Proof proves nothing

[Architeuthis Dux]

Anyone familiar with Willaim James' critique of "vicious intellectualism?"

James says that concepts are static, incomplete abstractions that are at best only useful analogies of dynamic reality. The corrolary is that reality cannot be completely described or captured by concepts.

"Proof" therefore is essentially nothing save a series of concepts that explains reality to your satisfaction.

But in the final analysis, what you have is not the guaranteed truth, but only the satisfaction.

[full-time-climb]

""Proof" therefore is essentially nothing save a series of concepts that explains reality to your satisfaction."

There is joy and satisfaction that comes from choosing a "concept". And anything "new" often appears "wrong" at first. It is hard to have a new idea if everything we think is filtered by our past experience.

I would like to chat with William James.

John

[Canute]

James if great. But people have been saying that reality cannot be conceptualised for millenia. A concept is a metaphor, it can never be more.

[quartodeciman]

Proof means deduction from presumed assumptions and former results, or induction from statistical results on specific cases. So proofs are not final, only more or less convincing.

But if James' pragmatic criteria were to be taken completely at face value, then psychologists and sociologists would be the only arbiters of scientific value. It pays to assume that specific truths can be approached, even if finality cannot be assured. It is also worthwhile continuing to persue alternatives even after open-and-shut results seem to be at hand.

It is a wise saying: "Follow those who earnestly seek truth and retreat from those who claim they have it all."

[Kakorot]

yes, you cannot prove anything. Once you "prove" something, it becomes a memory, and everything that exists could have been created an instant ago, and your "proof" is just a memory that could have been created. So it may not have existed at all. You can never know. Since you can never truly prove anything.

[Les Sleeth]

I think to understand James' statements about proofs one has to take into account the change philosphy was undergoing at the time. After centuries (millenia really) of a priori rationalization James, following in the footsteps of Locke and others, insisted reality is known not through reason, but through direct experience. In his Essay on Radical Empircism he writes, “Nothing shall be admitted as fact except what can be experienced at some definite time . . . everything real must be experienceable somewhere, and every kind of thing experienced must somewhere be real. "

If we accept that experience is the most direct route to knowing reality, and reality is the "truth," then experience gives us truth while reason becomes the process of interpreting, calculating, and devising applications from what area of the truth (i.e., reality) has been experienced. Further, if one understands experience as one thing, and reason as another, then one must accept that each realm has its own methods of validation.

The concept of "proof," then, is understood to be a validation process for the realm of reason. A proof is not required to give us truth but rather to provide a test for the logical interconnections and conclusions used in interpreting, as well as predicting where to look for, experience.

[Canute]

Nicely put. With a bit of background added it would make a useful 'sticky'.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Kakorot
yes, you cannot prove anything. Once you "prove" something, it becomes a memory, and everything that exists could have been created an instant ago, and your "proof" is just a memory that could have been created. So it may not have existed at all. You can never know. Since you can never truly prove anything.

Really? Prove it!

Just kiddin'. My real question is, can you ever prove that you can't prove anything?

In postulating that nothing is provable, you create a nasty paradox out of the simple fact that your statement cannot be proven by virtue of it's own correctness. Conversely, if you assume that the statement is not correct, then there must be some statements that are provable, and you are back where you started from.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
Just kiddin'. My real question is, can you ever prove that you can't prove anything?
Anything can be proved or disproved given the right system of proof. But all such proofs are relative and therefore uncertain in absolute terms. This much is provable.

[Zero]

There's no need for an absolute proof of anything...if you can get 99% of it right, you'll be ok, generally speaking.

[Canute]

I suppose that depends how you define 'ok'.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
I suppose that depends how you define 'ok'. I define it as practical or useful. If 99% of the right thing will do the job as well as 100%, then why quibble over that 1%?

[hypnagogue]

Absolute vs. relative is not a difference in degree, but in type. It is possible in principle to be 100% right using a relative truth, provided you carefully consider the relations involved. Relative truth simply implies that a proposition's truth value is modulated with respect to some variable, whereas an absolute truth is constant with respect to all variables.

[Canute]

Zero

Yes but if 99% of a proof will do the job then why not 98%?

I agree that usually we have to make do. But surely usefulness is nothing to do with proof, or even with what is true.

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Absolute vs. relative is not a difference in degree, but in type. It is possible in principle to be 100% right using a relative truth, provided you carefully consider the relations involved. Relative truth simply implies that a proposition's truth value is modulated with respect to some variable, whereas an absolute truth is constant with respect to all variables.
I agree. Where do you think that leaves something like the incompleteness theorems. They are true for all sets of variables. Does that make them absolute truths?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
Zero

Yes but if 99% of a proof will do the job then why not 98%?

I agree that usually we have to make do. But surely usefulness is nothing to do with proof, or even with what is true. Right, but I don't need to know what is "true", I need to know how to get from point A to point B, and hopefully sometime before the clock runs out. "Truth" that isn't practical is a useless notion, because it doesn't get you anywhere. Further, how do you know it is 100% true? While you go figure out how you go about confirming the truth about something, I'm gonna go live a little, ok?[:D]

[Canute]

Fair enough. You are clearly content in the world of appearances. [:)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
Fair enough. You are clearly content in the world of appearances. [:)] And you'll have to show that there is anything more to reality than that, you dig?

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
And you'll have to show that there is anything more to reality than that, you dig?

You concede as much yourself when you say you get by on "99%" truth.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You concede as much yourself when you say you get by on "99%" truth. Do I? It was just a random number I threw in there, you know...what I mean to say is that whenever I know enough to get from A to B, I feel like that is enough knowledge. Is there more knowledge out there? Quite possibly, but if it isn't going to do me any practical good, I don't sweat it much.

For every question that we have an answer to, there are hundreds that we either haven't answered, can't answer as far as we know right now, or the answer doesn't satisfy someone.

Gravity seems to be a favorite "whipping boy" for my sort of position. There are lots of theories of gravitation. Do we need to know which one is the "true" one, in order to make accurate predictions as to what effect gravity is going to have in 99% of situations we are going to encounter?

[Canute]

It's your choice. But Hypno's point holds.

If you feel that usefuleness is enough then that's fine, I suspect that many people agree. However at first glance you seem to be deciding what knowledge is useful and what is not before having the knowledge, which is quite a trick.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
It's your choice. But Hypno's point holds.

If you feel that usefuleness is enough then that's fine, I suspect that many people agree. However at first glance you seem to be deciding what knowledge is useful and what is not before having the knowledge, which is quite a trick. Trial and error, plus a little instinct, chum...it works great for woodpeckers, it works great for me.

The whole "search for truth" thing seems a little bit of navel-gazing to me. If a thing works, that's about all the proof we can hope for.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Trial and error, plus a little instinct, chum...it works great for woodpeckers, it works great for me.

The whole "search for truth" thing seems a little bit of navel-gazing to me. If a thing works, that's about all the proof we can hope for.

It's so seldom we agree I thought I should make note of it. [o)]
Of course, I don't totally agree, but 99% is close enough.

I love the pragmatic concept. Almost more than any other single idea it has guided me in understanding reality/truth. However, I'd have to say that the most guiding factor has been what feels good. That might sound superficial, but by following what feels good (over the long haul, I don't mean mere immediate gratification) I've been led into some pretty nice realms of conscousness.

The question I have for you is, how do you decide the extent of what is practical? One can limit the definition to everyday matters of life, but one might also say it is practical to be content, more conscious, enlightened . . . If one can demonstrate the practicality of such achievements, would you still say seeking them is "navel-gazing"?

[Njorl]

"99% proof" is good enough for 99% of my life. The other 1% is dedicated to navel gazing. But then again, I have a damned atractive navel.

Njorl

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Canute
I agree. Where do you think that leaves something like the incompleteness theorems. They are true for all sets of variables. Does that make them absolute truths?

I don't know. Do they generalize to all systems of logic?

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Njorl
"99% proof" is good enough for 99% of my life. The other 1% is dedicated to navel gazing. But then again, I have a damned atractive navel.

Well said. What's wrong with navel gazing anyway? Practical things are only worthwhile insofar as they enable us to ultimately pursue things we deem worthy of pursuing in their own right (eg love, entertainment, etc). Don't see why 'navel gazing' should not be included in that list.

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I don't know. Do they generalize to all systems of logic?
As far as I know they generalise to all systems of proof in all possible universes. (The only proviso being the definition of 'proof').

I lke to think that this is what Lao-Tsu meant when he wrote 'true words seem to paradoxical', but that could be a misreading.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It's so seldom we agree I thought I should make note of it. [o)]
Of course, I don't totally agree, but 99% is close enough.

I love the pragmatic concept. Almost more than any other single idea it has guided me in understanding reality/truth. However, I'd have to say that the most guiding factor has been what feels good. That might sound superficial, but by following what feels good (over the long haul, I don't mean mere immediate gratification) I've been led into some pretty nice realms of conscousness.

The question I have for you is, how do you decide the extent of what is practical? One can limit the definition to everyday matters of life, but one might also say it is practical to be content, more conscious, enlightened . . . If one can demonstrate the practicality of such achievements, would you still say seeking them is "navel-gazing"? Hey, a certain amount of "non-practical" behavior actually ispractical...you have to let off steam, have hopes and dreams, whatever. I'm just saying that you can't let a search for "absolute truth" get in the way of using the "relative truth" that you've already got.

[Canute]

I suppose it all depends what you call 'practical'.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Canute
As far as I know they generalise to all systems of proof in all possible universes. (The only proviso being the definition of 'proof').

If this were true I suppose they would be an absolute truth. However, I have my doubts, since the proofs themselves have been built from our familiar system of logic and so they would seem to depend on that logic rather than transcend it. That is, if logic really worked differently from how we conceive of it, perhaps it would then be impossible in principle to construct such proofs.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Canute
I suppose it all depends what you call 'practical'.

I know that to a lot of people "practical" refers only to material conditions. I think of it as anything which helps me do what I want to do. Under that broad umbrella I include anthing which can help further my happiness and contentment, since I want them in my life.

But I think happiness and contentment are practical to material concerns too. Think about how well people do their jobs, interact with a mate, raise children, contribute to the world, etc. when they are miserable versus when they feel good. In fact, a great many of the problems of the world can be traced to discontent, miserable people. The rest of the problems can probably be attributed to ignorance and selfishness, both of which might be helped by the active development of consciousness. Now, there are a great many people involved in inner practices specifically to develop their consciousness, so might we not include effective inner practices on the list of what's practical too?

[Zero]

Well, once we start down that road, we need to decide which path is more valid, "happiness" or mental well being?

[hypnagogue]

Define 'mental well being.' If someone can be happy and at the same time not 'mentally well' in perpetuity (read: the mental illness does not critically hinder their ability to remain happy, eg via the threat of mental breakdowns or an inability to support themselves) I'm not sure the mental un-wellness is really a problem.

Would a society of people that we would classify as mentally ill but nonetheless was peaceful and happy and could sustain itself not be preferable to the society we live in? Are there even any grounds on which we could really justify claiming that such a society is mentally ill?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Define 'mental well being.' If someone can be happy and at the same time not 'mentally well' in perpetuity (read: the mental illness does not critically hinder their ability to remain happy, eg via the threat of mental breakdowns or an inability to support themselves) I'm not sure the mental un-wellness is really a problem.

Would a society of people that we would classify as mentally ill but nonetheless was peaceful and happy and could sustain itself not be preferable to the society we live in? Are there even any grounds on which we could really justify claiming that such a society is mentally ill? "Mental health" is, in many ways, defined by your ability to accept and deal with reality on its own terms, which means that part of mental illness is not being able to cope with reality. That sort of precudes your whole "well, if it doesn't cause any problems" approach.

On the other hand, the happiest person on earth is a junkie with a needle in her arm, so happiness alone isn't always a great idea.

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
If this were true I suppose they would be an absolute truth. However, I have my doubts, since the proofs themselves have been built from our familiar system of logic and so they would seem to depend on that logic rather than transcend it. That is, if logic really worked differently from how we conceive of it, perhaps it would then be impossible in principle to construct such proofs.
I agree that there's something very paradoxical about the incompletenmess theorems. They seem to prove that they cannot be proved. But there is a get out clause.

In a very real sense Goedel did not prove anything. The theorems work because for some self-contradictory sentences the system cannot decide what is true but we (the meta-system) can decide. This shows that knowledge and truth extend further than proof.

However the fact that we can decide Goedel-sentences cannot actually be proved since it is never provable in the system within which those sentences appear. One is always forced to retreat to the meta-system and this leads to an infinite regression of near-proofs.

This means that the incompleteness theorems are not really provable, but just demonstrable, which is a different thing. Because of this we can know that they are true without falling foul of them.

I only just thought of this so may be wrong. Any mathematicians around?

[Canute]

On another point 'mental health' is well known as being undefinable.It's a long standing unsolved problem in psychology.

Still, it's worth noting that Buddhism, which is very specifically and explicity the pursuit of absolute truth, is often described as 'the serious pursuit of happiness', and that in this view our ordinary state of consciousness is one of mental confusion. Yet Buddhists seem to get by in the world.

Australian aboriginal people also claim that 'Westerners' are errant mutations who can no longer think properly.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
"Mental health" is, in many ways, defined by your ability to accept and deal with reality on its own terms,

This definition would be much clearer if we could know for sure what reality on its own terms is really like.

which means that part of mental illness is not being able to cope with reality. That sort of precudes your whole "well, if it doesn't cause any problems" approach.

What do you mean by cope with? To me, to be able to cope with something means to be able to emotionally accept it. If mental illness is defined as not being able to emotionally accept reality, then it's not clear to me at all how one can be mentally ill and happy at the same time, so your initial question of "which is preferable, mental health or happiness?" becomes nonsensical.

On the other hand, the happiest person on earth is a junkie with a needle in her arm, so happiness alone isn't always a great idea.

Depends. If I'm locked up in some brutal prison and I know I am to be executed tomorrow, I might as well stick a needle in my arm today. Of course, that's just a hypothetical situation and most junkies are not in such dire, hopeless circumstances. But the point is that happiness in some sense or another is the ultimate end to be pursued, whereas practicality is just an effective means to that end in most circumstances. Practicality is only important and valuable insofar as it ultimately promotes happiness; we should not confuse the means with the end.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Canute
I agree that there's something very paradoxical about the incompletenmess theorems. They seem to prove that they cannot be proved.

I don't know about that. Incompleteness theorems state that some, but not all, propositions are undecidable within a given system. I assume the proposition "This incompleteness theorem is true" is not one of those undecidables.

So I think incompleteness theorems are safe within their own logical domains. My concern is just that, if we were analyzing some exotic (and probably non-sensical looking) logic system X, I don't know if it would necessarily follow that an incompleteness theorem relative to system X would be provable using the rules of X.

To use an overly simple analogy, our logic system dictates 2+2=4, and we take this to be an absolute truth, but it is relative to our own system of logic. If another system of logic stated 1+1=3, it would not necessarily be provable within that system that 2+2=4.

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I don't know about that. Incompleteness theorems state that some, but not all, propositions are undecidable within a given system. I assume the proposition "This incompleteness theorem is true" is not one of those undecidables.
That seems incorrect. The theorems state that there are theorems that can be derived within any formal system (equivalent to 'can be derived from any axiom set')that cannot be decided within the system that is derived from the axiom set.

But this is not all they say. They also assert that these undecidables can actually be decided, but only by abandoning the system. It is this assertion that cannot be proved, for underneath these words lurks the dreaded 'problem of consciousness', for how can we know this if we cannot prove it.

In a way they say that all provable truths are relative. From this we know that all absolute truths are not provable. This is the link with Buddhism and Plato's cave etc. It is what leads Penrose to assert that there must always be something beyond every possible formal system, both ontologically and epistemilogically.

So I think incompleteness theorems are safe within their own logical domains. My concern is just that, if we were analyzing some exotic (and probably non-sensical looking) logic system X, I don't know if it would necessarily follow that an incompleteness theorem relative to system X would be provable using the rules of X.
If it were not the case that they were true for all 'X's' then I think the theorems would be considered not quite proved. (But I'm nearly out my depths here).

To use an overly simple analogy, our logic system dictates 2+2=4, and we take this to be an absolute truth, but it is relative to our own system of logic. If another system of logic stated 1+1=3, it would not necessarily be provable within that system that 2+2=4. [/B]
Quite. All theorems (assertions) are true in some systems, false in others, and undecidable in a third type.

I believe that this clearly points to the explanation of the 'problem of consciousness', since consciousness lies outside all formal systems and beyond all proofs of even its existence. It is an absolute, as you have argued elsewhere.

[Fredrick]

Hi Guys,

I think I agree fully with the quote stated. The truth can be known for 100%, but the truth always requires an explanatory setting. It is within the setting that the truth can be known; what is true in one setting may be incorrect/untrue in another. The setting itself may encompass everything, but the direction from which to view everything is an especially important attribute to the setting. Take the numbers zero and one. As binary numbers they are clearly different than as the parts they play in their decimal format. It is not that the 1 becomes untrue in one of the two settings, it is that the decimal 1 should not get mixed up with the binary 1. Do you require proof? As in evidence or as in undeniable? The 1 in the decimal system is known as 'unity', while the 1 in the binary system does not have a name (that is, it is named 1). To name the only active (but not the only important) player of the binary system 'unity' would be a hilarious statement.
Apologies in advance if this reiterates some of your words.

Fredrick

[Imparcticle]

The truth can be known for 100%, but the truth always requires an explanatory setting. It is within the setting that the truth can be known; what is true in one setting may be incorrect/untrue in another.


How about Godel's theorem?

[TENYEARS]

I have never read of this person, but he knows he must clear away to see. Accept nothing, no proof, no words, no visions. To see, you must look. Was he brave enough, are you brave enough or is it not a matter of brave but is it a matter of desire. What do you think? What do you need? Maybe you already have what you need, or maybe you don't. Usually what we need changes by the impact of outside circumstances. Some times nature presses in on us and ups the ante, then in these situations a human elevates. Suddenly we are more than what we belived we were. Walls fall away, the ground disappears and there you are in space, no body only the mind of what is. In this moment, and in this moment alone you will have truth.

This mans words coninside with what I experienced in a vision. The new tower of understanding was built. It proved the existance of what I speak and yet, they did not understand. Many visited, many acknowleged and yet it was still only proof and it stood outside themselves. I felt great disappointment as I will when it happens. I can help no one and I am alone.

[Fredrick]

Godel's theorem exists within its mathematical context. The mathematical context delivers multiple points of view. The chosen definition, for instance how to view the number zero, is different for number theorists than for set theorists. One word gets a different meaning due to the people defining/using the word. It happens to be a word that has important implications and as such the definitions — including or excluding zero as a natural number — help determine what is viewed to be/contain the truth and what not.

[Fredrick]

Adding:
Gödel allows himself a good amount of freedom while delivering us his theorem. He starts with constructing a decimal approach to this truth, in which the highest spot is given to the Numero Uno computer in the world. He formulates an interesting question concerning the truth which is to be fed to the computer. But then, Gödel gives himself the freedom to switch from the decimal system to the binary system when the computer comes into play. The computer can only answer yes or no. He uses two systems to tell us one story.
It is like painting a masterpiece in colors, but the central object is painted in black and white. Is it possible to do that? Of course, but is it a good reflection on reality? I think it leans more towards Picasso than to Rembrandt. The painting purposefully reminds us that it is a painting.
If that computer is really what Gödel wants us to think it is, it would have replied with something much better. With a wink to Descartes I would have the computer print up a card for Gödel that said:
"You didn't think, therefore you do not exist."
Gödel would then read the card, burst into a big laugh, pat the computer, and while thanking it for showing his own truth he walks away.

[Fredrick]

How can this be true? It isn't difficult. By using the 0 from the decimal system and using the 1 from the binary system one can truthfully say that 0 = 1. Two separate systems give us a lot of freedom when combined.

Example. I walk into a restaurant and they serve ten different dishes. I immediately reject five of them, leaving me with 5 dishes for which I have (some) desire. Of these 5 I am less interested in 3 of them, because my attention is drawn to 2 dishes in particular. Between these two dishes I have absolutely no preference. I therefore just make a choice, pay for the one dish, and eat it.

In the first round I give 5 dishes a value of zero, and the other five dishes a value of 1. In the second round I give 3 of those dishes a value of zero by preferring the other 2 who each gets a value of 1.
In the third round I simply choose, because I have to choose (from a financial and a stomach point of view), and I give one of the dishes I also liked nevertheless a value of zero.
In the end I have given nine dishes a value of zero.

Giving the value of zero to these dishes was based on different reasons. There are two sets. One set is interest, one set is choice. The very first round was based on that I did not want them (no interest); one reason was that there were other more attractive dishes (not enough interest); and one got a value of zero simply because I had to make a choice (which was not based on preference/interest). Obviously giving something a value of zero is functional and may happen for various reasons.

Of these reasons the most poignant one is making the choice while everything else is considered equal. Two dishes - not identical, but equally attractive to me - and only one will be eaten.

In math there are two groups of theorists who place the number zero in a different category. Number theorists have a definition of the natural numbers that does not include zero. Set theorists have a definition for the natural numbers that includes zero. Both definitions are fine. They're just definitions. But which definition reflects reality the most? Is there one that is (more) true?

As you can see the difference between both definitions is really the choice what to do with number zero. Both groups make therefore use of that choice. But only one group decides to make the ability to choose an actual part of its definition. The ability to make a choice is delivered by no other number than zero. By giving something a value of zero, we have made the particular item unimportant. Yet if we try to deliver a definition on all things natural, should making that choice be included? The choice to make choosing important or not, may be the most important aspect of making a definition reflect reality or not.

Let's use some other language to clarify what is going on. Both definitions can be considered frameworks: let's say paintings. One definition is a particular painting, while the other is a painting in which a wall is shown with a painting hanging on it. Which paintings are true? Realize that there are three paintings now: the first one depicting something (but not a painting on a wall), the second one depicting a wall with a painting on it, and a third one - the depicted painting on the wall in the second painting. Which painting is true?

It depends on what you are looking for. All three paintings can be considered paintings; as such they all qualify for the price. But they are not of similar statue. When examining the amount of paint used only the first two paintings are of similar weight, while the third one has less weight.

When using paint, one can paint an article inside the painting that is a painiting in itself. When using definitions one can define a set as a definition that also exists within a larger definition. None of the three paintings is more a painting than the other paintings. Each definition is by itself as important as the other definitions, but the frameworks do differ. Two paintings have frameworks that are real (exist in our reality), while one painting has a framework that is only real within its context (the larger painting); its real framework actually is the larger framework of the second painting.

A definition that includes zero as a natural number will therefore be a better reflection on reality than a definition without zero. Remember it does not say anything about the quality of the definitions. They all qualify. If we do not look for a completed framework on reality it does not matter if we include or exclude zero.

A peculiar facet of one of the definitions is that it takes place within a larger definition, while the larger definition is not mentioned. It is like saying that there are truly only two paintings; the one with the real framework, and the one without the real framework. Each of these two paintings is painted with real paint and can as such not be distinguished from one another. However, one can be moved from wall to wall, the other cannot without moving the entire painting. One painting has handles, the other has no handles. One definition includes where the painting physically stops, the other does not.

So zero is the stop. When making a definition we use the power of zero to include/exclude. The only overall definition on reality must include this ability. It does not diminish any of the definitions nor their appearance in our reality. But this proof proves zero is one. Decimal zero has a function that in the binary language is 1, simply because it is there; it is important.

The title of our conversation is "Proof proves nothing" and I believe the importance of nothing has actually been proven here. Naturally, zero and nothing are not identical, but as you can see in 0000010206, some of these zeroes are actually nothings (they could have been left out, still delivering the same number), while two of these zeroes are not nothings (without the zeroes the number changes).

The number that delivers freedom is zero. Though non-restrictions are actually nothings (if they don't exist they don't exist), by not having the restrictions a lot more is possible. Getting rid of unnecessary restrictions (giving the restrictions a value of zero) is important; it is functional.

[Locrian]

Decimal zero has a function that in the binary language is 1, simply because it is there; it is important.

Zero does not have a function that is 1 in binary language. Zero plays the same role in the binary number system as it does in our system based on ten. The foundation of that entire post is invalid.

[Fredrick]

Zero does not have a function that is 1 in binary language. Zero plays the same role in the binary number system as it does in our system based on ten. The foundation of that entire post is invalid.

That is a very interesting statement. Could you explain why you consider the foundation invalid? Do you consider 1 in each system also to be the same? I postulate that there are two systems, and though both make use of 0 and 1, for the binary system there are no other numbers, but for the decimal system there are 10 numbers (0 - 9). If we can use both systems to describe our world in their own particular way, the two numbers of the binary system can contain 'everything' that in the decimal system can be described by ten numbers. Do you fold the numbers 1 - 9 into the binary 1?

[Fredrick]

Apologies for creating what is almost a monologue here.

The binary system and the decimal system are two systems that exist by their own definition. The binary system is defined by two numbers only, the decimal system by ten. Their definitions do not exist because of the other's definition. They are self-defined.

0 = 1 cannot exist within either one of these systems, it can only exist when one number belongs to one, and the other number belongs to the other system. In the twilight area between them 0 can be either 0 or 1, depending on the meaning these numbers represent.

Mathematics is an abstract application. 1 + 1 = 2 has no real meaning unless we specify what the 1s indicate. Apples? Oranges? The definitions each have their own specific rules and we must adhere to them. However, it is a different ball game in the area between the definitions.

Without changing anything factual about the binary system, it is possible to deliver it with different symbols. This is not just a trick, it delivers vital information on what construct the binary system actually is. I can create a binary system that is identical in its working as the currently used binary system while using 1s and 2s. I can deliver the reasoning as followed: the first state, the 'state of rest' receives a 1, while the second state, the 'state of being energized' receives a 2. The binary system represents two states.

Instead of
1000000011011100100
I can then write
2111111122122211211
and both lines would contain exactly the same information.
This latter binary system does not function differently in any way from the former. The only things different are the symbols, and the involved reasonings to use these specific symbols. My computer functions exactly the same way whether I consider it to be based on 0s and 1s or on 1s and 2s.

If we were to use 1s and 2s for the binary system, and I repeated the statement that 0 = 1, nobody would have any problem with it at all. The state of rest (1) means there is no other extra action (0). Yet most likely I would receive some objection if I wrote 2 = 1 because number 1 is still the component that may confuse if it is not explained properly.

Allow me to deliver yet another version to display the same workings of the binary system. It is delivered in the format that is in use today for time. In time there are only seconds; there are no firsts.

Instead of
1000000011011100100
I can then write
2000000022022200200
and both lines would contain exactly the same information. My computer couldn't care less whichever way I perceive the way it works.

Now if I write 0 = 1 nobody would have any objections. When I write 2 = 1 nobody would have any objections either. There is no confusion possible when only one of the systems uses 1, and the numbers in the other system gets 'translated' into that number. Of course, it is good to remember that one cannot write 0 = 1 and 2 = 1 in one and the same construct. Even the twilight area has a rule or two to it as well.

The numbers of the binary system are less defined than the numbers in the decimal system, where the numbers are more specialized. Only two numbers may represent on-off, active-inactive, while ten numbers will automatically deliver a more specific notion of the used numbers, like void, united, split, etc. The real reason of the freedom of 0 = 1 is that I use two systems of abstractions that are based on themselves - not on each other's definition.

Please notice that I used the numbers 0, 1, and 2 in the conventional way throughout my story: I did not make them up to mean anything out of the ordinary.

[Locrian]

I did not make them up to mean anything out of the ordinary.

I'll agree with that; you haven't managed to say anything at all.

You gleefully redifine the symbols normally used in binary language to show that you can, and then pretend that because you can change symbols you can create logical consistencies.

However, there is no logical consistency, since the logical statements are based upon the presumed definitions of the symbols those logical systems use.

[Fredrick]

William James says that concepts are static, incomplete abstractions that are at best only useful analogies of dynamic reality. The corollary is that reality cannot be completely described or captured by concepts.


Thank you for a good reply. Everything you say is true. The only thing I am missing concerns our thread: 'proof proves nothing.' Our thread is about the boundaries of concepts. The examples of the logical consistencies I deliver are there for one reason only: to show that a choice was made to define the current uses. There is no problem with the definitions as they exist; it is just to show that they have a limited ability within our reality, and as such they may not represent reality fully or they may deliver a slanted view on everything.

Part of our thread was the question, which I here describe as whether there is truth — whether the truth can be known. I state the truth can be known, but only when the concept in which this truth exists is known/understood as well. This means a truth can exist — when expressed in accord with the used definition and when this definition correctly contains/describes everything.

Therefore I first use both binary and decimal system to show that they are limited; the most poignant situation is the freedom that exists when an expression in one can be anything from an identical to a contradictory expression in the other. The information is of course not contradicted within a definition. I think the relevancy of this freedom in our reality is that by acknowledging its exists we can understand reality better. We can then display reality better while making use of our concepts.

Two systems based on their own definition that have communalities and discrepancies between them, may cooperate, delivering a synergy effect that is more than the two parts. The example I can think of is the human brain. Both 'halves' of the brain may be each based on their own rules, while the communalities lead to a firm connection between both halves that is very concrete and real. However, some parts of the human brain may not cooperate/may never be able to have a connection. I think the human brain has thousands upon thousands of these definitions/standards existing all at the same time, but the basic of that reality can be explained by a model that contains just two.

To go back to math and deliver this 'look' on reality in the binary system, it can be concluded that the basics of our reality is not represented fully by 0 and 1 only, but should then be represented by 0, 1, and 1. No single 1 exists in the binary language as the all-important 1, and to deliver the fact that a doubling does exist, we can choose to express this in the binary language as having the basics be 110, or 101, or 011 — not just 0 and 1. I believe this concepts already exists in the term 101 of Economics, or the 101 of Physics (but I could be wrong about that, I do not know the source of this term). As I already wrote, we do not use the term 'unity' in the binary language to describe 1 because there is no basis to do that. Having said that, it is very easy to understand why the basics of the binary system is presented to us as 0 and 1, because the two 1s appear to be redundant. However, if the second 1 is left out we are then delivered a misrepresentation of reality because all functionality of the system is then not captured.

When looking at the binary language we get a different idea about 'everything' than when we use the decimal system. The unified field of forces some physicists are looking for does clearly not exist in the binary language. No matter how futile one makes the existence of zero — and therefore the more all-encompassing the 1 — this 1 (these 1s) do not function properly without the zeroes. Bringing everything back to 1 is therefore impossible in the binary system. A choice can be made what a single 1 indicates (for instance, everything) but the system does not deliver the concept of everything in the abstract; only the system as a whole does.

The unified field of forces appears to exist in the decimal system (with the number 1), but on closer examination all known examples of 1s are examples of creation; there is no evidence that the decimal 1 exists in our universe. Examples of created 1s are a nation, it got created because people united to have that singular entity, or a family (some species exists without the existence of a family), or a bicycle (many parts have - when assembled right - a new meaning). Never has there been any evidence that a 1 existed that is truly a 1 — except as created or in the abstract. To be complete: I do not mean the singular unit, like an apple or orange, but the singularity on the overall platform. Unity is by definition an act of plurality manifested as one. The decimal system does not deliver the concept of everything in the abstract; only the system as a whole does.

The used concepts deliver a 'grip' on reality, but if the used concepts make us think something exists that does not exist, then we are fooled by the concept(s). Without correcting the view (which can be incorrect in depth, for instance, when seeing is done with only one eye), we do not get a good look on reality.

[Fredrick]

Can I invite those interested to look at Chapter 5 of my book "In Search of a Cyclops" and tell me what you think of my (simple) mathematical evidence/delivery?

"In Search of a Cyclops" is a free online book that deals with the absence of a unified field of forces. The (sup)position of the book is that several scientists believe in something that does not exist: a unified field. By trying to bring everything back to a single unified theory these scientists (by the way, Hawking is not one of them) try to find an impossible platform, hence the title.

There is a synopsis link on the main page.
http://www.pentapublishing.com

The book consists mainly of metaphysical information, but Chapter 5 (and to some extent Chapter 7) revolve around more scientific information. Though nothing and zero are not identical, under certain circumstances they can be viewed as the same. A familiar but different look is delivered on the prime number sequences, from which evidence is abstracted that zero is always there, and as such it establishes evidence that our universe came into being due to separation, not unification.

A single level of separation is a much better explanation than ultimate unification for what we experience in our universe. The good thing is that the mechanism is very simple and does not contradict any of the information we have gathered so far. It actually makes everything a lot easier to understand; if you are willing to bite through the apple.

I welcome any remarks on this chapter.

[RingoKid]

1)accept nothing as fact
2)question everything
3)determine your own truth
4)define your own reality

It's an ongoing process whereby you constantly evaluate data, assimilate it into your perspective and build upon a foundation of previously accumulated and assimilated data...

as an example, take leprachauns

1)don't accept their existence as fact or fiction just because somebody said it's true or false

2)question the validity of their existence by researching, studying, comparing, analyzing, look for answers everywhere and anywhere and not just to prove it but also to disprove it

3)based on what you have learnt, determine what you believe to be the truth about leprachauns

4)the knowledge you now have puts you in the position of being able to define a reality that allows for the existence or not of leprachauns

If someone else comes up with more data concerning leprachauns assimilate it into your knowledge data base and adjust your truth if neccessary then re define your reality

Your truth may differ from somebody elses so here is where faith in your abilities and trust in the process by which you arrived at your truth becomes paramount in being able to speak with confidence about the reality of leprachauns existing

as an exercise substitute leprachauns for let's say...God

Lastly never think you know the absolute truth or the ultimate reality because your personal perception of truth and reality will only ever be your opinion...

...so remember

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing...

peace

ps I have been wanting for nothing for quite a while now

[RingoKid]

here's a t-shirt design I did that is in theme with the discussion...

digit_al (http://threadless.com/submission/24974.html)

[magus niche]

hmmm... binary: 0 and 1 omnipresent within an infiniverse. yes, it sounds alright. where 0 represents nothingness/passivity and 1 represents something/activity. and infinity could be described as the process/energy by which the uncountable binary operations are being.

so free will would be 1. saying no would be 0. hmm. but saying no is a free choice.... it would be much more complex i'm sure. i suppose the choices we make are not simple on/offs but an uncountable number of on/offs whereby a sort of 'judgement' would be made as to what influence wins the moment..... what makes the judgement?

here4ever +
there4now =
anywhere8anytime ?
:wink:

[Fredrick]

I wish I had asked my question sooner. It is becoming more and more fun.

You guys, I am serious. (but nice shirt).

[Locrian]

From Chapter 5

It is not uncommon for phenomena to be known in mathematics before an actual counterpart is discovered in physics.

Give examples of this. Since it is not uncommon, and there are many, many phenomena, you should have no trouble listing many.

That paragraph contains an error: you state that there are two differing definitions of zero, but provide no evidence. Whether or not a group places the number zero in the natural numbers could depend on their definition of the natural number, not of zero. Provide more evidence that there are actually more than one definition available, and that there are only two.

Your process of showing zero is intrinsic is also at the least useless, if not flawed. You develop a system and show that zero is needed to satisfy it. However, any number of systems could be used to do the same. Why you think this overly complicated version is necessary I do not know.

Finally, the entire chapter is filled with scentences that have no useful meaning. For example, "Science was established through repeatable results, while everything else that is not repeatable may be considered to have a value of zero." This is simply false. I request you provide me with references to well educated scientists who call them "zero." I do not believe you have any, because scientists would have a more accurate way of stating their feelings.

Since you base your entire definition of science on this misinformation (read your scentences afterwards), it is safe to say you do not know even the definition of science, and therefore should not be commenting on it.

[Fredrick]

Thank you Locrian, for very specific and detailed information. Rest assured that I am going to delve into your advice, and have it help me make my point come across better.

I have some points that I want to mention right away.
Provide more evidence that there are actually more than one definition available, and that there are only two. The groups that place zero within or outside the definition of the natural numbers are called number theorists (zero not included) and set theorists (zero is included). Whether I should rephrase the sentence to mention set theory and number theory instead of set theorists and number theorists is a point to consider. I will reword the sentence so the language becomes correct.
I basically would think there are only two definitions possible for the natural numbers that involve the number zero. Either it is included or it is not. If you can think of a third group I would be very much interested to hear about it.

Your process of showing zero is intrinsic is also at the least useless, if not flawed. You develop a system and show that zero is needed to satisfy it. However, any number of systems could be used to do the same. Why you think this overly complicated version is necessary I do not know. If you think the point is moot, more hail to you. Some people have no problem recognizing that nothing is simply always there. The question that follows: will they challenge the idea of unification which ignores the significance of 'nothing' (should I use the word 'separation' sometimes in this chapter to make the point come across how I think nothing can be seen as an action)? Or will these people who already acknowledge the abundance of nothing also do nothing when they see others try to find a final theory that is based on unification (which is based on an un-important nothing).
In short: if you already believe the action of separation comes before the (failed) action of unification then there is no need to explain the importance of 'nothing.' Yet if a person believes in unification as the ground rule for our universe then there is a need to deliver this rather moot point. However, the information found this way is being used again later in the book. Specifically the matrix of six numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). It is very simple stuff that may bore the tears out of a scientist's head, just like I can imagine that someone trained in literature may not be interested in reading about A, B, C. Yet if the person trained in literature is dyslectic, and doesn't acknowledge that fact, how will a simple writer let that person know about the spelling mistakes he/she encounters?

Finally, the entire chapter is filled with sentences that have no useful meaning. For example, "Science was established through repeatable results, while everything else that is not repeatable may be considered to have a value of zero." This is simply false. I request you provide me with references to well educated scientists who call them "zero." I do not believe you have any, because scientists would have a more accurate way of stating their feelings. I agree with you. I am not quoting any scientist, I am using the freedom as a writer to communicate with as many people as possible (which is difficult when I expect them to be scientists and non-scientists). As a writer I also have my own limitations, and that's why I appreciate your comments very much. I want to please all. I do not write for me, I write so others can understand what I see. That means that my language needs to be created for others: again, not an easy thing to achieve. Then there is the point of when is too much too much? Am I driving home a point that is more than moot? But if it is why haven't physicists jumped on the phenomenon of nothing to help explain the way the universe works? Right now nothing/separation is being ignored as the possible first step of creation.
I am using 'a value of zero' to bring home the point that some things have no scientific value; is not important; can get ignored. It may not be scientifically correct to connect zero with value, but that is again the freedom of a writer who does not necessarily write for scientists.
In science non-repeatable results are regarded differently than repeatable results. When one laboratory discovers a wonderful fact, the people at this laboratory will publish that information or give that information to others so it can be verified. Without verification by others a single result will be thrown out. It is established practice that facts need verification. When we arrive at other fields like religion or spirituality, a single act may be all that is needed to deliver a highly appreciated value. A single appearance of the virgin mary is enough to get a thousand people to relocate for good (towards or away from the appearance).

Again, thank you for your remarks. They are and will be very helpful in creating a better chapter 5.

[magus niche]

i was seriously brainstorming before, in a non serious manner!
mathematics attempts to describe sets or systems (theoretically applicable to reality surely), no? i was trying to fit some of the suggestions on this thread into my own system of reality. i personally identify strongly with binary code, although i do not fully understand its implications. i do however believe in infinite time. and binary to me is better at representing this concept. ie. as long as one acknowledges that there was no beginning and there is no end, but simply recorded segments, and more importantly, the present moment that keeps coming into being.

the concept of positive/negative or passivity/activity and other dualisms such as these can actually be represented with binary quite nicely, as long as one does not assume that there is 'only two' options in any situation. or rather, a situation could be generalised into two options, but these two options would have to be made up of a infinite tree of other binary pairs stemming from the primary pair.

i think of the universe as an infinite (infinity describing an eternal uncountable process) system, not a bounded one. an infiniverse if you will. so one is only ever generalising when using maths, and the concept of 1 is a generalisation, as is the concept of 0. but this of course does not diminish their value.

(with my limited understanding) spacially, 1 signifies a whole (made up of infinite segments/processes), and 0 signifies nothingness or absence. both of which are extreme positions and niether can be proven to exist. but things do exist. as does nothing.

the 'truth' is subjective and when many subjects combine an object results: objectivity. objective truth still cannot be 'proven' but it can be followed like a rule to achieve outcomes. subjective truth can also be followed like a rule, but may be less affective. the heart in combination with the mind has a lot to do with deciding what to believe.

anyway, feel free to smash apart or if you are polite, question, my string of words as long as you understand them. :wink:

[Fredrick]

... as long as one acknowledges that there was no beginning and there is no end, but simply recorded segments, and more importantly, the present moment that keeps coming into being.

i think of the universe as an infinite (infinity describing an eternal uncountable process) system, not a bounded one. an infiniverse if you will. so one is only ever generalising when using maths, and the concept of 1 is a generalisation, as is the concept of 0. but this of course does not diminish their value.
(with my limited understanding) spatially, 1 signifies a whole (made up of infinite segments/processes), and 0 signifies nothingness or absence. both of which are extreme positions and neither can be proven to exist. but things do exist. as does nothing.

the 'truth' is subjective and when many subjects combine an object results: objectivity. objective truth still cannot be 'proven' but it can be followed like a rule to achieve outcomes. subjective truth can also be followed like a rule, but may be less affective. the heart in combination with the mind has a lot to do with deciding what to believe.



I would respond with: right on! If we let go of that other (those other) system(s) in math it becomes quite easy, doesn't it? Of course little bits and pieces are always debatable. The idea of infinity for instance does have a limitation - in the past - because there is a 'clear' beginning to our universe. The exact clarity of the beginning is still a matter of debate, but the beginning itself is no longer being debated. As such it is a limit.

From the moment of that very beginning on there are not really any limitations anymore, unless we look at matter itself. Digging into a cooled off planet, there will be a moment that the center has been reached, and when continuing to dig there will be a moment you pop out on the other side again; as such it is limited (but there are two versions for what the actual intrinsic limit is). On our planet earth there is a limit in how deep you can dig until you burn/choke/melt way before reaching the center/other side.

When to use the words objective/subjective? I guess it depends on how/when/what/where they are used. In religion the concepts are subjective concepts (for instance, one god, many gods, no god(s)), but within these religions there are many truths. The truths are dependent on the concepts in which they exist. The table in my living room is truly a table. It exists as a table in my vocabulary and in that vocabulary it is absolutely true. As such the binary numbers 0 and 1 (or 1, 1, and 0 if you wish) may both mean the same thing, but only when their meaning is based on two different concepts. The absolute zero does not exist as a fact nor does the absolute one (but I could use the phenomenon of the absolute 1 to describe god, and I could use the phenomenon of the absolute zero to describe, again, god). How to explain the numbers themselves depends on their particular use in the particular concepts.

Nevertheless: right on.

[magus niche]

The idea of infinity for instance does have a limitation - in the past - because there is a 'clear' beginning to our universe. The exact clarity of the beginning is still a matter of debate, but the beginning itself is no longer being debated. As such it is a limit.

From the moment of that very beginning on there are not really any limitations anymore, unless we look at matter itself. Digging into a cooled off planet, there will be a moment that the center has been reached, and when continuing to dig there will be a moment you pop out on the other side again; as such it is limited (but there are two versions for what the actual intrinsic limit is). On our planet earth there is a limit in how deep you can dig until you burn/choke/melt way before reaching the center/other side.


yes agreed there are limits, but i think we humans have very interesting thought variations, would you not agree? we can envisage and visualise many wonderful things, yet we cannot prove all of them. the imagination is limitless it seems, no? :wink:

now, our imagination is something of a series of chemical reactions etc. combining/crystallising etc. (i'm not wholly in touch with the scientific terms), but what comes first, the way or the will? the physicality (the observations) or the nonphysicality (the ideas). the ideas seem limitless, but the observations are limited.

so in response to your above analogy concerning the beginning of our universe i would say: where is the 'proof' that nothing existed before? the answer to that is all hyperthetical no matter who answers it, it seems. i understand that yes, maybe our version of space/time which science has constructed only works up to that limit, but i am not convinced that there was absolutely nothing before it.

i admit i am inclined to believe in energy flow rather than 'creation'. although i am willing to accept that this energy flow may have been directed by a 'free will' of some sort (ie. god). quite possibly not though, maybe a combination of both chance/choice? unknowable, but understandable. :redface:

truths within context.... yep. that seems to be the case, and fits in with subjective/objective stuff too. do you think universally human truths exist? :shy:

[Fredrick]

Where is the 'proof' that nothing existed before? the answer to that is all hyperthetical no matter who answers it, it seems. i understand that yes, maybe our version of space/time which science has constructed only works up to that limit, but i am not convinced that there was absolutely nothing before it.

i admit i am inclined to believe in energy flow rather than 'creation'. although i am willing to accept that this energy flow may have been directed by a 'free will' of some sort (ie. god). quite possibly not though, maybe a combination of both chance/choice? unknowable, but understandable. :redface:

truths within context.... yep. that seems to be the case, and fits in with subjective/objective stuff too. do you think universally human truths exist? :shy:

First off, we may be thinking along the same lines. I do not believe nothing existed before the Big Bang. To the contrary. I believe it was the creation of nothing that lead to the Big Bang - it did not exist at first. In other words: our universe exists due to the created existence of nothing. If it wasn't for nothing, we would not be here.

I can imagine it is kind of difficult to get the exact meaning of these words immediately. What I am trying to say is that separation is the original reason our universe came into being. Separation can factually be seen as one big nothing. The harshest moments in a human life are death, divorce, and moving (either in location or a person out of the house) and it would not be nice to equate these moments with nothing. Factually, however, these most important moments can only be registered when first there was some kind of unity. If we cannot register the first unity, because it is not expressed as such, we are kind of blinded.

I believe the unity existed before the Big Bang, but do not see too many reasons to discuss this unity because that is difficult. In our universe we do not have absolute unity, so how can we really discuss how this unity truly was before it ceased to exist? Quite difficult, don't you agree? Yet separation CAN be discussed, can be delivered (see my web page), and I believe it came into existence at the very moment our universe came about.

I must therefore believe in consciousness as a very old source, because I need consciousness to set up the conditions that make universal separation possible. Though I believe that our universe was created 'accidently' it required nevertheless consciousness to create that accident. Mind before matter, if you will, but wisdom after the fact.

I believe the universe has only one rule: what you do onto others can be done to you. It shows that we have full freedom - no rules - to act whichever way we like, but our responsibility is determined by the fact that others can then do the same thing to us. If we are not willing to accept that single rule (and therefore just do whatever we want without the realization that we may also bear the consequences) we are not yet human.

Empowering ourselves may happen on the grounds that nobody else is going to respond in the same way we did because we are too strong for them - and we may then get away with inhuman behavior - but it doesn't release us from our human duty. Those who start wars, and those who continue wars bear great responsibility towards de-humanizing our race. Only when we truly let others do onto us what we are doing onto others (important: and vice versa) will we achieve humanity by having to avoid inhuman actions.

[magus niche]

yes i agree, we seem to be travelling similar frequencies fredrick. all this talk of nothing, it's a tricky one isn't it? :wink: i cannot help getting a scary feeling that we as humans have conjured this nothingness, as powerful as it seems, for maybe our own benefit. ie. with the ability to 'create' nothingness (literally i mean) we would hold immense power, which of course could be abused. any thoughts? has it been done?

also, your idea of seperation is interesting. it makes me think of: lets look for similarities in things not for differences...

i totally agree with your rule, although i would not expect from others that which i have acted towards them, false expectations etc... but after saying this, things do come back to one, but often in a different form, maybe even psychological.

some people obviously do not care about there own physical existence enough, and in turn are willing to sacrifice there own life. sacrifice empowers one with a sense of purpose. and with purpose comes confidence, comes action. and so it seems important to get ones values directed the 'right' way, respecting others values also, and respecting the existence of all things/concepts.

universally, there seems to be a complex balanced cause/effect reality (as chaotic as it appears). if ones life does not seem balanced, 1. one can do things about it, 2. ones own life is not all there is: there is always somebody/something else that suffers more or less than ones self, 3. well directed sacrifice empowers one (eg. sacrifice of money or time for others benefit)

in general i believe in respectful deconstruction rather than destruction, and construction/synthesis rather than creation.

gee it's good being able to communicate with other entities over such vast distances at the speed of light, do you agree? :smile:

[Fredrick]

yes i agree, we seem to be travelling similar frequencies fredrick. all this talk of nothing, it's a tricky one isn't it? :wink: i cannot help getting a scary feeling that we as humans have conjured this nothingness, as powerful as it seems, for maybe our own benefit. ie. with the ability to 'create' nothingness (literally i mean) we would hold immense power, which of course could be abused. any thoughts? has it been done?

in general i believe in respectful deconstruction rather than destruction, and construction/synthesis rather than creation.

gee it's good being able to communicate with other entities over such vast distances at the speed of light, do you agree? :smile:

Sorry but time travelling does happen; I was really too busy to get back to PhysicsForums.com. I agree, it is good to talk to like-minded persons even when that requires some spacetime travel via the net.

Your question about power is an interesting one, but I have the feeling you know parts of the answer(s) already. Nothing and power are somehow related. There are many voids created already where you nor I can go anymore. We have evolved. In nomadic times, human groups were often no bigger than one hundred persons, and according to some professionals that is more or less our carrying capacity. We have learned to give up some of our power to enable us to live in larger groups (city of a million persons for instance). I can't be a peasant in a city; I have to adjust.

Other forms of power & void entail religion where in the name of god a lot of horrible things can be done. Everybody knows that god is not an entity we can physically touch, and our beliefs are almost as varied as there are nations and people. The danger is that if people believe strong enough in a certain goal than they may be willing to sacrifice others who - seemingly - are in the way of that goal. The void therefore already exists in power, in many different ways. Some will make use of that power, others will not. But the more I do not take up my power, the more others will take it up, so yes, go out and vote every time you can.

The more we realize that the other person with complete different ideas is really not that much different from ourselves, we will be less inclined to harm that person. However, it is a two way street and it is not always easy to keep seeing ourselves in someone who appears to be (thinking) different(ly). If we or they use violence it becomes even more murky.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder (just like beauty) and when we use the term evil we have let go of objective terms. Evil is a subjective term and can be used by all sides on the other. Two groups of people or nations can consider the other evil. By giving up on objectivity, we have accepted a void in our objective view.

[Canute]

First off, we may be thinking along the same lines. I do not believe nothing existed before the Big Bang. To the contrary. I believe it was the creation of nothing that lead to the Big Bang - it did not exist at first. In other words: our universe exists due to the created existence of nothing. If it wasn't for nothing, we would not be here.

I can imagine it is kind of difficult to get the exact meaning of these words immediately. What I am trying to say is that separation is the original reason our universe came into being.
This is pretty much what mathematician George Spencer-Brown said. His calculus of 'distinctions' takes as as axiomatic 'something' that is neither something or nothing, and then represents the creation of the universe as a process of making distinctions in this unnameable void (space/time, something/nothing etc.).

He presented this calculus in the 'Laws of Form' (1967). He became a friend of Advaita master Wu Wu Wei and claims to be a 'Buddha', i.e. awake to the true nature of reality. Is this at all similar to what you are suggesting?

[selfAdjoint]

WHo claims to be a Buddha? Spencer-Brown, or Wu Wu Wei?

[TENYEARS]

The difference between stating reality and realizing it is the distance accoss the ocean. Your friend is correct, but nothing was never created, it has always been. So tell me any of you fools if you perscribe to nothing, then what is the nature of your possibility? The realization will be like a flash for the second you realize the nothing many other things will flow with it. Speak. Anyone? What is possible if nothing is the reality.

[Fredrick]

Canute, thank you so much for mentioning George Spencer-Brown here. It feels good to me every time I hear that there are other people out there who have similar/identical ideas; it is like homecoming, thank you.

Everything has structure. In religion there are many different structures also. In Christianity, we believe that the highest person on earth was Jesus, and though we can all be seen as children of god, we place him in the highest spot. In Buddhism, we believe that we are all born Buddhas, though we have to become aware of it to actually attain that name. Because we all have the potential there is no single highest person, only the highest state: consciousness. Once we are aware, we can use the term Buddhas.

In Christianity we cannot become Jesus, because that spot is taken already. In Buddhism, the highest spot is available right there for all of us.

We can argue long and short about what is the right religion and the right way to god/understanding, but we cannot argue that these structures are identical; they are different and therefore they have an impact on our thinking, our decisions in life, our visions.

The problem with that what was before the big bang is - first - that we cannot call it nothing, and second if we cannot call it nothing, what else can we call it? All our words have come into being within this universe, so our words to describe the state will always miss the point. In the past the word paradise would have been used: according to me that is still a pretty good word. Para-diso: beyond the spoken. It is impossible to call the 'previous' state nothing, because a whole universe came out of it. It is impossible to call it everything because the universe that came out of it did not exist as such before. Everything today includes a television set, a monkey, star light - all didn't exist before the big bang.

TENYEARS, I hope it is obvious we are not talking about nothing as the center or source of reality: we talk about nothing only as one of the components of existence as we know it. As such nothing exists and it can be all-important as well: sometimes I look inside my wallet and that is exactly what I find in there.

[Canute]

Self-Adjoint

It is GSB who claims to be a Buddha, although I imagine that Wu Wu Wei would have done so also, had he been a Buddhist. (GSB isn't one by the way).

Canute, thank you so much for mentioning George Spencer-Brown here. It feels good to me every time I hear that there are other people out there who have similar/identical ideas; it is like homecoming, thank you.
Yeah, not many people seem to know of him. How did you come across him?

In Christianity we cannot become Jesus, because that spot is taken already. In Buddhism, the highest spot is available right there for all of us.
I suspect that Jesus was no more or less the 'Son of God' than any Buddha. But I know Christians don't like this idea very much. Have you read the Gospels of Thomas or Mary?

The problem with that what was before the big bang is - first - that we cannot call it nothing, and second if we cannot call it nothing, what else can we call it?
The Tao? Emptiness? Nibbanah? Allah? GBS's 'blank sheet of paper'? The Realm of Indra? Chuang-Tsu often calls it 'something', the quote marks signifying that it's also 'nothing'. Jesus calls it the 'Kingdom of Heaven'. ("Seek not Lo here! or Lo there! for the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" etc). As you say, it has to remain an undefined term. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao" (Lao-Tsu). Everyone has their own code name. I like to think of it as the meta-system, unrepresentable within the system, incapable of being 'idolised'.

All our words have come into being within this universe, so our words to describe the state will always miss the point. In the past the word paradise would have been used: according to me that is still a pretty good word. Para-diso: beyond the spoken. It is impossible to call the 'previous' state nothing, because a whole universe came out of it. It is impossible to call it everything because the universe that came out of it did not exist as such before.
Yes, quite agree. It neither exists not not-exists, since 'exists' is one of those words (and concepts) that miss the point. How did you come to this view? (If you don't mind me asking).

[TENYEARS]

Self-Adjoint

I suspect that Jesus was no more or less the 'Son of God' than any Buddha. But I know Christians don't like this idea very much. Have you read the Gospels of Thomas or Mary?


I am Christian and yet I know the truth. For yea are all the sons an daughters of the one god. Is this not also in the bible? We are all part of the whole. The whole encompasses all which is total and infinite. There are no limitations but the ones which we create for ourselves or for what we believe of others.

Fred, you do not belive in nothing and you should not. You should actually not belive anything if you can. If you can stay in this state and believe nothing you will find truth which indeed will be nothing. LoL

[Fredrick]

Excuses for the long reply.

Not many people seem to know GSB. How did you come across him?
Canute, you told me about George Spencer-Brown. I had never heard of him. Do you know if he envisioned an empty center during the first moments of materialization?
Have you read the Gospels of Thomas or Mary?
I am sorry, I have heard their names, but I haven't read anything by them.
Chuang-Tsu often calls {the previous state of our universe} 'something', the quote marks signifying that it's also 'nothing'.
According to me, it cannot be called nothing. Nothing would exactly be the component that must be missing from the previous state. Nothing is nothing, it is not something, where as the previous state was something. Nothing is the absence of something. To have absence one needs structures, boundaries, limitations, which are all functions of our current state, not the previous state [Statement based on the assumption that unification existed in that previous state]. An example of nothing would be a divorce. Two people were previously married, but now they are no longer married. Legally, there is nothing that binds them any longer. However, this nothing still is a fact; evidence can be gathered about this fact (legal documents, old pictures of happier times, children documented as born to a married couple, etcetera).

Another example of nothing in relationship with the previous state would be the separation that exists in matter of our current materialized state of the universe from the previous unmaterialized state before the big bang. From our 'materialized' point of view nothing can be discovered about the previous state. We can theorize about the known facts to also include a previous state, and that is exactly what we are doing in this thread.

Canute, it sounds like you are pretty much in my corner (or I am pretty much in your corner) already. I am surprised that you ask me where I got my information. It appears to me that you are someone who thinks for yourself, am I right? Of course many ideas have been mentioned before, so I will have a hard time to call myself totally original, but people who think will automatically come up with ideas. It is not important if I was the first or the last to come up with an idea. I believe the idea has validity and that's why I express the idea.

I am Christian and yet I know the truth.
TENYEARS, I thank you for your comments and I believe that you mean well. I wish you well as well.

Theory (the Greek word Theo means god) is a proposed structure that surrounds known facts. Multiple theories may exist about the same set of data. If a theory is proven to be correct, the information ceases to be a theory; it has then become fact.

In religion we do not use the word theory but the word belief. In a belief we try to deliver an idea, and though the idea is most likely based on known information, a belief does not require us to insert any proven information.

Example of a fact: the sky is blue, for this statement I can deliver evidence, because I can go to the library, find a book on colors and match up the color of the sky with the color I found in the book, and there it says 'blue.'

Example of a theory: the blue sky appears blue because of the specific refraction of earth's athmosphere and therefore on a planet that has a similar athmosphere as earth the sky of that planet would be blue as well. It is a theory because I haven't been to that planet, so I have some facts, but my theory is not comprised of only facts because I do not know if it will truly pan out or not. Maybe the blue of skies is not based on just the refraction of the athmosphere but something else as well that I am unable to consider from my earthly perspective. In a theory facts exist but not everything in the theory is proven.

An example of belief: the sky is green. It sounds stupid, but bear with me. In religion one would most likely not say that the sky is anything but blue, but just to show you how broad the word belief is I will use this example in which some crazyhead says to believe that the sky is green. How is that possible?

Believing is an instrument of freedom: one can say close to anything as long as the word belief is used and then nobody can touch you. The person who believes the sky is green may be an outcast, but from a structural/linguistic point of view this person may say just that. That's the beauty of believing: you do not have to back it up with facts, and you can say almost anything.

Of course not many people will listen to a person stating the sky is green, so people using the word belief will mostly do so in a context that is rather close to the known facts. Nobody wants to be known as a freak.

Science = fact based = limited to only that what is true. The realm of theorizing enables the scientist to dream up interesting structures. The remainder of information is discarded/ignored/put in the refrigerator for later.

Religion = considered the truth = what is believed to be true. As such it immediately encompasses everything.

And this is where science and religion are basically cat and dog. Where one already has a completed finished delivery (in religion), the other is having a really hard time matching up all the facts in a single structure (the scientific theory).

In religion I do not have to prove anything nor deliver evidence of any kind; and when I tell you about it, you believe it (or you don't). I use the instrument of freedom to state something, but I must then also accept that you have the freedom to not believe it. Religion is belief-based, not fact-based (though religion may contain 3 squillion facts). Religion is freedom, freedom, freedom. You can even come up with your own set of restrictive rules in religion. Now, that is freedom.

In science there is no such freedom. Science is almost a prisoner of its own rules: the theory must fit the known facts: no more, no less. It cannot just look pretty, it has to be correct and it doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist, a Christian, a man, a woman, a loony, or a genius: the facts must fit.

In their heads, not all but quite a few scientists contain that idea of unity (which is so readily available in religion) and use it as the structure for a scientific theory of everything. You cannot count me among them.

On the final platform I state that the phenomenon of nothing must also have its place. When the phenomenon of nothing (divorce, separation, death etcetera) is placed on a final platform, the platform itself cannot be a single all-inclusive platform: it must then contain separation.

So, I accuse the scientists of being religious in that they look for a religious structure where they should stick to the facts. The facts being of course that separation is a reality of our universe: according to me separation was the first act, then materialization started to exist to express that fact of separation.

[TENYEARS]

Yes continue in your pursuit of "truth" lol lol. When the wagon arives you will jump on also. It's ok your human and don't know it yet because you don't know what that means.

[magus niche]

surely we as humans, no matter how 'enlightened' we are with 'knowledge' or 'truth' or 'objectivity' we are the ones who invented these words. or are there people here who believe language came BEFORE life/consciousness?

i think animals/lifeforms without 'language' as we know it (aural,visual etc.), could and may very well have a consciousness greater than we would like to believe.

also, i would like to ask, is 'nothing' simply non-physicality? ie. not describable using physical means like verbal or written language? like consciousness for example.

[NeutronStar]

{Hypothesis}
yes, you cannot prove anything. Once you "prove" something, it becomes a memory, and everything that exists could have been created an instant ago, and your "proof" is just a memory that could have been created. So it may not have existed at all.
{conclusion}
You can never know. Since you can never truly prove anything.

Sounds like a proof to me. :biggrin:

[Canute]

Do you know if he envisioned an empty center during the first moments of materialization?
I suspect that he would assert that the 'empty centre' remains an empty centre, and always will. (Consistent with the assertion that 'emptiness is at the heart of everything' by Buddhists, Taoists etc.)

According to me, it cannot be called nothing. Nothing would exactly be the component that must be missing from the previous state. Nothing is nothing, it is not something, where as the previous state was something. Nothing is the absence of something.
Agree. The concept of nothing requires the concept of something. This is why I mentioned that 'something' and 'nothing' are usually put in inverted commas by Chuang-Tsu et al. What is being referred to cannot be properly be characterised as either.

Another example of nothing in relationship with the previous state would be the separation that exists in matter of our current materialized state of the universe from the previous unmaterialized state before the big bang. From our 'materialized' point of view nothing can be discovered about the previous state. We can theorize about the known facts to also include a previous state, and that is exactly what we are doing in this thread.
Hmm. If 'before' the BB there was not nothing, as you argue, then why can't we know anything about it?

It is not important if I was the first or the last to come up with an idea. I believe the idea has validity and that's why I express the idea.
That's fine. I wasn't accusing you of plagiarism, I just wondered.

Theory (the Greek word Theo means god) is a proposed structure that surrounds known facts. Multiple theories may exist about the same set of data. If a theory is proven to be correct, the information ceases to be a theory; it has then become fact.
That's sort of true but don't forget that it's impossible to prove a theory. It's only possible not to be able to falsify it. Certain knowledge cannot take the form of theories.

Believing is an instrument of freedom: one can say close to anything as long as the word belief is used and then nobody can touch you. The person who believes the sky is green may be an outcast, but from a structural/linguistic point of view this person may say just that. That's the beauty of believing: you do not have to back it up with facts, and you can say almost anything.
I suppose that's true, but it would seem irrational to me to believe something that one does not know is true. One might have faith that it is true, but that's a slightly different thing.

Science = fact based = limited to only that what is true.
I wish that was true. Unfortunately what science means by 'true' is only 'does not contradict other theories or our habitual assumptions'. That works ok much of the time, for practical purposes, but not when thinking about what is really true.

And this is where science and religion are basically cat and dog. Where one already has a completed finished delivery (in religion), the other is having a really hard time matching up all the facts in a single structure (the scientific theory).
Just my opinion, but I feel it's a mistake to distinguish between science and religion in this way. I don't see why a religious follower should be any less rational or intellectually rigorous than any scientific researcher, even though on the whole they are probably not. And a philosophical materialist or idealist is just as much a believer in a metaphysical conjecture as is a creationist, for all three views give rise to paradoxes on analysis.

In science there is no such freedom. Science is almost a prisoner of its own rules: the theory must fit the known facts: no more, no less. It cannot just look pretty, it has to be correct and it doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist, a Christian, a man, a woman, a loony, or a genius: the facts must fit.
Quite agree. Btw the Dalai Lama writes that anything that contradicts the facts or logic should be abandoned. Unfortunately scientific thinkers tend not to do this, but very often would rather hang on to their metaphysical assumptions come what may.

In their heads, not all but quite a few scientists contain that idea of unity (which is so readily available in religion) and use it as the structure for a scientific theory of everything. You cannot count me among them.
Is the idea of unity 'readily available' in religion? I'm not so sure. Unity is inconsistent with most forms of theism. In most God-based religions it is considered blasphemous to claim that all is one, for it implies that we are all God. This is why Christian mystics have been given such a hard time by senior management. If we are all God then it would follow that we don't need an elaborate system of priests and clerics as intermediaries between us and the truth, nor some centrally authorised and second-hand dogma in place of genuine knowledge.

You said earlier - "To the contrary. I believe it was the creation of nothing that lead to the Big Bang - it did not exist at first. In other words: our universe exists due to the created existence of nothing. If it wasn't for nothing, we would not be here."
That makes sense. It is precisely what GSB means when he says that the universe (the world of appearances) comes into existence by a process of distinction-making (or symmetry-breaking?). By creating (the concept of) something, we inevitably create (the concept of) nothing. He suggests that in the end, at the level of what is ultimate, reality is non-dual and that 'something/nothing' is a false distinction. Similarly when Lao-Tsu writes "The Tao begot the one" he means also that the Tao begot the 0, for the two concepts are dependent on each other, and the Tao itself is neither 0 or 1, even though by the nature of our everyday reasoning it must be conceived as being one or the other. Is this in line with what you're suggesting?

[Fredrick]

Thank you for a lot of information, Canute, you seem to know your stuff - wonderful.


The concept of nothing requires the concept of something. Agree. This is why I mentioned that 'something' and 'nothing' are usually put in inverted commas by Chuang-Tsu et al. What is being referred to cannot be properly be characterised as either.
I understand we are almost in agreement here, but while according to me the previous state can be called 'something,' it would not be possible to call it 'nothing.' Again, according to me, nothing or 'nothing' did not exist. While it was potentially available, the second it became available is the moment our universe came into being.


Hmm. If 'before' the BB there was not nothing, as you argue, then why can't we know anything about it?

I need to clarify my words here. We can 'know' about what existed before the BB because everything we know came forth out of it. But to deliver scientifically sound information is, according to me, beyond interesting. In theory, we can deliver, but it needs to be postulated from the evidence we are able to gather on this side. So yes, there is something we can deliver: consciousness for instance, most likely consciousness that is less than what we consider consciousness today. It think there is probably not too much there there. If we consider ourselves as color savvy, aqua marin, honey yellow, rosy red, etc, then the state before the BB would be grey. Does grey exist in our world today? Yes. But most people do not get warm about that color.
To explain the first statement in this example of colors: we can experience moments of no color in our universe/life today. Before the BB 'no color' did not exist; it was all grey. If we considered black to not be a color (no reflection of light) then black would be a perfect example of nothing. As you can tell black exists in our universe (can even be beautiful), so this nothing should only be seen as the nothing of 'reflection of light.' Other examples are, again, an empty wallet, very important I hate to say, or zeroes in binary language. Breaks in music, silence, and so on.



Don't forget that it's impossible to prove a theory.

You are right.


It would seem irrational to me to believe something that one does not know is true.
That is correct. We all prefer to be taken seriously, and therefore we try not to go out on a limb too far. Believing delivers freedom, but we tend to stay shy from making a fool of ourselves.


I wish that was true. Unfortunately what science means by 'true' is only 'does not contradict other theories or our habitual assumptions'. That works ok much of the time, for practical purposes, but not when thinking about what is really true.

Just my opinion, but I feel it's a mistake to distinguish between science and religion in this way. I don't see why a religious follower should be any less rational or intellectually rigorous than any scientific researcher, even though on the whole they are probably not. And a philosophical materialist or idealist is just as much a believer in a metaphysical conjecture as is a creationist, for all three views give rise to paradoxes on analysis.

I guess we differ a tiny bit here. But it may also be just semantics. Science is very strict in its word use, and I am not truly versatile in staying within the allowed lines. Daily language and scientific language often vie in my mind for best spot and I personally prefer daily language over scientific language use.
So apologies for word use. However, when it comes down to the difference of science and religion I do see a gigantic difference in attitude. One wants to go from what is known to the large picture, while the other goes from the large picture to what is known. Never the twain shall meet - even when everything discussed and delivered is the same. That's what I mean with cats and dogs. Wagging your tail is a friendly sign for a dog, but not for a cat. Can a person be both scientist and a believer? Absolutely, but it is important to keep the differences apart.



Is the idea of unity 'readily available' in religion? I'm not so sure. Unity is inconsistent with most forms of theism. In most God-based religions it is considered blasphemous to claim that all is one, for it implies that we are all God. This is why Christian mystics have been given such a hard time by senior management. If we are all God then it would follow that we don't need an elaborate system of priests and clerics as intermediaries between us and the truth, nor some centrally authorised and second-hand dogma in place of genuine knowledge.
Wonderfully said, Canute. Again, I need to spruce up my language use because it is so easy to deliver words that can be considered something else.
Unity is readily available in religion in that god contains the unity.
I claim that the word god derived from a root word that may imply 'nothing.' The Dutch word 'god' is pronounced very similar to the word 'gat' which means 'hole.' The words 'hole' and 'whole' in English are almost the same. I think both words 'god' and 'whole' have the same roots as 'get' and 'haul.'
I am not a linguist, so I am truly free-wheeling here, but the 'haul' segment is the action of bringing over stuff, while to 'get' is the same action - bringing over stuff - but it first starts with an empty spot. I am here, I want my stuff which is not here so I need to 'get' it. Once I am there I 'haul' it over. Get it? As such I can state that the word 'god' would also imply 'understanding.' First I did not understand and then I got it.

GSB says that the universe (the world of appearances) comes into existence by a process of distinction-making (or symmetry-breaking?). By creating (the concept of) something, we inevitably create (the concept of) nothing. He suggests that in the end, at the level of what is ultimate, reality is non-dual and that 'something/nothing' is a false distinction. Similarly when Lao-Tsu writes "The Tao begot the one" he means also that the Tao begot the 0, for the two concepts are dependent on each other, and the Tao itself is neither 0 or 1, even though by the nature of our everyday reasoning it must be conceived as being one or the other. Is this in line with what you're suggesting?

Yes, the previous state is expressed in our reality twice in that it delivers unity and dis-unity at the same time. While segments are based on unity, together the segments are in a state of dis-unity. I am a whole human being. The fact that I have a gender cannot be translated into me being that gender. I am a human being first, my gender delivers only a fraction of who I am. The color of my hair, skin, the length of my body are all fractions of my being. Together they form the whole of me. The fact that there are two genders tells me that to get the whole picture there are two options and at an early stage (six weeks I believe) the fetus has to make a (conscious or not) choice. Up to that moment both genders exist potentially in the genetic material, and in almost all cases a singular path is followed (but not always) by the materializing fetus. In general, we cannot be unity in an absolute sense so we must give unity to a segment; expressed in our gender. I retain my sense of unity, but it is mine only, not in an absolute sense.

Since we are on the track of religion and science I like to add that I think we are still in the Renaissance. The renaissance is the period after the 'dark' middle ages, where believing was more important than knowing the facts. It was Venice that had the first connections with the Islamic world in the middle ages. And as such the whole of Italy got to experience the knowledge that had been savored in the Islamic world. Scholars had saved much of the old world knowledge, and slowly the Italians (what we call today the Italians) were warming up to these Greek and Middle-Eastern ideas/facts/ fascinations. The focus shifted back from god onto the surrounding world. Interestingly enough, while the West was getting more fact-based, the Islamic world was put more in a second position by the developments of the West. Nevertheless, the focus remained different in the Western world than it had been in the Greek world. In the Greek world the idea of a single god did not exist; a single god was not acceptable. I believe that it was not acceptable because they based their religion on the (by them) 'known' facts. Unity did not exist and therefore there could not be a single god. I think we are still experiencing a further Renaissance in that we are learning that the facts do not deliver a unified platform.

Though it is possible to hold on to our beliefs despite evidence of the opposite of our belief, our ideas tend to come in line with the known facts. If not now then with the next generation. I think that is happening right now. It may take a few centuries but I think that we either accept our diversity as the basis of the ultimate platform (and/)or we learn to see that a singular god is always based on everything (which again contains diversity). I believe that scientists may find the link between everything, but that this link delivers importance to disconnection as well. As I wrote somewhere else: the four forces AB, BC, CD, and DA show signs of connections, but they are not all based on the same principles. I can connect a maximum of three to a single principle (for instance: AB, BC, and DA connected through the A and the B) but the fourth (CD) does not fit in with these three.

[Canute]

I don't understand all of that I'm afraid but, one thing, I'm not sure you're right about the Greeks here. For the early Greek philosophers a central problem was the resolution of the 'one' and the 'many'. They deduced that the cosmos ought to be one, but could see that it was many. This problem has run through western philosophy ever since. It is at the root of Zeno's paradoxes of motion, for instance. I feel that they had a far more sophisticated notion of reality that most of us do these days, and hadn't yet thought of the clever wheeze of calling all the difficult questions 'metaphysical' and ignoring them.

[Fredrick]

Canute, I read and re-read your entrees and though I see what you are saying (and you are saying a lot), you also quote a lot of other people. When I go to your journal you show a lot of other people's journals.

What are your words? How do you think everything fits in?

[Canute]

I hadn't thought of starting a journal, (hadn't really noticed that feature). I'll check out a few, see how they are being used and may start one.

What do I think about the 'nothing' 'before' the BB? I agree with Buddhists and Taoists about it. To me this view presents a credible, complete and verifiable (in principle at least) picture of the cosmos that is free from the sort of metaphysical contradictions entailed by the current scientific/western philosophical model, and which does not contradict the facts in any way but instead explains them. From what you have written above about 'something' and 'nothing' you seem to be heading in the same direction.

The starting point for me was realising that (ontologically) something and nothing cannot be two different things at the limit, for if they are then our existence contradicts reason. They must be just two aspects of 'something', some entity or substance, that cannot properly be considered as either something or nothing, (as you seem to be suggesting). This would explain why nobody has ever come up with a metaphysically coherent doctrine predicated on dualism, monism or pluralism.

So I agree with you that nothing was created at the same time as something, and that the 'thing' from which these two things arose must remain undefined, whether in discussion or conceptually. We can call this the Tao, emptiness, Buddha-nature, ultimate reality, the Absolute or whatever, there are dozens of names, but these are just place-holders standing in for something that cannot be represented in words or even properly conceptualised.

[CrankFan]

"Proof" is a general phrase and means different things in different disciplines. If one accepts the set of hypotheses of a Mathematical proof then he will accept the conclusion of that proof and has, at least, proven to his own satisfaction a consequence of the set of assumptions.

[Fredrick]

... and that the 'thing' from which these two things arose must remain undefined, whether in discussion or conceptually. We can call this the Tao, emptiness, Buddha-nature, ultimate reality, the Absolute or whatever, there are dozens of names, but these are just place-holders standing in for something that cannot be represented in words or even properly conceptualised.

Thank you for explaining your views; they appear much in sink with the people you have been quoting and with your interwoven own words.

How do you envision the transition from previous state to current state?

[Fredrick]

"Proof" is a general phrase and means different things in different disciplines. If one accepts the set of hypotheses of a Mathematical proof then he will accept the conclusion of that proof and has, at least, proven to his own satisfaction a consequence of the set of assumptions.

I agree. Even though I like the word 'proof' myself rather well, I understand how others can dislike the word, and prefer to talk about 'evidence' instead of proof. Proof appears to be more like undeniable, while evidence appears to deliver a direction in which 'facts' have their own place.

It is still used in mathematics, but other disciplines use evidence more and more. Pi, for instance, is one of those situations in which the word proof cannot really be used to explain why it is what it is. Do you agree? The Greeks already figured out how to get to pi; the picture is very clear but 'proof' escapes unfortunately.

When drawing a diagonal line through the middle of a square, one can use the middle point on that line as the starting point to make an outward step the size of one-third of the base line, and use that point to move back towards the middle of one-fifth of the baseline, go out again one-seventh, in one-ninth etc, and one will get closer and closer to the circle with r as the base line. From the diagonal line it is +1/3, -1/5, +1/7, -1/9, + 1/11, -1/13 etc. The pattern is absolutely clear, but is it proof?

[CrankFan]

It [proof] is still used in mathematics, but other disciplines use evidence more and more. Pi, for instance, is one of those situations in which the word proof cannot really be used to explain why it is what it is. Do you agree?

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain why it [some mathematical object] is what it is". One might say that a real number's (including pi's) existence is just a consequence of standard mathematical postulates -- and that is why it is what it is... although I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind.

The Greeks already figured out how to get to pi; the picture is very clear but 'proof' escapes unfortunately.When drawing a diagonal line through the middle of a square, one can use the middle point on that line as the starting point to make an outward step the size of one-third of the base line, and use that point to move back towards the middle of one-fifth of the baseline, go out again one-seventh, in one-ninth etc, and one will get closer and closer to the circle with r as the base line. From the diagonal line it is +1/3, -1/5, +1/7, -1/9, + 1/11, -1/13 etc. The pattern is absolutely clear, but is it proof?

I'm not familiar with this method and I'm having trouble visualizing what you mean however I wouldn't consider a geometric argument alone to be a rigorous proof.

For example this "proof" is erroneous but it's hard to detect visually IMO:
http://www.simeonmagic.com/triangle/triangle1.htm

Geometric arguments are nice tools to aid understanding but if a geometric argument for a theorem is persuasive then there is bound to be an analytic proof of that theorem.

[Fredrick]

http://www.simeonmagic.com/triangle/triangle1.htm


Thank you very much for this example; it blows my thinking away a bit, and I love it. The only explanation I can think of is the location of the three smaller partitions (side by side in one, stacked in the other) and that changes the angle of the combination delivering more space in one section while using up more space in the other. But this is only an extremely scientific guess based on the assumption that this cannot be done if both sides were of equal length. Really, very nice, thank you.

Pi. If you draw a circle, and from the middle a straight line to the right (point A where line and circle meet), and a line straight up from the middle to point B, the diagonal line coming from the middle will cross the circle at point C (which lies on the circle halfway between A and B). Location of C can be found: straight line drawn between point A and B plus at middle point of this line outward 1/3 the distance found between middle and A, minus 1/5 of distance found between middle and A, plus 1/7 of distance between middle and A, minus 1/9, plus 1/11, minus 1/13 etc. It is infinite so it never gets there, but it is nevertheless right there.

[Teslonomikon]

Zero

Yes but if 99% of a proof will do the job then why not 98%?

I agree that usually we have to make do. But surely usefulness is nothing to do with proof, or even with what is true.

Just to throw another analogy onto the platter in relation to this one, how many hairs do you remove from a mans head before he is considered balding? (and yes I know, he wouldnt be balding unless they fell out naturally, but it is still an interesting question if you don't try and go around it like that)

:yuck:

[Canute]

Thank you for explaining your views; they appear much in sink with the people you have been quoting and with your interwoven own words.

How do you envision the transition from previous state to current state?
I'm not sure quite what you're asking here.

[Fredrick]

Canute. How do you envision the transition from previous state to current state?
What are your thoughts on the transition from before the Big Bang to after the Big Bang. Do you think there was a previous state to our universe? If so, what are your thoughts on what had to be involved to make creation possible? Do you consider the option possible that there wasn't anything before the BB? Are your thoughts on the creation of our universe mainly involved with the actual materialization and its implications, or have you sought for reasons how it could ever be possible to have a transition coming forth out of the invisible?

[Canute]

What are your thoughts on the transition from before the Big Bang to after the Big Bang. Do you think there was a previous state to our universe? If so, what are your thoughts on what had to be involved to make creation possible? Do you consider the option possible that there wasn't anything before the BB? Are your thoughts on the creation of our universe mainly involved with the actual materialization and its implications, or have you sought for reasons how it could ever be possible to have a transition coming forth out of the invisible?
I'd rather not think of it in terms of before and after. Time is a slippery concept and the closer you examine it the more it seems some sort of illusion, just like space. If you have a look at the 'Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory' it calls into question the whole notion of past, future and present, just as so many sages have been suggesting for so long.

It seems more a question of what underlies time/space and matter /mind. Whatever it is still exists now, otherwise these things wouldn't exist right now. So I see this as a question of what is fundamental right now, rather than what may have 'predated' the BB. In my opinion it is conciousness that underlies these things, but obviously not everyday human consciousness. To return to Spencer-Brown this is what he was asserting by saying that the universe arises by a process of distinction-making.

As to the actual process or mechanism by consciousness 'reifies' these distinctions I couldn't really comment. Perhaps it's something like physicist John Wheeler conjectures, and the process of observation actually brings things into physical existence. It's worth noting just how many appaerently 'real' things turn out to have no ontological foundation outside of our own minds. For instance, any attempt to work out, even in principle or on hypothetical terms, what matter is made out of immediately raises very difficult metaphysical questions. It appears to be made out of nothing, and western philsosphers have never solved this problem. Even the very idea of 'distance' is called into question by physicists these days.

No, I don't think it makes sense to say that nothing existed before the BB, or that nothing underlies the existence of the phenomenal world. However it makes a lot a sense to me that this fundamental substrate appears to be nothing to physicists. Just as it makes sense that scientifically-speaking consciousness appears to be nothing.

In the end I can't say much without wandering into Buddhist or Taoist teachings, which I'll avoid for now. Here's three quotes you might find interesting from two physicists and a mathematician.

"In our everyday experience, we tend to equate empty space with "nothingness". Empty space has no mass, no colour, no opacity, no texture, no hardness, no temperature – if that is not "nothing", what is? However, from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something. According to general relativity, space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist, and flex. This bending of space is the way that a gravitational field is described. In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space seems no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from."

Alan Guth
'The Inflationary Universe'

"When we encounter the Void, we feel that it is primordial emptiness of cosmic proportions and relevance. We become pure consciousness aware of this absolute nothingness; however, at the same time, we have a strange paradoxical sense of its essential fullness. This cosmic vacuum is also a plenum, since nothing seems to be missing in it. While it does not contain in a concrete manifest form, it seems to comprise all of existence in a potential form. In this paradoxical way, we can transcend the usual dichotomy between emptiness and form, or existence and non-existence. However, the possibility of such a resolution cannot be adequately conveyed in words; it has to be experienced to be understood."

Stanislav Grof
'The Cosmic Game'

"So long ago in Greece, when Socrates was young and Parmenides old, the latter laid down a challenge we have sought ever since to pick up. All you can think, he said, is: ‘Being is.’ You cannot think non-being, nothing, the void. Using negation, he told us we cannot use negation. All we can think is ‘Being is.’ We cannot think motion, change, difference, past or future, here and there, you and me, since each requires thinking ‘not’. We can only think ‘Being is.’ How easy to trivialise Parmenides by teaching him to suck eggs: you cannot outlaw negation and proceed to use it. But Parmenides was a poet, and you miss the music if you point out to a poet that his love isn’t really a red, red rose. Parmenides wanted us to stop talking and listen. Like the background hum from the Big Bang, Being pervades. It fills and is the world."

Robert Kaplan
‘The Nothing That Is
- A Natural History of Zero’

[Fredrick]

A good and extensive answer that satisfies - at least on most cerebral levels. I do go one step further than you are going in that I try to see shape in that what existed before there was any shape.

While I agree that past and future are part of our universe and can therefore not really be applied to what was 'before' I claim it is still possible to use the term 'before' because it helps make the distinction between our universe in which both time frames exist and the origin in which only the potential was available. I therefore make a differentiation on these grounds, and I choose to use the understandable word 'before' though it obviously belongs to our universe.

While I am unable to deliver the ultimate shape of that what was before, I extrapolate the information we do have of shape backwards in time, and claim that — since the Big Bang is an outward movement — the shape leading up to the Big Bang was the opposite: one of an inward movement. Again, I do not know the original shape of what existed 'before,' but in this theory the last 'frame' was an ever tightening situation of inward motion. Since inward motion is not an infinite motion — cannot be an infinite motion — something had to give.

Either a relaxation of the inward motion needed to be established or a natural break had to occur. In as far as relaxation of the inward motion is concerned, it may have been possible that the stage of relaxation was played out several times before. However, every relaxation lead to the very same shape (of which again no further details are known), but the cause of our universe was not relaxation, but the lack thereof. One can say that a break would only occur at a point when there was a complete absence of relaxation: extreme high tension. The intensely clustered tension, the finite movement inwardly, had to be broken to have some of the leading tension move forward.

The result of a single break, the result after the creation of the most minimal of rifts, was the release of a tremendously built-up tension. Its movement: outwardly. The lack of unity lead to the manifestation of energy: materialization. The materialized matter existed on the basis of (some level of) conflict from the very first second. The background sound that has been heard of the Big Bang is not necessarily the manifestation of matter, but the inherent and immediate conflict of the materialized matter. The outward movement was established first, the conflict of matter followed.

Again, I do not say too much extra about that what existed 'before,' but I do allow myself the freedom to use that space to create a possible scenario that leads to what we know today. While I basically agree that what existed 'before' is what exists now, I also have to stand firm that what existed before can never be the same as what exists now. The origin created the result, and while we may still be connected to the origin, we are most definitively part of the result.

The question Where did the origin come from? cannot be answered, but we can apply theory to the question Where do we come from?

[Canute]

Fredrick

Interesting idea, but I have some problems with it. If it's a literal explanation rather than a metaphorical one then it raises some questions. What does 'moving' and 'inwards' mean before space and time existed? What was it that was moving inwards? Where did consciousness and energy come from?

The question Where did the origin come from? cannot be answered, but we can apply theory to the question Where do we come from?
Yes, it leaves the question of origins begging, just moving it back a stage. That seems to be a weakness to me. I'd say that a good theory or explanation of cosmogenesis should deal with the origin of everything, answering the question of why anything exists instead of nothing at all.

[Fredrick]

Fredrick

Interesting idea, but I have some problems with it. If it's a literal explanation rather than a metaphorical one then it raises some questions. What does 'moving' and 'inwards' mean before space and time existed? What was it that was moving inwards? Where did consciousness and energy come from?

Yes, it leaves the question of origins begging, just moving it back a stage. That seems to be a weakness to me. I'd say that a good theory or explanation of cosmogenesis should deal with the origin of everything, answering the question of why anything exists instead of nothing at all.

Thank you for not blowing the theory out of the water right away. It may certainly seem that the basis is absent of where I am going because information appears to be missing. Yet that is happening only because you are looking for something that I am actually not talking about. First of all, though I am interpreting - extrapolating backwards - I am using the generally accepted idea that result must be based on previous situations as my reasoning. While - just like you - I am unable to deliver any clarification of what I call the previous state, I am using the knowledge we do have to interpret the path of action as it could have existed before materialization began. I do not use that path to say anything about the previous state, but I use this to help clarify what happened to our universe. Since result in our universe is based on previous situations, I can create a previous situation as long as the delivered theory about that previous situation is dealing only with the result as we know it.

I cannot deliver facts - others who are more knowledgeable in the field of our early cosmos have done that for me - but I can deliver theory, and the theory is based on known facts, not on fantasy. As such it can stand on it own.

If I have understood you correctly, you do not believe it is possible to know anything with certainty about the previous state, and I fully concur. My interest does not lie in explaining where the origin comes from, because to me (and you too) there is no use in using the words we have at our command to explain this state with certainty.

What then is the use of adding an extra stage of explanation in front of our current knowledge? It can help explain the basics of our universe. With a clearly theorized center from which our universe derived, we can create constructions (that can contain our information fully) that may otherwise not be constructed. With the actual beginning of our universe placed in the previous non-materialized stage, we may stop looking for an all-connection, a unified field of forces, because then that connection belongs to the not yet materialized stage.

In the current theory about the beginning of our universe everything comes blowing out of one central spot, and spatially it becomes impossible to have anything precede this spot. In the theory I describe materialization does not start until later - after the outward movement has been set in motion already. Materialization is then a phase that takes place in a very large spatial area. In this theory it is possible to have a spatial segment before materialization started, because the center of the materializing area is empty.

The movement right before and right after materialization is then identical: outwardly. After materialization has taken place, the stage is then set for the Big Bang, because the matter is not in concordance with itself. Explosions and fireballs, in laymen terms. The stage before materialization - though also moving outwardly - had to be set up in such a way that this outwardly motion was possible. I therefore need an inwardly motion first that leads to incompatibility in as far as infinity is concerned before I can get to the outwardly movement.

Again, as you can see, all that I am saying concerns something about our universe. I say nothing, nada, niente, about the previous state. I am not interested in that state, I am interested in understanding everything - that is, everything that belongs to our universe. Though the previous state is the precursor, it is not part of our universe as we know it. In our universe result is based on previous situations, in the previous state that is not necessarily the case.

[Canute]

If I have understood you correctly, you do not believe it is possible to know anything with certainty about the previous state, and I fully concur.
No, that's a misunderstanding. I believe quite the opposite.

Again, as you can see, all that I am saying concerns something about our universe. I say nothing, nada, niente, about the previous state. I am not interested in that state, I am interested in understanding everything - that is, everything that belongs to our universe.
I see what you're saying. But I'd want to argue that it is impossible to understand everything that belongs to our universe without understanding the state that underlies it. I could make a 'mystical' argument, argue from Goedel, or point to our inability to decide metaphysical questions. One way or the other I don't think we can say we understand the universe unless we understand its origins.

[Fredrick]

Sorry to reply to myself, but I think I can clarify in a different way what I am trying to deliver.

The previous state - that what existed before our universe existed - is based on different grounds than our universe. The basics of our universe are intertwined with materialization, something that most likely (but who knows) was not the case before in the previous state. What the grounds of the previous state are can be discussed in length, but we will never know for sure. However, the previous state did allow for our universe to come into being. Even those who state that our universe started to exist out of nothing agree that that previous state (in their case: nothing) allowed our universe to come into being. I am pretty sure that I can claim universal agreement on this.

As stated in the theory described in my previous message, the empty center of materialization is important in that it delivers a spatial segment we can understand before materialization began. It also helps deliver the creation/ the importance of the phenomenon of nothing. In this theory the previous state did not have a spot of importance for nothing: in other words it did not really exist, but was potentially available like everything else that is important in our universe.

The inward motion - the one that is finite because it cannot continue infinitively - delivered the final moment on which it was impossible for the inward motion to continue. Parts wanted, other parts couldn't continue. I write parts because I do need a moment of separation at that central spot of the finite inward motion, yet these parts may all be identical. Parts let go of each other in a fundamental way at the center of what later was going to be the center of materialization. Nothing, the phenomenon of nothing, got created in this center. Previously, it did not exist.

No big deal, you might say, and viewed from our perspective you would be right. Nothing is not that important for us. But for the previous state it meant that the cohesion of this previous state was broken. The inward motion was reversed to an outwardly motion, and while it was moving outwardly, the newly created phenomenon of nothing had to be dealt with as well. The nothing - the separation / the loss of cohesion - was dealt with in various ways, just like one can write a pair made up out of 1s and 0 in various ways: 10, 01, or 11. What was previously bound, was no longer bound, and what was no longer bound, now could exist in various forms. While trying to get the cohesion back in place, there were now various ways to get the cohesion back in place.

I hope this helps clarify the set up of motion before materialization, which in this theory was the precursor to the Big Bang. At the center of our universe we find the spatial spot in which the phenomenon of nothing got created. The creation of nothing caused the materialization of everything involved with the finite inward motion (or may even have caused everything that existed before in the previous state to materialize). Before there was the birth of our universe, there was the birth of nothing.

[Fredrick]

One way or the other I don't think we can say we understand the universe unless we understand its origins.

This is an interesting point of disagreement. While in a restaurant I place an order and get my meal and am satisfied with my dinner, you seem to want to eat everything they have on the menu before you are satisfied.

Thank you for a good conversation.

[Fredrick]

Hi Canute,

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictures/images/pictures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."

I could not ask for a better image. It does not mean absolute evidence, but it is nice to deliver a picture next to the words.