Page 2 of 3
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:55 pm
by Sculptor
Doesn't say what you say it says.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:21 pm
by bobmax
The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:18 pm
by Dimebag
bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:21 pm
The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
Very good.
It’s paradoxical how substance, which is being, is insubstantial. And yet anything of substance arises from this insubstantiality.
The Buddha however, might say it neither exists nor does not exist.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:48 am
by bahman
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:55 pm
Doesn't say what you say it says.
It says the same thing. I am making a metaphysical argument that something that is created eventually gets destroyed. Quantum fluctuation referes to a phenomenon that which a pair of particle-antiparticle are created from the vacuum and eventually destroyed. The time that they could exist, Delta t, is calculated from the uncertainty principle, Delat t * Delta E ~ hbar, where Delta E is the energy of the pair and hbar is the plank constant.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:59 am
by bahman
bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:21 pm
The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
No, something can be created from nothing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:59 am
by bahman
bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:21 pm
The consideration that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed, seems to be well established.
However, this idea implies that there is a substance that transforms itself.
But this substance necessarily stands behind every transformation without ever showing itself.
If it showed itself, it would not be the substance but a mere transitory manifestation of it.
Not appearing as such, the substance does not exist.
And since it is not there, the substance is Nothing.
If we call substance being, then Being = Nothing.
Then nothing is created and nothing is destroyed for the simple reason that nothing is.
No, something can be created from nothing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:09 pm
by Sculptor
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:48 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:55 pm
Doesn't say what you say it says.
It says the same thing. I am making a metaphysical argument that something that is created eventually gets destroyed. Quantum fluctuation referes to a phenomenon that which a pair of particle-antiparticle are created from the vacuum and eventually destroyed.
Speculation
The time that they could exist, Delta t, is calculated from the uncertainty principle, Delat t * Delta E ~ hbar, where Delta E is the energy of the pair and hbar is the plank constant.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
by Age
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:43 pm
Let's assume that something can be created (this is a process and let's call it A). Let's assume that something can be destroyed (this is a process and let's call it B). B can happen because of A. Why? Because the reverse process of A is also a possible process and this process is B.
A = Creation.
B = Destruction.
B (destruction) does NOT happen BECAUSE of A (creation).
BUT, B (destruction) CAN happen BECAUSE of A (creation). That is; BECAUSE some thing HAS BEEN CREATED, then that thing CAN BE DESTROYED.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:13 pm
by Age
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:34 pm
Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:59 pm
It’s all wrong: you already assumed that it can be destroyed, so what’s the point of showing it as a conclusion?
I just assumed that the process of destruction is B. I have to show that B is possible.
Have you NOTICED that an amount of your so-called "arguments" are based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?
And, you EVEN USE the WORDS, paraphrased, BECAUSE I ASSUME 'such and such', then I now HAVE TO show 'this or that'.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:06 pm
by bahman
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:09 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:48 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:55 pm
Doesn't say what you say it says.
It says the same thing. I am making a metaphysical argument that something that is created eventually gets destroyed. Quantum fluctuation referes to a phenomenon that which a pair of particle-antiparticle are created from the vacuum and eventually destroyed.
Speculation
The time that they could exist, Delta t, is calculated from the uncertainty principle, Delat t * Delta E ~ hbar, where Delta E is the energy of the pair and hbar is the plank constant.
Specutaltion on my argument or in physics?
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pm
by bahman
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:43 pm
Let's assume that something can be created (this is a process and let's call it A). Let's assume that something can be destroyed (this is a process and let's call it B). B can happen because of A. Why? Because the reverse process of A is also a possible process and this process is B.
A = Creation.
B = Destruction.
B (destruction) does NOT happen BECAUSE of A (creation).
No.
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
BUT, B (destruction) CAN happen BECAUSE of A (creation). That is; BECAUSE some thing HAS BEEN CREATED, then that thing CAN BE DESTROYED.
But you have to provie it.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:09 pm
by bahman
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:13 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:34 pm
Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:59 pm
It’s all wrong: you already assumed that it can be destroyed, so what’s the point of showing it as a conclusion?
I just assumed that the process of destruction is B. I have to show that B is possible.
Have you NOTICED that an amount of your so-called "arguments" are based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?
And, you EVEN USE the WORDS, paraphrased, BECAUSE I ASSUME 'such and such', then I now HAVE TO show 'this or that'.
You have to strt the argument from something.
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:09 am
by Age
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:43 pm
Let's assume that something can be created (this is a process and let's call it A). Let's assume that something can be destroyed (this is a process and let's call it B). B can happen because of A. Why? Because the reverse process of A is also a possible process and this process is B.
A = Creation.
B = Destruction.
B (destruction) does NOT happen BECAUSE of A (creation).
No.
What are you saying "No" to here, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
BUT, B (destruction) CAN happen BECAUSE of A (creation). That is; BECAUSE some thing HAS BEEN CREATED, then that thing CAN BE DESTROYED.
But you have to provie it.
What are you on about here?
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:12 am
by Age
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:09 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:13 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:34 pm
I just assumed that the process of destruction is B. I have to show that B is possible.
Have you NOTICED that an amount of your so-called "arguments" are based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?
And, you EVEN USE the WORDS, paraphrased, BECAUSE I ASSUME 'such and such', then I now HAVE TO show 'this or that'.
You have to strt the argument from something.
How about starting ANY and ALL arguments from what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY, INSTEAD off from what you just ASSUME might be true, right, or correct ONLY?
In other words WHY NOT just make that 'something', some 'thing', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY?
Re: Something that can be created can also be destroyed
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:09 pm
by bahman
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:09 am
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
A = Creation.
B = Destruction.
B (destruction) does NOT happen BECAUSE of A (creation).
No.
What are you saying "No" to here, EXACTLY?
To your third statement.
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:08 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
BUT, B (destruction) CAN happen BECAUSE of A (creation). That is; BECAUSE some thing HAS BEEN CREATED, then that thing CAN BE DESTROYED.
But you have to provie it.
What are you on about here?
What do you mean?