You don't have to have time as part of "space-time" in order to understand the math of relativity. Time doesn't slow down; THINGS slow down and enlarge. Clocks are not time itself. We perceive different "times", but there could be an overarching objective time above it all by which they are compared. Does that help explain my post?

"When the unreflexive consciousness speaks of observation and experience as the foundation of truth, that phrase may sound as if the whole business were a matter of tasting, smelling, feeling, hearing, and seeing." Hegel

He goes on to say seeing the Universal in things is what philosophy ("science" as he calls it) is about. He says inorganic things are more determinate than organic. The later is "fluid movement". This sounds like a scientific claim (in the modern sense). But his old fashion science is still interesting in how he uses it to counter Hume. Hegel says there is some laws within the universe, but they are discovered in action (much as Hedeigger says).


I would say the universe comes from nothing, and that the Hegelian way of looking at the world and yourself as the Platonic Forms (your activity) is a reason the universe. Any spiritual experience is the reason for the contingent universe to come from nothing (a spiritual realm of notta)

Absolute time implies that time is not relative. What else are you saying that it implies? What would i search for (be a little more specific) for "the islamic kalam argument against eternal time". Are you saying that is what i should look up? — christian2017

Absolute time says that things change merely speeds and that our perceptions are not the reality of time. So absolute time and relativity are reconcilable. If something moves at a faster speed, it would say that time doesn't slow down, but our perceptions change. As applied to space, this says things have an objective size and sequence, even though observers might differ in what they perceive. It is brought up with eternal time. The kalam argument asks how there could be a now in there is an eternity of past days. If you have an infinite staircase, you will never get to a point (now). We are here, so there wasn't an eternity of time. That's the argument at least. Absolute times seems required to have an eternal universe, and such a situation is paradoxical.

It gets into absolute time because of the eternity. Consider the Islamic kalam argument against eternal time. If you think there has to be eternal time, you again think of absolute time. Only nothingness was before the first motion, not a frozen eternity

There are difficulties with eternal time because it brings in absolute time. How could an eternity lead to now and there be a now? That's a paradox. What I came up with is that there is no eternal time, but that we start counting time from the big bang on. First motion, latter motions.

If it makes no sense to have a finite temporal universe, why does making it eternal solve the problem. I think they both stand or fall together

Hegel said that the world can always be broken "asunder" more so a countable infinity rules over the world. The Eleatics led Hegel in the "heaven of the forms", much like "Cantor's paradise" perhaps. Those are the first questions I think

I think the first principle of philosophy is that Platonism comes first in the process. Hegel said matter is a "non-sensuous element of sense", which is paradoxical. "Matter is not a thing that exists. it is being in the sense of universal being, or being in the way thouhhts are being... an incorporeal yet objective existence. " Plato started philosophy among us

I just want to throw this out there: maybe you reading this are where yo u think you are and in Indonesia at the same time. Maybe it's not about nothing being true, but everything being true. But you experience what you experience. It seems like all the truths should be experienced at once but it's not because if everything is true, than even your experience now is too

I would add that Descartes, when he did math, want to see the whole series of proof within one "vision of intuition". Deductive logic will always say there can be eternal contradictions, but if you find your vision of intuition and make it fluid, your mind will be like water too and your Zen masters will be proud of you. This is what Hegel did. He said to find your infinity primarily in the infinity of the world. You've never lived in Plato's cave

I don't think, actually, that being "smart" is even definable either

I don’t think the Liar Sentence and other similar semantic paradoxes have any consistent solutions, so these are radically contradictory objects on my view.

Now as for whether nothing is impossible, I am somewhat undecided on this viewpoint; — Alvin Capello

“The mind is in a sad state when Sleep, the all-involving, cannot confine her spectres within the dim region of her sway, but suffers them to break forth, affrighting this actual life with secrets that perchance belong to a deeper one.”
― Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Birthmark and Other Stories

I don't say I'm deeper than anyone. My ideas themselves might abstractly be so though

Now suppose we have another object that is both round all over and it is not the case that it is round all over. This new object is both round and not round at the same time and in the same respect. This is because it is the entire object that is both round and not round. Therefore, this second object is truly contradictory. — Alvin Capello

A line segment have infinite parts while being finite. A "contradiction" can always being resolved so I'm thinking it doesn't exist and nothing is impossible

I am not implying that we cannot necessarily define the concept of nothing but rather its contents. — Key

"It has no content. It has form and no form. It has no content". That is how I would say it. It implies a contradiction, but I don't believe a contradiction is definable, so that is not a problem. Anything mystical will appear "paradoxical" at first

in the same respect. — Alvin Capello

I think that part there is undefinable

I've never seen a good explanation of what a contradiction even means

So space-time creates the nothing of the world in the zero energy theory?

I think he means numbers don't exist and all objects up to and including the universe are forever finite

Period. Case closed. End of story — Relativist

Lawrence Krauss actually does think science can speak about nothing. A lot of physicist do. As I said, I don't agree with them. My approach is from Hegel, Buddhism, and philosophy in general. Not from science

As soon as we can define nothing it ceases to become nothing. — Key

Most people don't know how to think about nothing properly because it's deeper, more mystically philosophical than they realize

Zero energy models assume a quantum system exists. That ain't nothing. — Relativist

As the name implies, it says all ENERGY in the cosmos is zero. So something can come from nothing says Hawking's in Hawking's Universe documentary. I agree something comes from nothing but not that the world is zero energy

The zero-energy model says there is no energy in the world. I don't agree with it, but that is smart people saying nothingness CAN exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko

That's a great video which helped me see a vague form of causality behind the world, causality causing time itself, therefore doing away with the necessity of an eternal universe and therefore a necessary universe

Nothing, in the narrowest, most authentic sense of the word, implies literally no thing whatsoever – not just no material objects. — Randy333

Ye, but the spiritual is not an object in any sense. God for theist even is an object. The world is real, but it is unreal in relation to and comparison with nothing. As Thich Nhat Hanh calls it, we live in an “interbeing.” Another writer says "Ultimately we suffer because we grasp after things thinking they are fixed, substantial, real and capable of being possessed by ego." It seems everyone is doing that. Maybe they have to. There is a healthy way to do it though, in the philosophical, Hegelian, Platonic tradition. Underlying those thoughts though would be those of the Buddha

Existence is (a posteriori) metaphysically necessary. — Relativist

Not a priori? Then what does this answer? It seems that in a crisis philosophers tend to believe the world is eternal and necessary. Just as we have the term "stream of consciousness in the West, in Sanskrit it's translated to English to say Citta-saṃtāna. Focusing on consciousness, not science, is what leads people best to see "something coming from nothing". The middle of Being and Time where it addresses death is a good place to start

You're argument is that the world is necessary, and you get there because you don't understand nothingness. The world is contingent and things exist because it's beautiful. Consciousness is intimately involved with beauty. Nothingness is not material nothingness

A book has bookness. Therefore it is bookness. It exists though, instead of having existence in addition to something else. This is not a word game. Everything is a game really, and philosophy is real. "Consciousness takes being to mean what is its own and gives fill to one's 'mine'". Hegel

Zen Pivots is one I liked a lot

My ideas come from Buddhist books

Christian, I apologize for not selecting your name or quoting you. I'm on my tablet now and a "quote" bar doesn't show up and the bottom for you name seldom works on this tablet. I'm too tired to walk across the house to the computer. My idea

Wouldn't a meta-reality require a creature to view or percieve a "fake" world? — christian2017

If it is necessary nothingness, than no. I think absolute time and space is this nothingness

How do you feel about collective conceeeence or collective soul? — christian2017

Our souls are not substances. Only material things are. So I think you can say we are all one. One piece of nothing, to be more precise. But you are your body. You are not both your soul and your body

I feel like everyone on this thread is assuming the world could be necessary. Meta-reality is spiritual and so is not a thing, or even an accident like potentiality. Hegel spoke of quantity coming from quality, but he also took into consideration Zenos paradoxes

hese are the basics of philosophy — TheGreatArcanum

Of a two year old

ironically, to say that the source of the universe is in incomprehensible is to make an epistemological claim about the source of the universe. — TheGreatArcanum

So?

You've created an idol for yourself. Nothingness can never be an idol. It is both eminently comprehensible (we know what it means) and incomprehensible (all we know is being phenomenologically). It's like a figure of 8

The past existed, the present exists, and the future will exist. The ground of being which contains and precedes all contingent beings (i.e. beings having a finite duration), persists in existing, and in doing so, makes time conceivable, through memory, awareness, understanding, and willing, of course. Time is not cyclic in this sense, but it is cyclic in another sense, that is, in terms of the relationship between the perceived object and the perceiving subject, in which case, there is necessarily a time dialation between them because the object as perceived is the object, as it was, and not as it is, meaning, that all objects of perception are of the past, in relation to awareness which exists in the absolute present, and both perception and causation flows from the present to the past, that is, from the Primary Present to the Secondary Present moment in time, and from the Absolute to the Relative. — TheGreatArcanum

This is just Einstein's philosophy. The source of the universe is and must be incomprehensible. Only nothingness therefore qualifies. There is no unfathomable being or substance out there. All can be known. Aquinas's error was thinking such a substance existed, and this ultimately let him down. He was a good theologian and a poor philosopher. As well, Aristotle was a fine logician and a poor philosopher. Really good philosophy didn't start untill Descartes

there is no opposite to being, in the present. the past and future are identical to non-being, that is to say, they do not exist, just the same as non-being. — TheGreatArcanum

Wouldn't the past then be the opposite of being? Which way does it go? Aren't we talking about source within a cyclic system? You don't know the first thing about philosophy. You're probably a Thomist or Aristotelian

Potentiality is too like actuality to be its source. Sorry Plotinus. Buddha knew only being's opposite can be the source of being. Hegel and Schopenhauer got it

There is no great mystery or secret about potentiality

The brain comes from nothing, consciousness comes from the brain, and your soul is the Forms

Order, patterns, and chaos have mostly to do with consciousness, instead of with the cosmos. Cosmology is expressed by the saying "that which was not may be what it was".