Philosophy Discussion Forums

Wayne92587 wrote: Prior to the Beginning, the spatial-temporal framework of the physical Universe, Space-Time, the Totality of the Reality of Everything, the four-dimensional Continuum of Space-Time (the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, the Physical Universe), the Reality of Everything did not exist, only Nothingness existed.

By "Prior to the Beginning" I assume you mean prior to the beginning of the universe. How can you know that only nothingness existed prior to the beginning of the universe? Why couldn't something else have existed before the universe? What makes you think that you are in possession of all the necessary knowledge and information required to deduce the state of anything before the existence of the universe?

The Universe is said to be made of a Single Substance, which prior to the beginning, had no Mass, was not readily apparent, was not measurable as to location and momentum in a Space-Time, that was yet to physically exist, had no relative, numerical value, had a numerical value of Zero-0.


If the Universe is made of a Single Substance, the Single Substance would have to be, exist, as an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, with the Universe existing as a Singular Macrocosm, an Omni Potent Singularity, existing, consisting of an unknown quantity of omnipresent Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singular Microcosms having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

-- Updated November 10th, 2015, 3:48 pm to add the following --

When did the universe begin? There was something that exited prior to the Universe; The Random State of Singularity, the Transcendental (metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity which consisted of an untold quantity, number of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.

This State is referred to as being Nothingness simply because that was no Reality that was Measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, Space-Time not being, existing because Time and Space were not yet Relative.

Nothing existing, in the material sense of the word because the only Substance in existence was pure unadulterated Energy; Energy being a substance that has no Mass, not being readily apparent, not being measurable as to location and Momentum in a Space-Time that is yet to exist.

Nothing within this State or Condition that existed prior to the beginning being readily apparent, being measurable as to location and momentum; the spatial-temporal framework of Space-Time, prior to the existence of the Space-Time continuum means that the only description, Identity, of the Substance known to be Pure unadulterated Heat Energy having no Mass can only be described, defined as being a State of Nothingness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne92587 wrote:The Universe is said to be made of a Single Substance, which prior to the beginning, had no Mass, was not readily apparent, was not measurable as to location and momentum in a Space-Time, that was yet to physically exist, had no relative, numerical value, had a numerical value of Zero-0.


If the Universe is made of a Single Substance, the Single Substance would have to be, exist, as an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, with the Universe existing as a Singular Macrocosm, an Omni Potent Singularity, existing, consisting of an unknown quantity of omnipresent Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singular Microcosms having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

-- Updated November 10th, 2015, 3:48 pm to add the following --

When did the universe begin? There was something that exited prior to the Universe; The Random State of Singularity, the Transcendental (metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity which consisted of an untold quantity, number of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.

This State is referred to as being Nothingness simply because that was no Reality that was Measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, Space-Time not being, existing because Time and Space were not yet Relative.

Nothing existing, in the material sense of the word because the only Substance in existence was pure unadulterated Energy; Energy being a substance that has no Mass, not being readily apparent, not being measurable as to location and Momentum in a Space-Time that is yet to exist.

Nothing within this State or Condition that existed prior to the beginning being readily apparent, being measurable as to location and momentum; the spatial-temporal framework of Space-Time, prior to the existence of the Space-Time continuum means that the only description, Identity, of the Substance known to be Pure unadulterated Heat Energy having no Mass can only be described, defined as being a State of Nothingness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you're wrong. I've checked.

Regarding Mr. Alex Q. Smart's post:

(1): (My quote): Let's define the universe as the totality of that which is contained within spacetime.

(Your question): That may be how you want to define it, but on what grounds have you arrived at that definition?

(My answer): The definition which I proffered is reasonable. Someone else may want to include the Empyrean, with it's myriads of angels. But, I wanted to keep it real; and, spacetime is as real as it gets. Empty realities seem like just so much superstitious nonsense.

(2): (My quote): I agree [the universe] can have neither a beginning nor an ending, because beginnings and endings need a spatial-temporal framework.

(Your question): How do you know there isn't a "spatial-temporal framework"?

(My answer): If there is such a spatial-temporal framework, then yes, ours must'ave surely sprang from it. But, whence the framework posited by your question? Being material (as all such frameworks are), it poses the same mystery as our spacetime continuum. That is, unless you want to posit a self-generating materiality. If you choose to do that, however then why not simply posit that our spacetime continuum is self-generating? There's no need to posit an exitic continuum as it's progenitor.

(3): (My quote): The universe must therefore be regarded as necessary. In other words, the universe necessarily is. And, whatever it is, is forever.

(Your question): I can't see that anything you've said leads to this conclusion. How can you possibly know this?

(My answer): The reason why I claimed the universe is necessary is because I argued it has neither a beginning or an ending. By definition, necessary existence is that which cannot have been otherwise. That which is, essentially eternal cannot have been otherwise. Therefore, the universe is necessary.

-- Updated November 11th, 2015, 12:33 am to add the following --

Assuming the Big Bang actually occurred, do you ever wonder just where it banged? The truth is, every location in space and time is when and where it all started. Whenever and wherever you are is thus the center of the universe. The signature of the Big Bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation is isotropic. This observed and well established fact proves the point.

The universe began in a state of maximum order. No one knows why, though. Unless..., there's no other way to "begin". But, that means where I am, right now was once in a state of maximum order. Therefore, no information in my here-and-now was missing. The same is also true of everyone's here-and-now. This fact provides a built-in-clock indicating the universe is the same age, no matter from when or where we might check-the-time.

Does the age of the universe thus mean it began when the universal clock read zero-time? That'd be true only if each tick of the clock was the same. But, the amorphous plasma, which was the young universe didn't tick as does our universe, today. It's disingenuous to imagine a modern clock superimposed in a super-heated plasma where it just couldn't have existed. Therefore, we can't really know when our universal clock should be zeroed-out.

All the universal clock proves is there was a time-and-place, when-and-where information wasn't hidden inside a state-of-entropy. The presumption, however that this time-and-place represents the zeroing-out of the universal clock is just that: a presumption. There can be no beginning, no zeroing-out for the simple reason truly amorphous states of matter don't tick. And, if the universal clock can't tick, then the beginning of the universe might as well have not happened. And thus it didn't.

When did the universe begin?

At the Zero Hour, Time has no relative, numerical value; the Zero-0 Hour acting as a holding place, for the First Single Moment of Time to have a relative, a numerical value of One-1, a holding place for First Cause, the uncaused cause, that began the march of measurable Time.

Time at the Zero-0 Hour existing as an undifferentiated Singularity, having a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada; Time being eternal, everlasting; the spatial-temporal framework, the relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time, not in existence.

-- Updated November 11th, 2015, 11:05 am to add the following --

The Reality of Everything born of Cause and Effect, the end result of an orderly process, is naturally necessary.

The existence of a Reality born of Illusion is unnecessary, unnatural, that does not exist as the end result of an orderly process; suffering born Illusion being unnecessarily Evil.

Existence, the Universe being naturally born of the orderly system of Chaos, Chaotic Determinism, being born of the Space-Time continuum, cause and effect, is naturally necessary.

Motion prior to the Zero-0 Hour, had no velocity of Speed and Direction.

Motion, existing only as the negligible inner innate motion; a Singularity of Zero-0, having no relative numerical value being the generator of Pure Unadulterated Heat Energy, the Passion, the negligible innate inner motion existing within each of the untold number, quantity, of Fully Random Singular Omnipresent Microcosms existing within the Omnipotent Singular Macrocosm of the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random State of Singularity.

Order, did not exist in the Beginning, at the Zero-0 Hour.

The Term Order is based upon Orderly Motion.

Without displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, our understanding of motion does not exist.

-- Updated November 11th, 2015, 12:06 pm to add the following --

Platos stepchild wrote;

All the universal clock proves is there was a time-and-place, when-and-where information wasn't hidden inside a state-of-entropy.

Wayne wrote; True!

The Universe did not exist as a young Universe, at the Zero-0 Hour, there being not such thing as amorphous plasma until after the Zero-0 Hour, until Time had begun.

It is the state-of-entropy that is referred being the Order that existed at the Zero-0 Hour; Motion within the state-of-entropy having no velocity of speed and direction, no angular momentum, existing without displacement.

At the point, moment, that Time and Space became relative, the when and where information was no longer Sacred, Secret, Hidden, mute, was made manifest.

With regard to the age-of-the-universe, each and every address in spacetime is proof that each and every such address was once in a state-of-perfect-order. This perfect order simply means that the order-of-the-universe wasn't hidden within the disorder of entropy. Nevertheless, it was chaotic. And, the chaos of this state-of-perfect-order didn't initially tick; i.e., the clock measuring the age-of-the-universe wasn't initially working.

Now, it's important to understand that the state-of-perfect-order, being chaotic wasn't the beginning. A chaotic clock is a contradiction in terms. And since beginnings are beginnings only if measured as such, it's meaningless to speak about the beginning-of-the-universe. This chaos became orderly only when what's known as a false vacuum stretched spacetime at a geometric rate. But, what happened before is shrouded in mystery. The first 300,000 years* of universal time remains impenetrable as an amorphous perfection.

(*) This number is derived, based on the simplifying assumption that the the universe expanded within a frictionless container. But, an intractable problem arises when we try to account for this remarkable container. It's only be positing this gratuitous artifact that we're able to calculate the age-of-the-universe. However, I believe it's a specious attempt.

Platos stepchild wrote: But, what happened before is shrouded in mystery.

As is most of what you write.

The first 300,000 years* of universal time remains impenetrable as an amorphous perfection.

I think the only way to use the phrase "amorphous perfection" without being laughed at is to stick it in a poem and hope nobody questions it.

God is Nothing, Nothing is God

Wayne92587 wrote:God is Nothing, Nothing is God

Is God nothing, is nothing God?

Alec Smart wrote:

Wayne92587 wrote:God is Nothing, Nothing is God

Is God nothing, is nothing God?

Hmmm, maybe god is everything, and everything is God. The universe begins anew with each human birth.

It is difficult to understand but Nothingness is Something.

Nothingness is an Untold quantity of Nothing, nothing being a substance that has no mass, that is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and Momentum in Space-Time; God being the something, the substance that has no mass.

God's State of being, the body of God is both the large and small; the Large being omnificent, a Singularity Macrocosm, the small being the omnipresent Singularity Microcosm that fills the Transcendental, (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity.

The smallest particle in the Universe existing as Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singular microcosm having not relative, numerical value, having a numerical vale of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.

If you look at the Board Index you can see that the Board Index already knows when the universe began.

It currently says:

When did the universe begin?

Yesterday, 2.34pm.

Alec, the answer to your question; "Is God nothing, is nothing God?

The answer is Yes!

Hi all,

I'd like to inform you that familiarizing with all posts in this thread is beyond my feasibility and I'm very sorry about it. Thus it may happen that someone of the forum members wrote about it before me, then please ignore my post. But if you find anything new in mine, I will gladly continue the discussion.
First of all I'd like to note that the universe did not begin ((!)) It simply is. Consequently, the hypothesis that it originated from the big bang I consider 100% false.

--
Those who claim that understood Relativity, automatically admit, that they understood nonsense

Niebieskieucho wrote: First of all I'd like to note that the universe did not begin ((!)) It simply is. Consequently, the hypothesis that it originated from the big bang I consider 100% false.

--
Those who claim that understood Relativity, automatically admit, that they understood nonsense

Are you qualified to make such statements? Are you cleverer than the scientific establishment or do you just say the first thing that comes into your head? I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, I'm just saying you probably are.