Since nothing cannot exist, what does this say about the universe?

Updated on : December 7, 2021 by Ashton Hunt



Since nothing cannot exist, what does this say about the universe?

Nothing can exist and does exist and this says that the Big Bang and the Universe arose out of "nothing" as a set of conditions or as a "Phase Transition".

The Universe contains time and is finite and temporal, not eternal because it exists figuratively and literally in 'borrowed time and energy' which can also be expressed as borrowed space-time and mass / energy that eventually, possibly over billions of years, dissipate fully and return to zero.

This is how we get 'something out of nothing', because despite being an extraordinary, unimaginably long and vast

Ev

Keep reading

Nothing can exist and does exist and this says that the Big Bang and the Universe arose out of "nothing" as a set of conditions or as a "Phase Transition".

The Universe contains time and is finite and temporal, not eternal because it exists figuratively and literally in 'borrowed time and energy' which can also be expressed as borrowed space-time and mass / energy that eventually, possibly over billions of years, dissipate fully and return to zero.

This is how we get 'something out of nothing', because despite being an extraordinary, unimaginably long and vast

Event by human standards - The Universe is most likely a temporary condition.

Not for playback outside of Quora for now.

I reserve all rights to the above concepts of 'Temporal Universe' and that the 'Universe literally exists in borrowed space, time, and energy / mass, so / how it arose out of nowhere.

Years ago I dabbled with a similar premise, warning: the following are just my own pseudo-philosophical musings and they are quite confusing.

The Nothing, or rather the 'true' Nothing is the absence of something, in other words, if we consider that existence is everything (Energy, quantum field, time, space, etc.) then nothing is non-existence, more beyond the scope of anything including information.

That said, even trying to qualify nothingness (or nonexistence) using natural language, for example, would defeat the purpose and turn it into something, as it can be achieved through conceptualization.

No

Keep reading

Years ago I dabbled with a similar premise, warning: the following are just my own pseudo-philosophical musings and they are quite confusing.

The Nothing, or rather the 'true' Nothing is the absence of something, in other words, if we consider that existence is everything (Energy, quantum field, time, space, etc.) then nothing is non-existence, more beyond the scope of anything including information.

That said, even trying to qualify nothingness (or nonexistence) using natural language, for example, would defeat the purpose and turn it into something, as it can be achieved through conceptualization.

Now if we broaden its definition, and take a chance and hypothesize that existence as we know it is an infinitely dense continuum that does not accept spaces no matter how we consider it (fields within fields within ad infintum fields), this would mean that non-existence does not exist "within the" limits "of existence", saying this, however, allows us to define a type of "logical" nothing, which is the non-existence of non-existence.

Therefore nothing "is" the impossibility of nothing existing. Regression is still unavoidable but I think this is all I can stretch the logic, since otherwise you couldn't think of the concept of anything without desecrating it.

Nothing can be a potential state that cannot be sustainable. Its current state as an exponentially expanding universe feeds on itself. The more space you have, the more you get, expressed symbolically as c ^ 2 / R. Roll back the clock until R —-> 0. The closer R is to zero - the greater the radial acceleration - the potential instability increases as R loses its dimensional existence. One interpretation of this growing instability is that it makes something we now call the universe inevitable.

What is NADA? That is a mystery. Maybe this will help. And this is my conclusion of all the stolen ideas of my predecessors. If our observation (assumption?) About the law of conservation of energy is correct and considered, then the obvious answer is the following. What would I do if I have an UNLIMITED money supply? I would do CREATION… ..drama… .for no reason… .for nothing… nonsense. Just to keep myself busy …… out of boredom of SINGULARITY. Why? Because, damn it, the money will never ever run out! And we have to assume that this money (energy) was always there and will always be there and

Keep reading

What is NADA? That is a mystery. Maybe this will help. And this is my conclusion of all the stolen ideas of my predecessors. If our observation (assumption?) About the law of conservation of energy is correct and considered, then the obvious answer is the following. What would I do if I have an UNLIMITED money supply? I would do CREATION… ..drama… .for no reason… .for nothing… nonsense. Just to keep myself busy …… out of boredom of SINGULARITY. Why? Because, damn it, the money will never ever run out! And we have to assume that this money (energy) was always there and will always be there and this singularity (energy) multiplied to create an infinite vividness (you and me?) And rest is history! Enjoy the free ride (drama) with caution (rules apply!)

Who says that nothing cannot exist? That was a preoccupation of ancient Greek philosophy and led them to reject the use of zero and to argue that voids do not exist.

We use zero very well, and most of the universe is a vacuum.

When you say "there can be no gaps" you are adopting a Cartesian point of view, but that is not valid either.

Everything in physics these days is described as energy fields. (1) The fields are spread out all over space, so there are no empty areas to speak of, just areas with weaker or stronger fields of various kinds. A particle is a shortened way of talking about the excitation of a field within a region of space. There is still a field in the spaces between the excitations, only it is less excited.

Of course, this is all just a model of reality, not necessarily a description of what may actually be "out there" in reality. Although it is "just" a model, it is a model that works very well.

(1) Real talk: all

Keep reading

Everything in physics these days is described as energy fields. (1) The fields are spread out all over space, so there are no empty areas to speak of, just areas with weaker or stronger fields of various kinds. A particle is a shortened way of talking about the excitation of a field within a region of space. There is still a field in the spaces between the excitations, only it is less excited.

Of course, this is all just a model of reality, not necessarily a description of what may actually be "out there" in reality. Although it is "just" a model, it is a model that works very well.

(1) Real talk: everything is made of fields

The universe came from something. They say that the quantum tunnel started the Big Bang process through possibilities and probabilities, but that implies that something started it. Nothing as a thing remains something, but it has no value. It is still something. There was nothing in the "pre" of the Big Bang. There was something. There was always something that started the Big Bang process. I reformulate it.

Nothing is really complex, it can be a structural projection into a higher order complexity, or mechanisms that build extensions or dimensional forms that are not perceptible to humans that are collectively deconstructed to reflect on structural existence and extension. It is form and exists in order and builds reality.

The result of any argument will be flawed if its original premise is not sound.

"Since nothing cannot exist" is an erroneous premise.

The context is undefined and applying the premise universally is illogical.

Aristotle defined a "thing" as that which can be affected by some external force. A more modern definition would be one that emits information, reflected or self-generated.
Anything beyond the limits of the universe at its most expanded radius fails in both respects and may well be called "nothing" like anything else.

To say that nothing cannot exist is to declare “Mandatory Existence”. This concept is beyond ridiculous and is a desperate method of refusing to accept the reality of creation.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.