Theory to the Existence of Anything

Is it possible to create something from nothing? Here is what I am going to propose. This may be an idea out there already but it is just my possible belief that things can be created out of nothing. Let me just explain.

Here you see the mathematical equation: 0 = 0
1 -1 = 0


As you can see this is first grade math at work. There is no value in the number zero, thus representing nothing. Now by adding something and then subtracting something, it still equals the same thing. What if the universe worked like this? This theory would also prove the theory of anti-matter or dark matter. So basically, you are taking nothing (0) and turning it into something (1 -1) by simply splitting it apart and keeping it apart in two different places. Would you agree that all matter would represent positive numbers and all anti-matter represents negative numbers? I could then even take it a step further by saying that what if there was an intelligent being that "split the number zero" to make something out of nothing. Therefore creating our universe. Of course our universe is WAY more complex than this equation. But just think of how many numbers you can add/subtract, divide/multiply, square/square-root, etc and still have the number equal to zero. This could prove that you can make something out of nothing. Or, for that matter, a "something" and an "anti-something."

If anyone would like to add to this, or comment if it has been thought of before, please do. I would like to hear everyone's opinions

Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a basic law of our known universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a basic law of our known universe.

---

That is not the point, this theory is not saying anything is being created at all. you are simply taking "nothing" a.k.a. "0" and splitting it into "matter" and "dark matter" a.k.a. "1 -1." Do you not understand this? Do you get the concept of dark matter? Scientists theorize that it exists everywhere where matter is not. So your view of "nothing" and my view of "nothing" are completely different.

I like this idea.. makes you wonder.

Interesting thought, I recently read a similar article on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Hawking

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing

---

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing? | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think


The whole concept of Ying and Yang, the two opposing forces is also about the universe coming out of nothing. Two complementing, opposing forces canceling eachother out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Interesting thought, I recently read a similar article on the subject.

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing? | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

---

Can't believe I'm supplementing a post by Chayba, but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

A while back there was a lecture posted that explained your belief in more detail.

But essentially it was the same, how the universe could just be the positive and negative frequencies that, together, would cancel each other out, hence explaining the notion of "something out of nothing".

Here it is.



Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

lecture

---

Oh DAMNIT. ;)

Too slow, dajo :P

I have often thought of this, that everywhere is something, but it is mixed with nothing, thus creating nothing. But I believe that all matter is really very focused energy, so something is equal to the presence of the energy, and nothing is the loss of such. It is very hard to explain what I mean by this, and it is likely you won't take this as I mean it.

Hypothesis*

That is actually all very interesting and makes perfect sense. The universe is 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Hypothesis*

---

Haha thank you. I would also like to thank everyone for feedback on this topic.

Antimatter is made up of the same stuff as matter, it's just put together differently, it's not a matter of 1 and -1. Dark energy is also not the same as negative energy. The laws of physics do not allow creation from nothing. You'd have to find a way to vibrate the branes that make up the universe without applying anything to them, not possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Antimatter is made up of the same stuff as matter, it's just put together differently, it's not a matter of 1 and -1. Dark energy is also not the same as negative energy. The laws of physics do not allow creation from nothing. You'd have to find a way to vibrate the branes that make up the universe without applying anything to them, not possible.

---

Quantum physics is tricky business :)

The problem with this hypothesis is, if you start with nothingness (forget numbers, just think a lack of space and time), only more nothingness can come from that, represented only by that nothingness (by 0). If you have two opposing forces which somehow amount to the nothingness, what happened to make the nothingness be expressed by the existence of those two forces? How did it go from being 0 to 1-1? How did dark matter, etc. come to exist in the first place from nothing? You say a creator could have been responsible, but a creator would be something, so there wouldn't have been nothingness anyway. Also, if the creator is omnipotent, it should be able to create something out of nothing, create a 1 from a 0 in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

If you have two opposing forces which somehow amount to the nothingness, what happened to make the nothingness be expressed by the existence of those two forces? How did it go from being 0 to 1-1?

---

He means everywhere there isn't matter, there is nothingness. Nothingness = 0, 0 = a single 1 and a single -1. When you add 1 + -1 you get 0. When you separate 1 and -1 you get matter and anti matter. That is at least what I got from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

If you have two opposing forces which somehow amount to the nothingness, what happened to make the nothingness be expressed by the existence of those two forces? How did it go from being 0 to 1-1? How did dark matter, etc. come to exist in the first place from nothing?

---

quantum fluctuation.

If you ask, so why the quantum fluctuation, my only answer is 'it's a strange universe.'

You have to keep in mind that matter and antimatter don't cancel each other out and result in 0 energy, they annihilate and turn into pure energy. This is more about all the negative energy, like negative gravity.

About how it started from nothing, well, quantum physics is stupid and confusing. Hopefully we'll have a better understanding some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

Quantum physics is tricky business :)

---

Where in modern quantum physics does it say that there is such a thing as negative mass or energy?

the point here I think is that nothing (or a vacuum, dark matter, whatever), in terms of quantum physics, doesn't have no energy. In fact it seems to have even more than the stuff we can observe, even when most of our universe is composed of this "strange matter" (nothing).

Well I was under the impression that the OP's hypothesis describes how something comes from nothing (literally nothing, no 'pure energy', no God, no anything). Sorry if this is not what he meant, ignore my previous post. If it was what he meant, logic can tell you why it fails. You don't need to take physics into account at all.

Fuck theories! Lets build a time machine and go back 15 billion years and find out for ourselves!

Well first of all...
Anti-matter wouldn't represent negative numbers and matter wouldn't represent positive numbers.
It's the other way around. Numbers represent the objective thing.

Also, I think this kind of makes sense. But not exactly in the way you described it.
I'm thinking more, that everything can be represented by both it's counter-parts.
It's hard to articulate this.

Maybe more like the universe can be explained by everything being 0 and 1-1.

It's not really what I am trying to convey, I'll have to think about how to say it better.

if you're experiencing it, it exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AirRick101

if you're experiencing it, it exists.

---

Except for hallucinations.

They exist too, but only in your mind - afawk.

But also, everything you experience only really exists in your mind
because you don't experience things as they really are.
So saying "if you experience it, it exists" isn't really accurate.

What you're experiencing is your interpretation of the thing that exists.
Your interpretation exists, yes. In your head.
But you don't know if the actual thing exists. Mainly because you don't know what the
actual thing really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AirRick101

if you're experiencing it, it exists.

---

Actually, and please don't start an argument here, it is possible that the universe we perceive is not real. It is possible we are inside a huge computer like the matrix, or even thoughts of a different mind. We may never know, and there is absolutely no possible way to disprove it (though some will say it can (but it can't)). There is no possible way to prove we are NOT computer programs or any of the like.

I know this will bring on ALOT of commotion, but I don't care, what I said is absolutely true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

Actually, and please don't start an argument here, it is possible that the universe we perceive is not real. It is possible we are inside a huge computer like the matrix, or even thoughts of a different mind. We may never know, and there is absolutely no possible way to disprove it (though some will say it can (but it can't)). There is no possible way to prove we are NOT computer programs or any of the like.

I know this will bring on ALOT of commotion, but I don't care, what I said is absolutely true.

---

Well, it is possible, but it would still mean that everything is real, it's just inside a computer.

And no it won't bring a lot of commotion. Chill out, it's not a mind shattering hypothesis.

Pretty mind numbing by this point I'd say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Where in modern quantum physics does it say that there is such a thing as negative mass or energy?

---

In Hawking Radiation? Where a negatively charged "virtual particle" is ripped away by the extreme forces of a black hole from its positively-charged counterpart? This first particle having "antimass", making the hole get gradually smaller and smaller? Would that qualify as "negative mass"?

Semantics semantics..

BTW: towards a theory for everything..

String Theory: the smallest sub-atomic "particles" do not exist as such.. they are more like tiny vibrating strings.. waves of vibration, by any other word. Ergo, all matter/energy is a conglomeration of waves that meld together, albeit in wildly diverse configurations.

Wave theory; (Mersini-Houghton): the Universe is in itself, a "wave", and can be expressed as such mathematically, including String Theory.

So.. if both theories hold true, the Universe is a wave composed of a myriad of smaller waves. M-Theory? The Brane/Multibrane would also be a collection of "waves" forming a giant one..

.. but what could cause the wave, the initial vibration? It still brings us no closer to actual true "creation", i.e. something from nothing.

..and we may indeed reach a point in the future where we work it all out, how everything works together to create the 3-D "world that we know"..

But will we ever be able to physically create something from true nothing, from an absolute zero of information? I have my doubts..

string theory postulates that the essential stuff of existence (the string) is a sort of dimensional "loop" that creates a void in the fabric of spacetime and forms the appearance of a material whose properties are defined by the loop's vibrational frequency. This would fit with your "existence is nothing" hypothesis but doesn't quite jive with the 1-1=0 bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

BTW: towards a theory for everything..

String Theory: the smallest sub-atomic "particles" do not exist as such.. they are more like tiny vibrating strings.. waves of vibration, by any other word. Ergo, all matter/energy is a conglomeration of waves that meld together, albeit in wildly diverse configurations.

Wave theory; (Mersini-Houghton): the Universe is in itself, a "wave", and can be expressed as such mathematically, including String Theory.

So.. if both theories hold true, the Universe is a wave composed of a myriad of smaller waves. M-Theory? The Brane/Multibrane would also be a collection of "waves" forming a giant one..

.. but what could cause the wave, the initial vibration? It still brings us no closer to actual true "creation", i.e. something from nothing.

..and we may indeed reach a point in the future where we work it all out, how everything works together to create the 3-D "world that we know"..

But will we ever be able to physically create something from true nothing, from an absolute zero of information? I have my doubts..

---

If we understood how something came from nothing, I see no reason why humans couldn't create something from nothing also, given enough time.

If everything is nothing, well we could create anything we want. It would be nothing, but it would still exist the same as everything else.

Question: If the universe was created from nothing, doesn't that prove that thermodynamics is wrong? Or at least the "The internal energy of an isolated system is constant." bit?
Or maybe because there was nothing before, there were no things anywhere, so laws didn't exist and anything could have happened.

This shit fucks with my head, how the universe became etc. I think I've done a gigantic post about how much it screws with me before though haha

My theory is "simply" that this universe came out of a black hole, that's what the big bang was. But where everything came from in the beginning, I can't really comprehend. But I don't see any reason why this universe should be where it all began.

I have no idea how the big bang would have occurred. Hawking radiation does describe particles suddenly appearing out of nothing, but I think those particles are created out of energy. In order for the big bang to have happened, the initial energy would have to be created, and a counterpart to our universe wouldn't be a viable explanation since you can't create energy out of nothing. That is, unless the energy we know is the counterpart to something else. I doubt that, but it is a possibility.

Ah, I love it when there are so many opinions, yet it is possible none are anywhere near correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

Ah, I love it when there are so many opinions, yet it is possible none are anywhere near correct.

---

It's almost always possible that everyone is nowhere near correct for any given topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

Actually, and please don't start an argument here, it is possible that the universe we perceive is not real. It is possible we are inside a huge computer like the matrix, or even thoughts of a different mind. We may never know, and there is absolutely no possible way to disprove it (though some will say it can (but it can't)). There is no possible way to prove we are NOT computer programs or any of the like.

I know this will bring on ALOT of commotion, but I don't care, what I said is absolutely true.

---

Who in their right mind would deny it was possible? Virtually anything is possible, so that isn't saying much. What matters is how likely it is, which is not very.

EDIT: I'm really sorry tommo. I read it all before and looked up to find the quote again, and thought I saw some of the keywords in yours. I should have reread it through to make sure, I'll make sure to do that from now on. Really sorry, thanks for correcting me.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you responding to my post, or did you just quote it for no reason?
If you're randomly trying to tell me anything is possible, I just said that in my previous post. So it's nothing new to me.

Tommo, according to the concepts expressed in the post you quoted, thermodynamics would still technically be correct; the universe started from nothing, but is still actually nothing, so no thing was created or destroyed.

That's assuming that the universe IS nothing. If it's not nothing, then it kind of breaks that rule. Unless the rule didn't "exist" because nothing existed before the big bang.

Dianeva, read my other post in the other thread. And I see we both disagree with that retarded post so sorry for getting angry lol

Yeah, keep it a bit cooler in future...

This theory basically says everything has its opposite for the Universe to equal zero. So then what are our opposites? Are they people? Are they parts of us spread around? Are they the opposite consciousness of us?

Apparently so. Since everything must have its opposite in some way or another, and under the assumption that the Universe is infinite, we must have infinite copies of ourselves that end up in infinite different equations and possibilities. I feel that this might provide evidence for parallel universe if this theory is correct.

Snowboy, that would hold true if conscious organisms didn't have free will. It is possible that we don't truly have free will. If there was an exact opposite to the starting conditions of the universe, then yes, I agree that technically everything would happen exactly the opposite of how it happens in this universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

Snowboy, that would hold true if conscious organisms didn't have free will.

---

How does this relate to free will? Would you mind explaining this?

Sure.

If living organisms truly had free will, then that means we don't have a predefined destiny, thus altering the course of the universe and all that we interact with. However, if we don't have free will, then everything truly is predefined and would thus be determined at the time of the universe's creation.

Therefore, in order for there to be a truly parallel universe, true free will cannot exist.

Unless there is a parallel universe for every possible universe. ;V

Seriously Snowboy, why are you so obsessed with the idea that everything must have an opposite? It doesn't have to be, it is only like that in stubborn heads like yours. There doesn't always have to be an opposite, and there doesn't always have to wrong.

I'm not obsessed with it, it's just a belief I hold and I will stand up for it. :P

I actually like the idea myself. If there were a counterpart to the initial energy which caused the big bang, then it's possible that our universe could have been spontaneously created out of nothing, and only exists because of the existence of its counterpart.

It's just wrong. Ok, let's assume everything does have an opposite. ok? Let's ASSUME.

That doesn't mean there has to be an opposite snowboy who doesn't believe in this opposite theory.

You are not a "thing". You are just a conglomeration of atoms and subatomic particles etc. THOSE things have opposites. Not what they make up. Not what you think is you.

E.G Matter and anti-matter as people have been talking about. We know that most particles have anti-particles. We don't know if all of them do. But we know that it is highly highly unlikely that there are anti-conglomerations of particles. It just doesn't make sense.

For that to be true, as soon as your sperm was created, the opposite would have been created somewhere else int he universe or another universe. As you went in to your egg, one of those would need to be created somewhere else, because your opposite sperm wouldn't have gone in to the egg. Do you see where I'm going? It's just not feasible.

Either you misunderstood what I was saying, or you're just trying to debunk Snowboy's version of the theory. If it's the latter, then yes, I do agree with what you said.


In any case, what I was saying was that if there were an anti-energy to the energy which was present at the time of the big bang, then it's possible that there is another universe that had the same starting conditions as our universe, except with an opposite energy charge. This theory would eliminate the problem of the energy of the universe simply spontaneously coming into existence, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

There is no reason for this anti-energy to have caused an "opposite land" in our sister universe; for all we know, the sister universe could be completely identical to ours, except with the positive and negative particle charges flipped. (or something along those lines)

Sorry, didn't read your post, just had to refute snowboy's completely illogical fantasy.

You do have a point, but what started that in the first place? haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowboy

I'm not obsessed with it, it's just a belief I hold and I will stand up for it. :P

---

Yea, I guess I have to respect that, even though you highly critisized my ideals, I will not do so with yours.

I believe it could have just spontaneously occurred, much in the same way that Hawking radiation occurs. Either that, or it was some sort of God. I'm highly doubtful of the latter, though.

You know, I believe that atoms are very highly concentrated energy. If this is true, then all of existence could have came from only 2 atoms. If those two atoms hit each other right, friction could create an extreme amount of energy creating new atoms. Just my theory though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

You know, I believe that atoms are very highly concentrated energy. If this is true, then all of existence could have came from only 2 atoms. If those two atoms hit each other right, friction could create an extreme amount of energy creating new atoms. Just my theory though.

---

Interesting hypothesis, but we've got quite a bit of data from the Large Hadron Collider and similar atom smashing facilities that show a single collision does not a universe create.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

I actually like the idea myself. If there were a counterpart to the initial energy which caused the big bang, then it's possible that our universe could have been spontaneously created out of nothing, and only exists because of the existence of its counterpart.

---

Which is, in essence, the void. Well, shit. I can't believe I actually stated something that is a possible cause for the Big Bang. :boogie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

You are not a "thing". You are just a conglomeration of atoms and subatomic particles etc. THOSE things have opposites. Not what they make up. Not what you think is you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowboy

Since everything must have its opposite in some way or another, and under the assumption that the Universe is infinite, we must have infinite copies of ourselves that end up in infinite different equations and possibilities. I feel that this might provide evidence for parallel universe if this theory is correct.

---

We could just be scattered particles in these parallel universes, or we could be the exact same thing all put back together again. We could be just clumped particles in a parallel universe, or we could be body parts laying around the Earth. Under the assumption that the Universe is infinite, it kills your argument completely.

Plus, an opposite can have opposites, too, resulting in an infinite number of parallel universes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Sorry, didn't read your post, just had to refute snowboy's completely illogical fantasy.

---

How logical is quantum physics? And if it is so "illogical" and "unrealistic", then give me an example of something doesn't have an opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

You know, I believe that atoms are very highly concentrated energy. If this is true, then all of existence could have came from only 2 atoms. If those two atoms hit each other right, friction could create an extreme amount of energy creating new atoms. Just my theory though.

---

That makes sense. But where did the original atom come from? I think it could have been the opposite of the void; something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

single collision does not a universe create.

---

*does not create a Universe.

You cdyslexi? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Interesting hypothesis, but we've got quite a bit of data from the Large Hadron Collider and similar atom smashing facilities that show a single collision does not a universe create.

---

But that occurs on earth, where we have extreme limits, but in an infinite open space the atoms can move pretty freak'n fast. And it is not just smashing them together, it is hitting them together just right to create the most possible amount of friction. And maybe the two atoms just always existed, as I said in this thread (or probably in a different one), time is just a human concept, physics doesn't have time as a factor. So the two atoms just exist.

And hawking radiation could not of been created before any matter was, at least as I understand it, it requires black holes, which again to my understanding requires matter to be created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowboy

We could just be scattered particles in these parallel universes, or we could be the exact same thing all put back together again. We could be just clumped particles in a parallel universe, or we could be body parts laying around the Earth. Under the assumption that the Universe is infinite, it kills your argument completely.

---

What? Clearly you do not understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowboy

Plus, an opposite can have opposites, too, resulting in an infinite number of parallel universes.

---

WHAT????? the fuck......
I have matter, the opposite is anti-matter. The opposite of anti-matter is matter.
How the fuck does that result in an infinite number of universes? Really....
Your lack of logic is astounding.
These two opposing things can just as easily be found in the same universe, rather than two different ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowboy

How logical is quantum physics? And if it is so "illogical" and "unrealistic", then give me an example of something doesn't have an opposite.

---

Just read this.
Antiparticle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It blows apart your theory of random body parts lying around another universe etc.
Read what MindGames said again also. "There is no reason for this anti-energy to have caused an "opposite land" in our sister universe; for all we know, the sister universe could be completely identical to ours, except with the positive and negative particle charges flipped. (or something along those lines) "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowboy

*does not create a Universe.

You cdyslexi? :P

---

Evidently Mario is aware of the idiom from Aesop's fables "One swallow does not a summer make".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

And maybe the two atoms just always existed, as I said in this thread (or probably in a different one), time is just a human concept, physics doesn't have time as a factor. So the two atoms just exist.

---

We don't know whether time is just a concept yet. And physics certainly does have time as a factor. I know that from early high school physics, average speed= distance/time. Something like that anyway. Unless you meant to say nature, which I think you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

This leads to the question of why the formation of matter after the Big Bang resulted in a universe consisting almost entirely of matter, rather than being a half-and-half mixture of matter and antimatter.

---

Shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

We don't know whether time is just a concept yet. And physics certainly does have time as a factor. I know that from early high school physics, average speed= distance/time. Something like that anyway. Unless you meant to say nature, which I think you did.

---

How is that proof that it is a factor in physics? Time is just a mathematical concept expressed by humans. Math, another concept from humans, is constructed absolutely perfectly, so any mathematical concept (eg. Time) would also work perfectly. Time IS a mathematical concept, using math that applies to that concept does not prove anything.

Um, I was just saying that it is used in physics. You said time is not a factor in physics. When it clearly is.
Speed is a physics issue correct?
You figure out the average speed by first figuring out the distance and the TIME it took to travel that distance.
I never said time is some tangible matter. Or that it exists. I just don't see how you can say that time is not a factor in physics.

I did not mean the study of physics, I meant physics as in the what is coded into all of existence for how things work.

I thought so. Which is why I said that I think you meant nature.
Physics is just a concept too.

So the "nothing" that reality split from is the "something" that reality split into. :cheeky:

I do theorize about the idea of creating things from nothing, and, especially on the dream plane, believe that it can be possible. Though, I feel as though the energy always has to come from somewhere... what we think is nothing is really something, because even nothing is something.

I don't particularly like the mathematical analogy though, since math is something we as humans created to make sense of things that we couldn't/can't understand... many things that math sense makes logical sense to our brains, but it may not hold true for whatever the world really is.

Just my thoughts.

Well, the thing about the dream plane is that it's an extension of your subconscious, so no thing ever really comes from nothing. If you could create something from nothing (in a creative sense), then you would be able to dream up new colors. I wish you the best of luck if you want to try to do so, but it's simply not possible. In the sense that the dreamscape or objects in the dreamscape simply come from nothing; that's not how dreaming works. The mind simply creates a projection of of an array of previously encountered or created sensory input.

For the record, nothing isn't something. By definition, nothing is the lack of 'things'. Our concept of nothing is something, but nothingness itself is not a thing. That I think is what a lot of people are confused by when they speak of the nature of 'nothing'.


And last, logic is demonstrably predictive of the nature of the universe (even in quantum mechanics, contrary to popular belief; look up quantum computing). Therefore logic must apply to our observed universe. It's not a matter of whether or not our perceived universe is a logical one; rather it is a matter of whether or not our perception of the universe only appears to be logical, when in fact it might only be our own self-maintained inherently logical reality that merely seems to be logical.

I'm kinda just thinking here.


I think the only rational conclusion is completely irrational to us.

We would think it had to start somewhere. Meaning there was nothing and something came from it.
But what caused the something to appear if there was nothing there in the first place.

Since that is impossible in the current way we understand things, however all this got here has to be through some mechanism which we can not comprehend at this stage in our development.

Whether it's just something in this universe which is illogical and ungraspable, or if this universe came out of another universe or multi-universes which are even more alien to what we know. Whichever of those two, there must be some mechanism in those universes that makes it completely logical for something to come out of nothing.
Maybe logical is the wrong word. Understandable, or comprehensible might be better.

Ok mindgames just posted while I was posting

Quote:

---

"And last, logic is demonstrably predictive of the nature of the universe (even in quantum mechanics, contrary to popular belief; look up quantum computing). Therefore logic must apply to our observed universe. It's not a matter of whether or not our perceived universe is a logical one; rather it is a matter of whether or not our perception of the universe only appears to be logical, when in fact it might only be our own self-maintained inherently logical reality that merely seems to be logical."

---

I think I get what your saying and that is the same train I've thought I was just following. Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

Therefore logic must apply to our observed universe. It's not a matter of whether or not our perceived universe is a logical one; rather it is a matter of whether or not our perception of the universe only appears to be logical, when in fact it might only be our own self-maintained inherently logical reality that merely seems to be logical.

---

Your last conclusion is similar to Kant's transcendental idealism which states that the mind imposes categories(space, time, causality) upon our experience. I agree with this type of idealism more than Berkeley's or Leibniz's idealism because Kant actually believed there was a physical objective world but we imposed these categories on our experience of it.

The Copenhagen interpretation implies that our perception plays a major role in shaping reality which I think is the most startling and exciting consequences of quantum physics. This is reconcilable with Kant's transcendental idealism because they both suggest that the mind has a fundamental role in shaping the way we experience the world as opposed to the empiricist position that our experience of the world shapes our minds.

Perhaps the question "can something come out of nothing?" is a result of causality imposed on our experience? Causality is one way we make logical sense of the world so I think this question counters our basic everyday experience so it seems absurd.

Berkeley is best!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaspat

Berkeley is a tosser!!

---

I most certainly agree.

I've been pondering this for a few minutes, and I understand that something simply cannot come from nothing, since "coming from" is a property of time, which is a thing. Creation is a causal action, so it is impossible for time to be created since time would need to exist to create time. Therefore it is the question itself which is illogical and flawed. There cannot be a precursor to existence, at least not one that can be properly fathomed. The beginning of existence must be explained in noncausal terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

I've been pondering this for a few minutes, and I understand that something simply cannot come from nothing, since "coming from" is a property of time, which is a thing. Creation is a causal action, so it is impossible for time to be created since time would need to exist to create time. Therefore it is the question itself which is illogical and flawed. There cannot be a precursor to existence, at least not one that can be properly fathomed. The beginning of existence must be explained in noncausal terms.

---

Stop stealing my thoughts!!!!!!:panic:

You are right the question itself is flawed. This is a really a the heart of Wittgenstein's philosophical project that all (I would say most) philosophical problems confusion lies in the language that expresses the problems. Philosophical problems seem to dissolve when we analyze not just the problem itself but the language that expresses the problem.

Its interesting that we can come to new insights by just rewording the question (in a formal language for instance) or realizing that the question itself is flawed and we have been traveling down the wrong road for awhile.

Lol, this reminded me of the missing dollar riddle.

Three guests check into a hotel room. The clerk says the bill is $30, so each guest pays $10. Later the clerk realizes the bill should only be $25. To rectify this, he gives the bellhop $5 to return to the guests. On the way to the room, the bellhop realizes that he cannot divide the money equally. As the guests didn't know the total of the revised bill, the bellhop decides to just give each guest $1 and keep $2 for himself.
Now that each of the guests has been given $1 back, each has paid $9, bringing the total paid to $27. The bellhop has $2. If the guests originally handed over $30, what happened to the remaining $1?

There is no missing dollar. Each guest paid a grand total of $9.00, bringing the total to 27. 25 are with the hotel, totaling the bill. 2 are with the bellhop. All the money is present and accounted for.

That was an awesome little brain teaser. Its funny the way the sentence is structured it leads you to go about solving the problem in the wrong way.
I need more of these puzzles!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

That was an awesome little brain teaser. Its funny the way the sentence is structured it leads you to go about solving the problem in the wrong way.
I need more of these puzzles!

---

Or, rather, lead you to solve a problem when there is none lol
It sort of creates a problem, by making you think it should add up to $30.