first thing came from nothing, which is impossible since nothing can come from nothing.

If something came from nothing (somehow), then this nothing must have given birth to particles which form together to create a thing (the universe). It is impossible for nothing to add together to create a thing, thus it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing.

If particles somehow come from nothing, they must be infinitesimally small, and combine together to form something cosmically large, since the universe must be both infinitesimally small and cosmically large, it is a standing contradiction as a single thing. The universe must be two things, infinitely small and infinitely large. Since something infinitely small can not be compared with something infinitely large, it is impossible to compare the part to the whole, and equally impossible to compare the whole to the part, and thus no standing thing is proof that the universe exists.

#3. Movement is impossible.

If you attempt to go from point A to point B, you must first travel from point A to point A(1)

A.......A(1).........B

In order to travel from A to A(1), you must travel from A to A(2),

A........A(2).........A(1)........B

and to travel from A to A(2), you must travel from A to A(3,4,5,6,7...infinity). Thus, you must travel an infinite distance to travel a finite distance. Since this is impossible, movement is impossible. (This is known as Zeno's tortoise paradox).

#4. Aging is impossible (similar to the theory of movement).

If something ages from 0 to 1 sec, it must first age 0.5 seconds, then 0.25 seconds, then 0.125, etc, etc, an infinitely smaller and smaller number while never touching zero. Thus, you must travel an infinite number of finite fractions of a second in order to reach 1 second. Since it is impossible to age an infinite amount of finite seconds, age is impossible.

#5. Space does not exist.

If two objects are separate from each other, it is said there is space between them. But since each of their atomic components rest alongside air particles (particles in the air, elements), which in turn rest alongside other air particles, and any other material in the air or in the way (atoms, electrons, quarks) until it reaches the second object, by which there is no space between the first object because of these microscopic particles in the way.

Furthermore, if you are at the top of the sky, and you look towards the ether/oblivion, since the oblivion is nothing, there is no space between you and something that doesn't exist, since nothing has no coordinates, there can't be space next to it.

#6. The universe must be either finite or infinite, and not both.

If the universe consists of finite atoms, the universe can not be infinite since finite things can not add together to reach infinity. If the universe is finite, there is room to grow, but the destination will never be reached, and so it is never a true unchanging thing, and so saying "the universe" is about as illogical as saying "the day" which you know will change into "the tomorrow".

If the universe is infinite, no finite atoms can exist, because an infinite thing can not consist of finite things. Thus there is no such thing as finite bodies within the infinite universe.

#7 "Particulars" are not "Universals"

A universal 'horse' is not a particular horse, because the universal refers to all horses and not one horse. Similarly, one horse can not describe the universal horse. Thus, there is no logical reason to call a particular horse a 'horse.'

edit on 18-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

Nothing can come from nothing!?

This is sad day

Thank you

This is the kind of threats that brings me to ATS
Excellent post I will share with husband for a great conversation over tea.

This is why some people believe in God. Sorry for those who are Atheist and do not believe but for me, it is the simplest way to explain such amazing dilemma. The particle that brings so much to live and also destroys everything. I believe the Universe is infinite as that it expands and contracts, Bing Bangs many times have occured. The particles involved are finite but at the same time as soon as they create, others die and so on... like and 8. There is no end or beginning. This is only my personaly theory, my reality
Reality is such an interesting topic.
FYI I am not religious.