3 ms·
Then how did the first one came about? What was there before it, pls don’t tell me nothing because it was nothing for a long time and then something must have
by m3kw9 4y ago
Then how did the first one came about? What was there before it, pls don’t tell me nothing because it was nothing for a long time and then something must have triggered the first one. Or was there no first one because of infinity?
- rubicon33 4y agoI think this question can never actually be answered using our concept of language and time. If I tell you A happened before B, you can always ask what happened before A.
- Zolomon 4y agoI guess an easy idea to escape this is that it's a cycle of events that repeat forever. For example, imagine the sequence of events `A, B, C`. After `C`, imagine that the cycle repeats with the beginning of `A` again, ad infinitum.
- jliptzin 4y agoBut what got the cycle going in the first place?
- laichzeit0 4y agoNegation. The negation of nothing is something.
- b4ke 4y agoprecisely, there has to be nothing for there to be something. also above someone mentioned our conceptual framework for modeling such an understanding as lacking, but it works well enough, it’s more difficult to accept that the entirety is a comics soup and this is what our limited sensory capacity can contrive of it. time is an excuse for this reality.
- DonHopkins 4y agoCosmic Comics Soup!
- twangist 4y ago"Nothing" is not a proposition; you can't negate it. You can take it's complement, which is everything.
- bawolff 4y agoThat presumes that the cycle isn't the ground state and something had to start it. Also,i feel there are no satisfactory answers here. See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
- rubicon33 4y agoWhat you are describing is infinity. For infinite time, this cycle has existed. That concept is easy to say, but very difficult to mentally accept. We’re too accustomed to thinking of time linearly since we’ve never had examples to the contrary.
- bawolff 4y agoI disagree. For starters, linear things can be infinite too (e.g. integers). Being cyclic and being infinite are separate. Second, I do not know if time is finite or not, but i do know it lasts longer than i do, and anything that does is essentially infinite from my perspective. Is a time crystal a counter example? Guess its not something we would normally encounter anyways.
- yadingus 4y agoHow would you know if you had in front of you an example of the contrary?
- JackFr 4y agoAquinas and Aristotle knew: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
- Ekaros 4y agoThat is rather hard question. If we take that anything must have come from something. We might be for example simulation, but the place running the simulation then must have come from somewhere and so on... Maybe cyclicality or just from nothing are only real answers. Illogical as they may seem, in the end something from absolutely nothing would probably solve the problem.
- DangitBobby 4y agoEither something can come from nothing, or something has always been. Neither make sense from our understanding of causality, but one of them must be true.
- pmoriarty 4y agoIt would be surprising if something as limited as the human mind could comprehend the entirety of the universe. That it understands any part of it at all is already more than can be expected from mere matter. And that something does not make sense to the human mind doesn't mean that it can not be.
- downboots 4y agoIt'd be surprising if something as limited as an open interval was homeomorphic to the entirety of the real line. \j
- computerfriend 4y agoSpacetime is a property of the universe. So is the idea of causality. "Before" or "outside" make no sense when talking about the universe.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoThere's no time in nothing, so "nothing for a long time" is meaningless.