Do we exist?

Hype · 02-28-2010, 02:29 PM

nothing; Something that is non existent.

Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all.

before the beginning of existence, there had to be literally nothing.
because everything wasn't there yet. But if there's nothing that means that it's impossible for there to be something. There can't be existence inside nonexistence. Therefore nothing is infinite.

Can you follow?

Everything; all that exists.

As I said, nothing is infinite and therefore there can't be something. So if there is something that means that there can't be nothing.
Therefore something is also infinite.

So my conclusion is, if one exists, the other one can't exist.

but wich one exists?

Hope y'all understand what I'm trying to say.

uBeR · 02-28-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hype

They say that before the big bang, there was literally nothing.

First off, your assumption here is incorrect. Second, your argument seems to rely solely on fallacious equivocation.

Scuzzy · 02-28-2010, 03:00 PM

And who here said pot was harmless?

Hype · 02-28-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

First off, your assumption here is incorrect. Second, your argument seems to rely solely on fallacious equivocation.

I saw a documantary on discovery channel 2 days ago stating that before the big bang there was literally nothing.

If there was something, I didn't mean that. I mean the beginning of everything. The beginning of existence. before that began there couldn't be something because that had yet to begin. That's what I mean with nothing.

And I dont know what fallacious equivocation means but I'm guessing it isn't good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

And who here said pot was harmless?

Could've seen that one coming.

FrenchToast · 02-28-2010, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

And who here said pot was harmless?

I rescind all previous statements.

GenghisTron · 02-28-2010, 04:01 PM

You should read some rudimentary philosophy before making threads like this. I applaud you for (attempting) to use your brain in a manor abstract from the vast majority of people, however, this is a timeless question in philosophy, and has been answered in many forms.

Bridget · 02-28-2010, 04:43 PM

The word 'nothing' when used within the context of the origins of the universe is not used literally. Something existed, just not in the form we know today. It is very difficult to explain how things were and worked at the beginning of the universe to normal people, so Scientists simplified the explanation into the word 'nothing'. They actually mean 'There was nothing [like the stars, planets, natural laws we're comfortable with and presume the standard, etc.]'

There's the semantic problem. Okay, Nothing is the opposite of something (You defined it as 'nothing is something that doesn't exist' which is illogical. If you define something as not nothing, than nothing can not be something.) Plus, how can something be everything? I want something to eat. Does that mean I want to eat everything? Wait, though, something is . . . something that exists? The definition is of itself? Isn't that recursion or infinity or some shit? How do we define existence? Being? How do we define being? You see where I'm going with this? It's useless. SHIT'S USELESS. NO POINT. It's fun to contemplate, but I don't think the product can understand its production.

uBeR · 02-28-2010, 04:48 PM

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is not the result of nothingness, but rather "everythingness." That's the point of spacetime singularity. Before the Big Bang, there was a point of singularity, an infinitely dense point of spacetime. This is not synonymous with the claim that "nothing existed." Furthermore, there are increasingly popular theories that challenge the idea the Big Bang theory, such as those offered by string theorists who surmise the that the existence of our universe is a product of a cosmological collision between two universes. Therefore we cannot reasonably say something is the result of nothing.

To answer the question of whether something or nothing exists, all we have to do is find something that exists. If we rely solely on solipsism, we know that our minds exist. Therefore something exists. Descartes stated, "I think, therefore I am." I think it's a rubbish theory, but it explains the concept succinctly. We can confidently conclude that "nothing exists" is false.

**Crazycarl** · 02-28-2010, 09:52 PM

I have decided we don't exist. Who agrees?

Professional · 03-01-2010, 12:56 AM

You do not exist; you are only words that appear on my screen that do no resemble life in any way.

**Crazycarl** · 03-01-2010, 03:33 AM

Shit, man. That's harsh.

Professional · 03-01-2010, 02:52 PM

But I'm contradicting myself because you do exist then.

stray kitten · 03-01-2010, 05:27 PM

Hype, what particular documentary were you watching?

Hype · 03-01-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stray kitten

Hype, what particular documentary were you watching?

Known Universe on national geographic.

(not on discovery.)

**Crazycarl** · 03-02-2010, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professional

But I'm contradicting myself because you do exist then.

Maybe you are imagining me. burn your neighbor's house down

stray kitten · 03-03-2010, 06:12 PM

Technically he's right. Nothing DOES exist in a predefined state within the universe, such as position and momentum, UNTIL observed.

Scuzzy · 03-05-2010, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stray kitten

Technically he's right. Nothing DOES exist in a predefined state within the universe, such as position and momentum, UNTIL observed.

So if I close my eyes, uBeR's nothing... Mmmmmmm

02-28-2010, 02:29 PM	#1
Hype Don't believe the hype D&A Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Holland Class/Position: Both Gametype: CTF Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Do we exist? nothing; Something that is non existent. Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all. before the beginning of existence, there had to be literally nothing. because everything wasn't there yet. But if there's nothing that means that it's impossible for there to be something. There can't be existence inside nonexistence. Therefore nothing is infinite. Can you follow? Everything; all that exists. As I said, nothing is infinite and therefore there can't be something. So if there is something that means that there can't be nothing. Therefore something is also infinite. So my conclusion is, if one exists, the other one can't exist. but wich one exists? Hope y'all understand what I'm trying to say. __________________ I'm back! who cares? In-game: Flow. Last edited by Hype; 02-28-2010 at 05:02 PM.

02-28-2010, 03:00 PM	#3
Scuzzy The Old Timers Clan D&A Member Retired FF Staff Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016 Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times	And who here said pot was harmless? __________________ "Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler "A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler

02-28-2010, 04:01 PM	#6
GenghisTron AKA LittleAndroidMan D&A Member Beta Tester Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dystopia Class/Position: Demo/Medic Gametype: CTF Affiliations: [TALOS] [SR] Posts Rated Helpful 11 Times	You should read some rudimentary philosophy before making threads like this. I applaud you for (attempting) to use your brain in a manor abstract from the vast majority of people, however, this is a timeless question in philosophy, and has been answered in many forms. __________________ The Catacombs Steam Last.fm

02-28-2010, 04:48 PM	#8
uBeR Not ****** Yet D&A Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Minnesota Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is not the result of nothingness, but rather "everythingness." That's the point of spacetime singularity. Before the Big Bang, there was a point of singularity, an infinitely dense point of spacetime. This is not synonymous with the claim that "nothing existed." Furthermore, there are increasingly popular theories that challenge the idea the Big Bang theory, such as those offered by string theorists who surmise the that the existence of our universe is a product of a cosmological collision between two universes. Therefore we cannot reasonably say something is the result of nothing. To answer the question of whether something or nothing exists, all we have to do is find something that exists. If we rely solely on solipsism, we know that our minds exist. Therefore something exists. Descartes stated, "I think, therefore I am." I think it's a rubbish theory, but it explains the concept succinctly. We can confidently conclude that "nothing exists" is false. __________________ OCCUPATION 101. *One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.* Last edited by uBeR; 02-28-2010 at 04:50 PM.

03-01-2010, 05:27 PM	#13
stray kitten mjau D&A Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy Gametype: Capture the mouse Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times	Hype, what particular documentary were you watching? __________________ 6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.

02-28-2010, 04:43 PM	#7
Bridget Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Class/Position: Soldier Gametype: AVD Affiliations: TALOS Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times	The word 'nothing' when used within the context of the origins of the universe is not used literally. Something existed, just not in the form we know today. It is very difficult to explain how things were and worked at the beginning of the universe to normal people, so Scientists simplified the explanation into the word 'nothing'. They actually mean 'There was nothing [like the stars, planets, natural laws we're comfortable with and presume the standard, etc.]' There's the semantic problem. Okay, Nothing is the opposite of something (You defined it as 'nothing is something that doesn't exist' which is illogical. If you define something as not nothing, than nothing can not be something.) Plus, how can something be everything? I want something to eat. Does that mean I want to eat everything? Wait, though, something is . . . something that exists? The definition is of itself? Isn't that recursion or infinity or some shit? How do we define existence? Being? How do we define being? You see where I'm going with this? It's useless. SHIT'S USELESS. NO POINT. It's fun to contemplate, but I don't think the product can understand its production.

02-28-2010, 09:52 PM	#9
Crazycarl D&A Member Wiki Team Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts Rated Helpful 31 Times	I have decided we don't exist. Who agrees?

03-01-2010, 12:56 AM	#10
Professional Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: Mar 2007 Gametype: A/D Affiliations: Un- Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	You do not exist; you are only words that appear on my screen that do no resemble life in any way.

03-01-2010, 03:33 AM	#11
Crazycarl D&A Member Wiki Team Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts Rated Helpful 31 Times	Shit, man. That's harsh.

03-01-2010, 02:52 PM	#12
Professional Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: Mar 2007 Gametype: A/D Affiliations: Un- Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	But I'm contradicting myself because you do exist then.

03-03-2010, 06:12 PM	#16
stray kitten mjau D&A Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Class/Position: kittens are sneaky, spy Gametype: Capture the mouse Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times	Technically he's right. Nothing DOES exist in a predefined state within the universe, such as position and momentum, UNTIL observed. __________________ 6 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington D.C. Our "capitol" edged out Silicon Valley as the nation's richest metro area. Reality Distortion Field = 1. Stream the distractions: One percent, hoodies, and kony oh my.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)