What came first, Nothing or Something?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
There is no such thing as nothing period!

Correct.

But, none-the-less, the Idea of Nothing had to manifest because you cannot have an Idea of Something without an Idea of Nothing to compare it to.

I don't know about comparing, as there is Nothing to compare, to me it would be, with out the perspective of the Something, the Nothing, could not, not exist.

Plus with the vastness of the Something, where else could you ever put it.

Nothing is what Something is not. As long as there is Something, there is Something to compare to Nothing -- It is everything Something is not.

There is Nothing to compare, how could Nothing be everything, all it is void.

The Something is expanding into the Nothing, but the Nothing is not getting smaller.

It is not anything the Something is not.

Nothing is only represented by an Idea.

I am talking about the Idea of Something and Nothing. That's what definitions by comparison are -- Ideas.

By comparison, the opposite of Something (Matter), would not be Nothing, it would be (Antimatter).

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OOOOOO

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
There is no such thing as nothing period!

Correct.

But, none-the-less, the Idea of Nothing had to manifest because you cannot have an Idea of Something without an Idea of Nothing to compare it to.

I don't know about comparing, as there is Nothing to compare, to me it would be, with out the perspective of the Something, the Nothing, could not, not exist.

Plus with the vastness of the Something, where else could you ever put it.

Nothing is what Something is not. As long as there is Something, there is Something to compare to Nothing -- It is everything Something is not.

There is Nothing to compare, how could Nothing be everything, all it is void.

The Something is expanding into the Nothing, but the Nothing is not getting smaller.

It is not anything the Something is not.

Nothing is only represented by an Idea.

I am talking about the Idea of Something and Nothing. That's what definitions by comparison are -- Ideas.

By comparison, the opposite of Something (Matter), would not be Nothing, it would be (Antimatter).

Interesting.

You bring up a great point about the entanglement of ideas, opposite ideas, and complementary Ideas.

I have some thinking to do.



EDIT: Thank you!

originally posted by: cryptic0void
a reply to: vethumanbeing

On a side note, we have multiple personalities and we change instanly all our makeup at a quantum level as we shift.
A recent science fact confirmed by studying the iris.
PS: I have talked with you before but can't reclaim that identity so I was having a bit of fun with my new, more sinister meme ; )

Taking a bold measure here, revealing your confession of knowing my level of naivete?

Regarding the original question; nothing can't come from something. So if we have to choose an order of appearance (and the latest in quantum science), nothing would have preceded something.

bah double post

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Naive is good.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Blarney:I think a better question would be, "did the universe give rise to consciousness or did consciousness give rise to the universe?"

VHB: This is the weird part; consciousness always existed, it just had to figure out how to form itself into something understandable (matter etc.) in order to express itself.

MotherMayEye: Disagree.
The universe gave rise to consciousness. That answer is not weird at all. It makes sense.
Why go with what's weird and try to make it logical when it isn't?

What is perceived as consciousness within this universe can be described as just unorganized information soup. We are very good at understanding/deciphering this rudimentary basic communication by the ability ourselves to duplicate this programing language: 1's and 0's (a very simple and effective) binary transference of information. We are inquisitive; its our nature to understand the reason for our being.
This thread is a fun read; thank you for creating it.

originally posted by: cryptic0void
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Naive is good.

Only if one is Jesus.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Regarding the original question; nothing can't come from something. So if we have to choose an order of appearance (and the latest in quantum science), nothing would have preceded something.

Here in is the paradox, to be first, Nothing would have to be, but it's not it's nothing, it can not be measured, as there are no dimensions to measure, there is nothing to appear, it's neither small nor large.

How could something be first if it does not exist period, this is interesting though, because now it would almost seem, that the something would of came first, but then realizing that the Nothing would of had to occur in the same instance.

Another interesting thought, would be, with the Singularity present, surrounded by the Void, all would of been black, without light, the Singularity would of been contained within it's self.
As the Singularity, expanded into chaos, now as the Universe evolves, is it headed to Order.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

There's two?
That which gives the veil it's substance is the substance of that which the veil is concealing.

What would you do if you were the ONE, The Absolute, floating around within a Void of Infinity, what would you do. Thinking outside of the box would be hard, when you are The Box.

Creating new universe's would get old after a few Eons, as the same laws would seem to apply in most all, Universes, I'm sure you could make some lesser Universes, but why would you, they would be duds.

So in creating a Universe, you would have some parameters first.

x
y
z
ds
love
hate
up
down
right
wrong
dark
light
large
small
hot
cold
pretty
ugly
strong
weak
stale
fresh
high
deep
vain
envy
And so on.

Well to build a different Universe, you would need to go outside of the parameters of this one.

Lord, forgive me I am lost in this place, please help guide me and all, through your Creation.

originally posted by: cryptic0void
a reply to: vethumanbeing

There's two?

That which gives the veil it's substance is the substance of that which the veil is concealing.

Regarding consciousness and sub-consciousness or something other? A 'sudarium' is a cover or veil to protect those gazing upon a thing they do not understand may spiritually be harmed by a misunderstanding . I am assuming you are speaking of the veil that describes light and dark energies which in its process of opposites gives each the same power; problem is which will come forth and WIN ultimately? Positive wins; as it grows potentials. Negative? a bald headed stepchild.

a reply to: OOOOOO
The human has done this describing a better God Aspect. This is what God wanted in the first place.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

God never changes, or get's bigger or smaller.
So we can add nothing to the equation except to stop adding anything to the equation, which in itself would be adding something to the equation.

originally posted by: cryptic0void
a reply to: vethumanbeing

God never changes, or get's bigger or smaller.
So we can add nothing to the equation except to stop adding anything to the equation, which in itself would be adding something to the equation.

Open this as new thread; too big to contemplate with a simple two sentence answer; If you don't I may.
God never changes its spots as doesn't have to reveal itself (that wasn't the experiment). For humans the idea of 'flushing it out is the quest' PROCLAIM YOURSELF as great ruler/savior; not happening because IT is just a system of information organizing itself. Sent us too many hints already as to its existence as far that concern goes. It is always prime source but the demi-gods (the engineers of all specie) are the ones in charge. God is just an idea form; as in this: I exist therefor something else MUST have created me; and yes they did (those arrogant demi-gods forgot this simple fact) and are still running their game as the freeloading zookeepers of this planet.

Wow sixteen pages, I think I'm going to have an aneurysm.

From the various perspectives- quantum mechanics, linguistics, philosophy, metaphysics, cosmology etcetera; can all these be synthesized into one cohesive idea?... in other words, can someone please give a cliff note version, I find this topic a bit too heavy.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
Wow sixteen pages, I think I'm going to have an aneurysm.

From the various perspectives- quantum mechanics, linguistics, philosophy, metaphysics, cosmology etcetera; can all these be synthesized into one cohesive idea?... in other words, can someone please give a cliff note version, I find this topic a bit too heavy.

You just need a mental workout.

a reply to: vethumanbeing
So this discussion is a demonstration that nothing is ever truly resolved or something of the sort?

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: vethumanbeing
So this discussion is a demonstration that nothing is ever truly resolved or something of the sort?

I'd say that's an apt enough way to frame the discussion.

I think the discussion hinges on the idea that Nothing is ZERO and, at the same time, it is ONE idea. Nothing causes something to exist...the Idea of One. And if zero and one exist, defacto, then every other Idea can exist, defacto, out of Nothing.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: vethumanbeing
So this discussion is a demonstration that nothing is ever truly resolved or something of the sort?

Not this/not YET but I have great hope (as the discovery of a binary information system that works is a clue) we have already cracked that universal code (what will follow)?