Something Cannot Come Out Of Nothing

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

You say ....

And here you clearly demonstrate you do not understand Dr. Kauss's work, he never uses the term "nothing" in the sense of "nonexistence" as you imply again here. To any physicist worth his while, "nothing" is actually Something... It's a quantum vacuum, a space with no matter, no elemental particle that pure physics could interfere with from within this vacuum. This actual "nothing" is actually a "thing" that exists and can be understood as a field of quantum fluctuations.

But honestly, at the moment I feel that there is nothing else that I could say that would help make you understand what I'm saying... You seem impervious to some basic concepts of Logic... 

My reply ....


I gave a quote from Kauss’s book regarding what Einstein said on the matter but you like a typical internet bully has to resort to snide remarks, anyway what would Einstein know compared to your towering intellect?

Physicists are still debating what the term “nothing “ means and there are many different strands to the argument , I’m sure it will come as a great relief that you have finally solved this problem.

Regarding Kauss on the term nothing , he has changed his position more than once Sam Harris in interviews with him uses three different definitions of the term to try and get absolutely clariity , of course you obviously knew this as a student and expert on the subject 

It must be very satisfying for you and others to know with such certainty that your answers to age old questions have finally being solved by you and others  on here ,regarding logic if logic was ego you would be exceptional unfortunately it’s not so you’re just a pumped up egotist who wants to hear itself 

Dee

@Aranea


You’re merely saying it’s impossible I keep asking you and others how you demonstrate this to be the case? This problem has not been resolved as in a definite conclusion mathematically, scientifically or through philosophy   

We can postulate that there was always something, but we could also postulate that at some point there was "nothing". Which means that "something" has come from "nothing". We don't know. Since we cannot observe back in time infinitely far, we don't have physical theories for that postulate either.

We can then try to create mathematical models: Mathematical models that describe how there was always something, or mathematical models that describe how something came from nothing. If one model is significantly simpler (or we can only find a model for one case), we might declare this model as likely correct. But really, at that point we are only guessing.

John_C_87

@Aranea ;

1.  How can nothingness hold the potential to spawn reality when there is no potential in nothingness? Simply said the destination will not be obscured by resistance.

2.  How can there be a transition between two contradictory opposites?  They do not hold the same position.

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

I agree that my reply was unnecessarily harsh and inconsiderate. Exasperation and fatigue are no excuse. I was out of line and I sincerely apologize. We are dealing with ontology after all and I forgot that when I shouldn't have, I know better... 

Busy right now but I'll try to give adequate answers to your objections/questionings later this evening.

Again I apologize.

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Thank you very much for that I appreciate it , also I apologise for my reaction I shouldn’t have reacted that way so please let’s continue whenever you’re ready 

John_C_87

----------- 1: It is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. I’m asking you and others how do you demonstrate that’s the case?

You must prove all things in truth are moving. Hence laws of motion.

John_C_87

----------- 1: It is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. I’m asking you and others how do you demonstrate that’s the case?

Second: Time must be properly calibrated to a scale understood.

John_C_87

----------- 1: It is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. I’m asking you and others how do you demonstrate that’s the case?

When considering clock and calendar year which one is time? The clock.

When considering clock and atomic movement which one is time? The clock.

The condition of clock is time must be calculated from a stationary point on the object only. It is what I would consider a law of Time.

John_C_87

@Dee ;

Since we cannot observe back in time infinitely far, we don't have physical theories for that postulate either.  To be direct Time is a mathematic scale that must be calibrated before it can be looked through to different times. When not calibrated it is like holding up your hands as cupped circles and looking through a telescope.

The funny thing is that might look like sarcastic remark and not truth. However a person needs the tool called a telescope to formulate Time. It simply is not the only tool. The Forth Law of Motion I wrote describes why not. Not how to as purpose in open mathematic grievance.

Dee

@John_C_87

I’m  asking very basic questions regarding the original statement as in “ something cannot come from nothing “ to me the intellectually honest answer is “I don’t know “ all else is speculation as the question has not been settled conclusively which is why I’m saying the burden of proof lies with those who claim it to be the case . 

John_C_87

I’m  asking very basic questions regarding the original statement as in “ something cannot come from nothing “ to me the intellectually honest answer is “I don’t know “ all else is speculation as the question has not been settled conclusively which is why I’m saying the burden of proof lies with those who claim it to be the case .

No it is not speculation. I do not know is not an honest answer. You do not understand why it can’t be explain as any answer, is more the honest statement. Basic answer. When (this) creation is one object, not matter how large, or small that one object may measure when no room to move does not exist, no motion will take place. Period. Science knows this and applies it in many other places very day, they do not know is the lack of complete truth, for any number of many reasons.

A baby step. What math principle removed Pi using geometry?

Something can come from nothing only when it starts motion as a lack of all resistance.

Dee

@John_C_87

You say .....No it is not speculation

My reply .... It is 

You say .....I do not know is not an honest answer.

My reply .....It’s dishonesty to say otherwise 

You say .....You do not understand why it can’t be explain as any answer, is more the honest statement.

My reply ....My original statement suffices as in I do not know is the honest answer 

You say .....Basic answer. When (this) creation is one object, not matter how large, or small that one object may measure when no room to move does not exist, no motion will take place. Period. Science knows this and applies it in many other places very day, they do not know is the lack of complete truth, for any number of many reasons.

My reply .....That’s make no sense at all 

You say ....A baby step. What math principle removed Pi using geometry?

My reply ..... Totally irrelevant 

You say .....Something can come from nothing only when it starts motion as a lack of all resistance.

My reply ..... Nonsense 

John_C_87

@Dee ;

Dee’s said .....I do not know is not honest answer. .....It’s dishonesty to say otherwise 

No Dee it is not an honest answer. It is not honest at all. “ I can’t prove or explain reason is a truthful reply. Not I don’t know.” Is an instruction.

You( I ) state .....Basic answer. When (this) creation is one object, not matter how large, or small that one object may measure when no room to move does not exist, no motion will take place. Period. Science knows this and applies it in many other places very day, they do not know is the lack of complete truth, for any number of many reasons.

Dee’s reply .....That’s make no sense at all.

It is observed truth. What the suggestion by science in general becomes simulation cannot be conducted due to lack of evidence. That somehow and nothing in motion will react different then everything else in existence, by not moving. Ignores matter moving is a fact.

A square Meter of sand is used as the model of all non-existence. If you add a cubic centimeter of water how much sand can move?

Dee’s Reply…..Totally irrelevant.

No sir, it is relevant, you are telling a lie. You are either calculating the lie, or the lie has been constructed for you to repeat to others, as a defense of poor mathematics. We are testing motion not only matter when a statement claims something can or cannot come from nothing. An ability to observe must be held impartial, and you are hear today sharing a claim that is said cannot be tested. Tell me honestly which of the two choices do you believe I know to true?

 Dee’s said .....No john_C_87 is speculating

No, I am running the test on motion anyway, no excuses, even though all evidence is not available. Until cause is found to believe otherwise. So when I make things up, create new idea, and possibly look like a fool. A 4th law of Motion. A 2nd yPi, A grievance of decimal infraction of Time, I am not a thug in debt in a well-educated gang.

John_C_87

John_C87 said ....A baby step. What math principle removed Pi using geometry?

My reply ..... Totally irrelevant 

I have to address this on its own. Pi makes the same kind of violation that you are claiming not to know takes place. Do you, do you not understand Pi is irrational math opinion, as it creates a motion in scale which dictates an end of a circle does not exist. Pi claims a circle is only an arc with two ends which never meet. Is that how you draw a circle? Ever?

Something cannot come out of nothing. False

Something can come from nothing only when it starts motion as a lack of all resistance.  True. Nothing and Something are not the focus of the test. As said. The test is place on motion and resistance, leaving us with an endless stream of possible subjects to use. Just because a key defense witness is missing.

So am I telling a lie? Is the test to be made on motion and resistance, or substance on its own? The word alienation, or fixed equation comes to mind as mass requires gravity, gravity now bound by a 4th law of motion modulation, elasticity, and reverberation.

Dee, I am saying you are lying. I am not saying you are responsible for the lie you believe and share.

Dee

@John_C_87

Dee’s said .....I do not know is not honest answer. .....It’s dishonesty to say otherwise 

John said ....No Dee it is not an honest answer. It is not honest at all. “ I can’t prove or explain reason is a truthful reply. 

My reply .... When I see truth and reason I understand them 

John Says....

Not I don’t know.” Is an instruction.

My reply ....nonsense , how is it instructive in any way?

Scientists do not know the answer to many questions so you’re contention is they’re dishonest?

John says ....You( I ) state .....Basic answer. When (this) creation is one object, not matter how large, or small that one object may measure when no room to move does not exist, no motion will take place. Period. Science knows this and applies it in many other places very day, they do not know is the lack of complete truth, for any number of many reasons.

My reply .....How does that prove something cannot come from nothing?

John says ....

It is observed truth. What the suggestion by science in general becomes simulation cannot be conducted due to lack of evidence. That somehow and nothing in motion will react different then everything else in existence, by not moving. Ignores matter moving is a fact.

A square Meter of sand is used as the model of all non-existence. If you add a cubic centimeter of water how much sand can move?

My reply .... That’s pure gibberish 

John says ....No sir, it is relevant, you are telling a lie. 

My reply ....I don’t lie 

John says ....You are either calculating the lie, or the lie has been constructed for you to repeat to others, as a defense of poor mathematics. We are testing motion not only matter when a statement claims something can or cannot come from nothing. An ability to observe must be held impartial, and you are hear today sharing a claim that is said cannot be tested. Tell me honestly which of the two choices do you believe I know to true?

My reply .....

You cannot demonstrate the fact that something cannot come from nothing until you do so you’re just giving your opinion 

 John says .....

No, I am running the test on motion anyway, no excuses, even though all evidence is not available. Until cause is found to believe otherwise. So when I make things up, create new idea, and possibly look like a fool. A 4th law of Motion. A 2nd yPi, A grievance of decimal infraction of Time, I am not a thug in debt in a well-educated gang.

My reply ....As I thought no proof that conclusively demonstrates something cannot come from nothing , you’re thus defeated 

John_C_87

How is I don’t know instructive?

It is a product of testing created by incompletion by grade of a series of questioning.

Something can come from nothing when nothing is the resistance to motion. The test is on motion, the test is not on discovery of objects, or lack of object. The suggestion created by deception is the find, not solve the simpler question placed on motion, saying instead the test should not take place at all.

Again, here we are to mathematically address Pi, for it holds a math principle in the public view much in the same way, the idea that scale is held in a direction of perpetually smaller by using math. However, we both already understand at least motion has two direction in relationship to scale. Larger and smaller.

Again, there is proof to be found on motion. The issue is you do not like the proof that is available. Okay I lost, does that mean you can now share why a test on motion should rely on the ability to locate an area of absolutely no resistance as an outcome of motion itself?

 All that is done is Aranea is tell us in order to have a test on motion we need this one object to complete his fixed equation. It’s not true. Something untrue is a lie. Your argument is based on the principle of setting the scenario so it should only have one outcome. 

Okay, maybe you need to see the facts in the other direction. If there is not less of all till void in some degree there would be no motion. Again this test is on movement. the truth is we need to set void as having resistance, not that it does, or does not exist. Your trying to weasel out of any work.

Dee

@John_C_87

> your trying to weasel out of any work 


Nonsense , what you have stated so far is void of implication and can easily be dismissed by reference to the standard Kripkean modal semantics ,both definite descriptions and proper names are not a logically sufficient condition for genuinely persuasive counterexamples.

John_C_87

@Dee ;

Is movement motion? Motion coming from nothing is describing instantaneous acceleration.
There is no opposite position created. There is no modal operator the formal truth as statement is there in the question, motion moves through no resistance. Why there is no resistance. Equilibrium. The principle that I am expected to believe is based on definitions of religious creation. The whole statement is about trying to create a semantic mathematic equation like Pi, which does not exist. Pi is an unfinished piece of mathematics waiting to be finished. Pi to a power of time is a complete mathematic principle.

Also Kripkean had no mathematic understanding of time. None at least demonstrated in the drawings I've seen. So far.

John_C_87

A truth we can both share is, it is not possible to build an object without the objects components. In doing nothing about finding the components we created the disaster.

John_C_87

Dee, a supposed dumb question has a supposedly dumb to answer. Most simple question have a math solution, they are often obvious but hard to see.   Not only is the test on motion not matter, but to the question of what from nothing may come? Is also addressed with a lack of mass as weight is a result. of constant motion in ocean of nothingness.

Dee

@John_C_87

How does that address my argument?

Dee

@John_C_87

Who asked a dumb question? Why not instead address my counter to your argument instead of ignoring it and trying to let on I didn’t answer?   Let me help do you not understand what I stated if not I will give you further information so please stop being so childish and address what I said 

Nathaniel_B

So is you tryin to say that like the Big Bang theory is ? Or that our existence didn't come from evolution, but from a god?

Dee

@Nathaniel_B

If that’s addressed at me no I never said the Big Bang is , and I don’t believe in a god 

Dee

@John_C_87

Your failure to understand the implication of my reference to Kripkean modal semantics is telling that you do not know what you’re talking about , I asked did you want more information and you replied “The principle that I am expected to believe is based on definitions of religious creation “

I’m not interested in superstitious nonsense regards creation , take it up with your preacher 

John_C_87

@Dee ;

I’m not interested in superstitious nonsense regards creation, take it up with your preacher.  You are the preacher.

First Kripkean does not understand the math principle of time. This is translated by the drawling’s made. Remember any drawing of a representation of time must demonstrate, show a mathematic completion of a way to find distance in its geometric pattern to us with application of motion. None of the geometric drawings seen from Kripkean or many others do that.

And yes the statement something from nothing is a semantic however again the modal operator is subject too logic independent from the missing component of nothingness. This is due to the fact that motion is used in the question. In order for the idea to become a modal operator use of motion would need to be removed from the statement completely.  So something cannot come out of nothing would read like, nothing is no something. Come out, move away, travel from is already saying there is depth, or distance of some kind, nothing among being used as a word will offer no resistance to the direction of any motion.

\Again it is a lie. A dumb question that has a dumb answer. The answer sounds almost just like the question. Something can come out of nothing when nothing is resistance. This is a basic truth addressing a basic lie.

John_C_87

@Nathaniel_B ;
So is you tryin to say that like the Big Bang theory is ? Or that our existence didn't come from evolution, but from a god?

No, it would be like saying the big bang is not really an explosion because we have no translation of time in the universe, thus we cannot find size as fact. Or Existents cannot come from evolution for there must be something to evolve from first, thus the first thing is  not found. This means we cannot exist. They are lies that are question having answers. The question does not reflect on the person asking.

Dee

@John_C_87

Nonsense , nearly all the deliverances of normal science bolster Nozick's radical account of trope theories that cannot generate

Nagelian what-it's- likenesses.

This is evident denial will merely see you embrace absurdities 

John_C_87

Can't deny what is not presented, I presented nothing as a non-motion. Motion is part of this modal. Aranea sought impartial observation on something cannot move in nothing? No, the statement said cannot come from, no limit on the depth of filed created by moving from, Depth is evidence. The description is asking to take out or to ignore the origin of velocity. We know velocity, motion exists as well, you are the evidence you move right?

Dee

@John_C_87

Obviously you are on a different topic as I posted a complete refutation of your argument that you’ve totally ignored 

John_C_87

I didn't ignore it. It was posted under laws of time.

Dee

@John_C_87

You did , that’s a different debate do you usually post answers to one debate by posting another? Obviously  you don’t comprehend what I stated so instead of admitting that you post a new-topic ........I won’t debate with you again as your dishonesty is appalling 

John_C_87

You did , that’s a different debate do you usually post answers to one debate by posting another? Obviously  you don’t comprehend what I stated so instead of admitting that you post a new-topic ........I won’t debate with you again as your dishonesty is appalling  

Agreed, simply applauding. So that is the defense of you’re use of Kripkean modal semantics with a lack of set modal operator? Really? You are trying to defend an idea of motion by not recognizing it. To come from is a declaration of motion, not material physics. The truth would have been we cannot build objects from nothing.

Truth is thing in general terms that can always amount from nothing as motion as we are talking about motion. By the way as far as motion goes the principle of nothing is a lot easier to demonstrate scientifically then you say as a common defense.  

Joeseph

@John_C_87

You heap more dishonesty on .....dishonesty , your pride is dreadful especially as it's built on nothing 

John_C_87

Joeseph said:

@John_C_87

You heap more dishonesty on .....dishonesty , your pride is dreadful especially as it's built on nothing. 

This addresses that moving from nothing is not, or is motion in what way? Something cannot come out of nothing has a model operator? It isn’t that I do not agree with Dee in some crude way, the point is the evidence is stated, yet not clearly, the understanding of artificial horizon alludes any reasonable understanding of time to most of all science. Yet the clock is used constantly. A reflection of the suns angle made on water, this on any given part of a day anywhere inland to find position.