Just like that! Rabbit out of hat. No further explanation needed, or worth pursuing. Move along. — Wayfarer

Aw! don't be a spoilsport Wayfarer. I like to follow the white rabbit and find out where it goes.
I have enjoyed exchanging with @val p miranda so far.

Good for you.

In the list of synonyms, not material is my selection; it is a Kantian transcendental since space is absolute, necessary and universal as I view it. The problem with immaterial is us; perception of the material is evolutionary for survival. There is no need to perceive particles. The immaterial is transparent as is current space; there is no blockage. Existence can only be material and not material; the material did not create itself. More later after your response.

You seem to be 'cherry picking' to suit your own personal musings on the origin story whilst ignoring certain inconsistencies that you should not ignore imo.

You choose one synonym from a list of synonyms, ALL of which are synonymous with the term immaterial. You conveniently ignore the synonym 'supernatural,' Do you ignore it because it is evidence against your suggestion that you can use the term 'Immaterial' to suggest something 'natural'?

it is a Kantian transcendental since space is absolute, necessary and universal as I view it. — val p miranda

Yet you just responded to @Gregory with:

Kant and Berkeley fought a material world. My immaterial space should not be associated with their world. — val p miranda

The immaterial is transparent as is current space; there is no blockage. Existence can only be material and not material; the material did not create itself. More later after your response. — val p miranda

In what way is current space transparent? I see the spacial volume in the room I am in while typing this text! If dark energy is correct then the vacuum of space produces energy. There is no example of an area of space studied by science where absolutely no activity has been encountered. Space/the void/the vacuum is absolutely broiling with quantum activity.

I think you are just 'battling' with the 'something cannot come from nothing' concept.
Have you read Laurence Krauss' book 'A Universe from nothing?'
Is there nothing in discussions like:




Which sate's your need to struggle/battle with the 'something from nothing' concept?

Too much to reply too . I'll answer at least a few. . I stick with the principle from nothing comes nothing; the book alienates me. Remember: existence can only be material or not material. Existence can only be immaterial or not immaterial. Cherry picking--perhaps. You're quite challenging and that is good.

Remember: existence can only be material or not material. — val p miranda

But what for you would be an example of a non-material existence? I take it you are not referring to massless existence such as energy or one of the energy-based lifeforms conjectured in sci-fi stories.
So what else can you be conceptualising in your head which is not in line with or at least strongly related to, a theistic/supernatural claim for the origin story of our Universe?
Do you think there is a panpsychist element to your viewpoint on the origin story in a similar vein to that held by @Jackson?

You're quite challenging and that is good. — val p miranda

Thank you for your magnanimity. My intention is not to discomfort you, just to dialogue with your viewpoints.

There is just one--immaterial space. Just this one, in my view, created the universe. Do I know that this view is correct--no! But it is a natural view of how the universe became. Again, do not talk about nothing; nothing does not exist. Why should one discuss a non-existent. Let's talk about nothing! To repeat: there is only one immaterial existent and it is immaterial space.

Why should one discuss a non-existent. — val p miranda

Theists do that all the time. :smile:
But as you don't declare yourself a theist or a panpsychist and I am an atheist, I think it's time to say thanks for sharing your viewpoints with me on the origin story. I don't think we can take our interesting exchange any further as I don't think either of us will gain much more of value than we have already.

Lawrence Krauss believe nothing comes from nothing. The first nothing is the world, divided between positive reality and negative reality wherein each cancels the others, and the second nothing is spacetime. Having parts of reality canceling energy almost sounds like idealism however. If objects and ideas are not different in essence, then maybe you really can see a chair as existing even though it's energy is canceled by something else which is negative. I don't see how his thesis makes sense from a purely material perspective, but it's interesting

Yes, we wil leave not hostile to each other. Incidentally, I favor agnosticism and I am a Star Trek fan.

Lawrence Krauss believe nothing comes from nothing — Gregory

Mr Krauss has stated many times that 'nothing is the absence of something,' and the fact that the Universe is something then it follows that existence needs no first cause. If you have evidence of him writing or stating the words 'nothing comes from nothing,' then please provide the link.

The first nothing is the world, divided between positive reality and negative reality wherein each cancels the others — Gregory

In what way is positive and negative charge, nothing?

and the second nothing is spacetime. — Gregory

In what way is spacetime nothing. You need to appreciate that 'nothing' means no way to type/utter/think about the meaning of the term. It means no existence, so there is no way for it to define itself. I agree with those that suggest the concept denies its own existence and leads to the conclusion that 'something' is eternal. I think that 'eternal' is existence and is not god and needs no god.

Having parts of reality canceling energy almost sounds like idealism however. If objects and ideas are not different in essence, then maybe you really can see a chair as existing even though it's energy is canceled by something else which is negative. — Gregory

I think you are conflating matter-antimatter annihilation, with existence. The Universe has content because matter-antimatter annihilation is asymmetric. It produces 'leftovers.' This means chairs really do exist as do you and I.

I don't see how his thesis makes sense from a purely material perspective, but it's interesting — Gregory

I think Krauss' book 'A Universe from nothing' makes a great deal of sense from a material perspective.
Quote actual words from it that you disagree with and we can dialogue about the quotes you choose if you want.

Incidentally, I favor agnosticism and I am a Star Trek fan. — val p miranda

Well, agnosticism is a step up from convinced theist imo.
Of course, you are a Star Trek fan, as I am.

The Wikipedia article on "zero-energy universe" says that Krauss believes that the net energy of the universe is zero. It's not antimatter that is negative but gravity. Does this not ring a bell? I've seen many of his interviews but I don't have his book. My point was that it doesn't make much sense to say gravity and matter together is nothing unless you bring in some kind of idealism (like Hegel's). (Ideas can cancel out) Latter today I'll look more into this because it's so interesting. But does the zero energy universe ring a bell for you?

Ok, he says "Nothing can create something" but "something" is really nothing, even though "we live in a universe full of stuff". This is because:

"Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero."

Also:

"But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing."

https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing

So something is nothing and nothing is something. I am picking up Hegel's Logic right now to try and figure this out better

I am picking up Hegel's Logic right now to try and figure this out better — Gregory

In the Science of Logic he criticizes the logic of Being and Nonbeing as opposites. Thus, the negation of Being is not Nonbeing but Nothingness.

Sorry for my late respose. Away celebrating family birthdays!

But does the zero energy universe ring a bell for you? — Gregory

Yes, absolutely, 'positive' energy created by matter balancing with the 'negative,' energy created by gravity. This is backed up by most cosmologists today. I prefer the explanation in Stephen Hawkings in 'A Brief History of Time:' The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Many cosmologists/physicists argue that the evidence Krauss used to suggest that the total energy is zero was flawed, so they argue about some of his methodology but few argue with his conclusion so he is still correct and the calculations involved confirm the positive and negative energy balance.

My point was that it doesn't make much sense to say gravity and matter together is nothing — Gregory

But they are not nothing, they DO NOT destroy each other as in matter/antimatter annihilation, they balance each other! The fact that their TOTALITY is ZERO does not remove them both from existence! The fact that they balance suggests that the 'existence' of the Universe is eternal. You cannot destroy energy, you can only change its form. Energy is conserved.

Existence balances and is eternal, there has never been 'nothing.'
This does not mean the Universe cannot 'bounce' between states of pure energy and energy becoming mass via M=E/Csquared and combining into galaxies and lifeforms until entropy returns everything back to energy etc. The bounce/oscillating Universe. No first cause is required, no something from nothing is required because 'nothing' is not a possible state for 'existence.' Something has always existed and I think this is the main message from Krauss and many others. The origin story was never a 'mind of god,' it was just a 'field of potential,' a mindless spark (singularity) which inflated.
This is the best science can do imo, at this present time and to me, it is far far more feasible to me than any supernatural 'god did it' proposal through its whim, its 'eternal intent of will' as claimed by theists, .
Science brought us to this point, theists have simply claimed everything science has 'found out so far' to be nothing more than humans learning a little more about the true mind/intent of god or how god did it. :lol: Yet they also contradict themselves with BS like 'god is outside of space and time' and 'you cannot know the mind of god.' Lazy excuses for accepting the musings of lazy thinkers who don't have the ability or can't be bothered to learn the science. (I am not putting you in this category.)

https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing

So something is nothing and nothing is something. I am picking up Hegel's Logic right now to try and figure this out better — Gregory

I clicked on your link but I could not get passed the cookies window as I don't accept such cookies.
I don't see any value in your equivalence of something = nothing. Even if I accepted this point it would merely add to my position that 'something' has always existed as you are suggesting the two labels are synonymous so why would we not choose to drop the label 'nothing' as a valid label to use in the origin story of the universe. There was always something and that something was never the mind/will/intent of a god.

The mechanism proposed by Krauss is not truly something from nothing. It will always be the question where the first thing comes from.

I can see similarities between the eternal circular motion Aristotle had in mind, or the unmoved mover, and your purely immaterial space before the big bang. It's a very reasonable position you hold here!

Is immaterial space a space without matter?

Is your space purely Kantian?

The something from nothing here is not a real something from nothing.

The something from nothing here is not a real something from nothing — Xodarap

'Something,' is eternal in an oscillating Universe. You don't need to 'start' the oscillation if it is eternal and if you insist that you do then that's what I label the mindless spark which has no remaining existence and is of zero significance to THIS Universe. No god, no 'divine' spark required.
If the theists can logically insist on an eternal god then that idea is easily matched/equaled/balanced by the mindless spark and the eternally oscillating Universe, IMHO.

If the theists can logically insist on an eternal god then that idea is easily matched/equaled/balanced by the mindless spark and the eternally oscillating Universe — universeness

That is reasonable.

That is reasonable — Jackson

:up:

the mindless spark — universeness

A mindless spark? How does that look like?

A mindless spark? How does that look like? — Frankly

Without will or intent is how I would describe it. I have no idea how to provide you with an artist's impression/expression. I could offer images like a grain of sand or ask you to picture a quark or a superstring in your head but I don't think any such images are sufficient?
Do you need a picture of energy to accept energy exists?
The theist seems to accept the existence of their monotheistic god without any universally presented graven image. The polytheists have always had their graven images.

Well, I just made the bubbling quantum vacuum my avatar. It's a photograph though. Not a video.

Well, I just made the bubbling quantum vacuum my avatar. It's a photograph though. Not a video — Frankly

and?

That's a picture of how it looks.

That's a picture of how it looks. — Frankly

you mean it's an artist's impression of some colored shapes inside a space made up of little background squares which probably bear little resemblance to the actual broiling activity of the vacuum of space. I am not impressed nor do I now feel an imperative to draw you a picture of a mindless spark!