Something from nothing or nothingness.

I had a discussion with a friend and he brought up his belief that from nothing came everything, that nothing created something. He is not the first person I have spoken too that has subscribed to this belief.

Here is what wiki has to say on it.
en.wikipedia.org...

My argument against it was that nothing has no substance to magically create the functions required to make something, but something has the function to create a vacuum there for a state of nothing within something.

I told him that everything exists as a part of absolutism as opposed to nothingness which he subscribes to. After we spoke, he is questioning his stance on nothingness based on absolutism.

What are you views on this argument.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


I believe in emanation. Something emanates from a prior something. This monad of 'something' would be God...or the primary consciousness of all things.

Everything evolved from a 'thought' of this primary consciousness...or God.

Even the word 'bara' in the bible that is used to describe what we have translated to mean 'creation' has meaning of 'filling' or 'fattening'.

Another way this could be read..instead of 'God' creating...could be God 'filled and fattened' the Earth and Heavens.

God, being the primary 'monad' , can be the 'void' all in the same. Before there was everything, the thought, without the 'everything' would seem as a 'void'.

Our languages limits us and our thought processes do the same. But it is challenging to think about such unknown things.

I find it ironic...how our thoughts...are the start...of mans owns creations. How can we make something or invent something, without first, a thought?

s&f just for making me think I think its best to not subscribe to any one thought, but think of them all, with a open mind.

"nothing" has to be believed to exsist,
and when it is believed, it can not exsist,
it means all is belief.
God is truth, it means all believes together.
Everything that exsists is always exsisting in truth.
Truth is all time, time is a belief.



[edit on 9-1-2010 by pasttheclouds]

reply to post by LeoVirgo


I agree with questioning everything. I adhere to a very fundamental rule to all of my thoughts, "Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true."

That applies to Science, Religion and Philosophy.

Logic is what sets free.

Truth is fixed there where no other possibility is
this is made by growing beliefs, that integrate previous ones.

this is REASONing and is the function of this life
where oneness is not enjoyed as it is supposed to be lived.

In this world god is upisde down, and are lies the boss,
wo we could grow as a plant the paradox of life, of god,
so truth could be asbsolute, without excluding something,
or it would not be absolute, and nothing would really exsist.

All opposite truths come still together in the one absolute truth.
Duality in a world of oneness.

My belief is that everything is nothing, and the nothing is everything.


In other words, there is the physical, and then there is the complete opposite.

a belief is a though and in a sense is nothing,
still it is something, if truth can't describe itself,
it can not exsist, and without the belief in 'nothin'
nothing really exsists.

But,

you are thinking. This erases nothing from the possibility
of exsisting. Only other option is an absolute truth.

reply to post by gandhi


So everything that is not physical...is nothing?

Love=nothing?

Compassion=nothing?

Hope=nothing?

reply to post by pasttheclouds


I think that because we exist within this conscious space of self-realization which is not substance like matter, rather just awareness. It appears to come from nothing, and when we die, appears to return to nothing. I think that is where this idea stems from.

For myself, absolutism implies that there is absolute truth and absolute something as a constant. Our awareness and relationship with that absolute something is relatively microscopic.

Fun concepts to think about.

there is one lie in the world,
that the mystery of Life can not be found.
It can.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by pasttheclouds]

I say there is no difference between "everything" and "nothing" except semantics.

Everything and nothing are the same thing already.

People just have trouble coming to terms with the realization that "nothing" already implies "everything" by contrast to the very concept, so they both must exist for either one of them to exist "separately." But just as with all dualities, they are just two poles of the same thing. Like "hot" and "cold" are two extremities of "temperature." "Everything" and "nothing" are just two extremities of consciousness.

Well this argument is from Empedocles who is considered the founder of Being versus Nonbeing -- the idea that nothingness can not exist.

But, in fact, the issue is one of symmetry. So logically all our thoughts and perceptions are from the I-thought. If we repeat I-I-I to see where the I-thought comes from we can then logically infer that consciousness exists even though there is no thoughts.

Logical inference means that there's no word to describe Being yet at the same time it is not nothing.

The reason this doesn't make sense in Western logic is because the axioms are based on symmetry. This comes from Vedic mathematics -- so the concept of "zero" as nothing relies on symmetry.

But what if the PROCESS of looking for zero in itself creates something -- in other words "one" is not really a number because of the inherent asymmetric resonance of number itself.

In nonwestern music the ratio 2:3 is C to G while the ratio 3:4 is G to C. This violates the symmetry of Western logic whereby A x B = B x A.

So the concept of "nothingness" is already predicated on the inherent symmetry of "something" -- which then defines zero and infinity, as per Vedic logic.

In contrast in Pythagorean and Taoist logic -- one plus one does not equal 2 -- so there is no zero -- but there is an infinite asymmetric resonance of complementary opposites.

In quantum physics you find the same paradox called the Time-Frequency Uncertainty Principle. So there is a fundamental uncertainty -- it's not random -- it means that reality does not exist until we measure it. Yet we can INFER that reality exists -- even as instantaneous entanglement of photons.

So in logic we do not have to depend on technology to measure after the fact the reality of "something" -- using symmetric math! In quantum logic is it recognized that true reality is not symmetric, just as was the case in Pythagorean logic and also Taoist logic. The three gunas of Vedic yoga philosophy are another example -- nonwestern music models reality as an eternal LISTENING process so that everything is consciousness as when light reverses its phase to reverse time itself. If you have instant communication then space is transcended as well - and only consciousness exists with spacetime as a holograph.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming

Here's my post from another thread about nothingness.

Nothingness literally means non-existent or pretty much nothingness. Nothingness is something that's impossible to conceive of because there's nothing there to conceive of, granted viewing nothingness or imagining nothingness is illogical. When someone imagine nothingness they automatically give it a place, which contradict definition of being nowhere. They give nothingness a color, such as black, but this contradict it being inconceivable. Nothingness isn't descriptive at any level; giving it a color/place would violate the concept completely.

I have to say, a lot of great thought on the topic. The belief in nothing implies immediately that there is something. All this just affirms my understanding that all there is, is reality.

As to what the big picture reality is, remains a mystery to me.