[zeroca]

All questions about the existence can be summarized and formed into a following one:

Did this universe exist always permanently or was it created at some certain moment?

Accordingly the answers are:
1. It existed always.
2. It was born at a certain time.
I’ll try to prove that both assertions are true simultaneously that seems illogical at first sight.
If we try to prove the first assertion, then the origin of the universe will remain unclear, because it means that the universe hadn’t ever originated from something and it exists eternally long. We can not either prove or deny it, so I’ll begin to analyze the possibility of the second assertion being true, i.e. if there’s any possibility of it being true.
I’ll put it forward as a conception:
If we assume that the world was created at a certain moment we assume that it was created from “nothing”, (i.e. we automatically assume that only “nothing” existed before creation of the world). One can ask how this universe could have been created from “nothing”, or rather how anything could have been created from it. That’s impossible because “nothing” is unchangeable. I partly agree that it isn’t changeable, but that doesn’t mean that any process can’t take place within it. The process of splitting of it into two equal opposite parts can. At the same time “nothing” remains itself without change, or rather the process of splitting of it doesn’t reflect on it-“nothing” itself doesn’t change, but this process of splitting happens within it:
if some “expansion” happens and the term-expansion implies process of rarefaction from one “point” to “all sides”, which is called by us a three dimensional space, “nothing” replies to mentioned process in the same “point” by opposite process of consolidation, which is directed from all sides to mentioned point and is called by us a gravitation, i.e. called by us a body), even we can say that “nothing” is very flexible and it’s able to reply to all processes (happening within it) by their opposite processes, even this can last during the time (e.g. if summer lasts for Three months winter lasts that long too).
(The main regularities of creation of the universe from «nothing» are at http://autorestore.gol.ge/e3.html)
We can find that any appearance consists of two opposite processes, but it doesn’t matter in our particular case. Presently I’m not going to prove that that’s really so.
The most important is that “nothing” doesn’t exist within time and space (i.e. the existence of it without splitting doesn’t last during the time) and if this universe was actually created from it, then it was created just after of a die of previously existed universe and there wasn’t any break (which lasted within time) between these two existences, which I’d like to prove, i.e. this universe (might with some interruptions) exists permanently in the space during the time (since the mentioned interruptions didn’t take place during the time).

[Marketa]

Hello!
I quite agree with the answer: It existed always. But I don't agree with the second answer: It was born at a certain time. Even if everything else written in the article would be true, this second statement can't be true, because it says that universe arised INSIDE the time (that the time was flowing even before the beginning of the universe). And time - time is not "nothing", actually it's as very something as space. Better explanation of "borning" is that the universe AND time were born in the same... not moment - because there was not time before and there "still" is no time on this level... So everything you can claim is that something was (or is) born, but this moment of creation is not within time so you can say it's eternal - so the universe existed always. But as well you can say it was just a moment - you can say anything, because there is no time to compare to.
And another thing: change is certainly not "nothing", you can define YOURSELF as a change - what else YOU are, then a kind of very complicated change - from one state to another.

[zeroca]

Hi!
May I couldn’t express clearly what I wanted to say, or you got me wrong.
The two opposite assertions about the existence of universe are:

1. The universe existed always permanently, eternally (in the space during the time), so any assumption that it was born once isn’t considered, isn’t allowed.

2. It was born once, which means that only nothing existed just before the birth and there didn’t exist a three-dimensional space and time (i.e. "existed only nothing in itself").

When I say that it was born “at a certain moment” I don’t mean that time existed before the birth, I say it figuratively, to emphasize the simultaneous birth of universe, space and time; that’s to say that space and time were born with the birth of universe together “simultaneously”,
I don’t say as well that the universe arose “inside the time and that the time was flowing even before the beginning of the universe” and I don’t prove as well that “change is nothing”.

I say: if we assume that nothing existed before the birth of the world, then the only kind of change in nothing is splitting of it into two equal but opposite parts. Any other sort of change in it is impossible. I don’t say that happened definitely so, but this statement has the possibility of being true, whether anybody likes it or not. And if this universe arose this way, so it has the probability to die the same way, i.e. if annihilation happens the universe will turn into nothing again. The processes of birth and fading away of universe follow each other in succession infinitely often and if we call fading away-“the interruption”, we can easily prove that this interruption doesn’t last inside the time, this episode equals to zero, and the any previous die of universe turns into its following birth “immediately”, i.e. this universe (might with some interruptions) exists permanently in the space during the time.
As for the assertion that the universe exists on a basis of plus and minus, it can be discussed another time.

[Marketa]

I am sorry, but the statement is NOT POSSIBLE. First, as I said in another article, nothing CANNOT merely split into two or more parts, because it is NOTHING. Second, splitting and even to opposite parts, IS a change.
If you don't agree with me, explain to me, please, what's - in your opinion - difference between something and nothing.

[zeroca]

I’ll try to explain with the best of my abilities if I manage to. First let’s recall a little from school mathematics (about the probability):
1. The probability of the event that always happens equals to 1, or to 100 %.
2. The probability of the event that doesn’t happen equals to 0, or to 0 %.
3. The probability of the event that happens in half occurrences of whole events equals to 0.5 or 50 %.
So the assertion that
1. You are Marketa equals to 100 % (Because you are)
2. You are Zeroca equals to 0 % (Because you aren’t)
3. One person’s random choice of us two is Marketa equals to 50 % (Because there are two equal different choices)

Then I quote the part of your assertion and begin with it:
1. “nothing cannot merely split into two parts because it is nothing”
And add two more sentences:
2. 20 cannot merely split into two parts because it is 20.
3. 21 cannot merely split into two parts because it is 21.
The forms of these 3 assertions aren’t correct, not to say anything about their essence, because the second part of them must be an explanation. Let’s correct forms and let’s begin with the last one:
3. 21 can’t split (or be divided) into two natural numbers because it is odd number.
2. 20 can split into two equal parts because it is even number.
1. “nothing cannot merely split into two parts because”… (Here one should explain the reason why it can’t)

So we’ve got to the point-the main question is:
Has nothing any chance to be creative? Or has nothing any, even the least probability of change?

The first definite answer is: nothing itself is unchangeable, because it doesn’t exist and how it can change if it doesn’t exist? And you, as I guessed share this opinion.
But I modify the question a little:
Has nothing any probability to be a possible container of opposite phenomena? Yes it definitely has, for instance -5+5=0, i.e. nothing can be the sum of real opposite numbers; or if you add cold water to hot water these two opposite qualities of water will neutralize each other, so we can say figuratively that cold=-hot, so the probability that nothing is a possible container of an opposite phenomenon doesn’t equal to 0 %.
(For me this probability equals to 100%, even nothing hasn’t got any other probability but to be the possible container of equal opposite phenomenon, which means that opposite equal phenomena (of all kind) can be possible consisting parts of nothing because their sum can be zero).
What if not nothing itself experiences the change, but this change happens within it?
I think just this is the assertion, which puzzles you. I’ll try to explain on the example of ordinary flat mirror:
-If you stay in front of mirror it reflects the exact appearance of you and the background.
-If the table stays in front of mirror it reflects the exact appearance of the table and the background.
-If you move the mirror in another room it will reflect exact background of this room. The happened changes doesn’t reflect on a mirror itself (The mirror doesn’t experience these changes), it remains indifferent to these changes, it only reflects existing before it with high accuracy.
And so does nothing towards the changes happening within it (towards arising of two equal opposite phenomena)
And what’s difference between nothing and something?
I’ll define nothing as a phenomenon not existing in the three dimensional space within time, or rather existent beyond “bounds”, but something-as any phenomenon existing in the three dimensional space within time.

[Marketa]

OK, I understand (I dare say) what do you mean. But I must say that then "nothing" is not the main essence (like the mirror), but the CHANGE, or DIFFERENCE. I still think that you can't split nothing into two parts. Why do I still think so? Because what allowes 20 to split into two parts - 10 and 10? It's a set of rules, and so set of rules must exist to "nothing" could be divided into two parts (by the way, HOW would it be divided? If I understand a bit what you are saying than there would be at least infinite possibilities how to split "nothing" and as you can see around you there are only few (well, few comparing to infiniteness) possibilities how the real world is "splitting" and there are quite strict rules for how it splits. So there had to be rules at first - and rules are not, again "nothing".

[zeroca]

if you don’t mind to proceed (even considering my theory to be a nonsense), I’ll try to explain the phenomenon of space and gravitation and also why the earth revolves around its axis with my theory of nothing, then generalize it for the whole universe, but If you’ve already got tired with my explanations, please let me know and I’ll stop it immediately.
My preferable method is:
To make an assumption (even if it’s a nonsense);
Analyze the probability of it to be right;
At the end make a conclusion. (Anyway sometimes it’s wrong)
I badly need critical mind and you have it.
But excuse me I’m very pressed for time and my answers might be late.
So, looking forward for your allowance!

[Marketa]

Hello Zeroca! I'm not tired at all. I love discussions . I will listen (well, read) to whatever you write, but please be carefull with terms you are using. Your theory can be good in the core, but you are maybe used to use some terms which have another meaning for you and can have another meaning for me. If you say "nothing", I understand real "nothing" - no space, no times, no changes (no possible changes), no differences, no rules...

[zeroca]

quote from your answer:
- I still think that you can't split nothing into two parts. Why do I still think so?
You can say:
- My brother is the best brother all over the world and if not, why do I still think so?
- Because the others aren’t your brothers and subconsciously is meant that he’s the best brother for you. He even can really be the best brother all over the world but not because you still think so.
- My brother is the best mother all over the world and if not, why do I still think so?
Your brother can’t be the best mother, not because he’s an ordinary mother but because that generally brother can’t be the mother.
-I still think that you can't split nothing into two parts, because nothing can’t be the sum, or the unity of two parts. Such is the sets of rules. Why do I still think so?
Maybe you think right, maybe not. But it isn’t an argument...

another quote from your answer:
If you say "nothing", I understand real "nothing" - no space, no times, no changes (no possible changes), no differences, no rules...

I wonder then what for the term-nothing was introduced? If this universe existed always (as you believe it) and time flowed eternally (without interruptions), it means that everything in this universe in any of its “places” can be defined as something, i.e. space can’t be nothing, time as well, change as well can’t be.
It means that there’s no “place” for the term nothing in this universe, because all eternally small points in the three-dimensional space is occupied by something; even an empty space would be enough for proving of this assertion, because it spreads eternally far to all directions, and because any of its spatial points is something. Then what is nothing? It can’t be nonexistence, because nonexistence doesn’t take place in this universe, because main criterion of universe is uninterrupted existence everywhere, to all directions, eternally.
And the most interesting is: who told that this universe exists permanently? The fact that we saw it yesterday or the day before yesterday, or our grandfather, or even Einstein told so, is not an argument. If I offered to imagine nothing as an empty three-dimensional space, you would say: no, space can’t be nothing, or space always existed. O.K. before we proceed I’d like to receive your definite answer:
Does our earth really turn around its axis?
You can answer:
1. Yes it does.
2. No it doesn’t

[Marketa]

Yes, it does. Of course only if I understand meanings of words "our earth" and "turn" and "axis". I'm quite curious what do you want to do with it. But I don't understand your arguments about brothers and mothers, please explain what exactly do you mean with them. I anticipate what do you mean, but it doesn't fit absolutely.