@@julianna9854 you have 2 kinds of causes/reason one direct or law of causality the other indirect or the uncertainty principle both exist because of the neutral position of nothing. Infinity is a duality between and within finte and infinite, finte and infinite are the extreme positions of the neutral position of nothing.
“Is some part of our reality, eternal?” God is eternal. God is part of our reality, it has to be God. A creator if you will. I don’t mean to sound like a religious nut, but that’s the only logical conclusion, god.
@@OfficialTaskMaster it’s true, I believe that it was Matt Dillahuntty who said that if a meteor hit the moon and spelled out “God Exists” in multiple languages he wouldn’t believe it.
Indeed, and there's more to come. :) While away, I finished a couple books: 1. How Reason Can Lead to God, www.ivpress.com/how-reason-can-lead-to-god 2. Is God the Best Explanation of Things, www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030237516
It appears this video is advocating for an eternal cosmos. If our theories are correct and matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed it does make sense that the cosmos is indeed eternal.
Infinite regress fallacy! There are eternal causal chains, than nothing can come to be to begin with! Take the Sniper example, who can shoot his target after he gets a thumbs up from his captain, who needs a thumbs up from his boss, who needs a thumbs up from.....etc...etc... In this regard, the Sniper would never be able to shoot his target, cause there is no first thumbs-up, to start the chain of thumbs-ups!
Has there ever been this state of philosophical nothing? The video implies that there has never been such a state (I tend to agree) and that at any point something must have existed. So the big question I'm left with after this video is, what sort of something became our universe? Was it a quantum vacuum, a deity, eternally existing energy, lots of deities, another universe or something else? I am not at all qualified to answer that question but I think it is a good one! What do you think?
Do we know anything about the cosmos outside of our known universe? Do we know what the laws of physics were prior to the "big bang" if our time itself began with it? Also please remember that answering any of your questions with something that "just fits" without any evidence to back it up does us no good.
@@nagavamsip I don't think we know any of those things. That said I think we are free to speculate and imagine models that make testable predictions to see what comes of them.
@@Kvothe3 Keyword: TESTABLE. Yes I would agree we should make testable models. At the same time, I would rather trust a scientist who spent years studying these fields of science to come up with a working model than a pure philosopher (amateur or otherwise).
@@nagavamsip that's interesting, to me I'm not fussed about where the idea comes from and philosophers are great at possible world models. We would still need qualified professionals to test the models but a good idea is a good idea no matter who comes up with it. Moreover I think we can get a fair ways just with thought experiments, maybe not in this case though since we are talking about a physical process. Anyways, it does seem like a really interesting question!
@@Kvothe3 You misunderstood me. I am not saying I would instantly mistrust any theory put forth by a non-scientist. What I meant is I would expect a working model from a scientist more than anyone else. And in my opinion, the problem with simply experimenting and observing the results is the interpretation. It may require a completely unbiased mind to correctly understand the results of an random experiment which, I don't believe even scientists can (everyone has their own biases). Experiments based on testing a proposed models give more accurate results imo.
You're thinking too much about it. Simply put nothing is something yet nothing is nothing, meaning nothing contains something which is nothing that in certain circumstances can create something which creates something else and if lucky that something creates something else. the process of something being derived from nothing is still a mystery that may never be solved, as how can we see the properties of nothing when nothing can't be measured
I would love to read or hear your thoughts on this: Given a basic axiom of modal logic which says that "anything that's actual is necessarily possible", I think we can actually show that "something coming into existence from nothing" is impossible. Suppose my phone (I'll call it PH) literally came into existence from nothing (i.e it didn't come from something, it just "popped" into being for no reason at all). PH is not like other actual phones in the world which exist in virtue of some external explanation for their origin; PH is unique in that it literally didn't come from something else (no external explanation whatsoever, no process, etc. It just appeared "in" reality for no reason at all). But still PH is similar to all other actual phones with respect to *existence* (or actuality), since PH *actually* exists just as the other actual phones in the world. Since anything that is actual is necessarily possible, and PH is actual, then PH is necessarily possible. But here comes the interesting part. Given that it's trivially true that "from nothing", no-thing is possible, including possibility itself, then that means that PH is *not*, in any coherent way, possible, since it "came from nothing" according to the original assumption. Yet PH is actual. So we just deduced that PH is actual but impossible. This contradicts the basic axiom of modal logic I mentioned, so what we have to conclude is that the state of affairs or event involving "something coming from nothing" is impossible.
Things don't pop into existence Infront of us mostly because there are things there. A human can't observe nothing because if we can see then there is something
This video proves nothing ! The theist is forever saying that everything requires a cause[law of cause and effect] but when it comes to God, they say oh, that does not apply as God is eternal without beginning. Immediately, their theory has broken down. If people wish to believe in the God theory go ahead but it is a man-made concept and is one that is based on faith.
I'm curious as to what you think of this argument: 1. Existence is necessary for existence (something can't come from nothing). 2. In order to satisfy the first premise, 'perpetual existence' must be true (there is no other way to satisfy the first premise). 3. In order to satisfy the second premise, there must be something that exists that has 'perpetual existence' (there is no other way to satisfy the second premise). 4. Therefore, perpetual existence is necessary for existence. 5. God has perpetual existence. 6. Therefore, God is necessary to exist. 7. Since it is necessary for God to exist, then God must exist. 8. Therefore, God exists.
@Mick Q I can know that I don't know something. I think I know where you're going with this, and so I'll ask a follow-up question: Does infinity contain all possible numbers? If yes, then what is the closest number to infinity? If no, then what numbers are missing in infinity, and why are they not included?
.....Nothing can come from Nothing..... .......At some point, something must have come from Nothing....... Book; *sophie's world* written by *jostein gaardar*
Why don't you ask these questions to some physicists who are actually qualified to answer them to the best of our species' knowledge? Why ask a bunch of religious evangelicals with philosophy degrees, but little to no training in the actual SCIENCE of this stuff? I don't understand. We actually have answers to these: REAL answers supported by data, experimentation, numbers, and direct observation. I just don't get it.
@@tomkendrick7844 Yeah... That's completely wrong, which is why metaphysics exists as a branch in philosophy. To paraphrase William Lane Craig: There are many metaphysical truths that are rational to believe although they cannot be scientifically proven. For example statements like I am not a brain in a vat and the external world is real, or that the past wasn't created 5 min ago with the appearance of age. Other examples are logical and mathemathical truths. Science pressupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle. Ethical beliefs about statements of value aren't accesible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether what the nazis did in the concentration camps was evil as opposed to the scientists in western societies. Aestetic judgements don't belong in the realm of science, because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven. And finally, science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated by unprovable assumptions. Scientism is dead ideology buddy! Get on track with the rest of the world.
@@neno5rov You can't show by science that Chuck likes cucumbers but hates avocados either. Morality is driven by preference but is achieved through objectivity. If your goal in existence is the overall well-being of humans and to a lesser extent, the well- being of other forms of life, then there are actions that are objectively and demonstrably ineffective and detrimental, as well as actions that are effective and helpful to your pursuit of your respective goal. The idea of "evil" is an entirely religious concept. Absent humans it does not exist. There is no such thing as evil on Alpha Centauri. The feeling that says murdering a toddler is evil is no different from the feeling Chuck has when he thinks about avocados. Despite facilitating objective truths and objective wrongs, one must not make the mistake of thinking morality is inherently objective or that any one moral position can universally any better than another. If our goal as a society is to build a skyscraper, showing up to work with a wrecking ball is objectively wrong and equal to the notion of "evil". But if an outsider from another society comes with a wrecking ball, this outsider would be considered evil by the foreign party and potentially good by his own party. This is why animals are not considered evil, even if they kill and brutally murder humans; they have the right to different moral goals. I don't consider Hitler to be evil for the same reason. He had different goals for his morality. But like a rabid bear, he must be stopped and killed.
@@tomkendrick7844 you are a moral nihilist. Got it! The point is science doesn't deal with morality, even an subjective, artificially constructed one. That's the area of philosophy. You also didn't engage my other examples, which kinda strenghtens my point
There's some really poor thinking going on for a philosopher (Christian institution/education I guess?). First mistake is appeal to intuition. You can't just apply how things operate *within* a universe to the universe itself and call it a day. It's not that simple. At some point in the past the physics as we know it break down. If there is no space and time can you tell what happens or even wrap your mind around that? And how are you going to tell anything about causality under such conditions? Intuition doesn't help us to get answers to such complex questions. Second, we have no "nothing" to observe to say anything about it. Physicists may argue that nothing is unstable. Your reasoning is similar to a black swan fallacy. "We have never observed something coming from nothing therefore it is impossible". Third, we may never get answers to such a questions. But if we do we get it from qualified scientists and not some religious nutjobs.
To go deeper, see joshualrasmussen.com/does-every-beginning-have-a-cause.html
The potential of something coming from nothing is in itself something. So, no something can’t come from nothing.
Something can come from nothing so long as the something ends in nothing.
@@David-wm8jp please explain
@@julianna9854 you have 2 kinds of causes/reason one direct or law of causality the other indirect or the uncertainty principle both exist because of the neutral position of nothing. Infinity is a duality between and within finte and infinite, finte and infinite are the extreme positions of the neutral position of nothing.
Spankin ass . 😂
“Is some part of our reality, eternal?” God is eternal. God is part of our reality, it has to be God. A creator if you will.
I don’t mean to sound like a religious nut, but that’s the only logical conclusion, god.
its almost like its too good to be true
if there is a god wouldnt he create a perfect ratioinal religion or some signs of his existence
@@OfficialTaskMaster it’s true, I believe that it was Matt Dillahuntty who said that if a meteor hit the moon and spelled out “God Exists” in multiple languages he wouldn’t believe it.
@@OfficialTaskMaster no he hasn't really the bible was written by man
As long as we can admit we don't know who or what god is.
YOU’RE BACK!!!!
Indeed, and there's more to come. :) While away, I finished a couple books:
1. How Reason Can Lead to God, www.ivpress.com/how-reason-can-lead-to-god
2. Is God the Best Explanation of Things, www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030237516
It appears this video is advocating for an eternal cosmos. If our theories are correct and matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed it does make sense that the cosmos is indeed eternal.
True. More in relation to an eternal cosmos here: ruclips.net/video/-ZoU3Vqwgd0/видео.html
Infinite regress fallacy!
There are eternal causal chains, than nothing can come to be to begin with!
Take the Sniper example, who can shoot his target after he gets a thumbs up from his captain, who needs a thumbs up from his boss, who needs a thumbs up from.....etc...etc...
In this regard, the Sniper would never be able to shoot his target, cause there is no first thumbs-up, to start the chain of thumbs-ups!
Has there ever been this state of philosophical nothing? The video implies that there has never been such a state (I tend to agree) and that at any point something must have existed. So the big question I'm left with after this video is, what sort of something became our universe? Was it a quantum vacuum, a deity, eternally existing energy, lots of deities, another universe or something else?
I am not at all qualified to answer that question but I think it is a good one!
What do you think?
Do we know anything about the cosmos outside of our known universe? Do we know what the laws of physics were prior to the "big bang" if our time itself began with it? Also please remember that answering any of your questions with something that "just fits" without any evidence to back it up does us no good.
@@nagavamsip I don't think we know any of those things. That said I think we are free to speculate and imagine models that make testable predictions to see what comes of them.
@@Kvothe3 Keyword: TESTABLE. Yes I would agree we should make testable models. At the same time, I would rather trust a scientist who spent years studying these fields of science to come up with a working model than a pure philosopher (amateur or otherwise).
@@nagavamsip that's interesting, to me I'm not fussed about where the idea comes from and philosophers are great at possible world models. We would still need qualified professionals to test the models but a good idea is a good idea no matter who comes up with it. Moreover I think we can get a fair ways just with thought experiments, maybe not in this case though since we are talking about a physical process. Anyways, it does seem like a really interesting question!
@@Kvothe3 You misunderstood me. I am not saying I would instantly mistrust any theory put forth by a non-scientist. What I meant is I would expect a working model from a scientist more than anyone else. And in my opinion, the problem with simply experimenting and observing the results is the interpretation. It may require a completely unbiased mind to correctly understand the results of an random experiment which, I don't believe even scientists can (everyone has their own biases). Experiments based on testing a proposed models give more accurate results imo.
Yes so long as the something ends in nothing
Nicely done, especially the final points about relevance.
You're thinking too much about it. Simply put nothing is something yet nothing is nothing, meaning nothing contains something which is nothing that in certain circumstances can create something which creates something else and if lucky that something creates something else. the process of something being derived from nothing is still a mystery that may never be solved, as how can we see the properties of nothing when nothing can't be measured
I would love to read or hear your thoughts on this:
Given a basic axiom of modal logic which says that "anything that's actual is necessarily possible", I think we can actually show that "something coming into existence from nothing" is impossible. Suppose my phone (I'll call it PH) literally came into existence from nothing (i.e it didn't come from something, it just "popped" into being for no reason at all). PH is not like other actual phones in the world which exist in virtue of some external explanation for their origin; PH is unique in that it literally didn't come from something else (no external explanation whatsoever, no process, etc. It just appeared "in" reality for no reason at all). But still PH is similar to all other actual phones with respect to *existence* (or actuality), since PH *actually* exists just as the other actual phones in the world. Since anything that is actual is necessarily possible, and PH is actual, then PH is necessarily possible. But here comes the interesting part. Given that it's trivially true that "from nothing", no-thing is possible, including possibility itself, then that means that PH is *not*, in any coherent way, possible, since it "came from nothing" according to the original assumption. Yet PH is actual. So we just deduced that PH is actual but impossible. This contradicts the basic axiom of modal logic I mentioned, so what we have to conclude is that the state of affairs or event involving "something coming from nothing" is impossible.
More please!
Things don't pop into existence Infront of us mostly because there are things there. A human can't observe nothing because if we can see then there is something
I love this channel!
Excellent video!
I think life is a Simulation or this question is too complex to be solved
Logically no but scientifically yes 😀
Oops! Only 10 seconds in and you've already made a horrible mistake... You didn't define your terms!
@@LOZandKHfreak No. He doesn't want to define his terms, so I'm not going to do it for him.
@@LOZandKHfreak lmao wut??
This video proves nothing ! The theist is forever saying that everything requires a cause[law of cause and effect] but when it comes to God, they say oh, that does not apply as God is eternal without beginning. Immediately, their theory has broken down. If people wish to believe in the God theory go ahead but it is a man-made concept and is one that is based on faith.
I'm curious as to what you think of this argument:
1. Existence is necessary for existence (something can't come from nothing).
2. In order to satisfy the first premise, 'perpetual existence' must be true (there is no other way to satisfy the first premise).
3. In order to satisfy the second premise, there must be something that exists that has 'perpetual existence' (there is no other way to satisfy the second premise).
4. Therefore, perpetual existence is necessary for existence.
5. God has perpetual existence.
6. Therefore, God is necessary to exist.
7. Since it is necessary for God to exist, then God must exist.
8. Therefore, God exists.
@Mick Q
A being with no limits.
@Mick Q
I'm not sure how they would know... I'm not a being without limits, ha ha.
@Mick Q
Yes, theoretically it's possible.
@Mick Q
I can know that I don't know something.
I think I know where you're going with this, and so I'll ask a follow-up question: Does infinity contain all possible numbers? If yes, then what is the closest number to infinity? If no, then what numbers are missing in infinity, and why are they not included?
@Mick Q
In theory, there's nothing a God wouldn't know if it does exists.
.....Nothing can come from Nothing.....
.......At some point, something must have come from Nothing.......
Book; *sophie's world* written by *jostein gaardar*
0+0=0
You start with defining nothing as dark matter lol but how can nothing be observed? Dark matter is still something
Why don't you ask these questions to some physicists who are actually qualified to answer them to the best of our species' knowledge? Why ask a bunch of religious evangelicals with philosophy degrees, but little to no training in the actual SCIENCE of this stuff? I don't understand. We actually have answers to these: REAL answers supported by data, experimentation, numbers, and direct observation. I just don't get it.
Because science doesn't deal with metaphysical reality
@@neno5rov Science deals with things that are real. There is no such thing as "metaphysical reality"; it's an oxymoron.
@@tomkendrick7844 Yeah... That's completely wrong, which is why metaphysics exists as a branch in philosophy.
To paraphrase William Lane Craig:
There are many metaphysical truths that are rational to believe although they cannot be scientifically proven. For example statements like I am not a brain in a vat and the external world is real, or that the past wasn't created 5 min ago with the appearance of age.
Other examples are logical and mathemathical truths. Science pressupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.
Ethical beliefs about statements of value aren't accesible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether what the nazis did in the concentration camps was evil as opposed to the scientists in western societies.
Aestetic judgements don't belong in the realm of science, because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.
And finally, science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated by unprovable assumptions.
Scientism is dead ideology buddy! Get on track with the rest of the world.
@@neno5rov You can't show by science that Chuck likes cucumbers but hates avocados either. Morality is driven by preference but is achieved through objectivity. If your goal in existence is the overall well-being of humans and to a lesser extent, the well- being of other forms of life, then there are actions that are objectively and demonstrably ineffective and detrimental, as well as actions that are effective and helpful to your pursuit of your respective goal.
The idea of "evil" is an entirely religious concept. Absent humans it does not exist. There is no such thing as evil on Alpha Centauri.
The feeling that says murdering a toddler is evil is no different from the feeling Chuck has when he thinks about avocados.
Despite facilitating objective truths and objective wrongs, one must not make the mistake of thinking morality is inherently objective or that any one moral position can universally any better than another.
If our goal as a society is to build a skyscraper, showing up to work with a wrecking ball is objectively wrong and equal to the notion of "evil". But if an outsider from another society comes with a wrecking ball, this outsider would be considered evil by the foreign party and potentially good by his own party.
This is why animals are not considered evil, even if they kill and brutally murder humans; they have the right to different moral goals.
I don't consider Hitler to be evil for the same reason. He had different goals for his morality. But like a rabid bear, he must be stopped and killed.
@@tomkendrick7844 you are a moral nihilist. Got it!
The point is science doesn't deal with morality, even an subjective, artificially constructed one. That's the area of philosophy.
You also didn't engage my other examples, which kinda strenghtens my point
Seems like the video stopped just short of Jesus smuggling.
N o
There's some really poor thinking going on for a philosopher (Christian institution/education I guess?).
First mistake is appeal to intuition. You can't just apply how things operate *within* a universe to the universe itself and call it a day. It's not that simple. At some point in the past the physics as we know it break down. If there is no space and time can you tell what happens or even wrap your mind around that? And how are you going to tell anything about causality under such conditions? Intuition doesn't help us to get answers to such complex questions.
Second, we have no "nothing" to observe to say anything about it. Physicists may argue that nothing is unstable. Your reasoning is similar to a black swan fallacy. "We have never observed something coming from nothing therefore it is impossible".
Third, we may never get answers to such a questions. But if we do we get it from qualified scientists and not some religious nutjobs.