I like how he danced around his conclusion which can simply be stated that "everything exists.' And he's right, in my opinion. The most beautiful idea I think I've encountered is the idea that every possibility and impossibility, every permutation of reality and lack thereof all exists in some manner. Everything is realized. Reality is both infinite and boundless. Is that true? No idea. However, it's really an attractive idea....but we still have to chop wood and carry water :-)
You still need a logically-prior grounding for mere possibilities, which don’t ground themselves. What accounts for the fact that all possibilities are realized? They’re deriving their existence from something (logically) beneath them. Some bedrock layer of existence granting reality to these possibilities. There are a variety of reasons for attributing qualitative features to this bedrock. And for thinking that it’s unique, indivisible, and “pure actuality.”
@@waldwassermann If starting out was nothing, than there would be no God to make the universe we live in, therefore no big bang. So that doesn't make sense, and seems very improbably. I think, maybe, that there was always something, but not in the reality, dimension, we live in. Maybe it was awareness from the potentialness of nothing to something, or maybe it was consciousness, in what which formed all of our souls. (Maybe linking all of us, to one. 'conscious') Which many could call it God, Jesus, whatever, basically the definition of 'God', at least from OUR perspective. In conclusion, something was always there because of the potential of something, if there was no potential of something then none of us, or anything for that matter wouldn't be here, the WHOLE of everything would be nothing, and would always be nothing.
@@gsp3428 Perhaps it isn't even possible for there to be nothing. Even the idea of no thing is dependent on some thing. IOW nothing is meaningless without something for there to not be. The fact is that something exists. A good question would be what is it about ourselves that causes us to question our own existence. Go where no one has gone before, the human mind/brain, the final frontier.
That's not what he said. He said nothing is not mandatory (because we exist) so there seems to always be the possibility of something. So you cant have nothing. Still it isn't a very satisfying answer. Its more of a logic puzzle move.
We exist and are part of this Something for a very short time and then we are gone from this Reality or Something. We forget about how miraculous and strange it is about our lives even randomly coming into existence and then our leaving without any control over being born into the world or dying and leaving it. Religion for me is feeling how incredible it is that we are and were part of this Something. Don't most people believe that Nature or the Universe is incredible?
The fact that *I* am here and my senses inform me that everyone else is here also is absolute proof that there is not nothing behind all this. If I say that there is nothing beyond myself and my perceptions, then there is a possibility that that could have truth in that statement. Could there have been a time there was nothing and now we have 'something'? Again I say no because there had to have been resources from which to build the 'something'. If I want an oak chair and in its present place where I would like it to be there was nothing, I would need the resource of an oak tree to provide the increased probability for the chair...it cannot come out of nothingness. I absolutely love these conversations because I have Aphantasia and cannot create a picture of an object in my mind...I have to construct it from *nothing.* But in reality it is not nothing. My mind automatically breaks down observations into its component parts and I must draw from the myriad of parts to make and image in my mind which for me right now anyway is an impossibility. As Einstein is quoted to have said, "You cannot solve a problem with the same mindset that created it." I need external input (a different mindset) to help me do that by my asking many questions regarding the quality of the proposed image. And still it is not an image. At best it is a drawing or a sketch on the visual scale but has very intricate details depending on how many questions I ask and the quality of the answers. Because of my aphantasia my reality is a Conscious Construct.
Sometimes when laying in bed at night I think about the possibility of nothing having ever existed. When the implications hit me I get a burst of anxiety and dread that I forces me out of bed. Then I pace around like a crazy person for a minute and distract myself before trying to go back to bed.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
'Nothing' can stop me watching this fantastic channel. 😉 If the space between subatomic particles is considered as 'Nothing'? Then 'Nothing' plays its part in the fundamentals of creation and matter. That 'Nothing' is something, in the purpose it plays.
Newtonian physics ... is actually Universal Functions ... based on his observation 300 years ago that the Universe & Life are like a watch (function) composed of parts(functions) that require a Watchmaker (intelligence) to make & assemble .. for them to ... work (function). Everything from the quantum to the cosmic level are functions. Space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy .... of the Universe ... are Functions. The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System .... or ... Function. Universal Functions ... simply means everything is a function interacting with functions, being processed by functions ... or ... processing functions. Science is a method (function) created by Man (a Function) to explain natural phenomena (functions) based entirely of fixed Laws of Nature(functions). Mathematics ... created from the Mind of an Intelligence .... has the function of either describing processes or functions .. or ... trying to explain how a process works using abstract functions. Numbers ... are abstract functions ... with a purpose, properties, form, processes & design. Anything that has clear purpose, form, properties, processes & design ... are functions ... and can only be made (physically/abstract) by an intelligence. The Theory of Everything is .... Universal Functions.
well this nothing would still be spacetime, true nothing would not even have a single dimension or physics laws or whatever. I kind of feel like true nothing is a paradox and that's why it doesn't exist. But at the same time there seem to be plenty of paradoxes (for example what was there before time, or what event lead to the creation of time) in our Universe so maybe i'm wrong.
@@FabianReschke Reg. "what was there before time" - if you admit to time having started, it's literally nonsensical to ask about 'before time'. 'Before' requires time ...
@@bartvenken7138 But the point is, wouldn't the creation of time also require time? That's the paradox i'm talking about. Some process musst have initiated time. Space also, in what medium was the big bang? I mean there was no space for it to take place in. Or to go even further: We have space now, but what does space expand into? Is there a space-space? Those are all paradoxes to me. You can always logically ask: "whats beyond"?
“ let’s say we get to the basic field formula explain everything but doesn’t explain “ WHY” existence IS what it is , in first place . Mind blowing ! What an Epiphany!
1:34 the human fear of comprehending “nothingness” is an intellectual sequelae to be sure, but I contend equally it is the gnawing almost unconscious fear of being buried alive.
In Taoism, there's the dualist concept of Non-being ( _wu_ ) and Being ( _you_ ) which together form the monist concept of Tao, illustrated with ☯ ( _taijitu_ ). The half representing Non-being contains a dot representing (the potential for) Being and vice versa. One interpretation is that Non-being has the potential to transform into Being, and Being the potential to transform into Non-being. More or less the same argument as was made in this discussion, about possibilities. Two things, one origin, but different in name; Together, a profound and far-reaching power, continuously changing into each other; the door to all things.
I think we have to get away from using words, which often create ideas and "things" that do not exist. The idea of "possibilities" for example is created in the mind but has no correlate in reality. We do this frequently throughout science and philosophy and it leads us to ask questions, and create conclusions, that have no relevance. This side effect of intelligence does allow us to "imagine" how things are or might be, but we have to be careful not to let it lead us to questions that have no answer, nor to conclusions that have no validity.
4:30 Timelessness (~nothing) and immutability (~something) of the physical state of the system are different concepts, since even immutability is a manifestation of a kind of causality, since it requires a certain amount of work on the system to ensure the fulfillment of the condition for the existence of its immutability. Not to mention the evolution of the system. For some reason, it seems that some spontaneous process (for example, to survive), which is "given to us for free", is not the result of hard work - even if the source (root cause) has not yet been discovered. By the way, physicists avoid using the concept of root cause (although they believe in causality), despite the fact that: "All thoughts that have huge consequences are always simple." (Leo Tolstoy).
Since we observe "something", "nothing" is hypothetical, and cannot be taken as normative or as the default case. Actually, "nothing" would have no default status as such, unless "something" were possible, meaning there isn't just "nothing".
And this is a good point. All it would take is some kind of fluctuation. I try to idealize it as no space/time, no quantum jittering. But that demands a purity that may well break, and it could be almost infinitesimal, and yet produce something. What astounds me is the logic of the universe that I reside in, the math so to speak. This, from absolute nothing, or even the fluctuation of such a state.
I’ve been thinking about this fundamental question for years now and the more new-age spiritual/ contradictory religious answers I get only fuels my desperate need for the answer even further.
@@waldwassermann I agree that operating life through an innate sense of deep unconditional love for your fellow human is the best way to be human, but that still doesn’t answer the fundamental question at hand sadly. If all of scripture is indeed true, who/ what created the omnipresent God with an interface in which love occurs within? Its hard to wholeheartedly believe anything in this dog eat dog world of late stage capitalism where an Atheist and a scientist can create spiritual doubt around every corner. Especially individuals with the propensity for critical thought. I haven’t experienced unconditional altruistic compassion from a stranger in years now and it makes it really hard to uphold such faith in my heart without doubt.
We humans are bound by our ability to comprehend the incomprehensible. We call states "nothing" or "something" - when the universe(s) is far more clever than that. We have not found the lexicon (is it a formula or a TOE?) to begin to comprehend what all of it means, the why and the how. I think our thinking lacks gradient meaning and this will take time to develop. Perhaps nothing is something; and something is really nothing. What if?
This describes the quantum nature of reality. At any moment a pink unicorn can pop into existence. The universe must be made of order because know one understands.
My sense is nothingness is interwoven within something-ness. between every thought there is a point where one has finished the previous thought but has not yet picked up the next thought. Where are we then? Nowhere. Nothingness. If we speak slowly this gap is found between syllables, even between each letter in any word. Just like saying when does the heart rest? Between each beat. Nothingness is found everywhere.
When there is no cause to actualize one particular reality or possibility over any other, all possibilities obtain. So, the first “thing” to exist is infinity, or a superposition of all possibilities. Since God is the “uncaused cause,” this infinity may be God. Rather than nothingness being the result of a lack of causes, everything is actually the result, and this everything may exist right now but be separated into different parallel universes in a multiverse of every possible universe. Change in our universe, rather than consisting of only our universe, may be the rapid transition through trillions of parallel universes every second, each universe existing eternally and being uncaused, the superposition of everything being static in an eternal Now, which would be God’s perspective, hence why God would be static and unchanging, the only thing changing being one’s perspective of infinity.
@@drybeanburrito *"When there is no cause to actualize one particular reality or possibility over any other, all possibilities obtain. So, the first “thing” to exist is infinity, or a superposition of all possibilities."* ... Existence demonstrates a pattern of evolution moving from simplicity to complexity. Positing _"Infinity from the get-go!"_ violates what we empirically observe. *"... all possibilities obtain"* ... A member of the set called "all possibilities" would necessarily be the possibility that God does not exist, or the possibility that there is no superposition of possibilities.
When we talk about mathematical models, we already assume existence of a system of entities and operations on them that are irrefutable. All search for knowledge is to solve problems we face, and it implies action on the surrounding environment, specifically PLANTS, from wich 100% of all what causes us to think (food, including water, and air we breathe) originate. Hence, the most fundamental task of all search for knowledge MUST be to interpret digits as unique particles and the 4 basic arithmetic operations as interactions among them, and then derive growth of plants as functiins of those particle interactions inside the earth to compose seeds, water and fertilizers, the only 3 variables for description of all phenomena in the entire universe. Once this is done we only would have to implement that knowledge to sustain life function eternally. That renders search for knowledge a FINITE TASK and life thereafter would simply be looking for ways to terraform and populate all celestial entities (moons, planets, stars,...) using that knowledge; and nobody would even have the time thereafter to speculate on such purpose free, idle absurdities like this one, as we'd then be busy designing how to retrace all the beings that ever moved on this earth and relocating them to celestial entities.
Peirce's realm of possibility is a state of Oneness or undifferentiated being. It's the differentiation that brings 'things' into being. So the big bang or whatever brings 'things' into being, including the laws that govern them, not being itself? It's an error to think that our world IS being? Within the human being, the Subject is the the realm of possibility?
It's impossible for there to be nothing, because there is no absolute "nothing" that could ever follow upon all the "something" that there is. Why? Because such a "nothing" would inescapably be subsequent to all the "something" that there is. As something "subsequent" this "nothing" cannot help being "something." Even as an absence of what was, "absence" is something. That's if we're talking about the possibility of absolute nothingness following upon the existence of everything. Now here's the interesting question: can pretty much the same be posited of the notion of "nothing" preceding everything? Can any "nothing" that was "prelude" every truly have been "nothing"?
You have exposed the logical paradox this question represents. Infinity as with true zero, nothingness(null/void) however one deems to define it.... can both be eternally approached but never reached, so both necessarily and logically exist, yet don't exist.
@@David.C.Velasquez Yes, Davido, these big questions, are laden with paradox. How can there ever be truly nothing? Yet, at the same time, how can there be something? How did the universe come into existence? How can there be trillions of galaxies? It doesn't make sense. Yet it does. It seems to. Is it an illusion? Life is paradoxical. We pop into existence and we pop out of existence. Perhaps that the greatest paradox of all?
@@leeqvickers Of course "we pop into existence and we pop out of existence" is far from verifiable. The only way you could prove it would be by doing it, but then that's a non-starter, isn't it! If you could pop out of existence and then come back and demonstrate conclusively (somehow) that you had ceased existing, the statement would be verified...I suppose, but the natural objection would be, "So if you stopped existing, then how could a you who didn't exist even come back?"
@@leeqvickers Indeed, and just imagine, with so many questions left unanswered, there remain questions still unspoken. Gaps and artifacts of human language, pose barriers to truly communicating such abstract concepts, but we can take some solace in the brute fact, that we exist eternally, even if only in the platonic sense. I choose to believe in the block multiverse, and that the being we may refer to as god, is the eternally infinite omniverse itself. The paradoxical superposition of everything and nothing. Take care, fellow seeker of truth.
@@Earstolisten I think there is an existential factor with this question, that isn't satisfied by the Anthropic Principle, but I do agree that the question's premise is logically paradoxical.
If there was nothingness, there would be nothing from which existence could come yet there is existence. Nothingness is a meaningless concept without some thing to not exist.
If I parked my car in an unlawful spot, and a cop asked why my car was there, I don't think if would be helpful for me to say, 'My car had to be there because if I'd parked it anywhere else then it wouldn't be sitting where it is right now--yet there it is.'
@@stephenevans9248 You could travel a perfect straight line through space forever and end up at the same spot after a long time because space itself could be curved. Thats what I meant by "round".
Maybe this fixation of "Why not Nothing?" is actually our innate fear and dread of death and personal non-existence. So we extend it to all of Existence and not just our puny little lives. It haunts and influences us on a fundamental level.
@Ouga Bouga Yes, isn't that weird? Existence is still there, but our personal Existence is gone. Talk about the peak existential crisis! We can't escape Existence, but we can't hang onto it either. The ultimate paradox.
It is a miracle that a person is alive and can have consciousness. A question and fear of nothingness generates from the limited and “logical” conclusion that when we die there is nothingness. Since there is no proof of an afterlife or no proof that there isn’t an afterlife, I believe the question of nothingness borders on the absurd. Our narrow vantage point of understanding Science and God underscores an immutable truth; we exist and so does the universe!!!!!
this is why i say over and over again. it dont matter what the reason is you have to admit that existance itself proves that nothingness has never existed. i do believe people serious about philosophy have to admit that. i feel less worried about death knowing this now then i used to be. did we exist before is a different question but it might be the same answer. "nothingness has never existed" the words themselves when we say them have their own meaning and can be thought of in 2 different ways. if nothing existed then you are already saying that something exists and hence then all things must exist. i thought about this since i was a kid, that it seems that as soon as nothing exists then everything exists and there is no other way it could have been. i felt really happy when learning that quantum physics supported this because to me it makes me feel i knew the answer the whole time sorta. does anyone else know what i am saying or am i just crazy? and think what this means is something was always here without a beginning meaning that god could exist but in what way idk i often thought of it as love bcause what else would care to come together and support all life. what i am saying is that i believe there is atleast a force that supports us and possibly even guides evolution itself but whatever it is there is no doubt it or everything has always existed.
Nothing By Matthew Sizemore What is Nothing can anyone say? Is it like night or like the day? Why question Nothing I must ask? Answering it seems the ultimate task. Where would Nothing begin & where would it end? No ruler is to be labeled as Nothing's friend. The thought of Nothing hurts my head. Sometimes at night as I lay in my bed. To ponder Nothing means it can't be. Yet the thought of it never leaves.
He claims possibilities do have to exist. "If nothingness is possible then it would still been possible that there have been something." But why? In true nothingness, there are even no possibilities. What he argues is only valid from our perspective where nothingness is just a construct. But it doesn't answer why there is not nothing. For this to answer, you need to argue from the nothingness' POV. And that's impossible, makes no sense. Therefore, the question can never be answered.
if "nothing" then there wouldn't be an observer/knower of it. there fore it would not be "known". only "something" can be observed/known. hence our current dilemma. "nothing" only exists as an abstract thought/as the opposite of "something".
For me, this question is more like: Given all the possible ways reality could have been, maybe including nothingness, why is it the way it is rather than any other way? It seems to me that the only satisfactory answers are either: There is only one way reality could have been. Or, all possible ways are somehow instantiated. Although they are kind of the same answer.
@@firstaidsack And why not this one? Given that you ask, In my (especulative) opinion the concept of "nothingness" is a human invention. It mah look intuitive for many philosophers, but it is physically impossible. Because the question itself is wrong, rather than how can we have something out of nothingness what you have to ask is the opposite: How can be get nothingness out of something? If what we know is that something exist (you can't deny it) how could you make it disappear completely, either forward in time or backward in time, it is just an impossibilty. It is like talking about a unicorn with two horns. So now you will ask, and why this something rather than other something? Well, the most simple interpretation of QM (The Mutliverse) says that everything that can exist indeed exists, by neccesity, in superposition with everything else. And from there to the anthropic principle there is only one logical step. Note I said the "simplest" interpretation because (in few words) The Multiverse = Quantum Mechanics minus the collapse of the wavefunction. . Maybe the right answer is much more complex (probably), but there you have a possible way to "this something" to start with. Also, if we ask the reverse question (going backwards in time as I suggested) note that as the age of the universe approaches zero its energy approaches infinite, because the Hesisemberg uncertainty principle. And that's something that I think resembles the big bang. True that many pieces of the puzzle are still missing, but I think it's better than nothing.
@@javiej I'm not arguing for nothingness as an actual possibility. I'm trying to take all real possibilities into account and ask why, out of all of them, whether there are 2, 10, 100, billion, or infinitely many alternatives, why is this reality that we inhabit real and not any other? I already accept the many-worlds interpretation as the most reasonable interpretation of QM, but there might be other possible multiverses with different Quantum Physics. But yeah, the many-worlds interpretation would fit with the notion that all possibilities are somehow realized. And I think that's probably what is ultimately the case.
I always thought "nothing" was a sound. A totally organised syntax. Babies know it when they dance to the rythym of sound created by random heuristics. Makes one wonder how they managed to pick out that beat from all the other noise in mundane industrial clutter. Or if in meditation the teacher asks if you can hear it and your the only one who is honest about not hearing anything at all. That is the "nothing" sound. Not forced to be made into something by you. Instead it is already organised and available to be rediscovered by you.
We have stars, planets and galaxies in space. There's lots of nothingness out there, but it's really not actually nothing. There's gas, dust and other bits of matter floating around emptier areas of the universe, but you can't see it very easily. If we removed all the stars, planets, galaxies, gas, dust and other bits we'd still have a whole lot of empty space and that ain't nothing. We'd still have "The Emptiness".
@@leeqvickers Absolutely. The question needs to be asked what is keeping the planets and the stars in their position and orbit? Air looks like nothing until the wind blows 100mph.
@@elonever.2.071 Right ! So, Never UnderStimate the ABILITY AND POWER OF NO-THING😂hahaha ! The Ability and Power of The invisible , immaterial " THOUGHT, SPIRIT OR MIND! WE have to admit and recognized that there EXIST and INVOLVE an Active Intelligent Thought/Mind OR " THE COSMIC MIND" that Produced, ORGANIZED and Arrange the perfect Organic COSMIC BODY OR UNIVERSE ! ============= How does Nothingness CONVERTED OR TRANSFORMED itself into "SOMETHING", I mean, was the Nothingness pregnant and gave Birth of/ to a "BABY UNIVERSE"?? 😂 How did or how does NOTHINGNESS transfer from its Previous STATES to its New existing State ?? What is on your MIND/ THOUGHT ? NOTHING !! Not a Thing
0:55. The presumption of the question, Why not nothing?, is 'absolute nothingness' is a primary and 'somethingness' is secondary, derivative. The presumption is that 'nothingness' is not contingent but existence is. 'Absolute, absolute nothingness', not even space. Nonexistence. Existence came from nonexistence. That has the virtue of being simple. Existence couldn't possibly just exist. How does existence come from nonexistence? The answer has to be either quantum mechanics or God. If quantum mechanics exists, wouldn't it be in existence? Can non-existent quantum mechanics be the cause of existence and existing quantum mechanics? Time. Time. 'Absolute, absolute nothingness'---does it contain time? Now we need to make a distraction. 'Absolute nothingness' contains time. IE, is in time. 'Absolute, absolute nothingness' is not in time. No. No. Just switch that around. Having that straight, we turn to God. Some say that he smuggle a little quantum mechanics into nonexistence and used it to pop existence into being----or pop being into existence. Now, leaving the multiverse aside, is existence the universe? And is the universe nature? Hold those questions in mind. Existence must have came from nonexistence. We are all agreed on that because existence just existing is too stupid. Existence, the world, was created out of one of the nothingnesss. That makes the world an artifact. The world is nature. Nature is an artifact. Artifacts are not natural. Something that is not natural is unnatural. So a created nature is unnatural. Nature's unnatural. It's a little weird at first but, you'll get used to thinking this way.
Void is everywhere. If Every energy compres at one place everywhere void exist. Even compressed energy exist in void. Whatever the people are seeing everything are existing in void. What people are unable to see also existing In void.
The thought of nothing is interesting however, let us not confuse darkness ( no light ) with nothing ( no atoms ). It is impossible for energy to come into existence from nothing. The thought of nothing stirs the imagination however, our senses are conditioned for a physical world ( mechanical, solar system, galaxies, etc. ). I prefer to look upon the cosmos as an eternal-ever-changing and evolving universe. The thought of nothing is a dismal place where fashion does not exist. Marshall Wright
The problem we have is that we don’t know whether absolute nothing can exist . I would agree that energy cannot come form absolute nothing . Maybe energy is eternal .
When I have arguments with my partner he has always something to say and that is annoying but I can easily handle however when he has nothing to say…..very difficult to handle. So my point nothing can be very powerful 😊
I understand human death, planetary cycles, the death of stars even the death of our univers if there are more than one ! But if our univers is the only one, i cannot understand its death leaving absolutely nothing else. Absolutely nothing is unimaginable.
There is what is and isn’t what isn’t. The fact that there is something negates the possibility that there is nothing in the sense that Robert is conceptualising. Where is he proposing the existence of this nothingness? If he was to put it before or after the universe, then this universe itself would be a something within this nothing. The very fact that there is something means that a nothing must hold a relation to this something and that relation breaks apart Roberts concept of nothingness.
From the fact that there is a world it doesn't follow that Absolute Nothingness is not necessary. Perhaps Absolute Blankness is necessary even if there is a world. Hence existence is still a mystery, or if you prefer, a miracle.
Consider the number zero. It is as fuzzy as the word nothing but perhaps manifestly more important because if it did not all equations would not exist. No one can argue that all equations left rectified equal zero. So zero, as poorly understood as it is is the foundation of all expression of equality, this side of the equation equals the other side. So without zero we loose all the scalar relations. Of course I might reply to that, well.. what about RPN notation where there is no equal sign, just an operator and some eigenvalues state, . Of course operating on the space of the first vector assumes H maps that to another vector space but we know it might be the null set so once again, we need nothing. And for those that like a tiny further problem conside a proof why zero is either even or odd and what the answer to that question implies with regard to a discussion if the properties of nothing. If nothing has even one additional property, I submit it is then not nothing q e.d. Cheers red
"Absolute nothing" as a "state without any possibilities" is deterministic, like the number zero. It is a scientific fact that at the quantum level nature is probabilistic . If the starting state was "absolute nothing" it couldn't possibly bear fruit to anything but more "absolute nothing" We must accept that nature rejected "absolute nothing" infinitely long ago. .
Yes, interesting idea Bryan. But it's a paradox which goes: 1. There was nothing. Then something happened so... 2. Obviously the nothing that existed developed into something, so it always had potential to do so, right? 3. But saying "Nothing had potential" in normal usage means nothing did not have potential. Hence the paradox.
You may be right. Nothingness could have been possible before this observable universe and its laws of physics. After big bang happened and our universe came into existence, nothing stopped existing forever
The problem that I don't have is with the human brain capacity of imagining anything under the Sun, even things that do not exist at all. The problem that I really have is with the humongous cognitive impotence ( = cognitively ineffectual ) that people have, like in this conversation here in this material.
If I ponder true nothingness for long enough, I feel as if I almost get a glimpse or essence of something, I don't what it is but seems real at the time and may be totally delusional, but as I get older and ponder these deepest of questions I have to say I find traditional physics less and less satisfying in answering these questions and tend to lean more to Eastern mysticism whatever, simulation or holographic theory etc. And still to me, the ultimate question is what constitutes consciousness? In all these wonderful videos I have never seen anything that comes close to answering this.
The tricky part of thinking on nothing is you have to deny your own existence before. You have to find yourselfs in deeps of ambigious nothing which is psychically pretty demanding. Then you´ll see interesting things: Nothing isn´t unambiguous. Nothing doesn´t have an objective observer. Nothing isn´t negative (like a hole) but rather neutral (like a point with no properties) Nothing can be part of any number of other nothings. Nothing can include any number of other nothings. Nothing isn´t less than nothing. (puny english!) No any real time. An "unconditional existence" is such entity in which nothings give difference and context to each other. Two nothings can only differ by their position in "unconditional existence". The rest of so called reality are just static illusions occuring in various cuts and dimensional reductions of "unconditional existences". (Laws and constants of physics are just conditions necessary for emergence of an illusion ) Essence of reality may be huge, but simple. Logic is still valid in reasoning on nothing.
Oh, maybe now I get it. It is thought that 'nothing' is simpler than 'something' and that therefore it is a primary. Simpleness is not contingent, in other words, but the complexity of existence, of nature, of having a nature must be contingent. So the thinking is, at one time nonexistence existed. Why not nothing? Why couldn't nonexistence exist? What would the opposite of this be? Existence exists? Existence exists. Nooo. That couldn't be! Being being---impossible. Nature natural? Too stupid. Stuff has got to come from somewhere. That is what rationality demands.
The "beautiful idea" that all possibilities get to be realized commits us to ontological inflation (plenitude), which many will find objectionable. The doctrine of plenitude gives us a picture of a universe that is so crowded that it collapses under its on ontological weight, thus creating a metaphysical black hole. Perhaps the idea is not so beautiful after all!
This is a longer comment, so sorry about that. I disagree that possibilities (possibility for something) exist even in nothing. Possibilities exist in the human mind as a description of what-if scenarios, and humans wouldn’t be there in nothing. If there are possibilities that exist out there outside the mind, could someone point them out? Where are they. Until then, are a matter of faith and can’t be argued with or experimented on. To assert that possibilities/possible worlds exist even in nothing is just an unfounded assumption or assertion. We’ve been discussing the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” for thousands of years without ever coming to an intellectually satisfying, consensus answer. The two choices seem to be: 1. Something has always been here. 2. Something hasn’t always been here. Choice 1 is possible but lacks explanatory power. That is, with choice 1 as the answer to the WSRTN question, there’s always something (either the stuff of the universe or the stuff that created the stuff in the universe) left unexplained. For me, that’s intellectually unsatisfying. I think this is the main reason humans have been thinking about this questio without coming to a consensus. So, that leaves choice 2. With this choice, if something hasn’t always been here, nothing must have been here before it. However, we have always ruled out starting with nothing (choice 2) because of the ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) idea. But, I think there’s a way to start with nothing and not violate this principle. If we start with nothing and end up with something, and because you can’t change nothing into something, the only way this could be is if that “nothing” was somehow actually a “something” in disguise. Another way to say that you start with "nothing" and end up with “something” is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1, so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking, "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". In other words, the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". So, “something" doesn't come out of "nothing". Instead, the situation we used to think of as "nothing" is actually a "something" if we could see through its disguise. How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties zero or more things together into a new unit whole and existent entity. An example of tying zero things together is the empty set. But, what is grouped, and how much is grouped don’t matter as long as there is a grouping, a new unit whole/existent entity is created. This grouping is manifested as a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping into a new unit whole or existent entity. The grouping idea isn’t new. Others such as Aristotle, Leibniz, etc. have used the words “unity” or “one” instead of “grouping”, but the meaning is the same. After all, what does a grouping into a new unit whole do if not create a unity or a one? Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, be the whole amount or entirety of the situation, or state of affairs. That nothingness defines the situation completely. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. That "nothing" is it, and it is the all. A whole-amount/entirety/“the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. “Nothing” defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. This new property is inherent to “nothing” and cannot be removed to get a more pure “nothing”. This means that “nothing” that lacks the property of being a grouping is not possible and thus the “something” that we previously, and incorrectly, called “nothing” is necessary. This isn’t new, but at least, this is a possible mechanism for why it’s necessary. Some other points are: 1. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Humans are stuck having to define "nothing" in our existent minds (i.e., "somethings"), but "nothing" itself doesn't have this constraint. Whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of how we define it or talk about it. This is also why just talking about "nothing" does not reify it. Our talking about "nothing" has no impact on whether or not "nothing" itself exists. 2. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "now" (i.e., “now something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now". Thanks.
Once we have experienced anything at all... which some of us seem to believe we have ...(and; says DesCartes, isn't that belief some kind of something?) ... having that perception ... no matter how much of an illusion may be ...we must admit that "absolute nothingness forever past, present and future" ... including total lack of illusion ... is no longer a option ... and because of its future existence, its eternal non-existence never was an actual possibility ... and so ... even if there ever had been any potential for eternal non-existence... pure nothingness forever and always ... past and future ... too late ... that particular potential missed the boat!
The notion seems to be a philosophical loop. Somethingness gives rise to the possibility of nothingness, not the other way round, imo. The type of nothingness being discussed precludes itself. In this way, in order to achieve nothingness, something must be taken away, which negates nothing. In short, there must be something in order to have anything at all, including nothing.
@@alexgonzo5508 it is the No-thing that manifests all things, the void/space for experience to take place in. Infinity is boundless, if you can’t draw a line around it and make it into an object then it cannot be a “thing”.
@@ProjectMoff Yes, a good way to say it is that 'nothing' is equal to zero mathematically. Within zero are at least two infinities (negative and positive infinities). These infinities are perfectly balanced to cancel each other out of 'existence'. When things (numbers) manifest out of zero they always come in pairs (+ matter, - antimatter), in this way everything is kept in balance inside and outside of existence (-1 +1 = 0 = -1 +1), this is also the reason for quantum entanglement. The laws of Logic are more fundamental than physics itself, all of physics obey the laws of logic (not the other way around). Thus 1 and 0 (natural units), something and nothing are elements of universal primordial logic at the root of existence and has always existed in one way or another (separate or together, as 0 or as -1 and +1). The quantum foam is the intersection between nothing and something, always active. Together with the laws of mathematics, and logic, one must incorporate probability theory as well to begin to get a grasp of what we are even inquiring about. The logic of the parts are clear to me, what i have trouble grasping is what allows the universe to move (why can a particle change it's state, or what allows it to change positions in space?). Why does it have that freedom, which is the fundamental aspect of absolute time.
Anything with a nonzero probability of occurring most likely happens given what we know now about quantum physics and cosmology etc. Nothing is a human concept for null or empty values but actual nothingness is not possible. I mean it's pretty straightforward just prima facia. Nothingness is not possible.
If there were nothing there would also be no nothing because if there were nothing, that would be something. This is the antipothedes to Russel's paradox, i.e. dose the set of all sets contain itself? If it is the set of all sets then it must contain itself. Nothing must not exist because if it did ot would be something.
You sometimes wonder what kind of channel this exactly is. Nothing is not frightening, unless there is something that allows you to ponder about it, and then there is already something. So then it is more about the loss or regression rather then anything else. Let's not take the joke too far.
A single condition of "Nonexistence" is not possible. The lowest one can regress is the timeless juxtaposition of *Existence* and *Nonexistence.* ... Anything beyond this archetypal, two-point spectrum is inconceivable. Conceivability requires _something_ that is able to be conceived. "Nothing" does not meet the criterion.
@@kos-mos1127 *"Isn't a juxtaposition between Existence and Nonexistence just Possibility."* ... No, it's the lowest possible conceivable state from which all possibilities can emerge. Any proposition of a lower state would be inconceivable (without possibility). *"That from a scientific perspective is an empty Cosmos."* ... An "empty cosmos" would not be a cosmos by definition. It would be "Nonexistence" errantly defined as the cosmos (which is a "something").
Maybe the trouble is that nothing _is_ something. And something _could never be_ nothing. Seems like playing with logic and word games. Which seems to mean, whatever forms of reason or logic or language are required to understand this problem, we don't have it.
@@longcastle4863 *"Maybe the trouble is that nothing is something. And something could never be nothing."* ... That is not a logical statement. You have equivocated "something" with "nothing" rendering both conditions meaningless. When everything we observe follows a dichotomic template (quark-antiquark, matter-space, positive-negative, attraction-repulsion, love-hate, black-white, life-death, atheism-theism) it is illogical to not apply this same template to "Existence-Nonexistence." *"Seems like playing with logic and word games."* ... Words are what we use to communicate. Any information that cannot be communicated via words does not qualify as "information." *"Which seems to mean, whatever forms of reason or logic or language are required to understand this problem, we don't have it."* ... I don't find myself struggling to communicate the information surrounding Existence and Nonexistence. Even though Nonexistence is *inconceivable* [Nothing (no thing) available to conceive], we can still assign the number "0" to offer conceivability via proxy. ... That's the beauty of combining logic with conceivability (logical conceivability)! ... _Love ya, man!_
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6…. yes nothing has its place. Everything isn’t always on all the time either. Things are on and then off and then on again and then off again. So there are two nothings
Keep doing these interviews😍
He has been
And keep repeating the reruns until the internet breaks down?
@@grijzekijker until he gets....
...Closer to Truth
😵💫🤯
I like how he danced around his conclusion which can simply be stated that "everything exists.' And he's right, in my opinion. The most beautiful idea I think I've encountered is the idea that every possibility and impossibility, every permutation of reality and lack thereof all exists in some manner. Everything is realized. Reality is both infinite and boundless.
Is that true? No idea. However, it's really an attractive idea....but we still have to chop wood and carry water :-)
You still need a logically-prior grounding for mere possibilities, which don’t ground themselves.
What accounts for the fact that all possibilities are realized? They’re deriving their existence from something (logically) beneath them. Some bedrock layer of existence granting reality to these possibilities.
There are a variety of reasons for attributing qualitative features to this bedrock. And for thinking that it’s unique, indivisible, and “pure actuality.”
🎶Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
You gotta have something if you wanna be with me.🎶
Not tryna be no hero,
'Cause that zero, is way too cold for me.
Always liked that tune but can't recall the singer?
@@steveng8727 Billy Preston. ruclips.net/video/8HqyEHqEYho/видео.html
Billy Preston
There couldn't possibly be "nothing forever," because "nothing" precludes "forever."
The Word speaks all words.
Had the same thought and the same physiological response to the idea of nothingness when I was a child.
Mr. Kuhn, greatest question of all time. I wish to answer, but I'm not sure. Best question to think deeply.
If there truly were nothing, why would any other possibilities (e. g. something) exist? One of the best interviews on the subject...
So not to be alone... Big Bang = Genesis 2:18... it's all about Companionship hence why the message of Jesus is Love.
@@waldwassermann what?? loll
@@waldwassermann If starting out was nothing, than there would be no God to make the universe we live in, therefore no big bang.
So that doesn't make sense, and seems very improbably.
I think, maybe, that there was always something, but not in the reality, dimension, we live in.
Maybe it was awareness from the potentialness of nothing to something, or maybe it was consciousness, in what which formed all of our souls. (Maybe linking all of us, to one. 'conscious')
Which many could call it God, Jesus, whatever, basically the definition of 'God', at least from OUR perspective.
In conclusion, something was always there because of the potential of something, if there was no potential of something then none of us, or anything for that matter wouldn't be here, the WHOLE of everything would be nothing, and would always be nothing.
Because like he said for it to truly be nothing, nothingness has has to be necessary. But we know it not to be true because something exists.
@@ilyaprorok7 exactly. ^
This O'Connor made a very good point that if nothing had ever been the case then there would have been nothing from which something came forth.
Hmm...yes, of course!
Not only could there be nothing, there should be nothing. There shouldnt be anything at all, but there is. Must be an ultimate explanation for that.
@@gsp3428 Perhaps it isn't even possible for there to be nothing. Even the idea of no thing is dependent on some thing. IOW nothing is meaningless without something for there to not be. The fact is that something exists. A good question would be what is it about ourselves that causes us to question our own existence. Go where no one has gone before, the human mind/brain, the final frontier.
That's not what he said. He said nothing is not mandatory (because we exist) so there seems to always be the possibility of something. So you cant have nothing.
Still it isn't a very satisfying answer. Its more of a logic puzzle move.
@@chrisrace744 Go to 1:44
We exist and are part of this Something for a very short time and then we are gone from this Reality or Something. We forget about how miraculous and strange it is about our lives even randomly coming into existence and then our leaving without any control over being born into the world or dying and leaving it. Religion for me is feeling how incredible it is that we are and were part of this Something. Don't most people believe that Nature or the Universe is incredible?
The fact that *I* am here and my senses inform me that everyone else is here also is absolute proof that there is not nothing behind all this. If I say that there is nothing beyond myself and my perceptions, then there is a possibility that that could have truth in that statement. Could there have been a time there was nothing and now we have 'something'? Again I say no because there had to have been resources from which to build the 'something'. If I want an oak chair and in its present place where I would like it to be there was nothing, I would need the resource of an oak tree to provide the increased probability for the chair...it cannot come out of nothingness.
I absolutely love these conversations because I have Aphantasia and cannot create a picture of an object in my mind...I have to construct it from *nothing.* But in reality it is not nothing. My mind automatically breaks down observations into its component parts and I must draw from the myriad of parts to make and image in my mind which for me right now anyway is an impossibility. As Einstein is quoted to have said, "You cannot solve a problem with the same mindset that created it." I need external input (a different mindset) to help me do that by my asking many questions regarding the quality of the proposed image. And still it is not an image. At best it is a drawing or a sketch on the visual scale but has very intricate details depending on how many questions I ask and the quality of the answers.
Because of my aphantasia my reality is a Conscious Construct.
Sometimes when laying in bed at night I think about the possibility of nothing having ever existed. When the implications hit me I get a burst of anxiety and dread that I forces me out of bed. Then I pace around like a crazy person for a minute and distract myself before trying to go back to bed.
you're not alone in that feeling, bro. But hey, you're with everyone, including me! Relieve from that anxiety fellow human and be human as you are! ;)
listen to Switchfoot - Dare you To Move. You'll feel better!
Same for me. Pacing, hyperventilating, then I snap out of it by finding a distraction. I wonder how many people experience this.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
'Nothing' can stop me watching this fantastic channel. 😉
If the space between subatomic particles is considered as 'Nothing'? Then 'Nothing' plays its part in the fundamentals of creation and matter. That 'Nothing' is something, in the purpose it plays.
There are tons of virtual particles inhabiting that space.
Newtonian physics ... is actually Universal Functions ... based on his observation 300 years ago that the Universe & Life are like a watch (function) composed of parts(functions) that require a Watchmaker (intelligence) to make & assemble .. for them to ... work (function).
Everything from the quantum to the cosmic level are functions.
Space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy .... of the Universe ... are Functions.
The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System .... or ... Function.
Universal Functions ... simply means everything is a function interacting with functions, being processed by functions ... or ... processing functions.
Science is a method (function) created by Man (a Function) to explain natural phenomena (functions) based entirely of fixed Laws of Nature(functions).
Mathematics ... created from the Mind of an Intelligence .... has the function of either describing processes or functions .. or ... trying to explain how a process works using abstract functions.
Numbers ... are abstract functions ... with a purpose, properties, form, processes & design.
Anything that has clear purpose, form, properties, processes & design ... are functions ... and can only be made (physically/abstract) by an intelligence.
The Theory of Everything is .... Universal Functions.
well this nothing would still be spacetime, true nothing would not even have a single dimension or physics laws or whatever. I kind of feel like true nothing is a paradox and that's why it doesn't exist. But at the same time there seem to be plenty of paradoxes (for example what was there before time, or what event lead to the creation of time) in our Universe so maybe i'm wrong.
@@FabianReschke Reg. "what was there before time" - if you admit to time having started, it's literally nonsensical to ask about 'before time'. 'Before' requires time ...
@@bartvenken7138 But the point is, wouldn't the creation of time also require time? That's the paradox i'm talking about. Some process musst have initiated time. Space also, in what medium was the big bang? I mean there was no space for it to take place in. Or to go even further: We have space now, but what does space expand into? Is there a space-space? Those are all paradoxes to me. You can always logically ask: "whats beyond"?
“ let’s say we get to the basic field formula explain everything but doesn’t explain “ WHY” existence IS what it is , in first place . Mind blowing ! What an Epiphany!
Excellent.
1:34 the human fear of comprehending “nothingness” is an intellectual sequelae to be sure, but I contend equally it is the gnawing almost unconscious fear of being buried alive.
In Taoism, there's the dualist concept of Non-being ( _wu_ ) and Being ( _you_ ) which together form the monist concept of Tao, illustrated with ☯ ( _taijitu_ ). The half representing Non-being contains a dot representing (the potential for) Being and vice versa. One interpretation is that Non-being has the potential to transform into Being, and Being the potential to transform into Non-being. More or less the same argument as was made in this discussion, about possibilities.
Two things, one origin,
but different in name;
Together, a profound and far-reaching power,
continuously changing into each other;
the door to all things.
Is there Something that cannot be touch with thought that is why silence is a true teaching.
fascinating discussion
I think we have to get away from using words, which often create ideas and "things" that do not exist. The idea of "possibilities" for example is created in the mind but has no correlate in reality. We do this frequently throughout science and philosophy and it leads us to ask questions, and create conclusions, that have no relevance. This side effect of intelligence does allow us to "imagine" how things are or might be, but we have to be careful not to let it lead us to questions that have no answer, nor to conclusions that have no validity.
All is One.
4:30 Timelessness (~nothing) and immutability (~something) of the physical state of the system are different concepts, since even immutability is a manifestation of a kind of causality, since it requires a certain amount of work on the system to ensure the fulfillment of the condition for the existence of its immutability. Not to mention the evolution of the system.
For some reason, it seems that some spontaneous process (for example, to survive), which is "given to us for free", is not the result of hard work - even if the source (root cause) has not yet been discovered. By the way, physicists avoid using the concept of root cause (although they believe in causality), despite the fact that:
"All thoughts that have huge consequences are always simple." (Leo Tolstoy).
Since we observe "something", "nothing" is hypothetical, and cannot be taken as normative or as the default case. Actually, "nothing" would have no default status as such, unless "something" were possible, meaning there isn't just "nothing".
The fact that there is something probably proves that infinity exists, because all versions of reality exist including a reality with something.
And infinity includes theory of infinity it self out of nothing
Something exists before nothing exists. So conscientiousness must be fundamental.
I believe the two are interrelated.
You made that statement .. now back it up.
Nothing is the only true perfection.
I don't know if it's possible.
And this is a good point. All it would take is some kind of fluctuation. I try to idealize it as no space/time, no quantum jittering. But that demands a purity that may well break, and it could be almost infinitesimal, and yet produce something. What astounds me is the logic of the universe that I reside in, the math so to speak. This, from absolute nothing, or even the fluctuation of such a state.
I’ve been thinking about this fundamental question for years now and the more new-age spiritual/ contradictory religious answers I get only fuels my desperate need for the answer even further.
Jesus is right... the meaning of Life is Love.
@@waldwassermann I agree that operating life through an innate sense of deep unconditional love for your fellow human is the best way to be human, but that still doesn’t answer the fundamental question at hand sadly. If all of scripture is indeed true, who/ what created the omnipresent God with an interface in which love occurs within? Its hard to wholeheartedly believe anything in this dog eat dog world of late stage capitalism where an Atheist and a scientist can create spiritual doubt around every corner. Especially individuals with the propensity for critical thought. I haven’t experienced unconditional altruistic compassion from a stranger in years now and it makes it really hard to uphold such faith in my heart without doubt.
@@waldwassermann probably not for all animals.
We humans are bound by our ability to comprehend the incomprehensible. We call states "nothing" or "something" - when the universe(s) is far more clever than that. We have not found the lexicon (is it a formula or a TOE?) to begin to comprehend what all of it means, the why and the how. I think our thinking lacks gradient meaning and this will take time to develop. Perhaps nothing is something; and something is really nothing. What if?
Even nothing is something
What a brilliant comedy!!!
This describes the quantum nature of reality. At any moment a pink unicorn can pop into existence. The universe must be made of order because know one understands.
Just because nothing isn't necessary doesn't mean it wasn't a possibility.
Do a talk on solipsism
Nothing is impossible becasue we see existence everywhere this cannot emanate from nothing
My sense is nothingness is interwoven within something-ness. between every thought there is a point where one has finished the previous thought but has not yet picked up the next thought. Where are we then? Nowhere. Nothingness. If we speak slowly this gap is found between syllables, even between each letter in any word. Just like saying when does the heart rest? Between each beat. Nothingness is found everywhere.
Until you take a deeper look at how the heart works or how we use speech then you clearly see our minds and body are never really doing nothing
What was the first something to exist?
Nothing ; )
*"What was the first something to exist?"*
... "Existence," the instant a numerical assessment took place.
When there is no cause to actualize one particular reality or possibility over any other, all possibilities obtain. So, the first “thing” to exist is infinity, or a superposition of all possibilities. Since God is the “uncaused cause,” this infinity may be God. Rather than nothingness being the result of a lack of causes, everything is actually the result, and this everything may exist right now but be separated into different parallel universes in a multiverse of every possible universe. Change in our universe, rather than consisting of only our universe, may be the rapid transition through trillions of parallel universes every second, each universe existing eternally and being uncaused, the superposition of everything being static in an eternal Now, which would be God’s perspective, hence why God would be static and unchanging, the only thing changing being one’s perspective of infinity.
@@drybeanburrito *"When there is no cause to actualize one particular reality or possibility over any other, all possibilities obtain. So, the first “thing” to exist is infinity, or a superposition of all possibilities."*
... Existence demonstrates a pattern of evolution moving from simplicity to complexity. Positing _"Infinity from the get-go!"_ violates what we empirically observe.
*"... all possibilities obtain"*
... A member of the set called "all possibilities" would necessarily be the possibility that God does not exist, or the possibility that there is no superposition of possibilities.
The living entity, the entity that can pull itself out of the nothing..the uncatchable living entity.
When we talk about mathematical models, we already assume existence of a system of entities and operations on them that are irrefutable.
All search for knowledge is to solve problems we face, and it implies action on the surrounding environment, specifically PLANTS, from wich 100% of all what causes us to think (food, including water, and air we breathe) originate.
Hence, the most fundamental task of all search for knowledge MUST be to interpret digits as unique particles and the 4 basic arithmetic operations as interactions among them, and then derive growth of plants as functiins of those particle interactions inside the earth to compose seeds, water and fertilizers, the only 3 variables for description of all phenomena in the entire universe.
Once this is done we only would have to implement that knowledge to sustain life function eternally.
That renders search for knowledge a FINITE TASK and life thereafter would simply be looking for ways to terraform and populate all celestial entities (moons, planets, stars,...) using that knowledge; and nobody would even have the time thereafter to speculate on such purpose free, idle absurdities like this one, as we'd then be busy designing how to retrace all the beings that ever moved on this earth and relocating them to celestial entities.
Peirce's realm of possibility is a state of Oneness or undifferentiated being. It's the differentiation that brings 'things' into being. So the big bang or whatever brings 'things' into being, including the laws that govern them, not being itself? It's an error to think that our world IS being? Within the human being, the Subject is the the realm of possibility?
It's impossible for there to be nothing, because there is no absolute "nothing" that could ever follow upon all the "something" that there is. Why? Because such a "nothing" would inescapably be subsequent to all the "something" that there is. As something "subsequent" this "nothing" cannot help being "something." Even as an absence of what was, "absence" is something. That's if we're talking about the possibility of absolute nothingness following upon the existence of everything. Now here's the interesting question: can pretty much the same be posited of the notion of "nothing" preceding everything? Can any "nothing" that was "prelude" every truly have been "nothing"?
"ever truly," not "every truly"
You have exposed the logical paradox this question represents. Infinity as with true zero, nothingness(null/void) however one deems to define it.... can both be eternally approached but never reached, so both necessarily and logically exist, yet don't exist.
@@David.C.Velasquez Yes, Davido, these big questions, are laden with paradox.
How can there ever be truly nothing? Yet, at the same time, how can there be something?
How did the universe come into existence? How can there be trillions of galaxies?
It doesn't make sense. Yet it does. It seems to. Is it an illusion?
Life is paradoxical. We pop into existence and we pop out of existence.
Perhaps that the greatest paradox of all?
@@leeqvickers Of course "we pop into existence and we pop out of existence" is far from verifiable. The only way you could prove it would be by doing it, but then that's a non-starter, isn't it! If you could pop out of existence and then come back and demonstrate conclusively (somehow) that you had ceased existing, the statement would be verified...I suppose, but the natural objection would be, "So if you stopped existing, then how could a you who didn't exist even come back?"
@@leeqvickers Indeed, and just imagine, with so many questions left unanswered, there remain questions still unspoken. Gaps and artifacts of human language, pose barriers to truly communicating such abstract concepts, but we can take some solace in the brute fact, that we exist eternally, even if only in the platonic sense. I choose to believe in the block multiverse, and that the being we may refer to as god, is the eternally infinite omniverse itself. The paradoxical superposition of everything and nothing. Take care, fellow seeker of truth.
But why couldn't there be nothingness without the possibility of something?
Because you’re here to ask that question.
@@Earstolisten I think there is an existential factor with this question, that isn't satisfied by the Anthropic Principle, but I do agree that the question's premise is logically paradoxical.
If there was nothingness, there would be nothing from which existence could come yet there is existence. Nothingness is a meaningless concept without some thing to not exist.
If I parked my car in an unlawful spot, and a cop asked why my car was there, I don't think if would be helpful for me to say, 'My car had to be there because if I'd parked it anywhere else then it wouldn't be sitting where it is right now--yet there it is.'
@@Fuliginosus your analogy only works if your car was parked in a perfect spot.
Great question 🤔🤷
Is there and edge to the universe? If so, is there is nothing outside the edge?
I guess there would always have to be something
Is there something north of the northpole (on earth)? No, because earth is round. So could be the universe (round/curved).
@@josef9733 there would still have to be something outside of a round universe.
@@stephenevans9248 You could travel a perfect straight line through space forever and end up at the same spot after a long time because space itself could be curved. Thats what I meant by "round".
Isn't "nothing" and "nothingness" what happens after we're dead?
Yes ...
No
Agreed. We become nothing, the universe will keep rolling on.
Maybe this fixation of "Why not Nothing?" is actually our innate fear and dread of death and personal non-existence. So we extend it to all of Existence and not just our puny little lives. It haunts and influences us on a fundamental level.
@Ouga Bouga
Yes, isn't that weird? Existence is still there, but our personal Existence is gone. Talk about the peak existential crisis! We can't escape Existence, but we can't hang onto it either. The ultimate paradox.
If there were truly nothing, then there would be no logic or laws that would forbid that something could appear.
It is a miracle that a person is alive and can have consciousness. A question and fear of nothingness generates from the limited and “logical” conclusion that when we die there is nothingness. Since there is no proof of an afterlife or no proof that there isn’t an afterlife, I believe the question of nothingness borders on the absurd. Our narrow vantage point
of understanding Science and God underscores an immutable truth; we exist and so does the universe!!!!!
this is why i say over and over again. it dont matter what the reason is you have to admit that existance itself proves that nothingness has never existed. i do believe people serious about philosophy have to admit that. i feel less worried about death knowing this now then i used to be. did we exist before is a different question but it might be the same answer. "nothingness has never existed" the words themselves when we say them have their own meaning and can be thought of in 2 different ways. if nothing existed then you are already saying that something exists and hence then all things must exist. i thought about this since i was a kid, that it seems that as soon as nothing exists then everything exists and there is no other way it could have been. i felt really happy when learning that quantum physics supported this because to me it makes me feel i knew the answer the whole time sorta. does anyone else know what i am saying or am i just crazy? and think what this means is something was always here without a beginning meaning that god could exist but in what way idk i often thought of it as love bcause what else would care to come together and support all life. what i am saying is that i believe there is atleast a force that supports us and possibly even guides evolution itself but whatever it is there is no doubt it or everything has always existed.
This is the best amswer to the qiestion that you will ever hear.
Nothing
By Matthew Sizemore
What is Nothing can anyone say?
Is it like night or like the day?
Why question Nothing I must ask?
Answering it seems the ultimate task.
Where would Nothing begin & where would it end?
No ruler is to be labeled as Nothing's friend.
The thought of Nothing hurts my head.
Sometimes at night as I lay in my bed.
To ponder Nothing means it can't be.
Yet the thought of it never leaves.
aaaand here we are
or are we?
This is a video about nothing and yet it’s something.
He claims possibilities do have to exist. "If nothingness is possible then it would still been possible that there have been something."
But why? In true nothingness, there are even no possibilities.
What he argues is only valid from our perspective where nothingness is just a construct.
But it doesn't answer why there is not nothing. For this to answer, you need to argue from the nothingness' POV. And that's impossible, makes no sense. Therefore, the question can never be answered.
if "nothing" then there wouldn't be an observer/knower of it. there fore it would not be "known". only "something" can be observed/known. hence our current dilemma. "nothing" only exists as an abstract thought/as the opposite of "something".
For me, this question is more like: Given all the possible ways reality could have been, maybe including nothingness, why is it the way it is rather than any other way?
It seems to me that the only satisfactory answers are either: There is only one way reality could have been. Or, all possible ways are somehow instantiated. Although they are kind of the same answer.
Because why not
@@javiej
That's so arbitrary. Why not a different reality?
@@firstaidsack And why not this one?
Given that you ask, In my (especulative) opinion the concept of "nothingness" is a human invention. It mah look intuitive for many philosophers, but it is physically impossible. Because the question itself is wrong, rather than how can we have something out of nothingness what you have to ask is the opposite: How can be get nothingness out of something? If what we know is that something exist (you can't deny it) how could you make it disappear completely, either forward in time or backward in time, it is just an impossibilty. It is like talking about a unicorn with two horns.
So now you will ask, and why this something rather than other something? Well, the most simple interpretation of QM (The Mutliverse) says that everything that can exist indeed exists, by neccesity, in superposition with everything else. And from there to the anthropic principle there is only one logical step.
Note I said the "simplest" interpretation because (in few words) The Multiverse = Quantum Mechanics minus the collapse of the wavefunction. .
Maybe the right answer is much more complex (probably), but there you have a possible way to "this something" to start with.
Also, if we ask the reverse question (going backwards in time as I suggested) note that as the age of the universe approaches zero its energy approaches infinite, because the Hesisemberg uncertainty principle. And that's something that I think resembles the big bang.
True that many pieces of the puzzle are still missing, but I think it's better than nothing.
@@javiej
I'm not arguing for nothingness as an actual possibility. I'm trying to take all real possibilities into account and ask why, out of all of them, whether there are 2, 10, 100, billion, or infinitely many alternatives, why is this reality that we inhabit real and not any other?
I already accept the many-worlds interpretation as the most reasonable interpretation of QM, but there might be other possible multiverses with different Quantum Physics. But yeah, the many-worlds interpretation would fit with the notion that all possibilities are somehow realized. And I think that's probably what is ultimately the case.
Read between the lines of Genesis 2:18.
I always thought "nothing" was a sound. A totally organised syntax. Babies know it when they dance to the rythym of sound created by random heuristics. Makes one wonder how they managed to pick out that beat from all the other noise in mundane industrial clutter. Or if in meditation the teacher asks if you can hear it and your the only one who is honest about not hearing anything at all. That is the "nothing" sound. Not forced to be made into something by you. Instead it is already organised and available to be rediscovered by you.
We have stars, planets and galaxies in space. There's lots of nothingness out there, but it's really not actually nothing. There's gas, dust and other bits of matter floating around emptier areas of the universe, but you can't see it very easily. If we removed all the stars, planets, galaxies, gas, dust and other bits we'd still have a whole lot of empty space and that ain't nothing. We'd still have "The Emptiness".
@@leeqvickers
Absolutely. The question needs to be asked what is keeping the planets and the stars in their position and orbit? Air looks like nothing until the wind blows 100mph.
@@elonever.2.071
Right !
So, Never UnderStimate the ABILITY AND POWER OF NO-THING😂hahaha !
The Ability and Power of The invisible , immaterial " THOUGHT, SPIRIT OR MIND! WE have to admit and recognized that there EXIST and INVOLVE an Active Intelligent Thought/Mind OR " THE COSMIC MIND" that Produced, ORGANIZED and Arrange the perfect Organic COSMIC BODY OR UNIVERSE !
=============
How does Nothingness CONVERTED OR TRANSFORMED itself into
"SOMETHING", I mean, was the Nothingness pregnant and gave Birth of/ to a "BABY UNIVERSE"?? 😂
How did or how does NOTHINGNESS transfer from its Previous STATES to its New existing State ??
What is on your MIND/ THOUGHT ?
NOTHING !!
Not a Thing
0:55. The presumption of the question, Why not nothing?, is 'absolute nothingness' is a primary and 'somethingness' is secondary, derivative. The presumption is that 'nothingness' is not contingent but existence is. 'Absolute, absolute nothingness', not even space. Nonexistence. Existence came from nonexistence. That has the virtue of being simple. Existence couldn't possibly just exist. How does existence come from nonexistence? The answer has to be either quantum mechanics or God. If quantum mechanics exists, wouldn't it be in existence? Can non-existent quantum mechanics be the cause of existence and existing quantum mechanics? Time. Time. 'Absolute, absolute nothingness'---does it contain time? Now we need to make a distraction. 'Absolute nothingness' contains time. IE, is in time. 'Absolute, absolute nothingness' is not in time. No. No. Just switch that around. Having that straight, we turn to God. Some say that he smuggle a little quantum mechanics into nonexistence and used it to pop existence into being----or pop being into existence. Now, leaving the multiverse aside, is existence the universe? And is the universe nature? Hold those questions in mind. Existence must have came from nonexistence. We are all agreed on that because existence just existing is too stupid. Existence, the world, was created out of one of the nothingnesss. That makes the world an artifact. The world is nature. Nature is an artifact. Artifacts are not natural. Something that is not natural is unnatural. So a created nature is unnatural. Nature's unnatural. It's a little weird at first but, you'll get used to thinking this way.
You need to interview Rupert Spira on this. He’d say everything I could say here in the comments, but better.
Void is everywhere. If Every energy compres at one place everywhere void exist.
Even compressed energy exist in void.
Whatever the people are seeing everything are existing in void. What people are unable to see also existing In void.
The thought of nothing is interesting however, let us not confuse darkness ( no light ) with nothing ( no atoms ). It is impossible for energy to come into existence from nothing. The thought of nothing stirs the imagination however, our senses are conditioned for a physical world ( mechanical, solar system, galaxies, etc. ). I prefer to look upon the cosmos as an eternal-ever-changing and evolving universe. The thought of nothing is a dismal place where fashion does not exist. Marshall Wright
The problem we have is that we don’t know whether absolute nothing can exist . I would agree that energy cannot come form absolute nothing . Maybe energy is eternal .
When I have arguments with my partner he has always something to say and that is annoying but I can easily handle however when he has nothing to say…..very difficult to handle. So my point nothing can be very powerful 😊
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then there was always something, just not organized as it is now.
Correct. Complexity is the result of Simplicity not wanting to be or rather feel by itself.
I understand human death, planetary cycles, the death of stars even the death of our univers if there are more than one ! But if our univers is the only one, i cannot understand its death leaving absolutely nothing else. Absolutely nothing is unimaginable.
Always something hey 😊
Nothing is somthing
Something must do nothing, nothing must do something.
What is between nothing and infinity ?
5:42
There is what is and isn’t what isn’t.
The fact that there is something negates the possibility that there is nothing in the sense that Robert is conceptualising. Where is he proposing the existence of this nothingness? If he was to put it before or after the universe, then this universe itself would be a something within this nothing. The very fact that there is something means that a nothing must hold a relation to this something and that relation breaks apart Roberts concept of nothingness.
Life can pull itself out of the nothing, so it is eternal. 🌱
.."from eternity to eternity" 🌱
If that were the case, then the proper conditions would be irrelevant. Yet, we understand life requires the right circumstances.
That is a scientific valid statement yet not every scientist will understand what you are understanding because they see everything as separate.
@@unseeneye1 Circumstances implies plurality but Life is a Singularity (some call it God... you call it Tao).
Pull your consciousness out of nothingness after you die and report back then.
What is between infinity and nothing ?
Who made the laws of physics
From the fact that there is a world it doesn't follow that Absolute Nothingness is not necessary. Perhaps Absolute Blankness is necessary even if there is a world. Hence existence is still a mystery, or if you prefer, a miracle.
Nothing is better than something or something better than nothing. I think nothing is better than this something
Consider the number zero. It is as fuzzy as the word nothing but perhaps manifestly more important because if it did not all equations would not exist. No one can argue that all equations left rectified equal zero. So zero, as poorly understood as it is is the foundation of all expression of equality, this side of the equation equals the other side. So without zero we loose all the scalar relations. Of course I might reply to that, well.. what about RPN notation where there is no equal sign, just an operator and some eigenvalues state, . Of course operating on the space of the first vector assumes H maps that to another vector space but we know it might be the null set so once again, we need nothing. And for those that like a tiny further problem conside a proof why zero is either even or odd and what the answer to that question implies with regard to a discussion if the properties of nothing. If nothing has even one additional property, I submit it is then not nothing q e.d.
Cheers
red
"Absolute nothing" as a "state without any possibilities" is deterministic, like the number zero. It is a scientific fact that at the quantum level nature is probabilistic . If the starting state was "absolute nothing" it couldn't possibly bear fruit to anything but more "absolute nothing" We must accept that nature rejected "absolute nothing" infinitely long ago. .
There has always been the potential for everything. Obviously.
Yes, interesting idea Bryan. But it's a paradox which goes:
1. There was nothing. Then something happened so...
2. Obviously the nothing that existed developed into something, so it always had potential to do so, right?
3. But saying "Nothing had potential" in normal usage means nothing did not have potential.
Hence the paradox.
Who is the dude who operates this channel and why do I feel l Ike I have known him my entire life?
Why not nothing above and beyond the universe?
It's not possible to have nothing.
Without limitations there is always infinity available. You can't get rid of infinity. And so nothingness is always suppressed.
You may be right. Nothingness could have been possible before this observable universe and its laws of physics. After big bang happened and our universe came into existence, nothing stopped existing forever
The problem that I don't have is with the human brain capacity of imagining anything under the Sun, even things that do not exist at all.
The problem that I really have is with the humongous cognitive impotence ( = cognitively ineffectual ) that people have, like in this conversation here in this material.
If I ponder true nothingness for long enough, I feel as if I almost get a glimpse or essence of something, I don't what it is but seems real at the time and may be totally delusional, but as I get older and ponder these deepest of questions I have to say I find traditional physics less and less satisfying in answering these questions and tend to lean more to Eastern mysticism whatever, simulation or holographic theory etc. And still to me, the ultimate question is what constitutes consciousness? In all these wonderful videos I have never seen anything that comes close to answering this.
The tricky part of thinking on nothing is you have to deny your own existence before. You have to find yourselfs in deeps of ambigious nothing which is psychically pretty demanding. Then you´ll see interesting things:
Nothing isn´t unambiguous.
Nothing doesn´t have an objective observer.
Nothing isn´t negative (like a hole) but rather neutral (like a point with no properties)
Nothing can be part of any number of other nothings.
Nothing can include any number of other nothings.
Nothing isn´t less than nothing. (puny english!)
No any real time.
An "unconditional existence" is such entity in which nothings give difference and context to each other.
Two nothings can only differ by their position in "unconditional existence".
The rest of so called reality are just static illusions occuring in various cuts and dimensional reductions of "unconditional existences". (Laws and constants of physics are just conditions necessary for emergence of an illusion )
Essence of reality may be huge, but simple.
Logic is still valid in reasoning on nothing.
because in a universe of nothing you can't ask that question.
So thanks for asking that question!
Oh, maybe now I get it. It is thought that 'nothing' is simpler than 'something' and that therefore it is a primary. Simpleness is not contingent, in other words, but the complexity of existence, of nature, of having a nature must be contingent. So the thinking is, at one time nonexistence existed. Why not nothing? Why couldn't nonexistence exist? What would the opposite of this be? Existence exists? Existence exists. Nooo. That couldn't be! Being being---impossible. Nature natural? Too stupid. Stuff has got to come from somewhere. That is what rationality demands.
The "beautiful idea" that all possibilities get to be realized commits us to ontological inflation (plenitude), which many will find objectionable. The doctrine of plenitude gives us a picture of a universe that is so crowded that it collapses under its on ontological weight, thus creating a metaphysical black hole. Perhaps the idea is not so beautiful after all!
"Nothing" or "Not nothing" states are both possible but since we are talking we are in "not nothing" state. Simple
This is a longer comment, so sorry about that.
I disagree that possibilities (possibility for something) exist even in nothing. Possibilities exist in the human mind as a description of what-if scenarios, and humans wouldn’t be there in nothing. If there are possibilities that exist out there outside the mind, could someone point them out? Where are they. Until then, are a matter of faith and can’t be argued with or experimented on. To assert that possibilities/possible worlds exist even in nothing is just an unfounded assumption or assertion.
We’ve been discussing the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” for thousands of years without ever coming to an intellectually satisfying, consensus answer. The two choices seem to be:
1. Something has always been here.
2. Something hasn’t always been here.
Choice 1 is possible but lacks explanatory power. That is, with choice 1 as the answer to the WSRTN question, there’s always something (either the stuff of the universe or the stuff that created the stuff in the universe) left unexplained. For me, that’s intellectually unsatisfying. I think this is the main reason humans have been thinking about this questio without coming to a consensus. So, that leaves choice 2. With this choice, if something hasn’t always been here, nothing must have been here before it. However, we have always ruled out starting with nothing (choice 2) because of the ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) idea. But, I think there’s a way to start with nothing and not violate this principle. If we start with nothing and end up with something, and because you can’t change nothing into something, the only way this could be is if that “nothing” was somehow actually a “something” in disguise. Another way to say that you start with "nothing" and end up with “something” is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1, so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking, "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". In other words, the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". So, “something" doesn't come out of "nothing". Instead, the situation we used to think of as "nothing" is actually a "something" if we could see through its disguise.
How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties zero or more things together into a new unit whole and existent entity. An example of tying zero things together is the empty set. But, what is grouped, and how much is grouped don’t matter as long as there is a grouping, a new unit whole/existent entity is created. This grouping is manifested as a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping into a new unit whole or existent entity. The grouping idea isn’t new. Others such as Aristotle, Leibniz, etc. have used the words “unity” or “one” instead of “grouping”, but the meaning is the same. After all, what does a grouping into a new unit whole do if not create a unity or a one?
Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, be the whole amount or entirety of the situation, or state of affairs. That nothingness defines the situation completely. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. That "nothing" is it, and it is the all. A whole-amount/entirety/“the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. “Nothing” defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. This new property is inherent to “nothing” and cannot be removed to get a more pure “nothing”. This means that “nothing” that lacks the property of being a grouping is not possible and thus the “something” that we previously, and incorrectly, called “nothing” is necessary. This isn’t new, but at least, this is a possible mechanism for why it’s necessary.
Some other points are:
1. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Humans are stuck having to define "nothing" in our existent minds (i.e., "somethings"), but "nothing" itself doesn't have this constraint. Whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of how we define it or talk about it. This is also why just talking about "nothing" does not reify it. Our talking about "nothing" has no impact on whether or not "nothing" itself exists.
2. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "now" (i.e., “now something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".
Thanks.
Am on here to hear interesting intriguing deep thoughtful discussion.Turns out,it is all about,nothing???
Once we have experienced anything at all... which some of us seem to believe we have ...(and; says DesCartes, isn't that belief some kind of something?) ... having that perception ... no matter how much of an illusion may be ...we must admit that "absolute nothingness forever past, present and future" ... including total lack of illusion ... is no longer a option ... and because of its future existence, its eternal non-existence never was an actual possibility ... and so ... even if there ever had been any potential for eternal non-existence... pure nothingness forever and always ... past and future ... too late ... that particular potential missed the boat!
The notion seems to be a philosophical loop. Somethingness gives rise to the possibility of nothingness, not the other way round, imo. The type of nothingness being discussed precludes itself. In this way, in order to achieve nothingness, something must be taken away, which negates nothing. In short, there must be something in order to have anything at all, including nothing.
I am nothing,=you are somebody
When I did Bufo I was in the center of white nothingness for 10 minutes. It was terrifying and at the same time ecstasy.
I solved this puzzle years ago & it’s quite simple really.
I'm interested to know what you have come up with. Can you share some of your conclusions?
@@alexgonzo5508 you can't get rid of infinity. No limitations mean infinity is the state of reality. And that suppresses nothingness.
@@Braun09tv But what is it that is infinite? Also, how or why are there no limitations, and limitations to what specifically?
@@alexgonzo5508 it is the No-thing that manifests all things, the void/space for experience to take place in. Infinity is boundless, if you can’t draw a line around it and make it into an object then it cannot be a “thing”.
@@ProjectMoff Yes, a good way to say it is that 'nothing' is equal to zero mathematically. Within zero are at least two infinities (negative and positive infinities). These infinities are perfectly balanced to cancel each other out of 'existence'. When things (numbers) manifest out of zero they always come in pairs (+ matter, - antimatter), in this way everything is kept in balance inside and outside of existence (-1 +1 = 0 = -1 +1), this is also the reason for quantum entanglement.
The laws of Logic are more fundamental than physics itself, all of physics obey the laws of logic (not the other way around). Thus 1 and 0 (natural units), something and nothing are elements of universal primordial logic at the root of existence and has always existed in one way or another (separate or together, as 0 or as -1 and +1). The quantum foam is the intersection between nothing and something, always active. Together with the laws of mathematics, and logic, one must incorporate probability theory as well to begin to get a grasp of what we are even inquiring about.
The logic of the parts are clear to me, what i have trouble grasping is what allows the universe to move (why can a particle change it's state, or what allows it to change positions in space?). Why does it have that freedom, which is the fundamental aspect of absolute time.
Anything with a nonzero probability of occurring most likely happens given what we know now about quantum physics and cosmology etc.
Nothing is a human concept for null or empty values but actual nothingness is not possible.
I mean it's pretty straightforward just prima facia.
Nothingness is not possible.
you can't cut a stick so short that it only has one end..
Why not something? That is, Why not existence? Why not nature?
This always cracks me up🤣
We get a taste of the nothing that we are afraid of when you sleep
If there were nothing there would also be no nothing because if there were nothing, that would be something. This is the antipothedes to Russel's paradox, i.e. dose the set of all sets contain itself? If it is the set of all sets then it must contain itself. Nothing must not exist because if it did ot would be something.
You sometimes wonder what kind of channel this exactly is. Nothing is not frightening, unless there is something that allows you to ponder about it, and then there is already something. So then it is more about the loss or regression rather then anything else. Let's not take the joke too far.
Eh
A single condition of "Nonexistence" is not possible. The lowest one can regress is the timeless juxtaposition of *Existence* and *Nonexistence.* ... Anything beyond this archetypal, two-point spectrum is inconceivable. Conceivability requires _something_ that is able to be conceived. "Nothing" does not meet the criterion.
Isn't a juxtaposition between Existence and Nonexistence just Possibility. That from a scientific perspective is an empty Cosmos.
@@kos-mos1127 *"Isn't a juxtaposition between Existence and Nonexistence just Possibility."*
... No, it's the lowest possible conceivable state from which all possibilities can emerge. Any proposition of a lower state would be inconceivable (without possibility).
*"That from a scientific perspective is an empty Cosmos."*
... An "empty cosmos" would not be a cosmos by definition. It would be "Nonexistence" errantly defined as the cosmos (which is a "something").
Maybe the trouble is that nothing _is_ something. And something _could never be_ nothing. Seems like playing with logic and word games. Which seems to mean, whatever forms of reason or logic or language are required to understand this problem, we don't have it.
@@longcastle4863 *"Maybe the trouble is that nothing is something. And something could never be nothing."*
... That is not a logical statement. You have equivocated "something" with "nothing" rendering both conditions meaningless. When everything we observe follows a dichotomic template (quark-antiquark, matter-space, positive-negative, attraction-repulsion, love-hate, black-white, life-death, atheism-theism) it is illogical to not apply this same template to "Existence-Nonexistence."
*"Seems like playing with logic and word games."*
... Words are what we use to communicate. Any information that cannot be communicated via words does not qualify as "information."
*"Which seems to mean, whatever forms of reason or logic or language are required to understand this problem, we don't have it."*
... I don't find myself struggling to communicate the information surrounding Existence and Nonexistence. Even though Nonexistence is *inconceivable* [Nothing (no thing) available to conceive], we can still assign the number "0" to offer conceivability via proxy. ... That's the beauty of combining logic with conceivability (logical conceivability)!
... _Love ya, man!_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC you might want to rethink the part about words=information
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6…. yes nothing has its place. Everything isn’t always on all the time either. Things are on and then off and then on again and then off again. So there are two nothings