[potatolegs]

I know no one knows and no one ever will but what do you think happened?

Do you think there was ever a time when there was absolutely no thing or do you think there's always been something existing? I know this is an age old question but do you ever wonder what exactly must have happened for nothing to all of sudden become aware that it was something?

Why is there something and not nothing?

I don't mean to offend religious people by this question who believe everything was made in 7 days and the other theories.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by potatolegs

...
I don't mean to offend religious people by this question who believe everything was made in 7 days and the other theories.

Wasn't it done in six days with a day off for God behaviour?

[InkyPinky]

Was there a time when there was no time? If there was, nothing could exsist because there was no time to exsist in maybe?

In summary...I dunno

[Caldari]

Originally Posted by potatolegs

Do you think there was ever a time when there was absolutely no thing

That's an oxymoron. If there was absolutely nothing then time itself didn't exist.

[potatolegs]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Wasn't it done in six days with a day off for God behaviour?

I'm unsure if I'm totally honest, I know it was more than 5 days though.

[peon]

good question. some of the more scientific bods of the forum may have a theory.

[potatolegs]

Originally Posted by Caldari

That's an oxymoron. If there was absolutely nothing then time itself didn't exist.

Very true, I know it's beyond real human comprehension as we cannot imagine "no thing" but was very curious to see what people think.

[Moony]

No scientific theory says there was "nothing".

Also - you have to ask - why is "nothing" a more valid starting point or more valid default position than "something". Perhaps there is no such thing as "nothing" - this would certainly fit with what we know about quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

[Andrue]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Wasn't it done in six days with a day off for God behaviour?

Bloody brilliant

[Jamesthethird]

What is nothing? Surely "nothing" itself is, "something"?

I don't even know what I am talking about.

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by potatolegs

I know no one knows and no one ever will but what do you think happened?

Do you think there was ever a time when there was absolutely no thing or do you think there's always been something existing?

There was always something. We just don't know what it was.

There's tons that we don't know about and it's arrogant of us if we pretend that we do know.

[bleuh111]

Originally Posted by Moony

No scientific theory says there was "nothing".

Also - you have to ask - why is "nothing" a more valid starting point or more valid default position than "something". Perhaps there is no such thing as "nothing" - this would certainly fit with what we know about quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

This is a very important point for me - as I've previously argued in accordance with my own beliefs, existence is fundamentally necessary. It's my belief that (possibly) infinite states of reality co-exist. Regardless though, I hold God as meant by the Abrahamic religions to be metaphysically impossible by reason of being logically contingent.

[Mr.Beaks]

I am totally in love with the Big Bounce theory. It just sits well with me, and makes me think of the universe as one big beating heart or one big lung, breathing in and out. Elegant and allows for the possibility of eternal life and re-birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

[Christian_Jones]

Creation

[potatolegs]

Originally Posted by Jamesthethird

What is nothing? Surely "nothing" itself is, "something"?

I don't even know what I am talking about.

That's why I wrote it as no thing as opposed to nothing.

It's void of things - it is just emptiness/no space/no colour/no mind

[DaleRDS]

The Big Bang was a collision between 2 different universes; which came together to create our universe. At some point; our universe will collide with another and there will be another Big Bang.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by potatolegs

It's void of things - it is just emptiness/no space/no colour/no mind

Can such a condition exist?

[bleuh111]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

I am totally in love with the Big Bounce theory. It just sits well with me, and makes me think of the universe as one big beating heart or one big lung, breathing in and out. Elegant and allows for the possibility of eternal life and re-birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

I always wondered with Big Bounce theory - would each iteration of the universe be identical to all previous iterations? Meaning, would we, in several billion years time (from our perspective, as it were), be in a new iteration of the universe, but living exactly the same life we are now? Have I sat here billions of years in the past (in a previous universe, again forgive the need for temporal references that don't really make sense when talking of different universes), typing this same post on this same computer?

[Jamesthethird]

Originally Posted by potatolegs

That's why I wrote it as no thing as opposed to nothing.

It's void of things - it is just emptiness/no space/no colour/no mind

Scary stuff. I mean when you think about it, surely we don't exist.

[potatolegs]

Originally Posted by Moony

Can such a condition exist?

Well if something can I think nothing can. That's just my opinion.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by potatolegs

Well if something can I think nothing can. That's just my opinion.

And yet we have no precedent for the latter.

[bleuh111]

Originally Posted by Jamesthethird

Scary stuff. I mean when you think about it, surely we don't exist.

That's actually what I believe, at least in a manner of speaking. I believe we do exist, but that it's equally and oppositely true that we don't exist and that those are not a contradiction. I've talked about this in a previous thread, but my beliefs are quite difficult to explain, so my attempts to do so tend to be confusing even to me and therefore unsurprisingly invite ridicule.

What I believe is fairly similar to the Chinese philosophy of Taoism in some respects, in that I view existence and non-existence as necessary polarisations, part of a whole that is what I call transexistential - it's not anything, it neither exists nor doesn't exist, it's not even an "it".

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by potatolegs

Well if something can I think nothing can. That's just my opinion.

But to get something from nothing there must have been something there for nothing to make into something to start with.

Its like a blank piece of paper, there is nothing on the paper but you have the paper in front of you to see its blank.

And thats where my head starts to ache on the whole nothing bit.



But if its as DaleRDS said , two existing Universes colliding to create ours then thats easier to get your head round, we did not exist until two other exisiting things created us.

[Mr.Beaks]

Originally Posted by bleuh111

I always wondered with Big Bounce theory - would each iteration of the universe be identical to all previous iterations? Meaning, would we, in several billion years time (from our perspective, as it were), be in a new iteration of the universe, but living exactly the same life we are now? Have I sat here billions of years in the past (in a previous universe, again forgive the need for temporal references that don't really make sense when talking of different universes), typing this same post on this same computer?

LOL I wonder the exact same thing. Given how chaotic universe production seems to be, I highly doubt it, but it would be nice to relive my childhood.

[Jamesthethird]

Originally Posted by bleuh111

That's actually what I believe, at least in a manner of speaking. I believe we do exist, but that it's equally and oppositely true that we don't exist and that those are not a contradiction. I've talked about this in a previous thread, but my beliefs are quite difficult to explain, so my attempts to do so tend to be confusing even to me and therefore unsurprisingly invite ridicule.

What I believe is fairly similar to the Chinese philosophy of Taoism in some respects, in that I view existence and non-existence as necessary polarisations, part of a whole that is what I call transexistential - it's not anything, it neither exists nor doesn't exist, it's not even an "it".

Not that I understood that but I have a question.

If a pink unicorn that shits rainbows doesn't exist why doesn't it polarisversely* exist?

Or does it exist, just in my head?

*You may have guessed, but this word is made up.