It seems axiomatic, as complexity is composed of things.
The Creation
- Thread starter Buffalo Roam
- Start date
Is 'something' the only measure of complexity? I would think the state itself must also be measured.
I.e
abcdef - 6 letters
starve - 6 letters
More people would say that 'starve' is more complex than just writing abcdef even though they are composed of the same number of 'things'... How much something is there is only a partial measure of complexity... The complexity of the system depends more more than something. There is no proof that suggest nothing is less complex then something because what we see is that somethings are more complex than something else.
Peace be unto you
If there is nothing, that implies uniformity, simplicity, the absense of anything that could contribute to complexity.
Well if that is nothing- by your definition, then how did it 'contribute to complexity'? If there is nothing in it that can?
Peace be unto you
Because in physics, things can arise from nothing without violating the law of conservation of energy, (1)+(-1)=0. Nothing is required to exist in order for things to come into existence.
Then that's a "fault" in your outlook.
Some.
No.
The fact is that we can and that paper does.
Well not exactly...
The point being: if you have trouble with the concept then what am I supposed to do? Hammer it in? (Also the first reply in this post: it's a question of perspective and what you're used to.
Um, I was answering your comment - "Stability of a system depends on something in the first place". I said "could".
so what doable practices arise from the idea of something coming from nothing?
Or are you merely talking about theoretical constructs that stand isolated from any evidenced claims?
Well why not show it otherwise then?
So by attributing properties to a system by yourself- just because you think of it that way- that is sufficient? Great... I guess there is no reason to continue the discussion then.
Well not exactly...
The point being: if you have trouble with the concept then what am I supposed to do? Hammer it in? (Also the first reply in this post: it's a question of perspective and what you're used to.
So if you make shit up I'm supposed to accept it- otherwise I have trouble understanding?
Okay, but do you have an example for the negative because the one you said would support my conclusion not his.
Peace be unto you
Philosophers often have a fun time thinking about nothing and considering where it might be.
I doubt one can demonstrate through observation in this case.
No, it's not just an idea, the effects of vacuum fluctuation can be seen in the Casimir effect, which could, for instance, power future spaceships.
I think the best we can do for the theist is to agree that God and the place He would have occupied prior to His creativity came into existence at the same time. Or the both of them always existed. However it would suggest that God in no way shape or form had anything to do with creating a space for Himself. In fact it would make sense that God, if real, is a product of a natural process. By saying thus, I think God would no longer be from Incomprehensible World and perhaps we can find out whether He is a natural being. As long as God did not create the place He first existed in then it is impossible to say He is responsible for everything other than Himself.
I'm agreeing, God couldn't exist in nothing. Something had to exist for God to exist. The space God exists in is a good example. Without the space in where to exist God couldn't exist. Nothingness is an abstraction that is independent of reality.
Thought about that today. In essence you believe God was present at the primary creation. God then, was somewhere. This somewhere had to be in existence prior to what you refer to as primary creation (sarga).
To say that God and His immediate locale were not created is no different than someone who claims something has always been. What you're saying is that whatever was required to build the reality we live in, be it material or whatever name you want to give it, had not always been. Thus completely ignoring how God got here or how His place to exist in came to be.
I think that from now on I will never ask a theist where their God came from or who or what created Him because there is no doubt that explaining how space for God was created is a much more challenging question. To shrug it off as absurd is merely a response to an uncomfortable feeling.
Last edited:
The casimir effect is derived from quantum theory.
It is just an idea.
Have you got anything else?
no more impossible than it is to determine that the sun is the source of the sunlight, despite one's never having been present at the beginning of the appearance of either.
You mean apart from the experimental evidence and measurement of the casimir force?
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/i4/e041804
I've kind of been putting this off, mainly because it is an advanced topic and quite frankly, I don't think you've got the intellectual stamina to properly comprehend it (not so much because you lack brains, but because you don't really care for it, since your convictions lie elsewhere).
But anyway, here goes.
Sarga is basically what establishes the framework for what we deem as the working ground for physics (space, time , form etc) or the material world. This undergoes periods of annihilation and creation. During the periods of annihilation, the elements of sarga condense down to a singular homogenized state called mahat tattva. (on a side note, those theistic disciplines that credit the absolute as being a singular homogenized state bereft of variety - such as buddhism for instance - are credited with approaching something close to the mahat tattva). Technically speaking, this mahat tattva is actually the eternal potency of god (and the further complexity of sarga is a result of god interacting with that potency) and not the issues of space, form etc as physics commonly deals with. All of this arrangement is simply for the housing of consciousness (under the duress of illusion of course).
So no doubt your question is about that state that god initiates an inter action with the mahat tattva from. In short, there is a different state that is underpinned by something other than the mahat tattva (IOW the mahat tattva is only a necessary ingredient for a world housing consciousness under the duress of illusion ... it's like the joining point of spirit - or life - and matter), namely the spiritual world. The spiritual world is underpinned by a plenary expansion of god. In short, because the spiritual world does not house illusion, there is no need for sarga (what to speak of visarga) and it simply exists through the medium of consciousness (as opposed to consciousness expressed through dull matter, which is our common experience of it in this world). To try and ponder the nature of the spiritual world through a familiarity with the material world is necessarily absurd. Kind of like watching star trek on tv and making an inquiry to NASA about what they are doing about the Klingons.
IOW just as star trek is a partial derivative of the technological advancement of aerospace science, the material world is a partial derivative of the spiritual world, so just as what holds up in star trek doesn't necessarily measure with NASA, what holds up in the material world doesn't necessarily hold up in the spiritual world.
No doubt this will inspire you to go on a tirade about logic and the brilliance of your position, but you should realize that logic only works in a designated field. I mean even a deliverance of hot air on what is logically tenable on star trek doesn't necessarily indicate anything that is logically tenable in NASA.
The mahat tattva, god, and plenary expansions of god ( in fact all the potencies of god, which include the living entities themselves) all exist simultaneously. It is only due to our experience of having consciousness appear at some point in matter (only to disappear at some point in matter) that makes us think all forms of consciousness in all possible states must exist in the same fashion.
The reason it is absurd is because you are trying to gauge or justify something about god and his plenary expansion(s) by a potency of such expansions. Kind of like saying there is no reason to expect the sun to be searingly hot since you can tolerate the midday sun in summer provided you have some ice cubes handy.I think that from now on I will never ask a theist where their God came from or who or what created Him because there is no doubt that explaining how space for God was created is a much more challenging question. To shrug it off as absurd is merely a response to an uncomfortable feeling.
:shrug: