About Chaos, and the illusions of Order and Disorder

[BabylonHoruv]

An awful lot of creation narratives..

I just wanted to throw something out here - What if the world/universe was NEVER created but it always existed?

But we only say it was created because this is what we are comfortable with. I can understand the planet being created (I guess in my original statement, it was a bit self-conceited to put the world/universe together), but what about the universe itself? What if it's always been there - many would find that a contradiction to existance itself since everything would have to of been created. But that is a dualistic principle - if its created, its destroyed. The universe was neither created nor destroyed - it is just there.

What if existance itself was never created? Perhaps the nature of the universe isn't dualistic but just a single thing.

Though yeah, just a thought I wanted to throw out there.

Hi, I'm going to jump in because this jumped out at me. It makes sense. What is the universe physically speaking? it is a big empty space dotted by a random collection of stars, planets, and other random "space junk" like comets. But when you get right down to it, the universe is a lot of empty space between these things. It isn't like driving from Colorado to Kansas. Sure, there's a lot of open space in between but there is a lot of things there. Animals. Plants. Rocks... and even weather. There is no weather in space. There are no plants or animals (although a rock floats by, perhaps.) So, when you think about it, the "universe" being created is sort of odd. How do create a void of nothing? But the individual objects in it needed to be created. And so the empty space was always there. It is the rest of it that had to come from somewhere.

Just a thought.

According to most theories of cosmogenesis the empty space wasn't there before either.

Also there is stuff there, it is just very spread out, diffuse atoms, magnetic fields, cosmic rays etc.

[Golden Applesauce]

An awful lot of creation narratives..

I just wanted to throw something out here - What if the world/universe was NEVER created but it always existed?

But we only say it was created because this is what we are comfortable with. I can understand the planet being created (I guess in my original statement, it was a bit self-conceited to put the world/universe together), but what about the universe itself? What if it's always been there - many would find that a contradiction to existance itself since everything would have to of been created. But that is a dualistic principle - if its created, its destroyed. The universe was neither created nor destroyed - it is just there.

What if existance itself was never created? Perhaps the nature of the universe isn't dualistic but just a single thing.

Though yeah, just a thought I wanted to throw out there.

Hi, I'm going to jump in because this jumped out at me. It makes sense. What is the universe physically speaking? it is a big empty space dotted by a random collection of stars, planets, and other random "space junk" like comets. But when you get right down to it, the universe is a lot of empty space between these things. It isn't like driving from Colorado to Kansas. Sure, there's a lot of open space in between but there is a lot of things there. Animals. Plants. Rocks... and even weather. There is no weather in space. There are no plants or animals (although a rock floats by, perhaps.) So, when you think about it, the "universe" being created is sort of odd. How do create a void of nothing? But the individual objects in it needed to be created. And so the empty space was always there. It is the rest of it that had to come from somewhere.

Just a thought.

For once, I agree with Babs.  It doesn't make any more sense to insist that "objects" needed to be created than it does to say "space" needed to be created.  Just because you're used to taking space for granted, it gets a privileged position in the whole business of "creating" the world?

[NotPublished]

GA, I'm a bit confused with what you mean.

My idea was more so along the lines that it was never created but it always existed.

[Xila31]

I guess what I'm saying is, how do you create nothingness? Nothingness is created by absence or removal, so if the nothing wasn't there then something else had to be there. If the big nothing that sits between planets, stars, clouds of random gasses, and all that was not there, then what was there? Was it gas? If so, then where did that come from? At some point there had to be a whole lot of nothing somewhere. And I know the nothingness of space isn't completely empty, read "random space junk" which encompasses all that which is not a planet or star or black hole. Even a black hole is not a nothing. It is a vacuum which is something.

What I think is that prior to the big bang there were 2 things, a big old cloud of gasses and a whole lot of nothing surrounding it. Everything has polarity. Light and dark. Stop and go. Happy and sad. So, nothingness and something (the void and the gas.) When the big bang happened the creation of "stuff" (to use a not very scientific word) began. Clouds of gasses mostly, that turned into all of the things we know today, went zooming through the nothing. The nothing is the big emptiness of space, which is so big we can't comprehend it. The universe is the stuff that is expanding into the nothingness, but it is also the areas of nothingness that are already encompassed in the stuff that is already created. I fully believe that the universe is still expanding, but it is expanding into a big space of nothing.

Now, the real question here is where did all of that gas come from to begin with? What made it explode? I'm not a physicist. I have no idea scientifically. Now, I am also a believer in multi-dimensions, layers of time and space, and this part is faith based and not science based at all. So on our layer this is big nothingness and a cloud of gas that will explode to create the universe. On a higher dimension there is whatever greater beings, divinity, or whatever you want to call them. Let's call them Chronos. We all know Chronos is "father" of Eris (Chaos) and Aneris (Darma) In the vast nothingness is Darma. "Nothing can be out of order." (Sorry for the pun. :P) Nothingness is still, flat, void of life. Creation is messy, random, and full of motion. If you've ever seen anything being born, you'd know this right away. The explosion and the creation of all things would have been chaotic. However, big chunks of nothingness remain. There is always polarity.

So, I guess in the idea for me of answering that first question of the illusion of order and disorder. True order is like the deadness of the nothingness parts of space. True Chaos is the force of creation and distruction. When they come together, you have the universe. They flow together by some force we call "time" and somehow we all got caught up in the dance. 

[Cainad (dec.)]

I guess what I'm saying is, how do you create nothingness? Nothingness is created by absence or removal, so if the nothing wasn't there then something else had to be there. If the big nothing that sits between planets, stars, clouds of random gasses, and all that was not there, then what was there? Was it gas? If so, then where did that come from? At some point there had to be a whole lot of nothing somewhere. And I know the nothingness of space isn't completely empty, read "random space junk" which encompasses all that which is not a planet or star or black hole. Even a black hole is not a nothing. It is a vacuum which is something.

1. Even the emptiest of empty space is not "nothing," it's just that there's nothing in it. It's still space, and still exists as something, even if we can only perceive it as an absence of stuff.

2. No, a black hole a wad of superdense mass, usually the remains of a collapsed star. Space itself is a vacuum.

[LMNO]

Why are you treating "nothingness" as, well, a thing?

[Xila31]

I see.

Since you consider the nothingness as a something (i.e. "Space" the place or whatever,) then this argument does not make sense to you. Whereas I consider the blank empty spots as empty nothingness, the oposite of a thing. So, it just comes down to how you look at it. 

As for 2, see, I told you I wasn't a physacist. 

[LMNO]

Um, re-read my post, and see if you want to change your response.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Why are you treating "nothingness" as, well, a thing?

By being Treasury Secretary Geithner.   

[Xila31]

Um, re-read my post, and see if you want to change your response.

I'm confused. Do you mean me?   

I get confused very easly, I'll apologize now.

[LMNO]

Typically, a post is considered to be addressing the previous poster, unless otherwise stated, or completely obvious through context.


Xila, which post were you initially addressing?

[Cainad (dec.)]

I see.

Since you consider the nothingness as a something (i.e. "Space" the place or whatever,) then this argument does not make sense to you. Whereas I consider the blank empty spots as empty nothingness, the oposite of a thing. So, it just comes down to how you look at it. 

It comes down to the meaning of the words we are using. Space, according to many people, is still a thing. It is not nothingness. I mean, you can observe empty space, and know it by the absence of stuff in it. You cannot observe nothingness, because it's not there.

We have to be pretty specific about the context in which we use the word "nothing," since I still use the word to mean "an absence of stuff" in colloquial speech. As in, "the bucket is empty; there's nothing in it." In this context it refers to... well, nothing at all.

[Xila31]

Xila, which post were you initially addressing?

err, my last post before the one before this one was to the person who said that the nothingness of space is still a thing. The one by Caind.

As for the thing about "Space" being a thing, yes it is. But their are huge parts of space that have "nothing" in them, meaning they are empty, of all things. Which means, they are not a thing to me. You can only know that nothing is there because it contrasts with, say, a planet or a star. Anyway, I'm going to stop now since I'm not trying to be annoying and failing. 

And I just get confused, nothing to do with any one. Sorry.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Xila, which post were you initially addressing?

err, my last post before the one before this one was to the person who said that the nothingness of space is still a thing. The one by Caind.

As for the thing about "Space" being a thing, yes it is. But their are huge parts of space that have "nothing" in them, meaning they are empty, of all things. Which means, they are not a thing to me. You can only know that nothing is there because it contrasts with, say, a planet or a star. Anyway, I'm going to stop now since I'm not trying to be annoying and failing. 

And I just get confused, nothing to do with any one. Sorry.

It's alright, IMO. I just keep picking at it because if we're going to disagree about the nature of the universe, it might as well be over something more substantial than a disagreement over the meaning of a word.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Xila, which post were you initially addressing?

err, my last post before the one before this one was to the person who said that the nothingness of space is still a thing. The one by Caind.

As for the thing about "Space" being a thing, yes it is. But their are huge parts of space that have "nothing" in them, meaning they are empty, of all things. Which means, they are not a thing to me. You can only know that nothing is there because it contrasts with, say, a planet or a star. Anyway, I'm going to stop now since I'm not trying to be annoying and failing. 

And I just get confused, nothing to do with any one. Sorry.

It's alright, IMO. I just keep picking at it because if we're going to disagree about the nature of the universe, it might as well be over something more substantial than a disagreement over the meaning of a word.

The nature of the universe is self-evident.

It's a huge, cold empty place, with the occasional - or at least one - algae covered rock.  On this rock live monkeys.  The monkeys act really dumb a lot of the time, but sometimes they find time for better behavior, and make friends.  The universe then punishes the monkeys via their own bad wiring, and they part ways, and go back to being desperately unhappy. 

The End.