# Nothing from Something?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 10, 2008.

1. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
If there is a connection between space and matter, as evidenced by the effect matter has on gravity and gravity's effect on space by warping it, isn't it obvious that there is a connection between space and matter? In other words, isn't it obvious that there is connection between nothingness and somethingness? Isn't this connection proof positive that matter came from nothingness?
There is only one explanation for the existence of the universe that does not depend on a primary cause, and that is that the universe came from nothingness. This is the only explanation that does not beg the question, what caused the primary cause? Nothingness does not need a cause. It is the only thing that does not need a cause. It is the obvious answer to the existence of the universe.
The reason nothingness can appear to be something can be explained by analogy to a simple equation, i.e. 0+0=0. Nothingness as represented by "0" can also equate with 0+0, or "nothingness" + "nothingness". Nothingness has the mathematical ability to take an infinite variety of forms by simply repeating itself ad infinitum. For example, 0=0+0=0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 et cetera. The answer to the existence of the universe is not found in asking the question, "how could something come from nothing?", but in understanding that something is nothing. This answer is simple and obvious.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### EnmosValued Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
Give it up.. it's a dead end.
Believe me I know.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
There is nothing dead about 0+0=0. Mathematically, zero can also equal any number of zeros added to themselves. This equation proves that nothing can have multiple aspects, and thus has the same property of contrast that somethingness exhibits. What does it mean to add zero to zero? What does it mean to "add" anything? Addition assumes the existence of contrast between objects. Zero can be added to itself, and thus, zero can be contrasted from itself. This contrast between zeros is matter. You claim a dead end, but you certainly haven't shown any.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### YordaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,275
zero will always be zero no matter how much you add to it. but if you divide it (divide by zero) it can become anything.

and you're right that matter comes from space (ether). but since space (nothing) has always existed, the universe must also have always existed.

8. ### EnmosValued Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
I took a completely different approach. I think this one can be abandoned even more readily though, no offense.
Zero is an abstract concept.. not an actual thing.

9. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Abstraction cannot be divorced from reality, as reality gives birth to all abstractions. Zero surely is a thing, i.e. nothingness or, if you like, space.

10. ### EnmosValued Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
Whatever you want. Sorry, but I'm not going to discuss this.

11. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Zero will always equal zero + zero, or zero + zero + zero et cetera. However, the difference between just plain zero, and zero + zero, is in the addition. The addition is the recognition of contrast between objects, in this case between separate zeros. The reality that zero can coexist with another zero, or that nothingness can co-exist with another nothingness, is what creates the contrast that in turn creates matter. Matter is just a perception of the contrast between nothingnesses or zeros.
I don't agree that space is ether. Space is nothingness with the occasional particle, which is also made of nothingness. As nothingness must have always existed, because it does not require a causal explanation for its existence, and if the universe is made of nothingness, then yes, the universe had always existed. But, that does not mean the universe didn't begin with a Big Bang. The Big Bang was just a part of the universe.

12. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
You self-assured coward! You dismiss without explanation and expect your arrogance to be answer enough?

13. ### EnmosValued Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
I'm just not interested in discussing it. Is that ok ?

14. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
No. The most important question of all time, i.e. why is there anything at all?, and you don't want to discuss it? Why, does your brain hurt?

15. ### EnmosValued Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
No, I believe it would be a huge waste of time.
Have fun though.. :wave:

16. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Well, I guess you've got nothing to add anyway. If you did, you would tell me what it was.:bawl:

17. ### EnmosValued Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
I certainly would, sorry though.. I didn't want to start a fight here.

18. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Well, let's hear it then . . . . We're waiting . . . .:bugeye:

19. ### EnmosValued Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
I meant I would if I had anything to add..

I'll stop contaminating your thread now. See you around

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

20. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
So, I guess you agree with me?

Messages:
43,184
No.

22. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Well, what's your problem, man. You claim to disagree, but you refuse to explain yourself. You probably just feel you disagree, but cannot rationalize why. Sorry for your limitations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

23. ### PandaemoniValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,634
I don't think it has been proven that space is "nothing." In fact you can go onto the web and read articles about the "structure of spacetime" and how the large scale structure of spacetime is different than the fine structure of spacetime, particularly in the context of loop quantum gravity. There is also much thought given, even in lower level physics courses to the overall topology of spacetime.

I don't think that analogizing space to the number 0 will necessarily lead to a valid conclusion any more than analogizing death to the number 0 would.

That said, I am going to blow your mind by suggesting that i space were 0, then 0+0 = 0...but so does 12,700,642 + 6 + (347 x 0) - 12,700,648. If you are going to analogize space to zero, there's no need to make it as bland as a string of summed zeros.