Thread: Theory to the Existence of Anything

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

Originally Posted by Snowboy

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mario92

single collision does not a universe create.

*does not create a Universe.

You cdyslexi?

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.

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.

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.

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) "

Originally Posted by Snowboy

*does not create a Universe.

You cdyslexi?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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!!

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.

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!!!!!!

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?