What came first, Nothing or Something?

a reply to: Phage

Well, okie dokie -- but yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. We're not going to be able to understand it with our limited perspective, so its kind of futile to wax philosophical over it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MystikMushroom

In the end, I think the original question is one that we -- living in the 3rd dimension won't be able to wrap our minds around.

We don't live in a dimension. We live in a universe which, as far as we can tell, consists of three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.

Does it really matter what came first?

It matters in that it would answer the question of whether there was a 'mind' first to bring ideas into existence, or some physical force that 'materializes' ideas which cannot exist first in minds.

Perhaps there is a scientific physical force we would describe as magic -- the spontaneous materialization of ideas.

It seems to me that there are ideas that solely exist because they materialized and, therefore, to 'define' them there are also ideas that did not materialize in order to exist. Those ideas are born and exist in minds -- even if later they are materialized.

Some ideas must exist independent of minds if there are ideas that solely exist in the mind.

Perhaps that is why there is intelligent life with ideas...to define unintelligent non-life with ideas by comparison.


And much like Something that is an idea which materialized -- it can be observed, compared, measured, etc...-- there is also Nothing that solely exists as an idea that can never materialize, so it must exist in a mind, by default.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It matters in that it would answer the question of whether there was a 'mind' first to 'materialize' ideas, or some physical force that 'materializes' ideas which cannot first exist in minds.

No. It wouldn't. It's just as meaningless a question as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You first have to assume that there are angels, in your case you have to assume that mind had something to do with the beginning of the universe.

BTW, when did the goalposts move from "something or nothing" to "mind or ideas?"

a reply to: MystikMushroom

But, that is the nature of Man, to ask, the Why, the How.

When you get down to it though, it seems the Game is fixed, we are in the veil of ignorance, but somewhere in our higher Monad, the Universe is Perfected and all is Right.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It matters in that it would answer the question of whether there was a 'mind' first to 'materialize' ideas, or some physical force that 'materializes' ideas which cannot first exist in minds.

No. It wouldn't. It's just as meaningless a question as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You first have to assume that there are angels, in your case you have to assume that mind had something to do with the beginning of the universe.

BTW, when did the goalposts move from "something or nothing" to "mind or ideas?"

NO. I am actually assuming there was no mind. I am assuming that no mind existed and so ideas had to materialize spontaneously to exist.

In contrast, minds came into existence to define those ideas that exist completely outside of minds and spontaneously materialized.

The force behind that spontaneous materialization is the impossibility that neither idea -- Something and Nothing -- exists.

It's impossible that neither idea exists or that one idea exists without the other.

originally posted by: Phage
BTW, when did the goalposts move from "something or nothing" to "mind or ideas?"

ALSO:

Ha! I am kind of flattered that you noticed that...it moved yesterday afternoon while I was taking a break on the patio to think.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am assuming that no mind existed and so ideas had to materialize spontaneously to exist.

You are assuming then, that ideas can exist with no mind.

You realize that you are talking in circles, right?

Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Nether, it was the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Although thinking something out of nothing, does defy that law of conservation so idk how that works with the Big Bang, o well, poor simple one dimensional little me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am assuming that no mind existed and so ideas had to materialize spontaneously to exist.

You are assuming then, that ideas can exist with no mind.

You realize that you are talking in circles, right?

But half the circle is assuming one thing and half the circle is assuming the other.

That's not such a broad circle of logic.

It seems to me that no mind existed first.

Ideas that cannot have first existed in minds must spontaneously come into being because a mind must exist in Something. So Something spontaneously came into being first, THEN the mind evolved over time (which was set into motion by the spontaneous materialization of an idea that could not first exist in a mind).

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So Somthing spontaneously came into being first, THEN the mind.

What mind?

Humans (and their minds) did not appear spontaneously. Both evolved over time. Neither came from nothing. So, I guess we can agree on that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So Somthing spontaneously came into being first, THEN the mind.

What mind?

Humans (and their minds) did not appear spontaneously. Both evolved over time. Neither came from nothing. So, I guess we can agree on that.

I edited...

Our minds. Minds that exist in SOMETHING.

No mind can exist outside of Something. 'Nothing' cannot include a mind.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No mind can exist outside of Something. 'Nothing' cannot include a mind.

Yes. I said that we apparently agree on that point.

But again, what does that have to do with your OP?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No mind can exist outside of Something. 'Nothing' cannot include a mind.

Yes. I said that we apparently agree on that point.

But again, what does that have to do with your OP?

Oh good, we agree on that point.

It has to do with Something and Nothing existing perpetually. Minds were perpetually destined to evolve because the idea of Something spontaneously came into being without the need for a mind.

Ideas must exist materially and/or in a mind. Both types of ideas came into being at once. And because Time came into being, too, there was a very long period of time before minds evolved to bring ideas into existence.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes.
Obviously.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes.
Obviously.

It is nice to hear that someone who probably seriously thinks about such things say this much is obvious.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So Somthing spontaneously came into being first, THEN the mind.

What mind?

Humans (and their minds) did not appear spontaneously. Both evolved over time. Neither came from nothing. So, I guess we can agree on that.

I edited...

Our minds. Minds that exist in SOMETHING.

No mind can exist outside of Something. 'Nothing' cannot include a mind.

You say that, but it does. It's all included.

Plus it would seem impossible to take the Nothing out of the Equation.

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So Somthing spontaneously came into being first, THEN the mind.

What mind?

Humans (and their minds) did not appear spontaneously. Both evolved over time. Neither came from nothing. So, I guess we can agree on that.

I edited...

Our minds. Minds that exist in SOMETHING.

No mind can exist outside of Something. 'Nothing' cannot include a mind.

You say that, but it does. It's all included.

Plus it would seem impossible to take the Nothing out of the Equation.

Correct. It is impossible for there to NOT BE an idea of Something and Nothing.

Both must exist and neither can exist without the other.

originally posted by: OOOOOO

You say that, but it does. It's all included.

Plus it would seem impossible to take the Nothing out of the Equation.

Wait...a 'mind' cannot exist in 'Nothing' which does not exist in Space or Time. It's just an idea, not a materialization.

Minds only exist in Something because they are Something.

Double negatives are an inherent pitfall in this type conversation. Langauge limits the flow of this conversation on my end.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Phage

Well, okie dokie -- but yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. We're not going to be able to understand it with our limited perspective, so its kind of futile to wax philosophical over it.

The big question is can we truly understand what is outside of our universe? I really do not think people really understand what it means when we say "our universe", as in our total existence. We want to think it is easy steps to peek at what is outside of that or even to play down infinite size of our existence, so how do we talk about what is outside of infinity...