Einstein and Time (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 13, 2012, 22:53 (4665 days ago) @ David Turell

Meaning, the idea of a first-cause is irrelevant... the answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" is additionally abrogated because "nothing" IS "something."]
> 
> Depends on the nothing you are discussing. Our space as a virtual vacuum is not nothing. A true void is not something, and is a true nothing. Depends upon which philosphy you wish to follow.-I will be discussing this next in more detail, but Giorbran flatly states that we confuse the idea of "nothing" with "nonexistence." The former is always tied by language to some object. The latter is completely unfathomable. "There's nothing in the refrigerator" presupposes that objects exist, only they aren't present. -There is no "void" that we can possibly fathom. And even the existence of a God is necessarily--not "void." -Giorbran plans to demonstrate that the idea of true "void" is equally as complex as that of existence. He challenges the idea that "nothing" is a simpler primordial state than "something." (Because this is exactly how most of us think.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"