lol, thas the most basic logic given but in physics, time itself started at the big bang, ther was NOTHING, before the big bang, no dimensions, no time, no existance, no space.
"It didn't. Time didn't "begin" at the big bang. Because there was something before it"
thas how a human being thinks logically, but u cant argue ur way out of the laws of physics, which say that the property of the universe called TIME was not present before the big bang, it was born in the big bang, not before it.
so ur saying that stephen hawking and einstien lyed to us then?
there was no BEFORE the big bang, yes yes rationally speaking, there has to be a before for anything to start in but thats only human logic, physically at the big bang, all the laws of physics break down because the density of the universe becomes infinite and its volume becomes zero, therefore, it becomes a 'singularity', when the calculations are actualy done, we know that time CUD NOT HAVE EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BANG , ask any physicist u can find, its just that human reasoning doesnt really understand or actually cant cope with this seemingly ridiculous fact.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
so ur saying that stephen hawking and einstien lyed to us then?there was no BEFORE the big bang, yes yes rationally speaking, there has to be a before for anything to start in but thats only human logic, physically at the big bang, all the laws of physics break down because the density of the universe becomes infinite and its volume becomes zero, therefore, it becomes a 'singularity', when the calculations are actualy done, we know that time CUD NOT HAVE EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BANG , ask any physicist u can find, its just that human reasoning doesnt really understand or actually cant cope with this seemingly ridiculous fact.
This doesn't disprove my saying though. I know all that, but I don't personally buy a birth of time. Because there WAS something before, by definition. You're obviously not reading what I'm typing.
Hawking doesn't know what he's saying half the time. He spent a bulk of his life saying one thing, then changing it.
-AC
no actually im reading it, i thought like that once too, but then when u let go of ur human boundries of thinking that you can imagine things like nonexistance and the start of time. and hawking is a genius, u r referring to him saying that the universe started with a big bang but now him persuing the opposite theory that there was no big bang. that was because when he made the predictions in the earlier part of his carear, quantum affects were not studied enough and taken into account, now that they are well know, many theories had to be rethought.
Oh give it a rest Mr. Spirituality.
"I've let go of my...."
Yeah, try letting go of you crap, pseudo-philosophical theories and realising that you can't prove me wrong anymore than I can prove you wrong.
You're telling me that because you read a few books and heard a few theories, that you blindly believe there was a birth of time?
-AC
Originally posted by Storm
What is nothingness? Can such a thing exist?
Anything that exists, would be something. So exists nothingness only as a concept in the mind?
Nothingness is generally defined as the absense of everything. Going back to the example with the vacuum: there's the absence of light, possibly air, etc. But there's still space within the vacuum. And space, though commonly understood as the absence of everything physical, therefore misconcepted as nothing, is, in fact something, as space exists. And nothingness is not only the absense of everything, but the condition of actually not existing. But everything we know exists. Including space. Therefore, Nothingness can only be a concept of the mind.
Originally posted by Cynethryth
I think the non-existence of Nothingness is rather a linguistical problem... if you say "Nothing exists", it's a lie, but so is "Nothing doesn't exist"
It only works if you add an article - "The Nothingness exists", which would also mean specifying a certain Nothingness, but this specifying somehow implies that The Nothingness has something to disinguish it from the other Nothingness... though that would signify that it is not really nothing.I personally also think that nothingness is a concept, a useful one maybe, but a concept.
I wonder, what would the border of Nothingness look like? Is it possible that there is something and the next moment there is nothing... no time, no materia, no temperature??
Exactly. Where does the nothingness begin? As far as we can see, there is space. There is eternity. Maybe, then, nothingness actually does not exist. Ironic, isn't it.
Originally posted by Tassie
Where does the nothingness begin? As far as we can see, there is space. There is eternity. Maybe, then, nothingness actually does not exist. Ironic, isn't it.
I personally think the beginning of time is just as impossible and illogical to imagine as the beginning of life, but they both must have 'happened' at some point, as theoretically impossible as they are.
Originally posted by Exabyte
The irritating thing is that the universe is still expanding, growing more and more voluminous as indicated by the redshift phenomenon, so there must be some real nothingness even around the vacuum of the universe, some nothing - without time 😬I personally think the beginning of time is just as impossible and illogical to imagine as the beginning of life, but they both must have 'happened' at some point, as theoretically impossible as they are.
It's frustrating to know that there always existed something before any form of life was created. Something, or rather, nothing, must have existed. There must have been nothing before life evolved/was created. No time, no space, just nothing. I think nothingness is inconceivable, because it is the actual state of not existing. We cannot see/ feel/ experience/ know nothingness, because it does not exist.
I can't imagine there being nothingness beyond the universe; there's the existence of the universe, expanding beyond imagination. And suddenly there's.. nothing ? No space, nothing. Like some kind of force field distinguishing that there's nothing beyond? 😬 As far as the human mind can conceive, there's the universe expanding into eternity, without end. A naïve concept, considering, as you said 'the universe is still expanding, growing more and more voluminous'.
Therefore, Nothingness can only be a concept of the mind.
Maybe, then, nothingness is quite the opposite-- it actually is, but the human mind cannot conceive it.
In response to Storms question:
I think of Nothingness as a concept with which we start with in order to begin to understand what is in our world. From that point we build outwards such as rock , fire, other. Nothingness is the beginning of everything in the human mind. For me Nothingness is part of the Ying and Yang. To understand one you have to grasp and accept the other. So in conclusion everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Concepts are human's giving order to what we don't know. Without humans would the concepts still exist? Who can say ? It's like saying if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it did it really fall? I admit my understanding is probably quite limited being that I don't have a masters in philosophy or that I am not a Zen Master but I like to think I have some constructive or helpful examples to give that others could refute or expound on. Perhaps reading Heideggar's Being and Nothingness may give you one viewpoint to take into account. To me philosophy has so many interpretations and shades that it is hard to be concise with answers but at least more questions will lead to more discussions therefore leading to a general target that can be more realized. I hope I helped in some matter because now I think I may have confused myself. I tend to go off on a tangent sometimes. by the way hello everyone I am new Here.