4 ms·
The assumption that perpetual nothingness is the expected state of thing seems wrong, there is no evidence of such thing, everything we know about is never trul
by mattigames 6y ago
The assumption that perpetual nothingness is the expected state of thing seems wrong, there is no evidence of such thing, everything we know about is never truly created, every process we know is a transformation, from "creating" computers to "creating" children, therefore what we are really asking is what were the first transformations if we could look into the past.
- jedimind 6y agoNo evidence? Says an entity from within the universe bound by its laws. The question transcends those limits. You talk about transformations, how is there even a law that defines what a transformation is. How does a law come into being, how does it enforce or is enforced, how do X laws work together in harmony, why do laws remain constant...
- mattigames 6y agoWho said there must be a law determining what a transformation is? It's an abstract concept helpful for dialogue.
- jedimind 6y agoTransformation in the mathematical/physical sense. Every entity in the observable universe that interacts and potentially transforms in consequence,does so according to laws, which I was referring to.