budaatum:


There is no generation of things out of nothing because all things must generate out of a some thing that existed, is what is being said here.

We said same thing.

“Ex nihilo nihil fit" is a Latin phrase that translates to "out of nothing, nothing comes." It is a principle often attributed to Parmenides, an ancient Greek philosopher. The principle suggests that something cannot originate or arise from absolute nothingness.

In the context of philosophical and metaphysical discussions, "ex nihilo nihil fit" serves as a foundational principle. It asserts that there must be some kind of preexisting material or cause for something to come into existence or for change to occur. It rejects the notion of spontaneous or uncaused creation.

The principle aligns with the common understanding in various domains, including physics and everyday experience, that things have causes or origins. For example, in the realm of physics, the principle is reflected in the conservation laws, such as the law of energy conservation or the law of mass conservation. These laws suggest that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed; they can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.

Furthermore, "ex nihilo nihil fit" finds support in the scientific understanding of the origins of the universe. The prevailing Big Bang theory posits that the universe emerged from a singularity—an extremely dense and hot state—but does not explain the ultimate cause or origin of that singularity. Scientists continue to explore the origins of the singularity and the nature of existence itself.

Maynmaynmayn please read the entire text your image came from. It really is very self explanatory.

"there is no break in-between a world that did not exist and one that did, since it could not be created ex nihilo in the first place".

The bold bit means "since it could not be created out of nothing" in the first place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

LordReed:



You did:



And again:



Plus you screen shot a description of a level 9 nothing from Sabine's video. So are you contradicting yourself or what was the point of putting a screenshot of level 9 nothing?

Very clearly Krauss' is not describing an absolute nothing and I am sure even Neil will not say it is an absolute nothing.

Oh man,
“No time
No particles
No radiations.
No entities.
No matter.”
I was saying nothing contains nothing, i was given you examples.
Didn’t i say “space is within Nothing”?.

The screenshot was talking about Nothing, i was not talking about the “levels of Nothing”, i just wanted to show you that everything is within Nothing, that if you remove Everything, Nothing will still remain.


Inside that absolute Nothingness, everything emerges.

budaatum:
Maynmaynmayn please read the entire text your image came from. It really is very self explanatory.

"there is no break in-between a world that did not exist and one that did, since it could not be created ex nihilo in the first place".

The bold bit means "since it could not be created out of nothing" in the first place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

I told you the analogy of Nothing “creating” something can be liken to a Lake “creating” Streams, they are distinct but the streams emerges from the Lake, it contains the same elements as the Lake.

“Nothing comes from Nothing” is different from “creation from Nothing”.

Maynmaynmayn:

Oh man,
“No time
No particles
No radiations.
No entities.
No matter.”
I was saying nothing contains nothing, i was given you examples.
Didn’t i say “space is within Nothing”?.

The screenshot was talking about Nothing, i was not talking about the “levels of Nothing”, i just wanted to show you that everything is within Nothing, that if you remove Everything, Nothing will still remain.


Inside that absolute Nothingness, everything emerges.

Absolute nothing does not and cannot exist.

LordReed:


Absolute nothing does not and cannot exist.

It exist without been in existence.

All these levels and even beyond, matters to the inanimate object emerged from nothing.

Nothing here can be liken to Repose, when the repose is converted to Movement it becomes something.

“For a long time, I have remained silent, keeping myself quiet and restrained. However, now, like a woman in labor, I cry out, gasping and panting (Isaiah 42:14).”

Maynmaynmayn:

We said same thing.

Ex nihilo nihil fit" is a Latin phrase that translates to "out of nothing, nothing comes."

Mayn. We are saying the same thing! You just understand it different.

"Ex nihilo nihil fit" means "out of nothing, nothing comes". So, if you have nothing, nothing will come out of it. Zero input = zero output

But you are arguing that it means things come out of nothing. Zero input = something output, which is not the same thing, and is not true.

Things do not come out of thin air. You can't have no Naira in you pocket and Naira just generates into your pocket without you doing something. In order for Naira to generate into your pocket, something must do the generating.

budaatum:


Mayn. We are saying the same thing! You just understand it different.

"Ex nihilo nihil fit" means "out of nothing, nothing comes". So, if you have nothing, nothing will come out of it. Zero input = zero output

But you are arguing that it means things come out of nothing. Zero input = something output, which is not the same thing, and is not true.

Things do not come out of thin air. You can't have no Naira in you pocket and Naira just generates into your pocket without you doing something. In order for Naira to generate into your pocket, something must do the generating.

Thin air is not nothing.
This Nothing has potential in it.

We are in a zero energy universe.

Maynmaynmayn:


It exist without been in existence.

All these levels and even beyond, matters to the inanimate object emerged from nothing.

Nothing here can be liken to Repose, when the repose is converted to Movement it becomes something.

“For a long time, I have remained silent, keeping myself quiet and restrained. However, now, like a woman in labor, I cry out, gasping and panting (Isaiah 42:14).”

It exists without existing. Right.

OK this is my busstop. Bye.

LordReed:


It exists without existing. Right.

OK this is my busstop. Bye.

It exist without being in existence.

Maynmaynmayn:

I told you the analogy of Nothing “creating” something can be liken to a Lake “creating” Streams, they are distinct but the streams emerges from the Lake, it contains the same elements as the Lake.

“Nothing comes from Nothing” is different from “creation from Nothing”.

“Nothing comes from Nothing” is the exact opposite of “creation from Nothing”! Unfortunately, you err in your understanding of "Nothing comes from Nothing", and are saying "creation from Nothing"! And more unfortunate is that you are not listening to yourself. If you did you'd have noticed your error by now.

We have repeatedly told you that the lake is not nothing despite it being distinct. A mother is distinct from a child like your lake is distinct from the stream. Would you claim the child came out of nothing therefore? And would you have a stream if there were no lake?

Everything must come out of something. The lake is a something, and out of it does the thing called stream come.

LordReed:


It exists without existing. Right.

OK this is my busstop. Bye.

Should be my busstop too, to be honest. Hopefully, he'd read the thread again sometime in the future

budaatum:


“Nothing comes from Nothing” is the exact opposite of “creation from Nothing”! Unfortunately, you err in your understanding of "Nothing comes from Nothing", and are saying "creation from Nothing"! And more unfortunate is that you are not listening to yourself. If you did you'd have noticed your error by now.

We have repeatedly told you that the lake is not nothing despite it being distinct. A mother is distinct from a child like your lake is distinct from the stream. Would you claim the child came out of nothing therefore? And would you have a stream if there were no lake?

Everything must come out of something. The lake is a something, and out of it does the thing called stream come.

I never said anything about “creation from nothing”.
I defined what nothing means no—thing.
The term thing came from the Old English þing, meaning “entity”, “being”, “body”, or “matter”.


I never said the lake was nothing, i said the Creation of nothing can be liken to a lake “creating” streams. It is an analogy.
What i implied is that a lake can not “create” a stream since it is the same element, the stream is the source of the lake. The streams comes from lake.
Nothing can’t “create” Something.
A lake can’t “create” a stream.

Nothing can be liken to Repose and Something to Movement.

budaatum:


Should be my busstop too, to be honest. Hopefully, he'd read the thread again sometime in the future

I hope so.

Maynmaynmayn:

I never said anything about “creation from nothing”.
I defined what nothing means no—thing.


I never said the lake was nothing, i said the Creation of nothing can be liken to a lake “creating” streams. It is an analogy.
What i implied is that a lake can not “create” a stream since it is the same element, the stream is the source of the lake. The streams comes from lake.
Nothing can’t “create” Something.
A lake can’t “create” a stream.

"A lake can not “create” a stream", is illogical English, since lakes do not perform the act of creation. But if anyone said it, we'd ask if they accept that the lake is the source of the stream, and move on if they said yes.

If they however claim that the stream came into existence with nothing to do with the lake, we'd ask them to explain the source of the stream, and tell us what it's relationship to the stream is.

LordReed:


I hope so.

Sometimes, the problem is understanding English. He mentioned it as a "definition problem" earlier on, and I thought he'd place that at the forefront of his deliberations. But I guess I presumed.

budaatum:


"A lake can not “create” a stream", is illogical English, since lakes do not perform the act of creation. But if anyone said it, we'd ask if they accept that the lake is the source of the stream, and move on if they said yes.

If they however claim that the stream came into existence with nothing to do with the lake, we'd ask them to explain the source of the stream, and tell us what it's relationship to the stream is.

My asterisk is to show that lake doesn’t perform act of creation, yet streams emerge from this lake and distinct.
Nothing does not perform act of creation too, yet something emerges from it and it is distinct.
Just like movement emerges from Repose, and movement is distinct from Repose.

Maynmaynmayn:

My asterisk is to show that lake doesn’t perform act of creation, yet streams emerge from this lake and distinct.

So, the stream that emerges from the lake does not emerge from nothing, hence, nothing (stream) does not come from nothing, because it (stream) comes and emerges from a something called a lake just as a something called child comes from and emerges from a something called its mother.

In this religious section, "create" has a distinct meaning. It's why it's illogical to claim "a mother creates a child", or some Yahweh created the universe. Both statements are not exactly accurate, especially if it is claimed that they created those things out of nothing, which is moreso not true.

Mayn, let me say that despite our disagreeing, I appreciate how you've conducted yourself during this entire conversation. Respect. Do please take time to reread the thread. I find it helps a lot to listen to oneself to see what others might be hearing one say. And it helps even more if one hears what is said to one.

budaatum:


So, the stream that emerges from the lake does not emerge from nothing, hence, nothing (stream) does not come from nothing, because it (stream) comes and emerges from a something called a lake just as a something called child comes from and emerges from a something called its mother.

In this religious section, "create" has a distinct meaning. It's why it's illogical to claim "a mother creates a child", or some Yahweh created the universe. Both statements are not exactly accurate, especially if it is claimed that they created those things out of nothing, which is moreso not true.

Mayn, let me say that despite our disagreeing, I appreciate how you've conducted yourself during this entire conversation. Respect. Do please take time to reread the thread. I find it helps a lot to listen to oneself to see what others might be hearing one say. And it helps even more if one hears what is said to one.

I never said streams come from nothing.
In the analogy, the stream is the something, the lake is the nothing.
I said streams emerged from lake.
Something emerged from nothing.
Movement emerged from Repose.
Kinentic energy emerge from Potential Energy.
This examples are analogies.

In the genesis story, the elohim didn’t “create” anything, they made and filled that is the correct translation from hebrew .
The elohims made and filled heaven and earth from the formless and void deep.
This formless and void deep is what i called “nothing”.
The nothing here is No-thing.
The term thing came from the Old English þing, meaning “entity”, “being”, “body”, or “matter”.

So no-thing is no-being, no-entity, no-body, no-matter.

Maynmaynmayn:

I never said streams come from nothing.
In the analogy, the stream is the something, the lake is the nothing.
I said streams emerged from lake.
Something emerged from nothing.

That bold statement contradicts everything you said preceding it, especially your first statement ("I never said streams come from nothing", because the bold is you saying exactly what you are claiming you are not saying, which is that "the stream comes, emerged, from nothing"!

A lake can not be nothing! If a child emerges from a mother, you don't just wipe out the mother and call her "nothing"!

We covered this in the initial stage of the conversation. Go back and read it please.

budaatum:


That bold statement contradicts everything you said preceding it, especially your first statement ("I never said streams come from nothing", because the bold is you saying exactly what you are claiming you are not saying, which is that "the stream comes, emerged, from nothing"!

A lake can not be nothing! If a child emerges from a mother, you don't just wipe out the mother and call her "nothing"!

We covered this in the initial stage of the conversation. Go back and read it please.

I started with in “the analogy.”
I said stream emerged from Lake.
Then i used an analogy representing it.
Stream is something and it emerges from Lake, Nothing.
It is an analogy, i am not implying that lake is nothing.

Nothing here means No- thing.
The term thing came from the Old English þing, meaning “entity”, “being”, “body”, or “matter”.
The Lake is distinct from the Stream even though it emerges and has the same element as it.
Nothing is distinct from something even though it emerges and has the same element as it.

matter emerged from no-matter.
That’s why order emerged from chaos(formless and void)

Before i talk about the analogy of the mother and child, can you explain “what is universe”?

Maynmaynmayn:

I said stream emerged from Lake.
Then i used an analogy representing it.
Stream is something and it emerges from Lake, Nothing.

Why is the stream a something, but the lake is a nothing?

Is a child also something but the mother it emerges from a nothing?

budaatum:


Why is the stream a something, but the lake is a nothing?

Is a child also something but the mother it emerges from a nothing?

It is an analogy, i was trying to explain how B can emerge from A.
A thing emerges from No-Thing.
Streams emerges from Lakes.
Even though they are distinct they contain the same elements.

Theists say god created everything out of nothing, what i am saying is that god “created” everything out of god.
Here “creation” is illogical, since the god that is been created is also the same god that is creating.

A thing needs Non-Being in order to change: Suppose a thing is at rest and later in motion, this cannot happen without itself changing, as Plato says, and it cannot do this without making a transition.

Translation/Interpretation

A thing needs to stop being what it is in order to become something else. Suppose a thing is at rest (like a lake) and later in motion (like a stream), this change cannot happen without itself changing (from lake that is at rest, to a stream that is in motion), as Plato says, and it cannot do this without making a transition (changing from being a lake at rest to becoming a stream in motion).

Non-Being above means, the water must stop being in a lake in order to become the water that is being in a stream. Because, if the water does not stop being in the being state of resting in a lake, it, the water, can not change into the being state of motion in a stream.

It cannot happen that the being state of water in a lake becomes in the being state of water in a stream without the water in the lake changing its being state. The water must become non-being in the state of being at rest that it was in when it was a lake, and become in the state of being in motion in the stream. And Newton would add, "and an outside force must act on it to change its state and make it transition", hence Newton's First Law of Motion.

P.s. Martin Heidegger wrote an entire book on the subject that might interest you. I have so far read only 12 hours of it, or rather, listened to because it is above my reading level so I can not read it. But I've not listened to any hour less than 12 times, the tenth and eleventh hour at least 14, as I've been stuck on it for months now trying to grasp when I am hearing. I think in about 5 or 10 years time I might get to the end of it. I wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about if I hadn't read some of those who influenced him like Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Kant etc, and some of those he influenced, like Arendt, Derrida, Foucault, Marcuse, Sartre, Popper etc. Try it if you can and tell me what you understand.

https://www.nairaland.com/6023861/being-time-martin-heidegger/1#99456897

sonmvayina:


Ice wall...

Then it means it is possible for aeroplane to fly beyond the walls and go out of the earth environment.

Plato's notion that change requires a transition from non-being to being is an interesting perspective within his philosophy. According to Plato, objects in the physical world are mere imperfect copies or reflections of ideal Forms that exist in a realm of pure being. In this context, he argues that change involves a transition from a state of non-being to being, or from a state of imperfection to perfection.

Let's consider your example of an object going from a state of rest to motion. Plato would argue that for this transition to occur, the object must move from a state of non-being (or potentiality) to being (or actuality). In other words, the object must actualize its potential for motion. This transition represents a change or transformation that requires the object to go from a state of non-motion to motion.

Plato's perspective on change is closely tied to his metaphysical framework, which distinguishes between the world of appearances (the physical realm) and the world of Forms (the ideal realm). According to Plato, the world of Forms is more real and immutable, whereas the physical world is subject to constant change and imperfection.


Imagine a serene lake surrounded by mountains. It represents a state of rest or stillness. The water in the lake is calm, undisturbed, and in a state of non-motion. If we want to introduce change and transition the water from a state of rest to motion, we can think of a stream flowing out of the lake.

As the stream begins to flow, the water in the lake undergoes a transformation. It moves from a state of non-being (the calm water in the lake) to being (the flowing water in the stream). This transition involves a change in the state of the water—its location, speed, and direction.

Maynmaynmayn:

It is an analogy, i was trying to explain how B can emerge from A.
A thing emerges from No-Thing.

Like the universe emerged from the No-Thing called God? I mean, just see yourself putting it in capitals as if it were some god, lol

Note that I am ignoring all the "theists say". I don't give a flying fuq what theists say, Mayn. Let theists speak for themselves and I would gladly stoop to what I presume to be the theist level of comprehension. Currently, I am talking to Mayn, and not some dumb fuq theist! I hope.

budaatum:


Like the universe emerged from the No-Thing called God? I mean, just see yourself putting it in capitals as if it were some god, lol

Note that I am ignoring all the "theists say". I don't give a flying fuq what theists say, Mayn. Let theists speak for themselves and I would gladly stoop to what I presume to be the theist level of comprehension. Currently, I am talking to Mayn, and not some dumb fuq theist! I hope.

This No-thing does not have the characteristics of the monotheistic definition of god.
“The creation from nothing” is a concept gotten from theists, that’s why I referenced it.

Egyptians adhere to ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing nothing comes). Everything emerged from a primordial, active singularity called "Atum" ("tm", or "finisher". He is also called "Lord of All" ("nb tm" and also "Lord to the Limit" ("nb-r-Dr". But before Atum "evolved himself", he pre-existed within the primordial water in a state of inert potentiality. He was alone with Nun, but "in his egg".

Atum is Nun turned active (while Nun's inertia remains), Nun is Atum dormant (while Atum's potentiality remains). Both are thus "father of the gods". Diversity evolved from a single source.


This No-thing can be called potential energy.
And a thing can be called kinetic energy.

Maynmaynmayn:
As the stream begins to flow, the water in the lake undergoes a transformation. It moves from a state of non-being (the calm water in the lake) to being (the flowing water in the stream). This transition involves a change in the state of the water—its location, speed, and direction.

There you go! Though I think you are posting stuff you don't quite comprehend!

The water in the lake must become non-being a lake to being a stream. That does not however imply that the stream or the lake were ever "no-thing". The lake was. The stream just never existed until the water in the lake stopped being in the lake and became the stream by changing location, speed, and direction.

budaatum:


There you go! Though I think you are posting stuff you don't quite comprehend!

The water in the lake must become non-being a lake to being a stream. That does not however imply that the stream or the lake were ever "no-thing". The lake was. The stream just never existed until the water in the lake stopped being in the lake and became the stream by changing location, speed, and direction.

Nobody said the lake is no-thing. It is an analogy explaining what plato said.

No-thing means non-being.
The term thing came from the Old English þing, meaning “entity”, “being”, “body”, or “matter”.

Maynmaynmayn:

This No-thing does not have the characteristics of the monotheistic definition of god.

Then stop with the gods, why don't you please! You are after all the one introducing it when you claim this no-thing is somehow responsible for some-thing.

Oh, and don't make me laugh to death by trying to educate buda about atum. It's like a child trying to teach its grandma to suck eggs!

Maynmaynmayn:

Nobody said the lake is no-thing. It is an analogy explaining what plato said.

No it is not "an analogy explaining what plato said"! It is an analogy you are using to try to explain what you think Plato said. And Plato said it's exact opposite.