Why is there something and not nothing?

[Alan McDougall]

Hi All,
I did not realy want this to be a religious debate so I posted it here.

Something instead of nothing?

Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.

Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is. (I my opinion this is nonsense). I cannot believe that we will find “A fact of Everything” scientifically; I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory scientifically answer to this final most profound of questions, ultimate of all questions. “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

By nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything or the absence of existence. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.)

Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have “nothing”, but definite and absolutely do indeed have ‘SOMETHING’. Remember by absolute nothingness I don’t mean just an empty void left but the absence of the infinite void as well.

This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were ever a nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?

Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race. There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man.

You see the universe has a strange Goldie locks condition about it, i.e., it cannot be too hot, or too cold etc, etc, etc, but it has to be just absolutely correct, precise and right or life would not have come into existence and we would not be around to contemplate, debate or dialog on this ultimate enigma. We would not exist. Life hangs on and depends on this knife- edge of harmonies conditions that have to be sustained over countless billions of years, for us to have come into existence and continue to exist. Makes one think, does it not?

Why do we have a Universe? My answer is that Some Infinite Entity created the Universe and the rest of existence. however, then, one can ask, who/what created this Infinite Onesness This cause of everything is and must be so far and beyond our understanding, everlasting, without beginning or end, eternal and ever -existing, and has always existed. Thus i must be Existence Itself.

We will, at the end of the day have to, relent and acknowledge that somewhere out there is a awesome, colossal, mighty, great infinite intelligence that in comparison that we are as a microbe is to a human or perhaps horrors even much further remote, from the Omni-all . It will indeed be a most humbling experience for us to finally realize and acknowledge, that there are things and mysteries that will; remain forever, absolutely, totally beyond human comprehension understand and reside eternally in the mind of our creator God.

It is a fact the finite can simply never ever comprehend the mind of the infinite; this should be logic to anyone...

An uncaused Cause must exist and to me am an inescapable fact of logic, call this entity God/Infinity/Existence/being if you like.

By Alan McDougall 11/6/2007

[Twain Shakespeare]

Mathematical Mysticism: A Sokratic Dialogue between Catsmeat and Big Nose Kate
.by Twain Shakespeare Ross on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 1:24am ·PublicFriends (+)Only Me (+)CustomClose FriendsInvisibleSee all lists...PhilosopherShakespeare's "The World's a Stage" School of ActingSchool of Hard KnocksYEAH I GOT HIGH IN SCHOOLI am not enslavedI used to work for YHWHUnemployed ActorPoetBeatnikFamilyAcquaintancesGo Back
PublicFriendsOnly MeCustomClose FriendsInvisibleSee all lists...PhilosopherShakespeare's "The World's a Stage" School of ActingSchool of Hard KnocksYEAH I GOT HIGH IN SCHOOLI am not enslavedI used to work for YHWHUnemployed ActorPoetBeatnikFamilyAcquaintancesGo Back.11:11pmMe

I think I have found four things that are true. Am I crazy?

Axiom Zero: Zero raised to the zeroth power equals one, thus "Something is generated by the very nature of nothing"

11:17pmBig Nose Kate

You say that all the time, though

Oh, Axiom Zero is new

11:18pmMe

1. Open systems are synergistic, not entropic, given zero, the universe is open.

11:19pmBig Nose Kate

Axiom Zero seems less open than self-perpetuating

11:20pmMe

True that, but it doesn't make much dif. Neither is entropic

11:20pmBig Nose Kate

True, neither is.

11:23pmMe

To recap it another way, zero generates one, which is complexicity naturally growing out of simplicity. This is also demonstrated by numbers increasing one by one, while the relationships between them increase exponentially.

3 Goedel's theorum states that any (closed? formal?) system will contain paradoxes. If I understand it, some of these at least must be resolved "axiomatically."

I am certain that one of the omplications of Goedel's theorum is "complexity creates unpredictable qualities," or

(screwed up freudian typing "complications +implications = omplications) or "newness happens"

11:24pmBig Nose Kate

What was #2?

11:25pmMe

3rd was #2, 1st was #zero, my bad

(pause 2 roll "cig." Omptemplate dif tween ordinal and cardinal. R they "real" or "abstraction"? Which is what?)



Part I & I

Me

This is also trinitarianism. You may not have noticed it, but zero one and two are the three aspects of the platonic trinity, and the 3 persons of the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva

11:28pmBig Nose Kate

Have we left math?

11:29pmMe

No, just entered epistemoloogy .

This is the fourth thing I am sure of. Collectively, epistemologically, this is my "semantic" reference for the Hebrew verb "YHWH" "Being"!

11:30pmBig Nose Kate

Mm.

11:30pmMe

Fourth thing I am sure of is the rule of the trinity. If there is a final set....

11:31pmBig Nose Kate

Recap, please. What are the four things?

11:30pmMe *

Zero axiom (ordinally 1st) = Brahma

(From here, count exponentially as well)

One (Equals one to the first power)= Order = Vishnu = Logos

Two (ordinally 3rd)= Newness = Meaning/Awareness? = Shiva.

Collectively, this constitutes the Trinity (The fourth thing, counting exponentially, Two squared)



Part I & U & I

11:33pmBig Nose Kate

Oh.

well, I was intrigued by zero axiom, it raised the question, "what is math? what does it describe?" Math is the very purest attempt to describe the natural world, and the 0-squared thing seems to contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, at least situationally.

11:34pmMe

This is an attempt to dispense with cosmology as conceived in terms of a closed universe, and provide an alternate paradigm.

This gets fuzzily abstract. I will attempt clarity

Fourth, there is no final set...

unless Zero, one, two, trinity is the final set that generates all (larger) sets.

This is where fifty years of Pythagorean Platonic numeric mysticism have brought me. By the way, are these thoughts crazy?

Or just bs?

11:34pmBig Nose Kate

Like I say, I found zero axiom really interesting. after that, we got into areas which I currently tend to view as superstitious -- Hindu and tetragrammaton analysis seem to me based on superstition.

11:42pmMe

No jewish number mysticism intended here. The reference to "YHWH" is almost coincidental. I loved the movie "pi". Other than that, I prefer the i ching to kabbala.

Likewise, the Hinduism is minimal. That Hindus had a trinity consisting of a Creator who made Order and Newness was all I knew about Hindu religion, aside from karma, caste and ahimsa, until, oh, adolesence, so I have thought using those terms and catagories for forty years.

11:42pmBig Nose Kate

I guess I misunderstood, then. Okay, looking back, I get "newness happens," after that I got lost.



Part I & U & I & U

11:42pmMe

The bit about sets is the newest datum I have integrated. I will try another verbal description.

A final set is defined as a set that contains all other sets.

God contains, or knows, or has everything (I am fuzzy on what Plato was claiming, since it is wrong.)

Thus God is the final set, that contains all smaller sets, except....

A final set is impossible, as there is always one more set containng the final set as well as all other sets.

Thus the Creator has a Creator, which includes god itself, and requires another Creator ad infinitum.

Use occam's razor here.

11:49pmBig Nose Kate

This seems like semantics. As far as I can tell, the only objective definition of God is "that which one considers worthy of worship."

11:50pmMe

As one worships zero!?

As a Jungian polytheist, my only quibble with that definition might be, what's worship?

11:51pmBig Nose Kate

I don't understand how this describes something material. The concept of God might be relevant, but is it how the universe is made, or only how our minds are laid out?

11:52pmMe

Both. Neither. I don't know. It describes high order semantic (epistemological) abstractions.

11:53pmBig Nose Kate

Oh, I see, just a frippery to take our minds off blank!

Sorry, that was needlessly flip.

11:52pmMe

Precisely. It makes me feel good while I am not blank LOL! I love you, you genius!

11:53pmBig Nose Kate

hee hee

* (Footnote added April 23, 2012)

The following emendation of the formulae hastily scribbled above goes thus.

1st. Zero axiom (ordinally the 1st Axiom, exponentially equals 1, yet factorially equals zero) means "Something comes from nothing": The First cause = Brahma= The first Question=the respiration of Atman=the Noumenon,

2nd. One (ordinarily the second axiom and exponentially and factorially equals 1) means "Open systems are synergistic": Order = Vishnu = Logos, yet also YHWH in the OT, the Demiurge, Satan, Tragedy and Murphy, possibly the Titanic Force of Entropy, or Synergy. (What is entropy to us is synergy to worms), or even the more Titanic force of Light= The first answer

3rd. Two (ordinally the "3rd" axiom, both exponentially and factorially create 4 four). This axiom means "Newness Happens Naturally Out of What Comes Before": Meaning/Awareness,=message= Meaning replicates in a new awareness. = Shiva=Loki=Yin+Yang=next iteration of the Tao. Entropy+Synergy= Complexity. The second question, the second answer, the third question, the third answer. Born? Die! Tragedy?. Repeat. Comedy!?. Holy is the ghost in the machine of Life

4th Three. Collectively, this constitutes the Trinity (The fourth thing, or axiom, counting exponentially, Two squared, which equals Factorial two also, but 3 exponentially implies 9, and factorially imples at least 1 times two times three equals six) This 4th Axiom states there is no final set, as long as atman keeps breathing, at least.

The first and second cardinal numbers, zero and one, generate everything else. The first three or four ordinal numbers, depending on rather or not one counts zero, can be said to generate everything else. Primes are additives of these factors, and all other numbers are multiples. The number three represents the dialectic of yin and Yang spinning the Tao. After that is a complexity beyond my comprehension as the exhalations of Atman create the universe in the divine fire of Heracleitus. I am barely confident of those four things, but they are some of the sincerest beliefs I hold.

.

[NinjaPuppy]

Twain - I'm going to use my psychic powers and ask the question that everyone here is thinking.

[really?]

[ProfWag]

[Alan McDougall]

You people on this forum are very flippant and do not seem to take any topic seriously I dont think I am going to hang around for more silly comments

Bye

[Arouet]

Actually, I think Twain was being quite sincere in replying to you. Not that I understood it either - but I think it makes sense to him.

I'll be honest, Alan, I was waiting to see if you were a real poster before responding. You seem to have created a bunch of threads posting old essay's of yours - honestly its hard to tell the spammers from the serious posters sometimes.

[Alan McDougall]

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Alan McDougall]

Thanks I will remain,

I will pose my future threads as questions rather than statements and see if this helps!

[NinjaPuppy]

[Arouet]

[Alan McDougall]

HI Arouet,

I dont dispute the wisdom of your replies, the universe might be " All-That -Is"and it might be self aware and intelligent itself?

What we call Existence might contain an infinity of universes all contained within an infinitely huge Mega-universe. Each universe might have different fundamental constants and things miight be very strange there indeed.

This Existence is what I believe most people mistake for a religious god , Existence drives itself and not always in the mindless way that some suppose.

Everything thus is just 'Being"

Just my thoughts!

[Arouet]