Renault Koleos (Продолжение)

Renault Koleos (Продолжение) Video Clips. Duration : 8.12 Mins.

Презентация Renault Koleos. Авто-М (Великий Новгород).

Tags: Koleos, continue

Fifth Generation of Computers

Earlier Generations of Computing

The first generation of computing is generally opinion of as the "vacuum tube era." These computers used large vacuum tubes as their circuits, and large metal drums as their memory. They generated a titanic amount of heat and, as any computer professional can tell attest, this led to a large amount of failures and crashes in the early years of computing. This first generation of computer lasted for sixteen years, between 1940 and 1956, and was characterized by heavy computers that could fill an whole room. The most notable of these large, and yet quite basic, computers, were the Univac and Eniac models.

Invention Of The Vacuum

Second-generation computing was characterized by a switch from vacuum tubes to transistors, and saw a primary decrease in the size of computing devices. Invented in 1947, the transistor came to computers in 1956. Its popularity and utility in computing machines lasted until 1963, when integrated circuits supplanted them. However, transistors remain an prominent part of modern computing. Even modern-day Intel chips contain tens of millions of transistors - although slight in size, and not nearly as power-draining as their much earlier predecessors.

Fifth Generation of Computers

Photographic Prints of Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906 from Mary Evans Best

Rate This Product :

Photographic Prints of Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906 from Mary Evans Feature

• This 10x8 Print features an image chosen by Mary Evans. Estimated image size 254x171mm.
• High quality RA4 prints. Printed on Kodak Endura and Edge papers
• Image Description: Advertisement for the Evans Vacuum Cap, an invention intented to promote the re-growth of hair, 1906.
• For any queries regarding this item please contact Mary Evans c/o Media Storehouse quoting Media Reference 4371778
• © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans

Photographic Prints of Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906 from Mary Evans Overview

10x8 Print, Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906. Advertisement for the Evans Vacuum Cap, an invention intented to promote the re-growth of hair, 1906. Chosen by Mary Evans. High quality RA4 prints. Printed on Kodak Endura and Edge papers.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 25, 2012 07:54:12

Between 1964 and 1971, computing began to take baby steps toward the modern era. During this third generation of computing, the semiconductor increased the speed and efficiency of computers by leaps and bounds, while simultaneously shrinking them even further in size. These semiconductors used miniaturized transistors which were much smaller than the original transistor found in earlier computers, and put them on a silicon chip. This is still the basis for modern processors, though on a much, much smaller scale.

In 1971, computing hit the big time: microprocessing. Microprocessors can be found in every singular computing expedient today, from desktops and laptops to tablets and smartphones. They contain thousands of integrated circuits that are housed on a singular chip. Their parts are microscopic, allowing one small processor to cope many simultaneous tasks at the same time with very slight loss of processing speed or capacity.

Because of their very small size and large processing capacity, microprocessors enabled the home computing industry to flourish. Ibm introduced the very first personal computer in 1981; three years later, Apple followed with its wildly victorious Apple line of computers that revolutionized the industry and made the microprocessor industry a mainstay in the American economy.

Chip manufacturers like Amd and Intel sprouted up and flourished in Silicon Valley alongside established brands like Ibm. Their mutual innovation and contentious spirit led to the most rapid advancement of computer processing speed and power in the history of computing; and enabled a marketplace that is today dominated by handheld devices which are infinitely more remarkable than the room-sized computers of just a half-century ago.

Fifth Generation of Computing

Technology never stops evolving and improving, however. While the microprocessor has revolutionized the computing industry, the fifth generation of computer looks to turn the whole industry on its head once again. The fifth generation of computing is called "artificial intelligence," and it is the goal of computer scientists and developers to finally create computers than outsmart, outwit, and maybe even outlast their human inventors.

The fifth generation of computer has already beaten humans in a amount of games - most notably a 1997 game of chess against the man who was then the game's world champion. But where it can beat humans in very methodical gameplay, fifth generation computing lacks the quality to understand natural human speech and affectation. Synthetic brain is not yet as intriguing as it needs to be in order to interact with its human counterparts and - more importantly - truly understand them.

But strides have been made. Many computers and smartphones on the market contain a rudimentary voice recognition highlight that can translate human speech into text. However, they still wish slow, very punctual dictation - otherwise words become jumbled or erroneous. And they're still not receptive to human affectation which might indicate the needs for capital letters, request marks, or things such as bold and italicized type.

As microprocessors continue to growth their power by leaps and bounds, it will becoming possible for these hallmarks of Synthetic brain to become easier to manufacture and implement. It's easy to underestimate the complexity of human language and patterns of communication, but the uncomplicated fact is that translating those things into raw computing power and quality requires a great deal of time and resources - in some cases, resources that have yet to be fully developed and put into a computer chip.

Fifth Generation of ComputersHomemade Table Tennis Ping Pong Robot Video Clips. Duration : 2.93 Mins.

Click "watch in hi-quality" in blue text! I invented this mechanical "Ping Pong Robot" because I'm a mechanical engineering student at Georgia Tech and I love Table Tennis. It is a purely mechanical alternative to the electro-mechanical robots currently available. Ben Beck, Jay Johnson, Ryder Winck, and I chose this device for our Modeling and Simulation project Spring 2008. The results were put into practice when I built it later in the semester. In Spring 2008 the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets competed for their first time in the NCTTA National Championships. The men came in at 16th in the Nation. The women, 4th. This machine is dedicated to the 2008 Nationally Ranked Georgia Tech team. For more information about: Georgia Tech Table Tennis the Modeling and Simulation Project and other Table Tennis Projects visit www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/tta

Tags: Georgia, Tech, table, tennis, ping, pong, robot, launcher, invention, contraption, engineering, project

Vacuum Coffee Maker

One of the coolest ways to make a satisfying cup of coffee is to make it with a vacuum coffee maker. A what? Siphon brewer, siphon coffee, vacuum coffee pot, and vac brewer are just some of the names it comes by. Still sounds like an high-priced gizmo? Well, not quite. Read on to learn more!

This unique, two chambered coffee pot has been around since the 1800s, its invention credited to Loeff of Berlin in 1830. It was Madame Vassieux of Lyons, however, who produced the double globe fabricate in which the coffeemaker is ordinarily known today. The vacuum coffee maker arose from an obsolete confidence that it was unbecoming to boil coffee beans or grounds in boiling water. Recovery the tale on that interesting confidence for an additional one time, the vacuum coffee brewer gained considerable popularity in the first half of the 20th century.

Invention Of The Vacuum

Major brands then came out with their own versions of the apparatus that seemed more at home in a chemistry lab, faultless with a stand in some sets and its own burner. Normal Electric, Silex, Sunbeam, Cory, Bodum, Cona, and others burst into the coffee development arena with their own contraptions. However, all but the last two gradually eased out their products when the brewing recipe fell out of favor in the 1960s over the much more automatic percolators and drip systems. Nevertheless, Bodum has been consistent with its siphon coffee makers since the 70s, and Uk-based Cona has soldiered on since before World War Ii.

Vacuum Coffee Maker

Canvas Prints of Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906 from Mary Evans Best

Rate This Product :

Canvas Prints of Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906 from Mary Evans Feature

• This 18x12 Canvas Print features an image chosen by Mary Evans. Estimated image size 457x305mm.
• White Sides Photo printed on archival quality canvas. Laminated. Canvas print stretched and hand mounted over thick 1 3/8 inch wooden bars. No frame, Gallery art appearance. Ready to hang
• Image Description: Advertisement for the Evans Vacuum Cap, an invention intented to promote the re-growth of hair, 1906.
• For any queries regarding this item please contact Mary Evans c/o Media Storehouse quoting Media Reference 4371778
• © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans

Canvas Prints of Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906 from Mary Evans Overview

18x12 Canvas Print, White Sides. , Evans Vacuum Cap advertisement, 1906. Advertisement for the Evans Vacuum Cap, an invention intented to promote the re-growth of hair, 1906. Chosen by Mary Evans. Photo printed on archival quality canvas. Laminated. Canvas print stretched and hand mounted over thick 1 3/8 inch wooden bars. No frame, Gallery art appearance. Ready to hang. This item is shipped from our American lab.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 24, 2012 00:35:00

While the vacuum coffee maker has never regained its early 20th-century grandeur, it gained resurgence in the 1990s, buoyed by hardcore coffee fans who wanted their brew tasty, the old-fashioned, manual way, or who naturally found sheer joy in watching the interesting process of coffee siphoning to and fro two vertically stacked carafes by sheer vapor pressure and vacuum. Now, the hardy vacuum coffee pots are seeing their way into the coffee shops in the 21st century. Coffee addicts may have to wait a bit to get their hands around a steaming cuppa in shops, but it just could be well worth the five itsybitsy or so wait!

Vacuum Coffee MakerInside Dyson : Part 1 Video Clips. Duration : 10.00 Mins.

Inside Dyson : Part 1 - This video content was made from the James Dyson Foundation charity number 1099709, and was made for educational purposes. James attended London's Byam Shaw art school but painting beautiful objects wasn't enough. James wanted to make, and the Royal College of Art allowed just that. James studied architecture, but instead of colonnades and cladding, robust marine engineering was the order of the day. He developed a flat-hulled high-speed landing craft and, with it, his passion for engineering. Pretty soon, he'd also developed a new kind of wheelbarrow -- one with a big fat ball that didn't sink into mud and chunky feet for stability. All the while learning to take risks, make mistakes and use frustration as a fuel for creativity and solving problems. Problems like vacuum cleaners that lose suction. Could the cyclone technology he'd first spotted on a sawmill work in a vacuum cleaner? He ripped the dusty clogged bag from his old vacuum and replaced it with a crude prototype. 5126 prototypes later: Dual Cyclone™ technology and the first bagless vacuum cleaner. During the five years it took to develop his first vacuum, James was also battling. First to convince other manufacturers to embrace his new technology. Then to protect his invention when they copied it. It's enough to give you a complex. And it did. James' experience informs the way Dyson works today. Keeping our inventions secret. Protecting our ideas. Always taking risks. Like developing a ...

Keywords: james, dyson

Car Heater Not Working - Blowing Cold Air!

There are several reasons why your car's heater may be blowing cold air, instead of heat. It is foremost to understand how the heater works in your car before you can begin to try to diagnose why it is not working. First, there is Not an electric heater element in the heater principles in automobiles, like in transported heaters used in the home. The part that transfers heat into the passenger compartment is called a heater core. A heater core can be belief of as a puny radiator. The car engine's coolant flows straight through the heater core while the fan (also called a blower), blows air through the heater core fins. When air blows straight through the heater core fins, it is warmed, therefore warming the passenger compartment.

Start by checking the coolant. As we already said coolant is what warms the heater core. So if the coolant is low, there may not be a enough whole of warmth to replacement heat to the air in the passenger compartment. Since it 's cold outside, low coolant may not supervene the operating climatic characteristic of the machine significantly, so you won't be alerted to a coolant question by the climatic characteristic gage on the instrument panel. Once the coolant is full, feel the heater hoses that go straight through the firewall. With the machine at normal operating temperature, Both of the heater hoses should be hot to the touch. If only one is hot, this indicates there is is a blockage in the heater core or there is air trapped in the heater core. Using a Lisle coolant funnel is helpful in purging the air from the cooling system. If the coolant is genuinely brown, has been neglected, or if "stop leak" has been used at some point, the heater core could be stopped up. The blockage can sometimes be unstopped by removing the heater hoses and using a garden hose with a sprayer to flush the heater core out. If neither of the hoses are hot to the touch, there could also be a malfunctioning heater operate valve, if used on the model you're working on. Check for presence of a heater operate valve by following the heater hoses back to the engine. Sometimes, a vacuum line could have a break causing there to be no vacuum to operate the valve. Also it should be noted that if this is your first winter with this car (and you're unfamiliar with the car's heal history), the former owner could have by-passed the heater core because of a leak. When a heater core leaks, regularly they wet the passenger side floorboard. The labor cost to turn heater cores is regularly expensive, so sometimes people will loop the heater hoses and by-pass a leaking heater core instead of repairing it properly.

Invention Of The Vacuum

Next check for allowable airflow. After you're sure the heater core is getting hot water flow, read the following information. Doors within the heater case are either controlled by electric actuators, cables or vacuum motors. Adjust the heat control to both extremes while listening for movement of the blend door. With a cable operated heater door it's easiest to hear the door thump when it closes. If the door is not operating, find the door that controls the airflow across the heater core. If there is an electric motor that controls the door, tapping on it can sometimes make it work temporarily for testing purposes. A vacuum operated motor needs vacuum to work, so using a handheld vacuum pump for testing is regularly recommended. If the vacuum motor does not hold vacuum, the diaphragm is leaking requiring replacement. To go deeper into diagnoses of the operate head's function and diagnosis, specific vehicle repair by hand data is needed. But hopefully the basics laid out in this narrative has helped to get you started on the right track. 

Car Heater Not Working - Blowing Cold Air!

Patents for Inventions. Abridgments of Specifications, Class 7(i): Combustion-Product, Compressed-Air, Hot-Air and Vacuum Engines, 1909-1925 (Four Volumes) Best

Rate This Product :

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 22, 2012 19:05:27
Car Heater Not Working - Blowing Cold Air!Wiperfluid Refiller Invention Part 1 www.wiperfluid.com Tube. Duration : 3.68 Mins.

First of its kind ever invented! www.wiperfluid.com Looking for help to bring nationwide. EMAIL: knee1@aol.com

Keywords: wiper, fluid, car, wash, carwash, air/vac, vacuum, methenol, glasswizard, carcare, invention, inventor, wiperblade, solution

la construction de l'Exocet 40' pas à pas

la construction de l'Exocet 40' pas à pas Tube. Duration : 5.53 Mins.

12 mois de chantier en quelques secondes

Keywords: voile, sailing, class40, transat, race, composite, course, sponsor, boat, racer, quebec, 40, prototype, challenge, carbone

$1000 Bong

00 Bong Video Clips. Duration : 0.52 Mins.

We call it "The Bolt". Check out the shottie and the vacuum gauge its sick

Keywords: pot, dope, bong, shooter, awesome, royal, prince, will, hot, invention, how, to, make, the, best, smoke, cone, industrial, mechanical, education, learn, adults, girls, sexy, princess, kate, naked, mmm, friend, moments, crazy, frog, ballet, cats, wee, diana, inside, wet, college, ever, swan, True, OG, Kush, Bubba, Bubblegum, Master, medical, marijuana, buds, chronic, danke, super, sticky, crystals, fat, huge, socal, weed

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? An Inquiry Into the Existence of God

When all questions are at last asked, and all answers at last postulated, the great remaining difficulty for mankind is likely to be the existence of existence. Why does existence exist? Why is there something rather than just nothing? Martin Heidegger characterized this as the most basic issue of philosophy. Are eternity and existence synonymous, or was there a time without existence? Was there a first cause, or is existence continuous, without beginning or end, constituting all past, present, and hereafter states? When physicists recapitulate the universe as expanding, what is it addition into? When philosophers speak of the beginning and end of time, what broader time scale are they using for reference?

We have some knowledge about existence and how it evolved. Our current wisdom allows us to peel back the sequence of cause and effect, beginning from our present condition and working back toward the beginning of time as we know it. We are able to do this in the context of several scientific disciplines. For example, the law of evolution describes life's ascent, in reverse order, to human from primate, to primate from small mammal, to small beast from fish, to fish from nautical invertebrate, to nautical invertebrate from multi-celled organism, to multi-cell organism from single cell, and to single cell from the basic construction blocks of proteins and replication code. We can also inspect reverse chronology through the lens of geology and astronomy. Mountains and valleys emerged from plate tectonics, plates coalesced from an earth formed from solar law debris, the solar law was forged from the remnants of earlier stars, earlier stars gravitated from clouds of hydrogen gas, clouds of gas erupted from plasma during the inflationary expansion of the big bang, and the big bang exploded from the former singularity of the current universe.

Invention Of The Vacuum

Unfortunately, no matter which discipline is used to unravel the evolution of our existence, they all dead end with the most basic interrogate - why is there anything at all? Why are there molecules and atoms and quarks? Why are there stars and galaxies and planets? These questions are not about why did hydrogen atoms become stars, or why did stars fabricate more complicated atoms, but why is there any damn thing at all? Why isn't there just nothing? Why isn't there just a formless, timeless, empty set of obsidian oblivion, with nary a sound, nary a ray of light, or nary a portion of matter?

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? An Inquiry Into the Existence of God

Art Poster, Suction Street Cleaning Machine Invention - 12x18 Best

Rate This Product :

Art Poster, Suction Street Cleaning Machine Invention - 12x18 Feature

• Image Title: Suction Street Cleaning Machine Invention
• Photographer: unknown (1925)
• High Quality Art Poster, 12x18 inches.
• Proudly made in the USA by skilled American labor.
• See more details below.

Art Poster, Suction Street Cleaning Machine Invention - 12x18 Overview

This high quality, durable art poster measures 12x18 inches and arrives ready to frame. Posters are printed on heavy-stock, semi-matte paper producing the best possible combination of color vibrancy and durability. All products from ClassicPix are made on demand one-at-a-time, just for you -- not mass-produced. To see all of our posters, click on ClassicPix above. About this image: Suction Street Cleaning Machine Invention in Vienna, Austria.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 18, 2012 03:15:14

Theists address this interrogate with the postulation that God is the conjecture why there is anything at all. This is a tidy hypothesis, at least superficially, but despite being generally accepted, it leads to an infinite regression that in the end is not helpful for the truly inquisitive. The proposition that God created existence merely leads to a similar interrogate about the source of God. I suppose one can conjure a originator for the Creator, but what is the point? Conjuring an infinite regression of creators does not undoubtedly sass the former question, which still lingers like flatulence in diplomatic company. Why is there anything at all, including creators?

For atheists, the thought of conjuring creators is repugnant, partly because it leaves the principal interrogate unanswered, and partly because it is thoroughly unjustified, for lack of evidence, logic, and necessity. This leaves one alternative for the existence of existence, which is that existence has all the time existed. But, even for atheists, this seems uncomfortably close to a leap of faith. There is no direct evidence that existence has all the time existed. We have assorted theories that posit universes giving birth to other universes via black holes, or endless cycles of contraction and expansion of our one universe, but these theories are speculative and unproven. The haunting interrogate of existence still taunts even the most devout skeptics.

The leap of faith that existence has all the time existed leaves an unsatisfying intellectual aftertaste for atheists, and directly conflicts with the basic premise of theists. To fantasize that there never was nothingness in the grand panorama of eternity seems somehow alien to almost everyone. Perhaps it seems alien because we are accustomed to a world where all things has a beginning, where all effects can be traced to causes, so therefore we expect that the perceived follow of existence must also need a beginning or a cause. Or Perhaps it seems alien because there is just no conjecture for there to be something, rather than nothing. In other words, nothingness is the natural state, and existence is somehow a more complicated and refined addition to it. Or Perhaps it is just the conceit of anthropocentric perspective compelling us to feel that existence must be a special case, because we are special, and we are not inherent without a specific existence fine-tuned to adapt us. Or Perhaps we have just wallowed so long in creation myths and imaginary supreme causative beings that our intellectual toolboxes are artificially exiguous to the idea that the creation of existence out of nothingness must have happened somehow and some time, at the behest of God. It's all we know. It is how we have been conditioned to think.

The interrogate of existence is so mind bending that it is tempting to dismiss it as an idle musing that will yield nothing but a migraine. However, the sass to the question, no matter how challenging, is the only thing that will decree the interrogate of God. If existence has all the time existed, there is no place for God in it. What role does a supreme being have if the being is not supreme, i.e., not the cause of existence and therefore not excellent to existence? The thought of God becomes thoroughly unnecessary and redundant. It is exactly this projection that the theists will at last paint themselves into. As science advances, theists retreat, redefining and reducing their god from epoch to epoch to those fewer and fewer mysteries which remain after the advance of time and knowledge. In some hereafter epoch, the only remaining mystery, and thus the only remaining refuge for the thought of God, will be the source of existence. And even this refuge will evaporate if we at last come to know with certainty that existence has all the time existed.

But, until that day of discovery arrives, there remains a doubt that troubles even those who customarily wallow in skepticism. We stand in awe at the magnitude of the universe and in ignorance at the grand scope of infinity. Where did it all come from? Even if existence was exiguous to a solitary atom, a single quark, or one small vibrating string, we would still interrogate explanation, purpose, and meaning. Where did that tiny speck of existence come from? What was its source? What caused it to pop into being?

Let's think more deeply the assorted alternatives for explaining existence.

One alternative is that existence did not all the time exist, and came forth from nothingness at the behest of an omnipresent and omnipotent being called God. While this cannot be excluded as a possibility, it suffers from an excruciating lack of reasonableness and supporting evidence. Not only isn't there any evidence that God created the universe, there isn't any evidence of God. Aside from this paucity of evidence, the postulation only superficially addresses the interrogate of existence. It explains (without evidence or logic) the creation of our observed universe, but it begs the interrogate of God's own existence. Where did the originator come from? It is illogical to voice that the universe had to have a beginning, only to grant an irregularity to that rule for the originator that is imagined to have created the universe. Why not just grant the irregularity to the universe itself, and argue that it, rather than God, all the time existed? What is gained by adding the complexity of an invisible, unknowable, and immeasurable phantom as a causative explanation? This supplementary complexity seems to move us farther from, rather than closer to, solving the riddle. Lacking evidence or logic, the thought of god is thus an intellectual barrier, stopping our investigation at an imaginary gate blocking the path to basic truths.

So, despite this, what compels us to lean on the flimsy premise of God as the source of existence? Perhaps we are too undoubtedly intimidated by stupendous, mind-numbing concepts such as eternity and infinity, huge numbers like trillions and quintillions, and scalar extremes that range from the galactic at the large end and the portion at the small end. These extremes are frighteningly alien to our familiar scales of time, space, and human perspective, so we retreat to the relieve of an invented originator who is magically the source and protector of our existence. In our fragile personal worlds, we fear death, we fear isolation, we fear threats to our self-preservation, and we fear a mystifying cosmos. In the context of these fears, God is not only a tidy sass to a baffling interrogate about existence, god is our security blanket. Many pick this delusion, but nothing is truly answered by the God postulation. It is merely window dressing for the less comforting reality that we humans are small, ignorant, and temporal. The God postulation leaves us no good off than with Hindu paradox that "it's turtles all the way down".

Another difficulty of the creation out of nothingness hypothesis is that no experiment could ever verify that there was ever nothing, if only because such an experiment implies at least an observer. But even this difficulty pales in comparison to the contradictory issue of the creator, who is also not nothing. To solve this difficulty, the originator could be removed from the hypothesis, but this leaves simply...nothing. Lacking a originator or a causative agent, nothingness would logically remain nothingness. There would be nothing to cause nothingness to become something. This could be determined a law of existential momentum, wherein states of nothingness remain nothingness, unless acted up by an external agent (which, of course, implies that there wasn't undoubtedly nothingness to begin with). It is a brutal metaphysical Catch-22. Nothingness is not nothingness if there is a creator, and nothingness can never be anything but nothingness without an external force like a creator.

Perhaps the universe popped out of nothingness into existence of its own accord. While this cannot be excluded as a possibility, it seems terribly unlikely. It is attractive to fantasize the singularity that exploded as the Big Bang was so close to being nothingness that Perhaps it undoubtedly was, in the occasion before it became a singularity. But such thinking truly is just imagination. Currently, our capability to inspect the universe and the after-effects of the Big Bang does not afford us a window into what existence was like at the time of the singularity, and undoubtedly not before. Not only does our capability to inspect fail to reach back to the singularity, our main theories, such as portion mechanics and relativity, also collapse when extrapolated back to the point of singularity. Lacking any way to inspect what happened prior to the singularity, and lacking any law that can postulate what came before it, we have no conceivable explanation as to how nothing could have become something, or how an infinite void could have naturally yielded the singularity that became our universe. We don't even have any evidence that there was nothingness before our universe. We don't even have any evidence that before has any meaning.

Another difficulty with the spontaneous birth of the universe out of nothing is that the explanation for something emerging out of nothingness cannot begin without invoking some other pre-existent something. In other words, if you assume a beginning state of nothing, what is it that could Perhaps cause something to emerge from it? For example, you can invoke God to help with this, but God is something, not nothing. Or, you can invoke a portion fluctuation in a vacuum, but even a portion fluctuation is still something. Or, you can invoke other universes that gave birth to ours, but those other universes are still something. Or, you can invoke some mysterious power as a causative agent, but that power is still something. It is not inherent to fabricate an consulation for nothing becoming something without making reference to something as a causative agent. Given this argument, and given that existence currently exists, and given that we have zero evidence of primordial nothingness, the assumption of primordial nothingness is very difficult to support.

Another alternative is that existence has all the time existed. One distinguished consulation in its favor is that existence currently exists. It is a hard, unmistakable fact. Perhaps this fact is so sure that it is easy to overlook it. All of the stars, galaxies, planets, mountains, seas, flora, fauna, molecules, atoms, and quarks are undoubtedly here. They are not imagined or conjured or the follow of wishful thinking. That existence exists today is an unchallengeable truth that surrounds us, comprises us, and defines us. It is as clear and immutable as any evidence could Perhaps be. From a direct observational perspective, we have a sample size of one (the current universe) with regard to inherent states of existence. From this sample size of one, the only unarguable conclusions are that existence exists, that a state of nothingness does not exist, and that there are no other samples to observe.

Another hint that existence has all the time existed can be extrapolated from the law of conservation of energy, which states that power can neither be created nor destroyed. A strong consulation can be made that a sure follow of this law must also be true. Let's call it the law of conservation of nothingness. Since power can neither be created nor destroyed in our state of existence, it must also be true that in a state of nothingness, power cannot be created or destroyed. If the power in our current existence can be neither created nor destroyed, and if power can't be created or destroyed in a state of nothingness, then there is an insurmountable barricade in the middle of the two states. One can never become the other. An energetic state can never become nothing, and a state of nothingness can never become energetic. Given this, and given that we have unmistakable evidence that existence exists today, it is a very reasonable inference that it must have all the time existed. Stated differently, our empirical laws tell us that power cannot be destroyed in the present or in the future, so this is a distinguished consulation for the eternality of existence in all directions of time, including the past.

So, what justification is there for arguing that there ever was anything but existence? How can we inspect the breadth and depth of existence in its seemingly infinite manifestations, only to dismiss it as something temporal and fleeting? There is no conjecture to do this! There is something rather than nothing, naturally because there is something. The thought of prerequisite nothingness is an unnatural thing. There is no need for first causes, creators, and prime movers, all of which introduce illogical, unresolved regressions. It's all unnecessary. The most natural thing in the world is to accept existence as eternal.

Perhaps the struggle with the thought that existence has eternally existed isn't so much about its consistency of logic or the compilation of evidence supporting the notion. Perhaps the real struggle is naturally about the thought of eternity. It isn't so much that we can find any real conjecture why existence isn't eternal, we just can't get our heads around eternity per se. Abstractions like eternity and infinity are so far face our range of comprehension, so far face our conceited self-referential measuring sticks, that we feel compelled to quantize them, to picture-frame them with limits and prerequisites, to book-end them with beginnings and endings. Unfortunately, the common recipe for doing this, which is to voice that God is the originator of existence and the grand causative and quantizing agent our minds yearn for, naturally substitutes one incomprehensible thought of eternity for another. Nothing is gained with this substitution, other than our invented anthropomorphic supreme being is subconsciously easier to recapitulate to. Even though God embodies the same mysterious characteristics of eternity and infinity, He is something of our invention, something of our own image and likeness, so therefore He is closer to our scale and relieve zone. He makes us feel safe, purposeful, and Perhaps even loved, whereas the disembodied impartiality of eternal existence does not.

Pascal wrote, "Since man is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of things and their beginnings are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret". Putting this in contemporary relativistic terms, the infinite past and the infinite hereafter lie face of our light cones. We can never interact with them. Likewise, the outer edges of the universe, if there are such things, lie beyond our capability to see. Clearly, we have conjecture to be overwhelmed by these incomprehensible extremes of the infinity that we are part of and yet swallowed up in. This drives our need for something finite to recapitulate to. This causes some people to clutch onto the thought of God to humanize infinity for them. Others accept infinity as it is, nervously and uncertainly, with some degree of ignorance, and a large degree of humility.

But, none of these psychological weaknesses, no matter how passionately rooted in our juvenile brains, can change reality. A is A, as Aristotle counseled us. Existence exists. Existence has all the time existed. Where does this leave God? To paraphrase Laplace, we have no need of that hypothesis to elaborate existence. Applying Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is that existence is eternal. Any other hypothesis requires the addition of unnecessary complexity and layers.

Perhaps this conclusion investment will offer some solace to those who dread an eternal universe without God and some variant of life after death. There is great power in the concepts of infinity and eternity. A follow of these concepts is that any event with non-zero probability has already happened, Perhaps many times, and will happen again, Perhaps many times. The fact that you are reading this means that you exist, which means your existence has non-zero probability. This, by definition, means that you existed one or more times in the past (perhaps an infinite number of times). It also means that you will exist again in the future. Setting aside the inconvenient truth that the past "yous" and the hereafter "yous" are discontinuous from the present you, this attractive quirk of infinity can be determined a kind of immortality or reincarnation that could relieve a theist and satisfy an atheist. So, if you can embrace this perspective, hug a loved one and tell them you will undoubtedly meet again, some other time and some other place.

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? An Inquiry Into the Existence of God