The Negative Nothing Theroy

I was thinking hard...
Really hard!
Hard about how the universe could come from nothing.
So after thinking really hard, I thought some more, and then I thought...
"I think I figured it out!!"

So, here's my theroy!

The Negative Nothing Theroy
In the beginning, there was less than nothing. That's right, there wasn't even nothing!
Having less than nothing created a hole in the nothing, a hole that needed to be filled. So, something, somehow, was created. I'm guessing it was time, as that makes the most sense to me.
Anyway, the force of whatever was created being created pushed less than nothing into nothing, and the excess force pushed nothing into something. That something could have been god, or could have been the start of the big bang, I really couldn't care less.
Anyway, it went on from there, whatever happened the something that was created did it.

Well, whaddya think? It took me a long time to think of this, so please, respect the fact that I worked hard.

Discuss.

Well that was ..... interesting.
But it does kind of make sense when you shove all the questions together.

Originally Posted by Hyoumenka Seken

Well that was ..... interesting.
But it does kind of make sense when you shove all the questions together.

Heh heh! Thanks!!!

Anyway, on to buisness.
I have compiled a few answers to questions and comments some might have.

1. Don't you need something to take away from?
Normally, yes, but in this case, no. See, it's like a mathematical eqaution, I can start it out with a negative number, and end up with a positive.

Ex. -8 + 10 = 2. I started that out with less than nothing (-8) added something (10) and ended up with something (2).

2. Yes but what about this this and this, oh, and that!? Whadda 'bout those, huh?
Each theroy raises questions, my friend, but they can still be true, to an extent.
Take the big bang theroy, that's one of the most popular scientific theories about the start of the universe.

Originally Posted by Venomous Ninja

In the beginning, there was less than nothing. That's right, there wasn't even nothing!

Can't work, I'm afraid. Nothing is the absence of everything. As soon as you add something, negative or no, you have more than nothing.

Having less than nothing created a hole in the nothing, a hole that needed to be filled.

Holes don't need to be filled, though, else they could never exist.

Anyway, the force of whatever was created being created pushed less than nothing into nothing, and the excess force pushed nothing into something.

This doesn't actually mean anything, though.

You can't just transmute a negative into 0 and then transmute 0 into a positive.




Now, I want to say this: Don't stop theorizing! It's a great feeling when you actually figure out a problem that you didn't know the answer to by looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion.

However, you have to make sure that there is evidence. In this case there is none.

In addition, you have to make sure that your theory doesn't use any logical fallacies or make any errors. Unfortunately yours had both.


Now, as to how the universe could come from nothing:
There is no need for a first cause.

The laws of physics/universe that might stop a the apperance of a new universe didn't apply before the big bang, since the big bang created these.

The solid-state theories have been destroyed, which means that the universe must have started at some time. It could either just appear or it could be created. If it was created then you need to create the creator, and however you justify the creation of this creator can also be used to justify the creation of the universe without a creator.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

However, you have to make sure that there is evidence. In this case there is none.

That's why it's called a theory, my friend.

Also, since I first read the thread title that drew me here, "-0" keeps popping in my head. That's what I first thought when he said "negative nothing." Weird, huh?

My theory is the mathematical God theory.

In the beginning, whatever there was, it was dimensionless. What is anything to the power of zero? Answer: one. God was that one. God wrote the scrips of physics in the time span of a zero seconds. When they were all complete, the big bang happened or whatever. Time was created in the same instant the idea of Gravity was created. Therefore, time existed when it required to exist for the universe's progress, which was the instant every physical law was created.

According to my theory, God had no begining, nothing was before God, as time didn't exist, and if the big crunch theory is correct, God will have no end.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

That's why it's called a theory, my friend.

A scientific theory requires evidence, otherwise we call it a hypothesis.

The universe didn't come from nothing, there was always something, we can say that with absolute certainty. If there was 'nothing', and then one day a god was created, well then that 'nothing' had the potential to create something, which means it actually was 'something' all along.

What really interests me is what the universe was like before the big bang. Physicists are able to look back and predict what happened up to 10^-35 seconds after the big bang.(Click). If we could look back to just a single second before the big bang, the universe could have looked like absolutely anything. It could have been a fully 'functioning' universe like ours is now, teeming with life, then space abruptly collapsed and it was all destroyed. A second later and our universe was created.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

A scientific theory requires evidence, otherwise we call it a hypothesis.

A scientific theory, is a hypothesis. At least, that's how it starts out. It's still a plain theory.

Oh, wait. I should call it a theroy. You have nothing against it being a theroy!

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

A scientific theory, is a hypothesis. At least, that's how it starts out. It's still a plain theory.

That's the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. In general use, the word theory is just the same as a hypothesis, it means that you have a hunch or you've made a rough guess. But in science, a theory is a model that satisfies all observed phenomena; i.e. it takes all observations and evidence from a particular field of science and ties them all together in a neat little package.

Lots of people get confused with the two, I don't know how many times I've heard people say "omg evolution isn't fact it's just a theory". A theory can never become fact, that would defeat the whole purpose of it.

Oh, wait. I should call it a theroy. You have nothing against it being a theroy!

Npoe, albsulotey nhtonig aigasnt taht.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

That's the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. In general use, the word theory is just the same as a hypothesis, it means that you have a hunch or you've made a rough guess. But in science, a theory is a model that satisfies all observed phenomena; i.e. it takes all observations and evidence from a particular field of science and ties them all together in a neat little package.

Lots of people get confused with the two, I don't know how many times I've heard people say "omg evolution isn't fact it's just a theory". A theory can never become fact, that would defeat the whole purpose of it.

I realize that. So it's a theory (or Theroy...take your pick. ). Not once did he say "scientific theory" anyways. And it's a very odd theory at that.

I understand how the big bang theory fails.

'In the beginning there was nothing.

And then it exploded.'

And looking at your theory, yes, it is interesting -- but I'd like to be explained far more fully. I'd be looking at a five-thousand word explanation of why and how and wherefore. Just having it one paragraph long does not explain your idea, and leaves far too many gaps that I am unable to fill myself while giving you a fair answer.

I'd really like you to elucidate on this.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Can't work, I'm afraid. Nothing is the absence of everything. As soon as you add something, negative or no, you have more than nothing.

Haha. Yeah, I was going to say... so you have... something.

Holes don't need to be filled, though, else they could never exist.

What might be more interesting to think about would be the tendency of nature to equalize. This is the idea behind, "nature abhors a vacuum." It wants to equalize pressure, heat wants to distribute evenly between two bodies, etc. I think this gets to the heart of what he is conceptualizing.

Now, as to how the universe could come from nothing:
There is no need for a first cause.

The laws of physics/universe that might stop a the apperance of a new universe didn't apply before the big bang, since the big bang created these.

The solid-state theories have been destroyed, which means that the universe must have started at some time. It could either just appear or it could be created. If it was created then you need to create the creator, and however you justify the creation of this creator can also be used to justify the creation of the universe without a creator.

The "who designed the designer" retort, although popular among Dawkins and Dennet (in Plantinga's humorous words, "Dawkins approvingly quotes Dennett approvingly quoting Dawkins, and adds that Dennett (i.e., Dawkins) is entirely correct"), it in many respects falls short. One such critique was made by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in the New Republic, who charges that it misunderstands the argument (and Nagel is no theist). I saw another interesting critique of it on this blog (which, coincidentally, has some of Nagel's article quoted in the comments section). I don't really feel the need to get into an argument over this, but I thought you'd be interested in learning why it may not be the best defense against theism.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

The "who designed the designer" retort, although popular among Dawkins and Dennet (in Plantinga's humorous words, "Dawkins approvingly quotes Dennett approvingly quoting Dawkins, and adds that Dennett (i.e., Dawkins) is entirely correct"), it in many respects falls short. One such critique was made by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in the New Republic, who charges that it misunderstands the argument (and Nagel is no theist). I saw another interesting critique of it on this blog (which, coincidentally, has some of Nagel's article quoted in the comments section). I don't really feel the need to get into an argument over this, but I thought you'd be interested in learning why it may not be the best defense against theism.

I'm not using it as an attack on theism, it really cuts both ways:

If God doesn't need a first cause, then why would the universe?
If the universe doesn't need a first cause, then why does God?

I'm just using it to point out that a first-cause is not essential.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Can't work, I'm afraid. Nothing is the absence of everything. As soon as you add something, negative or no, you have more than nothing.

Less then nothing is the true absence of everything, however, as when you think about, nothing is something.
It's confusing, and I'm still a little confused on the specifics (sp?) of what I just said, however, it makes sense in the long run.

Holes don't need to be filled, though, else they could never exist.

That's right, holes don't, this hole, however, did. It's a little like a vaccum, it is self-sustaining, but it needed to be filled or else everything around it would collapse. Since there was nothing around it, however, it was easily filled by something being created inside of it.

This doesn't actually mean anything, though.

You can't just transmute a negative into 0 and then transmute 0 into a positive.

I said that it was like a math eqation, I never said that the whole thing could be stated using math. I simply used that as an exapmle.
Do you understand?

Now, I want to say this: Don't stop theorizing! It's a great feeling when you actually figure out a problem that you didn't know the answer to by looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion.

Thank you. I shall never stop theorizing.

However, you have to make sure that there is evidence. In this case there is none.

I shall refer to the big bang once again.
The big bang, one of the most popular universal beginning theories, has no evidence to back it up except for the fact that the universe is expanding, which it might not be. Science can make a mistake, and the 'walls' of the universe that they claim to have found to be expanding might have been a black hole or other celestial object that is expanding.

In addition, you have to make sure that your theory doesn't use any logical fallacies or make any errors. Unfortunately yours had both.

I'm pretty sure I countered them all here. Did I miss any?

Now, as to how the universe could come from nothing:
There is no need for a first cause.

The laws of physics/universe that might stop a the apperance of a new universe didn't apply before the big bang, since the big bang created these.

The same thing applies to my theroy. When the universe was created, so were the laws the goverened the universe. My theroy was the creation of the universe, so normal physics laws do not apply.

The solid-state theories have been destroyed, which means that the universe must have started at some time. It could either just appear or it could be created. If it was created then you need to create the creator, and however you justify the creation of this creator can also be used to justify the creation of the universe without a creator.

GDwarf, you are a smart person, and I am happy to converse with you about the things to which no man knows the answer to.
Thank you for your arguments and opinions.