The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing

a reply to: Nothin

I don’t know what you mean by materialism. I didn’t think I was espousing materialism

originally posted by: rom12345
a reply to: St Udio
I think Genesis, and the notions of Ein Sof are very similar, and seem to suggest an Emanationist construct.
I find it amazing that ancient people could come up with explanations, that if interpreted for essential meanings, align with modern understanding.

You are probably right there.

Genesis does not mention anything about God being created. It is as if it is assumed God has always been.

And yes it is as if the ancient people had a very good (if not scientific) understanding of creation.
It is quite possible to interpret Genesis, the creation of the Solar system along with Earth in a way that fits in with our current understanding of the creation of star & planetary systems. Too much for a reply here and would be better suited to having its own thread.

originally posted by: merka
Does it say that he *created* light? No it doesnt. It just say that he said let there be light and there was light. Not that he created light. Not that it was "supernatural" in any way. Which, in practical terms means that he said that about 8 minutes and 20 seconds after the Sun was created and that he used fundamental laws of physics that most likely existed beforehand.

Think about that for a moment.

I agree, the light spoken about there is not the light of the Sun.
The Sun was not created until the fourth day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

originally posted by: rom12345
I interpret the word, as the conceptual possibility, the underlying information, being the cause of the physical universe.
It seems intuitive that something would need a realm of possibility and formulation of sorts to exist, before it actually did.
Analogues to quantum fields, i guess.

I admit that quantum stuff gets a bit "woo woo" and not easily comprehensible.

Would it be in the realms of quantum mechanics to suggest, as I have, that things did exist before they existed (in a way) by parts of existence (at a quantum level) traveling back in time to ensure its own creation?

a reply to: whereislogic
"more funny" = not sad.
Two out of three aint bad.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: rom12345

It's a hard thing to imagine, the closest thing to it in Sci-fi is this

Fluidic Space

It is a different dimension than the physical Universe itself.

I'm happy you tried at least.

From that link:

Fluidic space is an extra-dimensional realm filled with a form of organic fluid and containing no stars or other celestial bodies. Its sole indigenous lifeforms were Species 8472. Objects moving through fluidic space generated pressure waves detectable by Species 8472.

close but having lifeforms within it and detectable waves cancels it out from being a state of 'nothing'.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Hammaraxx

Hi Hammaraxx.
Thanks for the interesting thought exercise.
Haven't read the replies yet, but imagine that somebody must have brought-up the question, of how does that first 'single negatrine' appear ?

We're still stuck at: something out of nothing, no ?

For me: there is no something, that can drag us out of nothingness.

I'm so glad you've joined in here Nothin. It's very fitting to see your user name here.

Great question and thank you for asking that.

How does that first 'single negatrine' appear ?

The way I imagine it is that negatrines are 'born' at the end of time when positrines reach the Omega state (the end) and convert into negatrines in the process of "reflection". They then travel backwards in time and their numbers decrease (they dissolve) as the number of positrines to interact with become less and less (from the perspective of going backwards in time).

everything in existence is created by at least one positrine and at least one negatrine combining every moment.

Ultimately (still going backwards in time) all that is left is a single negatrine when the last positrine (which would be the first when going forwards in time) 'disappears'. The last of the negatrines is what enters into the "Nothingness".

Now that a negatrine exists, there is no longer a state of "Nothing" and going forward in time a positrine simply must come into existance, due to the nature of the negatrine in the first place. The negatrine could not exist if a positrine wasn't about to interact with it.

originally posted by: Hammaraxx

originally posted by: TzarChasm
how about the possibility that the universe began as a very chunky fart from a black hole?

And if it did, where did that gas filled black hole come from?

Presumably a neighboring universe where the mouth of the black hole lives. And its anus is on our side of the fence. Hypothetically speaking.

Yarkovsky Effect

The Yarkovsky effect is a force acting on a rotating body in space caused by the anisotropic emission of thermal photons, which carry momentum. It is usually considered in relation to meteoroids or small asteroids (about 10 cm to 10 km in diameter), as its influence is most significant for these bodies.
en.wikipedia.org...

about your premise that the physical Universe we are part of, is in a constant state of expanding itself by creating more 'Space' 'Volume'...

i have long had the opinion that the Quantum Universe of sub atomic energies creates new 'Particle of Space' that have a similar trait we have discovered in a Human 'stem cell' ... the remarkable ability of being able to develop into something else the human 'stem cell' may become a Heart cell or a Lung cell or whatever the body needs

same with these hypothetical 'particles of space' that pop into existance because of the above mentioned Yarkovsky Effect brought about by the spin action brought about by the influences of Photon Spin on Any concentrated Point-of-Space--->> & 'Poof' all of a sudden the fabric of time-space is grown by one more empty particle that is some 100,000th of a millimeter in volume (add enough of these mystery particles to the volume of space and the Universe expands faster than the-speed-of-light, as it does now)

So your idea of continual 'Creation' is a continual process and the exotic particles that travel thru time, to the Past, are not required...because the Yarkovsky Effect already exists - thanks

a reply to: St Udio
Have you considered that they may be the same thing?
Or at least constructed by the meeting of negatrines and positrines each moment?
That could explain how they can 'pop into existence'.

Isn't there a physics law that says matter can neither be created or destroyed?

Nothing denotes Nothing.

So everything came from something.

a reply to: neo96
Did you watch the animated TV show Futurama?
Fry went back in time and became his own Grandfather.
Totally fiction, but what if...?

a reply to: Hammaraxx

I don't know.

The only thing I'm sure of is theres too much we don't know.

a reply to: neo96

Isn't there a physics law that says matter can neither be created or destroyed?

This is true but in what they say is a closed system. So, then possibly, the universe can be classified as a closed system.

Another point is that “nothingness” is in itself something. It is the absence of a thing, relatively speaking.


Here’s some information:


Everything is a so-called Holon or entity. But everything as a Holon is part of a Holarchy.
For example, a sun is a Holon but part of a Holarchy called a Solar System, which is itself ( solar system) a Holon, a part of a Holarchy known as a Galaxy.

So, everything is a Holon and part of a Holarchy.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Nothin

I don’t know what you mean by materialism. I didn’t think I was espousing materialism

Hi WT.
Perhaps you were not able to watch the vid, posted in the link of my original post to you ?

Well: my comment, was a reply to this quote of yours:

...There are levels of material reality all the way to relative invisibility.

Was it incorrect for me to think that you were saying that 'everything', or 'all', is made of material ( Particles ) ?

Here in this vid, we go 'deeper' than the last 'layer' of material, or particles, with the Unified Field Theory:
Is Consciousness the Unified Field?, John Hagelin

Consciousness is a psychological construct, not a particle or law of physics.

a reply to: Hammaraxx

Hi Hammaraxx. Thank-you for your reply, and warm welcome into your interesting thread.

It's difficult for me to get my mind away from the impression that you are still describing a 'something from nothing' scenario.

Are we wrong to think that 'everything' that you describe, including the possible 'original negatrine', is still 'of' something, meaning that it has a source within 'thingness' ?

That is such a large hurdle to overcome, and yet, is it perhaps happening continuously ?

For our amusement:
NOTHING: The Science of Emptiness

a reply to: Nothin

Was it incorrect for me to think that you were saying that 'everything', or 'all', is made of material ( Particles ) ?

I wouldn’t go as far as say anything so absolute as that.

But that may be the case it’s a good topic for conversation.

A very wise man did write once that even spirit has its degree of materiality

Thanks for the vid, I'll check it out.

I don’t know what these guys say but as I posted earlier, nothing doesn’t have to be ABSOLUTE NOTHING.


Nothing can imply merely the absence of something in particular.


We can never forget relativity and perspective in analyzing anything philosophically. We are always within a given perspective and in the realm of relativity.