TED Conversations

William Humphrey

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does everything have to come from something else?

The origin of life and the universe.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Stewart Gault 30+

    • 0
    Jul 31 2012: No, in a vacuum particles start to appear and then annihilate themselves relatively quickly, this phenomena is attributed to quantum flux i.e a change in the quantum state of empty space.

    • William Humphrey

      • 0
      Aug 1 2012: Yeah they say electrons vibrate in and out of existence too but let me ask you this, are you saying that vacuum particles come from nowhere and nothing and goes nowhere and back to nothingness?
      • thumb

        Stewart Gault 30+

        • 0
        Aug 1 2012: Pretty much, I think the odd time particles have remained in existence for a while or at least lasted longer than the normal time
        Also after the particles collide in CERN do the quarks not just fizzle out of existence?

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Aug 1 2012: I believe that energy can only be altered in state and not destroyed furthermore all things that can exist is a state of energy, when a thing takes form it is simply a brief state of energy. The properties may change but its essence is eternal. It fizzles in from one state and out in another. We just need to learn how to measure the transference. The book Quantum Philosophy has found a method.
      • thumb

        edward long 100+

        • 0
        Aug 5 2012: Re: "I'm not a man of faith. I'm a man of reason. . . "
        regarding your #1) : My answer to the question before us is "Yes". I do not consent to your subtitution of the word "catalyst" for my phrase "uncaused cause."
        Regarding your #2): You are correct in saying the uncaused cause has no mass. Everything EXCEPT the Uncaused Cause comes from something else. The logic lies in the idea that infinite regression is impossible. You are in fact a man of faith because you accept QP's explanation by faith. It is a young, immature theory at best with years of experimentation yet to be done. By the way, efficiently answering a question does not necessarily correctly answer the question. Thank you!

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Aug 5 2012: I agree with you. I didn’t mean to substitute your words. I know how substituting words can sometimes be a relegation. I can see how regression being impossible is a logical conclusion but unfortunately I do have to say I cannot see the logic within your conclusion. One wrong does not make a right. You’re right again about faith, accepting knowledge can be considered an act of faith but that is really just a way of substituting the word logical. My goal is to explain a logical way of reaching your conclusion.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.