NOTHINGNESS and EXISTENCE
Much has been said that before the Big Bang was
ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS, and TIME did not exist; some speak of RELATIVE
NOTHINGNESS which admits that at least one INTAGIBLE SOMETHING existed.
The ABSLUTE NOTHINGNESS has never existed because the “absolute” whatsoever in this dimension, is an impossibility; otherwise, there would not be existence; and of course, the time would not exist.
Before the Big Bang had to exist something, although that something was a “subjective something” infinitely small.
We are then before a fundamental mistake when it is affirmed -as a concept- that prior to the initial instant
of the Big Bang it was NOTHING; and that -according
to Stephen Hawking- out of there spontaneously
"came out the only effect without cause", which gave rise to all that exists from a point
of immense concentration (called "singularity")
which generated a huge explosion giving birth to the Universe, and before that instant -also says Hawking- TIME did not exist.
Maybe the term NOTHING should be
forgotten and instead the INFINITE SPACE -that before the Big Bang was apparently empty- should be used.
Here
we must resort to the reflections of Salvador Sanchez Melgar (The Laws of Nothingness), who handles
the concept of the NOTHINGNESS in a very logical and
somehow philosophical way (although it may be complex in its reading)…
... arguing that there must have been nothing and its
no-absoluteness (the not absolute nothing)
that was bound to be a “contrariness of the nothing”. Thus, the
contrariness "nothing-existence"
increasingly produces existence; or, putting it in another way: by continually avoiding the absoluteness of nothingness, the nothingness
and the existence would produce increasingly existence since
all absoluteness is avoided
with contrariness. For the existence to originate
increasingly more existence it had to be -in the existence
itself- a permanent contrariness: the
one induced by the nothingness.
... As the infinite
nothingness has no size nor energy due that it is
totally nothing, its contrariness had to be something infinitely tiny, so tiny
that it would be almost nothing. Whereupon, the infinitely
tiny existence would
be the first essence of existence
that in the form of contrariness zero
(remark: given that zero is not absolute) would be able to multiply starting with the zero of its contrariness, as nothing made existence and the unattainable zero
of the absolute nothingness produced that
contrariness trying to avoid absoluteness.
The zero of the contrariness of that essence nothingness and the zero’s contrast
of the infinite nothingness, were two different non-energy, two different
oppositions, which very well could be identified as if they were (for example)
the essence “zero” and the infinite nothing “one”, or vice versa (Remark: I
think it might not fit the vice versa). That way, the binary mathematics of
existence originated; that way, the first essence binary multiplied producing through
mathematical order, endless binary essences; which essentially allowed each
essence also to multiply, without any essence being identical even if they had
the exact same result, as each essence occupied a different location having
different hierarchical identity. Thus the mathematics of existence originated,
following a binary mathematical order to which all that exists belongs. The
product of all that, would be more essences, more existence; a binary essence
is nothing, meaning by nothing, no-energy or zero energy, but an infinite
number of essences or binary numbers, represent an energy and life; which,
multiplied by an infinite number of infinite infinities of essences, is the result
of a whole Universe.
Considering that because of that dual contrariness or dual repulsion of the
infinite nothing against the tiny nothingness (Remark: the essence of
existence) the existence attracts the existence and nothingness attracts nothingness,
which further justifies that what exists is a binary mathematical order.
One could say –reiterating and interpreting
Sanchez Melgar- that what he calls "tiny nothingness", is the essence
of existence (ultra infinitesimal tiny matter and/or energy or “matter-antimatter”
which balanced would be no matter nor antimatter, but it is); and the
"infinite nothing" which is the "infinite space" (that never
was "empty space" term that could be inferred as
"nothing"). About this Sanchez Melgar raises a LOGICAL REASONING:
The nothingness cannot be infinite; not because being infinite has to be
absolute, on the contrary, the infinite is not infinite absoluteness, so also
must have its infinite contrariness. It could be said that the expansion is
infinite because it has not finished expanding and do not know when it will end
to expand. It could be that the expansion is infinite but not by itself. It
could be that before it ending to expand, the expansion could be expanded
further for another possible much higher expansion. Therefore, the infinity
offers no real truth, but something unreal, an impossible, a non-absoluteness
that is why the nothing could not be absolutely infinite (Remark: nevertheless
a question will rise: toward what that space is expanding?).
The nothingness could not be finite because then is as existing; and really
nothingness does not exist. Therefore, if “everything” (all) -absolutely
everything- was nothingness, it could not be either absolute, or absolutely
infinite, or absolutely finite. Therefore, it would demonstrate that “everything”
(all) could not be absolutely the nothingness, It had –no other possibility- to
be existence.
The existence nor could have been neither absolute nor absolutely infinite
or absolutely finite, because the absolute and the infinite are impossibilities,
and the finite cannot be absolute. For these reasons, the existence had always
existed and also his contrariness: the nothingness.
They could only be three possibilities: that everything was absolutely nothing;
that everything was absolutely existence; or that all was existences and its
contrariness, the nothingness. As the first two options are impossibilities,
there is no doubt that the existence exists because there is also its
contrariness: the nothingness.
It seems that after all Stephen Hawking would be
–somehow- right about that the Big Bang gave birth to the Universe due to the
laws of physics particularly thanks to the law of gravity; but ... (will
discuss this in the Part 2 of this article)... what appears to be definitive,
is that before the Big Bang there was existence; that is, there was not the
Absolute Nothingness (was never) or the non-existence of TIME. Rather, TIME was
always there, and in the INFINITE SPACE (that Sanchez Melgar defines as "the existence that is since always, thanks
that there is also its contrariness, the nothingness") there were DARK
MATTER, DARK ENERGY and a balance of MATTER-ANTIMATTER.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario