Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
sorry, no, you are wrong there. The nothingness referred to when saying "Big Bang and before things existed", and before even space-time existed, is the absence of things and the absence of all and anything. Even the absence of vacuum. A nothingness that is so total and complete in meaning and span of "nothing", that about this nothingness cannot even be said it existed. A double negation, if you want. It is impossible to attach qualities, features or descriptions to this, and it is even impossible to say what it is not , because dpoing so would result in efforts and temrs being part of the existing universe and space-time that we experience. Human mind just cannot embrace the total lack of any conception like this. Even the laws of maths as we know and understand them, mean nothing there anymore. Nothing=absence of anything, even the meaning of the words "absense", "of" and "anything". Not even calling nothingness a nothingness makes sense anymore. We do not talk of a physical vacuum - a vacuum actually would be something.  |
That's my point exactly - this absolute nothing cannot be defined nor analysed in any way due to its nature or absence of it. And like god, there is no evidence this absolute nothing ever existed. And if it did, well it would be something by virtue of its existence, thus defying its own nature or absence of it.
Or to put it another way if it does exist, it might exist all around us at once but as it is actually nothing at all, it is not detectable and we are distracted by the somethings, even were the somethings not there we still would not be able to find nothing.
So the questions about why or how everything from nothing are meaningless unless you attribute something to that nothing first.
If absolute nothing could exist, then it would be all that there isn't, no?
Oh smeggin' hell this is getting like Red Dwarf!
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home for breakfast.
Regards,
Sam.