Something relating to something
Posted 12/24/10 , edited 12/24/10
So how long did nothingness not exist before nothing or something began/created the universe?

If I could teleport a spaceship into the past, before the 'what if' big bang, or whatever kind of creation/development, even though there are no 'atoms', or 'matter', or perceivable 'distance', would you see black? Is it sort of like a tree falling without being heard?

Speaking of the universe, if theory of relativity is mostly right, and the universe/light actually bends and stretches as it is created, is it possible that it is all part of itself? That 'distance' is just an illusion caused by a huge stretching of matter?

Just give me an answer my mind is destroying itself thinking about this!!! There is an answer to everything this is no exception!!! We just can't find it!!!

11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 12/24/10
if the questions are not work or study related then you shouldn't burden yourself..

i came from nothingness and soon i will return to nothingness. i exist, therefore i am.

Posted 12/24/10 , edited 12/24/10
I've often pondered if there was nothing before there was anything, but how could everything come to be out of nothing? There had to be something for everything to be created from. An artist has a medium, since a masterpiece can't be made from nothing, and all things seem to have a perceivable design.

Some might speculate that we are only thinking too hard about this subject.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/24/10 , edited 12/24/10
There's always the possibility that there has never been a point where nothing existed, and that all matter currently existing has always been around. It's hard to imagine but I can't think of a reason why it would be impossible.


varnlestoff wrote:

Speaking of the universe, if theory of relativity is mostly right, and the universe/light actually bends and stretches as it is created, is it possible that it is all part of itself? That 'distance' is just an illusion caused by a huge stretching of matter?



Distance is the measurement of the amount of space between two points. I wouldn't call that an illusion because even in the case of a single hunk of matter stretching, there is measurable space between the point of origin and the point that is moving.
Posted 12/24/10 , edited 12/24/10

varnlestoff wrote:

So how long did nothingness not exist before nothing or something began/created the universe?

If I could teleport a spaceship into the past, before the 'what if' big bang, or whatever kind of creation/development, even though there are no 'atoms', or 'matter', or perceivable 'distance', would you see black? Is it sort of like a tree falling without being heard?

Speaking of the universe, if theory of relativity is mostly right, and the universe/light actually bends and stretches as it is created, is it possible that it is all part of itself? That 'distance' is just an illusion caused by a huge stretching of matter?

Just give me an answer my mind is destroying itself thinking about this!!! There is an answer to everything this is no exception!!! We just can't find it!!!
That line of desperation will leave yourself open for extremity or radicalism, so be careful what you wish for.

First, understand the fact that light is both an energy and a matter. This is how it has both characteristic of a constant wave pattern, and yet it's affected by gravity like any matter with mass would. This could means that light particles themselves travel through a medium even while in space, which maintains a constant resistance on lights. In other words, light particles slow down to the speed of light as they travel through what quantum physicists generally refer to as the ether:

Today's equivalent of the ether is the vacuum!

Physicists have come to realize that vacuum is not just empty space and the absence of things. The laws of quantum physics and experimental observations clearly show that many physical phenomena are explained by the fact that the vacuum has certain physical properties, including vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations: particles and antiparticles can appear and then disappear after a short period of time.

Understanding the properties of the vacuum is the basics for physics topics like superconductivity, the origin of mass, creation of antimatter, and many more. Past, present and future research has been and will be devoted to understand more about the vacuum and its implications to matter, space and time.

The properties of the vacuum are not immediately apparent in our daily life. They, however, become important when studying the microcosm, also called the quantum world.

Physicists have developed quantum theories that can explain many interactions of matter and antimatter, including the creation and exchange of light. So far, physicists have not been successful in integrating gravity into those quantum theories. Though all other microscopic interactions can be described by quantum theories, a consistent theory of quantum gravity has not been formulated. Experimental information about this aspect is absent since the gravitational force, at the microscopic level, is much weaker than all other forces. The gravitational attraction of two protons or two quarks is much, much weaker than the electric force between protons or the strong force (also called color force) between quarks.

Improving our knowledge of the established quantum theories will hopefully lead to the right theoretical concepts with regard to gravity. Three very fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong) can be described by quantum theories with surprisingly similar concepts and the same properties of vacuum.

Physicists are optimistic that the fourth fundamental force, gravity, will be explained in terms of a consistent quantum theory some day in the future. The vacuum may hold the key to the solution.(citation)

So as you can see, nothingness doesn't exists.
Posted 12/24/10 , edited 12/24/10

Suisighd wrote:

I've often pondered if there was nothing before there was anything, but how could everything come to be out of nothing? There had to be something for everything to be created from. An artist has a medium, since a masterpiece can't be made from nothing, and all things seem to have a perceivable design.

Some might speculate that we are only thinking too hard about this subject.


A popular belief, 'scientifically', but with rejecting absolutes, is that there is something called the 'will to receive', that propagates this cycle. Yet that delves deeply into pseudo science, which by today's standards, is highly controversial.

But undeniably becoming more and more prominent as sort of a third stance between spiritualism, and science, as people start to realize, science, and spiritualism, will never yield absolute knowledge because in their forms, they generally reject the other. Yet they are both an instrumental bringing of the universes unyielding progression. So far.

I find it an interesting, and believe that the only limit to human progress towards finding an absolute, is when you decide to yield to a incomplete picture.
Posted 12/24/10 , edited 12/24/10


I agree for the most part.

More or less, I am not pondering the debate over nothing creating something, ect ect. But more or less what lies within the realm of what we perceive as 'nothing'. Even without physical substance, or 'matter', it is humanly impossible to project a picture of nothing without an abstract view of it. You might not make any distance in 'nothing', because it doesn't exist, but even before matter, the question is if black emptiness would be present.

Also, dom, I was joking about that part ^_^, however it is definitely something you can easily get stuck thinking when you are bored. All humans ponder things of this nature at certain points, personally, I only really think about this a few times a year when I have trouble sleeping.

Also so the sense that nothingness not existing. That I sort of said when I asked how long did nothingness 'not exist'
Something sure to keep people spinning for centuries, even if you come to conclude something, there is just not base for an absolute, even if you scientifically put a humanly perceivable premise towards it.

Really when I picture a spacecraft being sent to before the universe, I see it traveling as fast as it can go, yet constantly in a perpetuation of no distance, because there is simply no matter or substance to make the perception of distance traveled, yet to that extend, no distance had been traversed because everything is one of nothing.
Posted 12/24/10

varnlestoff wrote:


Suisighd wrote:

I've often pondered if there was nothing before there was anything, but how could everything come to be out of nothing? There had to be something for everything to be created from. An artist has a medium, since a masterpiece can't be made from nothing, and all things seem to have a perceivable design.

Some might speculate that we are only thinking too hard about this subject.


A popular belief, 'scientifically', but with rejecting absolutes, is that there is something called the 'will to receive', that propagates this cycle. Yet that delves deeply into pseudo science, which by today's standards, is highly controversial.

But undeniably becoming more and more prominent as sort of a third stance between spiritualism, and science, as people start to realize, science, and spiritualism, will never yield absolute knowledge because in their forms, they generally reject the other.

I find it an interesting, and believe that the only limit to human progress towards finding an absolute, is when you decide to yield to a incomplete picture.


And no absolute will be attained with anything. Perhaps there are some things best left unsolved.
Posted 12/24/10 , edited 12/24/10

Suisighd wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:


Suisighd wrote:

I've often pondered if there was nothing before there was anything, but how could everything come to be out of nothing? There had to be something for everything to be created from. An artist has a medium, since a masterpiece can't be made from nothing, and all things seem to have a perceivable design.

Some might speculate that we are only thinking too hard about this subject.


A popular belief, 'scientifically', but with rejecting absolutes, is that there is something called the 'will to receive', that propagates this cycle. Yet that delves deeply into pseudo science, which by today's standards, is highly controversial.

But undeniably becoming more and more prominent as sort of a third stance between spiritualism, and science, as people start to realize, science, and spiritualism, will never yield absolute knowledge because in their forms, they generally reject the other.

I find it an interesting, and believe that the only limit to human progress towards finding an absolute, is when you decide to yield to a incomplete picture.


And no absolute will be attained with anything. Perhaps there are some things best left unsolved.


Perhaps, but if we are to link the knowledge gained through scientific, with the pursuit of understanding of the spiritual, perhaps we can lead towards a cohesion of our own limited perception, irregardless of how far we get. It is in human nature, no, the universes nature, to push forward.

Again, very pseudo science stuff, very crazy. Yet I think it's very interesting. But the dogma of religion and science rejects any sort of cohesion. Yet it makes me believe even more that it's something that should be attempted at the least.
Posted 12/24/10

varnlestoff wrote:


Suisighd wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:


Suisighd wrote:

I've often pondered if there was nothing before there was anything, but how could everything come to be out of nothing? There had to be something for everything to be created from. An artist has a medium, since a masterpiece can't be made from nothing, and all things seem to have a perceivable design.

Some might speculate that we are only thinking too hard about this subject.


A popular belief, 'scientifically', but with rejecting absolutes, is that there is something called the 'will to receive', that propagates this cycle. Yet that delves deeply into pseudo science, which by today's standards, is highly controversial.

But undeniably becoming more and more prominent as sort of a third stance between spiritualism, and science, as people start to realize, science, and spiritualism, will never yield absolute knowledge because in their forms, they generally reject the other.

I find it an interesting, and believe that the only limit to human progress towards finding an absolute, is when you decide to yield to a incomplete picture.


And no absolute will be attained with anything. Perhaps there are some things best left unsolved.


Perhaps, but if we are to link the knowledge gained through scientific, with the pursuit of understanding of the spiritual, perhaps we can lead towards a cohesion of our own limited perception, irregardless of how far we get. It is in human nature, no, the universes nature, to push forward.

Again, very pseudo science stuff, very crazy. Yet I think it's very interesting. But the dogma of religion and science rejects any sort of cohesion. Yet it makes me believe even more that it's something that should be attempted at the least.


It all helps the mind to grow. Our cognitive abilities shouldn't be limited. Even if we never "figure it all out" we can still grasp what is most practical. I wouldn't expect the mechanics of time travel to be quantifiable at any stage in our development, but we can certainly attain a complete understanding of the most basic and crucial things.
Posted 12/24/10

varnlestoff wrote:



A popular belief, 'scientifically', but with rejecting absolutes, is that there is something called the 'will to receive', that propagates this cycle. Yet that delves deeply into pseudo science, which by today's standards, is highly controversial.

But undeniably becoming more and more prominent as sort of a third stance between spiritualism, and science, as people start to realize, science, and spiritualism, will never yield absolute knowledge because in their forms, they generally reject the other. Yet they are both an instrumental bringing of the universes unyielding progression. So far.

I find it an interesting, and believe that the only limit to human progress towards finding an absolute, is when you decide to yield to a incomplete picture.

varnlestoff wrote:



Perhaps, but if we are to link the knowledge gained through scientific, with the pursuit of understanding of the spiritual, perhaps we can lead towards a cohesion of our own limited perception, irregardless of how far we get. It is in human nature, no, the universes nature, to push forward.

Again, very pseudo science stuff, very crazy. Yet I think it's very interesting. But the dogma of religion and science rejects any sort of cohesion. Yet it makes me believe even more that it's something that should be attempted at the least.
In that case you need a multidisciplinary approach by formulating a synthesis using philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and neurology. While keep in mind that history proved that whenever religion was serious business, it always resulted in people needlessly getting killed by others' need for righting their God. No exception.[/sarcasm]

I mean just because they were bat-shit crazy doesn't make their God any more righteous than the very extreme of their own beliefs.
Posted 12/25/10 , edited 12/25/10

DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:



A popular belief, 'scientifically', but with rejecting absolutes, is that there is something called the 'will to receive', that propagates this cycle. Yet that delves deeply into pseudo science, which by today's standards, is highly controversial.

But undeniably becoming more and more prominent as sort of a third stance between spiritualism, and science, as people start to realize, science, and spiritualism, will never yield absolute knowledge because in their forms, they generally reject the other. Yet they are both an instrumental bringing of the universes unyielding progression. So far.

I find it an interesting, and believe that the only limit to human progress towards finding an absolute, is when you decide to yield to a incomplete picture.

varnlestoff wrote:



Perhaps, but if we are to link the knowledge gained through scientific, with the pursuit of understanding of the spiritual, perhaps we can lead towards a cohesion of our own limited perception, irregardless of how far we get. It is in human nature, no, the universes nature, to push forward.

Again, very pseudo science stuff, very crazy. Yet I think it's very interesting. But the dogma of religion and science rejects any sort of cohesion. Yet it makes me believe even more that it's something that should be attempted at the least.
In that case you need a multidisciplinary approach by formulating a synthesis using philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and neurology. While keep in mind that history proved that whenever religion was serious business, it always resulted in people needlessly getting killed by others' need for righting their God. No exception.[/sarcasm]

I mean just because they were bat-shit crazy doesn't make their God any more righteous than the very extreme of their own beliefs.


I agree, the extreme dogmatic approach was what greatly what resulted in the vast sciences we have today. Right before the age of enlightenment, you were only 'civilized' if you completely submitted to the law of the land, which was a theocracy.

After the age of reason, and age of enlightenment, we started to open up to having the ability in many parts of the planet to openly discuss and study the spiritual manifestation, as well as the physical. Although the study of cohesion between the two has been documented back as far as 1900 BCE, it is only within the last fifty years that it has really started to pick up, and only in the last twenty years that large scale groups of tens of thousands have started studying.

I personally do not advocate 'preaching' it, as that is what often leads to compulsory beliefs, hatred, and war, but I think that having the increasing freedom to openly discuss such philosophy, ideas, and sciences is a real advancement in and of it's own.
Posted 12/25/10

varnlestoff wrote:



I agree, the extreme dogmatic approach was what greatly what resulted in the vast sciences we have today. Right before the age of enlightenment, you were only 'civilized' if you completely submitted to the law of the land, which was a theocracy.

After the age of reason, and age of enlightenment, we started to open up to having the ability in many parts of the planet to openly discuss and study the spiritual manifestation, as well as the physical. Although the study of cohesion between the two has been documented back as far as 1900 BCE, it is only within the last fifty years that it has really started to pick up, and only in the last twenty years that large scale groups of tens of thousands have started studying.

I personally do not advocate 'preaching' it, as that is what often leads to compulsory beliefs, hatred, and war, but I think that having the increasing freedom to openly discuss such philosophy, ideas, and sciences is a real advancement in and of it's own.
Then we need to be mindful at not to turn this open learning process into an one-dimensional institution. Even when such institution is best suited for human children in one particular stage of development, we cannot stay being childish forever by us condemning ourselves to just that mentality. I mean just looking back at the human history of how we've been treating ourselves correlating to the natural history of human civilization, it's embarrassing if not insulting to humanity as a whole, when we're still harping onto these dangerous memes and mindless consumption.
Posted 12/25/10 , edited 12/25/10

DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:



I agree, the extreme dogmatic approach was what greatly what resulted in the vast sciences we have today. Right before the age of enlightenment, you were only 'civilized' if you completely submitted to the law of the land, which was a theocracy.

After the age of reason, and age of enlightenment, we started to open up to having the ability in many parts of the planet to openly discuss and study the spiritual manifestation, as well as the physical. Although the study of cohesion between the two has been documented back as far as 1900 BCE, it is only within the last fifty years that it has really started to pick up, and only in the last twenty years that large scale groups of tens of thousands have started studying.

I personally do not advocate 'preaching' it, as that is what often leads to compulsory beliefs, hatred, and war, but I think that having the increasing freedom to openly discuss such philosophy, ideas, and sciences is a real advancement in and of it's own.
Then we need to be mindful at not to turn this open learning process into an one-dimensional institution. Even when such institution is best suited for human children in one particular stage of development, we cannot stay being childish forever by us condemning ourselves to just that mentality. I mean just looking back at the human history of how we've been treating ourselves correlating to the natural history of human civilization, it's embarrassing if not insulting to humanity as a whole, when we're still harping onto these dangerous memes and mindless consumption.


That's just it though, cohesion studies are not a religion, but a methodological approach to all attained human knowledge be it physical, or spiritual, to find a better understanding of the human clockwork and our own limitations. Humans in general, whether they be the Pope, or Steven hawking, are most likely grains of sand to the beaches of understanding that is and may never be achieved if you flat out reject the knowledge of one aspect.

That and science by itself is a cold and calculating pursuit. I don't think humanity will be around much longer if everything becomes about exploration of the physical and scientific. I think a completely science driven society would yield just as bloody results as a total monarchy, perhaps worse. Irrational rationality may sound like an oxymoron, but in a world of human emotions, we are far from being an innately 100% rational species, and frankly, even science will tell you that we aren't capable of being completely rational as a species, at least not by natural design, and influence by our modern lifestyles.
You must be logged in to post.