View Full Version : What is "nothing?"
... and, more specifically, what is the difference between nothing and absolutely nothing?
selfAdjoint
Mar29-04, 08:35 AM
This difference between nothing and absolutely nothing is -- nothing!
Nothing is the absence of anything; the state with cardinality zero, the empty set.
Don't confuse nothingness with the physicists "vacuum state", which is the state you can't subtract particles from. That's a different definition and the interactive quantum field vacuum is a dicey thing and certainly not "nothing".
Maybe I should have said no-thing and absolutely nothing.
Would that have made your response any different?
Let me add to that if I may.
Even the absence of everything... isn't necessarily "absolutely" nothing.
Prior to anything... is different than "in relationship" to anything.
Jack Martinelli
Mar29-04, 11:39 AM
Let me add to that if I may.
Even the absence of everything... isn't necessarily "absolutely" nothing.
Prior to anything... is different than "in relationship" to anything.
Let 1=something & 0=nothing. The difference is 1-0 = 1.
No-thing is a non-existent. Have you ever found one? Have you ever found a unicorn?
No-thing exists because at the very minimum it contains "implication."
Absolutely nothing is a different animal.
No-thing exists because at the very minimum it contains "implication."
Absolutely nothing is a different animal.
Here is a link that speaks to this issue. I have struggle with this idea of nothing, and just doesn't make sense to me. From this perspective, I always start from something. Is this not logical?
Anyway here is a link of interest.
In the last 30 years, Particle Physicists, Cosmologists and Mathematicians have fought like alley cats, each redefining the concept of zero. But is zero "nothing"? "Nothing" is a serious matter. Understanding the "absolute vacuum" is a compelling quest. Does the Higgs Bosun exist? If we find it, what will it tell us? Why does the universe exist when matter and anti - matter should have cancelled each other out at the Big Bang leaving "nothing"?
http://www.infinite.linst.ac.uk/english/symposium/popsympintro.php
Jack Martinelli
Mar29-04, 12:12 PM
No-thing exists because at the very minimum it contains "implication."
Absolutely nothing is a different animal.
you can't verify implication. You also can't verify absolutely nothing. There are no referece objects for either one.
Nothing is the absence of anything
Does it include the absence of nothing its self?
I think though nothing is equal amounth of pro and anti at once!
Nothing is the perfect balance evrything tends to achieve!
In a way nothing is all!
GOD is all;all is nothing;nothing is GOD!
Nothing is enough!
....
you can't verify implication. You also can't verify absolutely nothing. There are no referece objects for either one.
No less than anything else one might want to talk about.
This is the world of ideas... a world in which we have no reference objects to work with yet... that is what theoretical physics is all about.
We are looking for a reference object... aren't we?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=172243&postcount=7
This defintiely sets up for the ideas between two positions. Is a singularity really a singularity, or a connection in the idea (blackhole) of the recycling universe?
Colliding Branes?
The Universe was not born in one Big Bang, it has been going through cycles of creation and annihilation for eternity, according to a controversial new mathematical model1.
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020422/020422-17.html#
sol2... I appreciate your approach to this subject.
A helpfulness born out of humility is the only way we are going to make progress.
deda... your question is a very deep one.
"Absolutely nothing" existed... before the infinitely small, compact and powerful particle that produced the big bang somehow came into existence... or did it?
I came to the idea of nothing when considering the above idea: a large expanse of emptiness that the Big Bang exploded into, creating matter out of nothing, pushing it into a big expanse of emptiness. It occurred to me empty space is definitely something. Our whole physics seems to be based on the existence of an infinite expanse of empty space. If physicists think empty space is nothing, let them try renting an empty space uptown!
So I said, “What is nothing?” Nothing does not contain the concept of space. Nothing also implies the idea that there is a thing. Thing would be everything there is, but no “thing” is infinite, so outside the boundaries of the thing is no-thing.
No I see a vast piece of matter surrounded by an infinite amount of nothing, which does not contain the concept of space. My first question was, “What is the tensile strength of the matter?” Is this large something like a heavy rock that is very strong and solid?
I concluded tensile strength was irrational. Matter has no tensile strength to speak of. Raw matter is like water. The Bible says, “The whole world was formless and void and the Spirit of God flew above the waves of the abyss.” That describes a very large formless thing that is like water, and it has boundaries that God is just outside of: exactly what I created from my exploration of the concepts of thing and nothing.
We know a Big Bang happened, so the way to make the thing larger and more complex was to break it up. Breaking it up makes it expand into nothing. If you break it in half and separate the two halves, they want to come back together because they are separating into what does not contain space. This has the same feel as gravity: two pieces of matter want to fall back into each other. But the force is not gravity it is the strong force. The tensile strength of matter is the weak force.
I exploded this vast sea of liquid matter, and the attraction between every drop of matter is the strong force. The drops of matter make up the points of space. Space is not an empty expanse; space is the distance between two points of matter. And the two points are separating against the strong force. The two points separated by a distance is a string, with string tension, which physicists say make up every particle.
The expanding or exploding point... into nothing and from nothing... in the beginning was the word... and the word was "poof."
Seriously though... everything (including anti-matter) and nothing (empty space) are just two sides of the same coin. A coin that appears to be real but actaully isn't. On the everything side it never reaches solidity, i.e. matter without anit-matter, or a "point" you can put your finger on... and on the nothing side, it never reaches nothing because empty space is still something.
Both seem to be infinite. Go out beyond everything and there's empty space... go a little farther and everything is still there... a little farther still... more nothing, or empty space... ad infinitum.
If you're headed toward everything, the universe seems to be expanding. If you're headed towards nothing, the universe seems to be contracting.
There is a step beyond this though... a different kind of step... a leap as it were... where absolutely nothing resides... or doesn't.
it never reaches nothing because empty space is still something
Nothing does not even contain empty space, therefore we have to build space out of the only thing that exists, which is matter.
Each point of matter represents a point of space. When you build space out of physical points, you create a space in which you can only go in a limited number of directions. Try laying pennies on a table. The pennies are points that you are using to build a flat plane. You'll find that if you can only go from one penny to any other penny, that is to say, from one point to any other point, there are a limited number of directions and paths you can go. These limited paths become dimensions. If space were a given, if space existed on its own there would be an unlimited number of paths. If you have to construct space out of physycal bits of matter, then there are a limited number of paths you can travel, and these limited paths become dimensions.
When you put distance between points, you create multiple dimensions.
I agree that space is completely tied-up with matter.
But is it fair to only say, that we build space out of matter?
Couldn't we just as easily say, that we build matter out of space. There would only be one single point of matter, if it weren't for the space inbetween multiple points of matter.
Matter and space (thing and no-thing) make up the universe... but neither one, nor both together, rise to the level of an absolute.
No, you can't say you build matter out of space. Space is much too complex to be an absolute form of existence. To begin with, it has three dimensions. Where did they come from? Matter has only one quality: it is. Based on that charactorization of matter, it has two natural qualities. It is, therefore it is not something else, therefore it has inertia. And it occupies a place.
So ironically, we can't say in an absolute way there is nothing. That implies the absence of something, which requires something. The only absolute idea is: it is. We can't say, "How do things come into existence within space?" Saying that, we are implying two complex thoughts: we imply the idea of nothing, which is a combination of two concepts, no and thing; and we imply the idea of space which is a combination of three dimensions. Matter has one dimension, it is. That leads to two qualities. It cannot be something else, therefore it has inertia. And it occupies one place. Matter is the singularity the universe was made from. It didn't spring from nothing within space. Something exploded within nothing.
selfAdjoint
Mar30-04, 09:50 PM
Umm, matter has a lot of properties, whether at the particle level or emergent. Think of all the different elements. Think of the different states of water. Look at the world of matter around you. You can't capture its essence with just generic stuff.
Imparcticle
Mar30-04, 10:21 PM
Something exploded within nothing.
Nothing is by definition "not anything", therefore it has no properties what so ever. Therefore it cannot have anything within. That would imply that nothing is a something. Nothing cannot exist because in order for it to exist it must have properties.
To begin with, it has three dimensions.
Space has 4 demensions.
The actual fabric of space has (according to M-theory) 8 curled up demensions.
p-brane
Mar30-04, 10:23 PM
(quoting FZ+) "erm"... nothing is an anti-something. What is true in my hypothesis is that you can't have something without having nothing in the same dimension/coordinate.
Therefore a particle cannot exist without not existing at the same time... as in simultaneously existing in the exact coordinate as the particle. This is partially examplified when you look at the anti-photon and the photon. They are the same entity. In the same place. They cannot collide because they are the same unit.
In my hypothesis, however, nothing is required to allow for somthing. Proof positive when you look at a glass of water. You cannot have a full glass of water if there is not an empty glass.
These two states (something and nothing) exist simultaneously and are completely reliant on each other in order to exist. However, they are not the polar opposites into which one would like to pigeonhole them. These two states, nothingness and somethingness are simply two states on an infinite compass of states.
Thank you, any comments are welcome!
Imparcticle
Mar30-04, 10:32 PM
This is partially examplified when you look at the anti-photon and the photon. They are the same entity. In the same place. They cannot collide because they are the same unit.
They do too collide. Anti-particles always collide.
In my hypothesis, however, nothing is required to allow for somthing. Proof positive when you look at a glass of water. You cannot have a full glass of water if there is not an empty glass.
How in the world do you propose "not anything" to exist in the first place? According to the Pythogoreans' (I think it was them) logic, in order for nothing to exist, it must have a property of existence. And, something (if something is a something it already exists) would never not-exist and not have a beginning because that idea presupposes the idea that something can come from not anything (nothing). Rather, something can always exist, it would have no beginning and no end.
No, you can't say you build matter out of space. Space is much too complex to be an absolute form of existence. To begin with, it has three dimensions. Where did they come from? Matter has only one quality: it is. Based on that charactorization of matter, it has two natural qualities. It is, therefore it is not something else, therefore it has inertia. And it occupies a place.
Actually, I'm saying each is interdependent with the other, and neither exists on it's own.
I have to disagree that space is a more questionable commodity than matter.
The dimensions of space come from the same place matter comes from. Matter is not self-generated. Matter is not simple.
You're saying that "matter has one quality; it is." But is it? It has never been shown that matter really exists. No building-block of the universe has ever been proven. Matter in any form, no matter how small or old, has ever been shown even theoretically, to be the absolute (singularity) that the universe came from or is made up of.
You're also saying that "it occupies a place." That makes it dependent on the existence of a "space" to be in. This also, only serves to support it's relative status.
So ironically, we can't say in an absolute way there is nothing. That implies the absence of something, which requires something.
This kindof gets back to my original question or point... "what is the difference between nothing and absolute nothing?" There is a difference.
Nothing implies the absence of something as in no-thing.
Absolute or absolutely nothing... is a different animal.
p-brane
Mar31-04, 01:40 PM
They do too collide. Anti-particles always collide.
I'm not sure when photons got the esteemed classification of "particle" but, here is an answer to a question that will clear up what I said about Anti-photons and photons.
Are there such things as anti-photons. And if there is, what would happen if it collided with a photon? Thank you
Matthew Ervin (age 16)
High School
USA
A: Hi Matthew,
The short answer to "are there anti-photons" is "yes", but the disappointment here is that anti-photons and photons are the same particles. Some particles are their own antiparticles, notably the force carriers like photons, the Z boson, and gluons, which mediate the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong force, respectively. Particles that are their own antiparticles must be electrically neutral, because an aniparticle has the opposite electrical charge as its partner particle. Other things must also be zero, like the number of quarks. A neutron cannot be its own antiparticle because it is made up of quarks and an antineutron is made up of antiquarks. A pi_0 is made up of a quark and an antiquark and is in fact its own antiparticle also.
2ITSalimander said: How in the world do you propose "not anything" to exist in the first place? According to the Pythogoreans' (I think it was them) logic, in order for nothing to exist, it must have a property of existence. And, something (if something is a something it already exists) would never not-exist and not have a beginning because that idea presupposes the idea that something can come from not anything (nothing). Rather, something can always exist, it would have no beginning and no end.
Its almost a topic for the philosophy threads. A state of nothingness is being contemplated in this thread. In order to contemplate something (in this case, nothing) one must create a model of it, whether real or imagined. In doing so, it becomes existent, to the degree that it can be contemplated, observed and commented upon. If we were discussning nothingness in a true fashion to the state of nothingness, we would not be discussing it. Thanks! (edited for coherence)
JesseBonin
Mar31-04, 01:55 PM
as we gaze into nothingness we will find something...absolute nothing = the period befor we started looking for it 8)
befor you start looking for nothing you must define the term, and by defining the term you give nothingness presecne. and therefor make something out of nothing.
concider this, as something moves out of sensory range does it continue to exist? when the moon is hidden by the earth is it still really there? of course it isen't.. a thing not percived is nothing... so on so on so on
Its almost a topic for the philosophy threads. A state of nothingness is being contemplated in this thread.
I think that when we get down to discussing the very root of existence where all disperate things converge... disciplines converge also.
All states, forms, forces etc.... and science, philosophy and religion... become one... or at least on the precipice of one.
In order to contemplate something (in this case, nothing) one must create a model of it, whether real or imagined. In doing so, it becomes existent, to the degree that it can be contemplated, observed and commented upon.
Another good point. Can we contemplate something that doesn't exist... and if we can... what do we end up finding?
as we gaze into nothingness we will find something...absolute nothing = the period befor we started looking for it 8)
befor you start looking for nothing you must define the term, and by defining the term you give nothingness presecne. and therefor make something out of nothing.
I think we will only find it if it is there to begin with. Might it be folly to think that we can make something out of nothing just by thinking about it.
We might affect the relative world that way... but I doubt we can change an absolute, whether it exists or not. If it could be changed, it wouldn't be an absolute.
JesseBonin
Mar31-04, 02:46 PM
now your useing your knoggin...
in every pop-theroy of "relativity" the one defining element is always left out of the equation... "US" our perception, albert E. tried to quantize this element by giving it a name or paradox "frame of referance". maybe we dont give ourselves enough credit.
if you did not exist to observe something would it still exist? the answer has to be no, unless your willing to make a "leap of faith". yes, logic would tell us that the object would still exist inspite of us. But i would say this, prove the existance of something we have yet not observed. yeah yeah, the whole tree falling in a forest paradox.
but how is this for a real paradox, if all of reality is based on our perception of it, then all things imagined are reality. Nothing as a term can exist makeing the term contradictory, but then we would have to find a name for all the things that have yet to be observed.
Jimbroni
Mar31-04, 03:09 PM
But i would say this, prove the existance of something we have yet not observed. .
Isn't that the point of the Super String Theory or any other Theory of Everything?
Which I don't necessary believe Super String or any Theory for that matter is the theory of Everything, because "everything" is too big of a subject that would have include even are own delusions and beliefs.
maybe we dont give ourselves enough credit.
... or too much?
if you did not exist to observe something would it still exist? the answer has to be no, unless your willing to make a "leap of faith". yes, logic would tell us that the object would still exist inspite of us.
Might all our problems in life (scientific, philisophic and religious) be solved with a leap of faith?
If these three disciplines converge at some point... maybe the answer to how to solve their questions, converges into one answer also?
but how is this for a real paradox, if all of reality is based on our perception of it, then all things imagined are reality. Nothing as a term can exist makeing the term contradictory, but then we would have to find a name for all the things that have yet to be observed.
I doubt the universe exists because we think it does.
JesseBonin
Mar31-04, 03:28 PM
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
do not multiple enitities beyond the neccessary, or in modern terms, the simples answer is usually the correct answer.
the universe is the name with give the great expance beyond our horizon, the world was flat until one man with a vision percieved it differently...
JesseBonin
Mar31-04, 03:33 PM
all i want to do is open minds to the possibility that all things and nothing are one in the same.. or could be.. this string is an exorcise in philosophy based in physics.
truth: we do not know what exists beyond our perception
truth: our endevor to discover and explore will no doubt find something where there was nothing befor 8)
p-brane
Mar31-04, 06:05 PM
Might it be folly to think that we can make something out of nothing just by thinking about it.
Hello Erck.
This is an interesting point. To begin with; energy can neither be created nor destroyed... so, we can't "make" anything while we are within those constraints. We can only transform what already exists. (This would include transforming nothing into something and visa versa)
We transform empty feilds into housing developments and we transform housing developments into empty fields. This involves the specific distribution of resources and materials but, it is a transformation rather than what is thought of as a "creation".
I would maintain, however, that one cannot have something without first ensuring there is an equal amount of nothing for it to occupy!!!
JesseBonin
Mar31-04, 06:38 PM
nothing = that which we have not discovered YET
absolute nothing = that which we will never discover
Intersting post p-brane (and I do love callig you that).
You too Jesse... I like your approach here.
The stuff we've have theoretically located (particles, waves, strings etc.) never seem to rise to the level of "things"... and the lack of things we see (empty space, ether etc.) never seems to rise to the level "nothing."
The things implying the no-things and the no-things implying the things... all in a little dance we are part of.
So where and how do we find the absolutes... the absolute thing and the absolute nothing?
UltraPi1
Mar31-04, 09:07 PM
There are two kinds of nothing - That which exist and that which does not, or defined verses undefined nothing. We happen to be in the defined nothing for obvious reasons. This defined nothing is simply the geometric embodiment of an undefined nothing. It is conceptual in nature - Meaning our universe is not a physical entity.
Matter and space are essentially indentical. The difference between the two is localization of defined nothings (matter), verses extentions of those localizations (space). Matter will act upon you in a greater sense, because this is where the foci of these definitions of nothing are. Space being the extention of the foci likely only acts upon you in a gravitational sense. You can't see space, but you can feel it.
I might further add that photons are the fundamental entity. They can't be examined beyond what they act upon. This is to be expected because nothing is the constituent they are made of.
Just to repeat - Existence is entirely conceptual. We explain how it all works using what we term as physical laws, although they should be termed conceptual laws. Non-existence is the absolute requirement by which Existence is defined.
If I understand you correctly... there is much I agreee with.
The defined nothing being a geometric embodiment of an undefined nothng... I wonder about though.
I wonder how an undefined nothing can have a role to play, even passively... unless of course I misunderstand your meaning of "undefined."
UltraPi1
Mar31-04, 09:50 PM
If I understand you correctly... there is much I agreee with.
The defined nothing being a geometric embodiment of an undefined nothng... I wonder about though.
I wonder how an undefined nothing can have a role to play, even passively... unless of course I misunderstand your meaning of "undefined."
I'm making an initial assumption that the universe came from nothing, or rather in nothing. If you wipe the slate clean - You are forced to conceptualize it. This can't be done in one stroke being that it is all encompassing. In fact it can't be done ever, but we are here. Therefore it is defined through discrete entities wherein an infinity of them are possible. This must be an ongoing process. First there is one entity, then two, then three, and so on till hell freezes over. So, in effect - The universe is larger in quantity today than it was yesterday.
The undefined nothing plays a role only in that it must be defined. It can not exist in relation to us other than to infer the existence of it's non-existence.
JesseBonin
Mar31-04, 10:03 PM
that is a really confusing way of saying, for every nothing there is a something, and for every something there was a nothing it came from ...
UltraPi1
Mar31-04, 10:34 PM
that is a really confusing way of saying, for every nothing there is a something, and for every something there was a nothing it came from ...Not sure I would word it exactly that way, but your sentence would have to be acceptable. It can be confusing in that we are use to thinking in a physical sense, where something from nothing is unattainable.
that is a really confusing way of saying, for every nothing there is a something, and for every something there was a nothing it came from ...
The universe came from the leftovers of the last universe. The only thing that comes from nothing is nothing.
It is the same as energy only it is anti-energy. Nothing can neither be created nor destroyed.
Look at it this way:
If every action creates an equal and opposite reaction then see this:
Something = action// Nothing = equal and opposite reaction.
and respectively:
Nothing = action// Something = equal and opposite reaction
You might not consider nothing to be an action or condition or anything but, as i have explained, for the sake of discussion, "nothing" is "something" and there for as a condition, a state and a "probability" it is an action within the confines of this universe.
You might not consider nothing to be an action or condition or anything but, as i have explained, for the sake of discussion, "nothing" is "something" and there for as a condition, a state and a "probability" it is an action within the confines of this universe.
Well said.
Nothing as a "no-thing" IS a player within the confines of the universe.
But there is a difference between it and that initial condition we wonder about... the "before" the universe condition... the condition of "absolute" nothing.
They are different.
That's what the idea of this thread is about... the difference.
Does anybody see the difference?
the "before" the universe condition... the condition of "absolute" nothing.
? One will have to prove there was a "condition of absolute nothing" before the p-brane of this universe was evolved.
My hypothesis contends that there was an imbalance between "void" and matter. When "void" became the greater force than matter, thus, separating top quarks of matter to a great degree, then the resulting imbalance between "void" or "absolute nothingness" forced a "big bang" out of one of the quarks and... "voila"... new universe.
There are, in all probability, very many universes within this "void" region of ours. We can't observe them because there is "void" separating each individual universe's p-brane. (edit: spelling)
That still describes a situation where there is something (matter) and no-thing (void)... which is not a condition of absolute nothing.
JesseBonin
Apr1-04, 01:31 PM
absolute nothing is that which exists befor you and after you, all of reality, all matter and energy, all things real and imagined popped into existance when you became aware. and all things will cease to exist when you are no more..
pelastration
Apr1-04, 01:47 PM
absolute nothing is that which exists
... "exists".
Existance ... is not absolute nothing. Right?
This thread is really about semantics. Lol.
Are we talking here about no-THING (but allowing the 'potency') or even not allowing the potency?
It is about semantics... but that can be taken as good or bad.
Semantics is the study of the meaning of language.
Ideas can only be clear if the language is used properly.
A clear idea might, at this level of thought, be a fact.
A fact about existence is what we are looking for.
JesseBonin
Apr1-04, 04:00 PM
existance is not neccisarily something.. otherwise the simple nameing of a thing or non-thing would make it a thing. let us get past the word and think about the meaning, or the concept of a space in space/time where there is nothing. no thought, no mass, no anti-anything, no posative or neutral, no light or darkness. does such a place exist? (the existance of nothing is still nothing) mathimatically anything multiplied by zero is still zero.
pelastration
Apr1-04, 04:27 PM
... zero.
Tell me about zero ...
what is it ... what is it not?
JesseBonin
Apr1-04, 04:46 PM
zero is the tool we use to describe that which we cannot describe, it encompasses all that we do not know.
again, were trying to define the un-definable and no matter how much we learn or discover there will always be that "zero" weather it is a place or a time or an idea that is un attainable. the snake that devoures itself, the origin without origin, the time befor time... the "zero" the "nothing" the "god" whatever you would like to call it.
Zero is less than we give it credit for being.
absolute nothing is that which exists befor you and after you, all of reality, all matter and energy, all things real and imagined popped into existance when you became aware. and all things will cease to exist when you are no more..
I'd like to see some proof of this! There's no way to prove it. Can you come up with a way to prove your statement?
Erck.
How's the surf out there in CA!?
Zero: if zero were as less as we can't fathom, it wouldn't be a number. In some number systems zero is just a "-" or a "x" or a "knot". Its hard to work with absolute zero since
it can't be quantified.
Hi p-brane... surf, I got no stinking surf... I do however, live on a boat up a muddy canal off the SF bay.
Absolute zero is the most secretive thing there isn't.
JesseBonin
Apr1-04, 10:24 PM
I'd like to see some proof of this! There's no way to prove it. Can you come up with a way to prove your statement?
I could prove it, but i wold have to kill you 8) lol JK
I think the real question is, prove that it is anything else...
JesseBonin
Apr1-04, 10:28 PM
here is a mind bender, can you find anything that exists that is absolute?
or better still, find anything that has no motion at all? we know that all mass has motion, so we can count out all reality, what is left?
lets combine the 2 questions, is there an abslute? and is there anything with zero motion? light, as we struggle to figure out why the speed of light is absolute we may well find it is us that is moveing and light that is perfectly still... and thus the nothing or zero we cannot find
http://www.calphysics.org/images/zpe.jpg
I could not put my finger on how to explain about nothing, which cannot exist?
useful calculational tool in physics is the ideal harmonic oscillator: a hypothetical mass on a perfect spring moving back and forth. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that such an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small enough to be subject to quantum laws -- can never come entirely to rest, since that would be a state of exactly zero energy, which is forbidden. In this case the average minimum energy is one-half h times the frequency, hf/2.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Nernst correctly deduced in 1916 (ref. 8) that empty space is still not completely devoid of all radiation after this is done. He predicted that the vacuum is still permanently filled withan electromagnetic field propagating at the speed of light, called the zero-pointfluctuations (sometimes called vacuum fluctuations). This was later confirmed by the full quantum field theory developed in the 1920’s and 30’s. Later, with the development of QED, it was realized that all quantum fields should contribute to the vacuum state, like virtual electrons and positron particles, for example. According to modern quantum field theory, the perfect vacuum is teeming with all kinds of activity, as all types of quantum virtual matter particles (and virtual bosons or forceparticles) from the various quantum fields, appear and disappear spontaneously. These particles are called ‘virtual’ particles because they result from quantum processes that have small energies and very short lifetimes, and are therefore undetectable.One way to look at the existence of the quantum vacuum is to consider that quantum theory forbids the absence of motion, as well as the absence of propagating fields(exchange particles).
This follows from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In QED, the quantum vacuum consists of the virtual particle pair creation/annihilation processes (for example, electron-positron pairs), and the zero-point-fluctuation (ZPF) of the electromagnetic field (virtual photons) just discussed
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:l_wvl427p48J:arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9903025+Lense-Thirring+Effect&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
here is a mind bender, can you find anything that exists that is absolute? or better still, find anything that has no motion at all? we know that all mass has motion, so we can count out all reality, what is left?
Now you're talkin'....
The absolute IS what we are looking for.
An absolute has no motion, no mass, no position, no relatives outside of itself.
JesseBonin
Apr2-04, 01:26 AM
here is the paradox
there is no perfect vacuum, perfect vacuum = absolute nothing.
nothing is perfectly still so the absence of such a thing is absolute?. maybe
photons, tacheons(?), ect are conjectural .. we surmise that they "can" exist but have no means of verifying it? why? If photons are absolutly still as i guess, then anything man makes or devises will be unable to detect such a thing due to the fact that all matter in this reality has motion.
what do we know? we know that light has no mass ..
we know that becouse we can manipulate light that it does exist..
the paradox, how can something without mass exist?
here is a good one, we assume atoms exist becouse we can detect motion and magnetics .. but have you ever actually seen one?
we have a telescope that can see to the far edges of the universe, but we have not one micro-scope that can see a simple atom. (this discludes electron type microscopes, they do not actually magnify a visual thing but bounce electrons off of something and record the results and i dont think i need to explain the problem in magnifying an atom with an electron)
how do we see if light actually moves or if it is absolutly still? well we could try to freeze something to absolute zero..oh wait, we cant do that either.. absolute zero is as unattainable as 188,000 miles per second. 8) i do however think that we are closer to absolute zero than we are to light speed (c). and this is why. if light is "at rest" then no matter how fast we travel light will still be at rest (might also answer one of special relativities biggest questions "why does light travel away from you at the same speed no matter how fast your frame of referance is moveing)
i digress, we are looking for "nothing" and light is at the very least "something" i simply wounder if the nothing we wish to uncover is the something we already have 8)
JesseBonin
Apr2-04, 01:38 AM
btw - the harmonic balace thing
a great tool for learning the theory, but essentially flawed... at some point (in a perfect vacuum) a atom will find molecular balance, as the orbitals rotate against them selves, the atom will not rest, but the nucleus will, thus a value of zero .. but thats still more conjecture.
We have to think "outside" the box (universe).
We have to think "outside" the box (universe).
Sort of like telling us what a blackhole looks like inside?
Sort of like telling us what a blackhole looks like inside?
Interesting reaction.
A blackhole is a microcosmic representation of the big bang.
These two conditions are as close as relativity can get, to becoming absolute.
Nothing, or Nothingness, is an antinomy: it negate itself as a thing though it's representation IS evidently something.
The interesting fact is that this antinomy is really outside of any language contest, so we could affirm that it is the "seed of antinomy" or, as I called it, the "Originary Antinomy".
The most interesting consequence is that "Nothingness" can be imagined as infinite oscillations between "not expression" (actually I couldn't write anything) and "expression" of itself.
The subtle difference can be noted by this formula
\rightarrow \emptyset
in which the lacking term on the left side of implication sign is the real, unwritable, unthinkable, nothingness. Whatever you think about that lacking is not nothingness though.
Since this infinite series of oscillations should be repeated infinite times, we could affirm that in this originary condition neither time nor space exist.
We could yet say that "space" is representative of "manifesting nothing", while "time" is representative of "number of occurrencies of this happening".
Since each occurrence of this "space" must happen at least "one time", it is natural that space and time must be strictly related between them.
Indeed, if we suppose that there is mathematical limit to which the ratio of the two series (Space/Time) converge, this limit would lead to a non breakable limit of speed in a Universe based on this ratio (say the light speed of that Universe?).
Interesting reaction.
A blackhole is a microcosmic representation of the big bang.
These two conditions are as close as relativity can get, to becoming absolute.
I am responding to Palgren's post using yours.
If the basis then is "oscillations," then the distinction between the balckhole expanding and contracting raise the potential of extremes of energy gatherings, and its collapse?
Matter distinctions are raised in the ideas of such singularties, not as a infintie density, but where all is "ONE."
So in the early universe, dualism is taken out of the picture, for supersymmetry (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@139.mutQbxfLPVq.0@.1dde779c) ?
Just thinking out loud
See Blackhole Creation (http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/smaria/ms/aaas03_ms.pdf)
Trying to describe nothingness, I realized the least thing that can exist is existence itself. Even if nothingness could exist on its own, nothingness would be a state of existence. Therefore the idea of creation is not creation out of nothingness but changing what exists into something else.
When we talk about Space/Time, we believe empty space plus time is the fundamental state from which everything starts. But I realized space is a more complex thing. It can’t be fundamental because there is no natural state of emptiness. The natural state of things is existence.
The next thing, creation, is to modify existence into something else. Force is applied to modify it, but because of inertia the change doesn't occur simultaneous to the force being applied. It occurs later, and that way, we have time. So a more accurate description of Space/Time is Matter/Time. Which suggests space is made of matter. (You can move backwads in space but you can't move backwards in matter. Everything is action, then reaction.)
The Higgs Field is like a space made of matter, like "molasses". He concluded the drag of particles and things through that space is what we see as their mass.
That’s very neat, but I say mass, momentum, etc exists as a natural state of matter, but there is also the drag that comes from a space made of matter when complex systems, molecules, objects move through that space. The vibrant molecule has to power itself through a space that has some drag to it.
If space is defined by particles of matter, then we have a particle of matter separated by nothingness and another particle of matter. When basic particles move, they move from particle to particle. These are physical points of matter, which possess inertia, that define space. They are exactly like our concept of non-dimensional points, but they are real things and they are not infinite. Take any box and put a certain number of points in it, like fifteen points. If you are a point, to move from point to point, you can only move in a limited number of directions. But if you are not a point, but a complex system, you move through the sea of points that have mass. There is a drag, like the Higgs Field, but the drag is not the whole reason the system seems to have mass. It is only part of the reason. The way that molecules overcome this drag is the same way gravity works.
So the condition of emptiness that we imagine all physics to operate in is wrong. It is more accurate to say we operate in a space made of matter, because matter or fullness is the most basic form of existence, not emptiness.
anandshanbhag2003
Apr3-04, 01:37 PM
how vast our universe ,is it limitless?
I could prove it, but i wold have to kill you 8) lol JK
Kill yourself and send postcards from your place in the anti-life explaining how all existence has become non-existent and how you are the only one existing. Rather self-centered approach, no?
There's no way to prove something does not exist when you're not observing it because you're not observing the lack of existence because you're not observing it and its not there. Its a vicious psycho, and I'm putting it to rest (lol).
Have a nice life.
Trying to describe nothingness, I realized the least thing that can exist is existence itself. Even if nothingness could exist on its own, nothingness would be a state of existence. Therefore the idea of creation is not creation out of nothingness but changing what exists into something else.
So the condition of emptiness that we imagine all physics to operate in is wrong. It is more accurate to say we operate in a space made of matter, because matter or fullness is the most basic form of existence, not emptiness.
Good stuff John.
Especially the first paragraph.
In the last paragraph the implication seems to be that we would end up with a representaion of the universe as one solid piece of matter, so to speak.
how vast our universe ,is it limitless?
This won't clarify your question completely, but the universe does have a set of limits, but they are not absolute.
pelastration
Apr4-04, 12:59 AM
This won't clarify your question completely, but the universe does have a set of limits, but they are not absolute.
"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ? :biggrin:
JesseBonin
Apr4-04, 01:13 AM
nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?
... and, more specifically, what is the difference between nothing and absolutely nothing?
Relatively speaking one can ask this:How 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom? :smile:
>Relatively speaking one can ask this:How 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?
I'd say the unvierse has no size and the atom is a lot smaller than that.
>nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?
Yes, that's the whole idea of no-thing. Absolutely nothing is different.
>"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?
"Outside" information. :-)
>Relatively speaking one can ask this:How 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?
I'd say the unvierse has no size and the atom is a lot smaller than that.
>nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?
Yes, that's the whole idea of no-thing. Absolutely nothing is different.
>"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?
"Outside" information. :-)
Agreed, where one asks the question is important for the formulation of a Relative answer.
One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero) :smile:
One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero) :smile:
Intersting way of stating it.
Although, I think it's a conclusion that leads us beyond ambiguity.
pelastration
Apr4-04, 02:34 PM
Agreed, where one asks the question is important for the formulation of a Relative answer.
One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero) :smile:
Nice.
Here the WU CHI becomes Yin and Yang.
Wu Chi (http://www.mu6.com/yin_yang_images/Wuchi_and_TaiChi.jpg)
Dlanorrenrag
Apr4-04, 08:38 PM
At its limits, I am not sure that science is completely separate from faith or art. At some limits, thinking something so sometimes seems to help make it become so. Someday, might scientific pharaohs be able to say, "So let it be written, so let it be done"? Or, as Shakespeare said, "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Is this possibly part of the gist of the idea:
For there to exist a concept of “no matter,” it would seem that there must exist a conceptualizer as well as a potential for some matter, as if the present lack of matter were merely attributable to an equally symmetrical offsetting of matter and anti-matter. But, might a potential for matter exist even without a conception of matter if a potential for matter were itself endowed with a property or capacity for somehow, over time, consistently recording information regarding a pattern of interactional influences---such as if space could be induced to crack a potential for matter into actual parts of matter, thereby breaking any perfect, symmetrically annihilating effect of anti-matter? Perhaps only if there were both no potential for a conscious concept of matter and no potential for inanimate matter with a capacity for preserving interactional information over an arrow of time could there be a “true or perfect” state of “nothingness.”
Since we can agree nothing can’t be absolute, possibly we can agree the opposite of nothing can be absolute. I think the whole universe started as one big solid piece of matter, surrounded by nothingness. The first big question was, How strong was the rock the universe was made of? I finally realized it didn't need to have any tensile strength; it just needed to be nearly impossible to compress. What is nearly impossible to compress and has no tensile strength? Water. The entirety of the original universe was like a huge ocean of water. Then I remembered the Bible, where it says: The earth (or the universe) was formless and void and the spirit of God flew above the waves of the abyss. This describes liquid raw matter.
The most interesting feature was the waves. God, who flew above the surface of the liquid matter created a universe that was made mostly of waves. The waves on the surface of the matter happened because nothingness outside the matter had no space. When a wave rose up, it pushed into nothingness, which pushed back because there was no space. This was the same concept as gravity, and gravity causes the waves of water in the ocean to function. The idea for gravity may have came from the original condition between matter and nothingness. Nothingness is always pushing into matter. We say the whole universe can be understood by understanding gravity, but the real quest may be to understand the universal force that pushes in only one direction, inward.
The Koran has some interesting things to say about creation. It says the original Gods had bodies of smokeless fire. In other words, they were heat. It also says the original Gods broke up the matter to create the universe. So this solid matter, that once did make up the entire universe was broken up into many small pieces by the original Gods, who had bodies of smokeless fire. I am not Muslim. I read this to my amazement after I realized for myself what happened. There was a big heat explosion and all the matter was broken up and thrown out into nothingness, which does not contain space.
Imagine a dust devil. You step on it, and it makes a cloud of smoke made of tiny particles. All the tiny particles define the cloud, just as all the tiny particles from the original matter now define space. They are no longer one solid piece but they are broken up.
If I put periods like this……………it would represent a line. If I wanted to put fifteen periods with no distance between them, it would look
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.
selfAdjoint
Apr5-04, 08:40 AM
If I put periods like this……………it would represent a line. If I wanted to put fifteen periods with no distance between them, it would look
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.
This paragraph is wrong. The bit with the periods is a musunderstanding of continuity, which is not built from a finite number of points like that. And string theory does NOT say there is a distance betrween points. It is a radically "smooth and continuous" theory before quantisation, and quantization brings discrete string states but not discrete points in what they call the target space.
And string theory does NOT say there is a distance betrween points.
Is there any semblance of "empty space" in string theory?
It is a radically "smooth and continuous" theory before quantisation, and quantization brings discrete string states but not discrete points in what they call the target space.
Also... whatever shape a "discrete state" might take and however "target space" might differ from empty space... is this really fundamentally different from the idea of a "thing" and a "no-thing" interchanging with each other... so to speak?
String theory says a point in a line is a string, like this
---------------
That is fifteen strings. Or type them connected like this
_______________
That is made with fifteen undelines that connect, each have a length.
Since a string is a point, it is accurate to say fifteen points with distance between them is the same as fifteen strings. It is also accurate to say that when you line up fifteen points that have no length, they make one point. Try this 0+0+0=0
If a string has a length of .012, then three strings gives a line that is .036.
So .012 would be the distance between the points on the line.
What is most interesting is it is more accurate to say a string is two points that have distance between them. You can even more accurately say that a point is a sphere with distance all around it. When you line up fifteen spheres you have a line that looks like this
000000000000000
If you stack those efficiently in a 2D space you create triangles, and in a 3D space you create tetrahedrons. If you stack tetrahedrons you have straight lines going in only six directions. So if space is made out of strings, or points with distance between them, or spheres with distance all around them, you have the unsual fact of only being able to travel in six directions in primary space. To travel in any direction, a point particle has to zigzag through six "dimensions". String theory, the idea that a point on a line is really a small string predicts six extra dimensions. The correlation between my underlying six directions when stacking spheres that have distance all aroud them, and the six extra dimensions is too extraordinary to be ignored.
If points are spheres with distance all around them, then points could be matter fragments of the original state of the universe if it was ever made of solid matter. When you break up the solid matter and separate the pieces, you can only travel from point to point in six underlying directions. Think of the real universe, the points themselves, as solid matter not empty space.
We have concluded that you can't have nothing, total emptiness; so the space in the universe has to be made of matter. There is no empty space, really. There is something, and there is nothing. Nothing does not contain the concept of empty space. So the concept of space has to be made with little fragments of matter that have distance all around them. And that space will have six underlying directions; or six underlying dimensions.
selfAdjoint
Apr5-04, 02:02 PM
String theory says a point in a line is a string
No it doesn't. You keep saying string theory says this, string theory says that, and you keep getting it wrong.
String theory says two point particles can only approach each other so close. To believe it does not say that is to make what is simple too complicated. It says there will always be some distance between point patricles. That simple fact leads to six extra dimensions. I have extended that idea to all points in space and came up with space that has only six underlying directions, which can be called dimensions.
SelfAdjoint... does string theory presuppose this "space" between strings?
John... I can see your idea that if things broke up and went in all directions that would make it 6... but dimensions? How does one make the leap from direction to dimension?
And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?
And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?
It is simpler to think of nothing as the only ... thing that has not to be explained by nobody: it explains by itself... and this make all to exist.
If we speak about space we are immerged in time. If we speak of time we are in some place of space.
Fortunately nothingness can always express itself: with or without us.
Let's think of any computer program (or likely of any card play): were they anything when in mind of some guy?
It is hard to think but "nothing" is always "something else" and my point is that this is the first brick of any knowable Universe.
It is hard to think but "nothing" is always "something else" and my point is that this is the first brick of any knowable Universe.
I'm with you, I think. Could you rephrase this?
selfAdjoint
Apr5-04, 07:32 PM
SelfAdjoint... does string theory presuppose this "space" between strings?
John... I can see your idea that if things broke up and went in all directions that would make it 6... but dimensions? How does one make the leap from direction to dimension?
And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?
Strings exist in the target space no different than we exist in our 3+1 space. The space is continuous, with no gaps in its points. John doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just got his own private theory and is calling it string theory. Don't be fooled.
The dimension of the string target space is fixed by a requirement that makes string theory (the real one) self-consistent. For simple bosonic strings the number is 26 (25 space and 1 time), for superstrings it is 10 (9 space and 1 time) and M-theory, which is a little different, has 11 (10 space and 1 time, but one of the space ones is a little odd).
This is all well understood; there is no room in it for John's personal theories.
String Theory is proved by math and experience that does not completely describe existence. We are all immersed in math because it gives us answers, but we can't answer "What is an electron?"
I played with a personal theory starting in 1984 that suggested maybe space is made of individual points.
I found a lot of correlation between my ideas and what we have observed in String Theory.
paglren has the first principle right, except he didn't phrase it right. He said, "think of nothing as the only ... thing that has not to be explained by nobody: it explains by itself... and this makes all to exist"
Rephrasing it right: the thing that has not to be explained by anybody: it explains itself, is existence. We can't start with nothing, we have to start with existence!
What exists is limited. To make it bigger, we break it up and send it out in all directions.
Now we have an array of points that look a lot like an array of stars.
In Flatland, if we have an array of stars (draw 24 randon dots on a piece of paper) try to find three or more of the dots that nearly line up and draw lines through the dots that nearly line up. Look at your lines and group the lines that go in similar directions. Separately draw those groups as parallel lines. You will end up with sets of parallel lines and individual lines. When I did that just now, I ended up with two sets of parallel lines and two lines going in two random directions. One of the single lines was 60 degrees from the two groups, one line was at 30 degrees.
Now look at a snowflake. All the lines in the snowflake are either at 30 degrees or 60 degrees. Even a random array of points produces most of the parallel lines at 60 degrees and some lines at 30 degrees, just like a snowflake. I say a snowflake is fornmed on the stucture of space which is made of points.
If the points are all that exist, in this flatland of points you have only three major lines of dimension and three other minor lines of dimension. You can only go from point to point. The points are all that exist. The points aren't random places picked out of nothing. You can't do that because nothing doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is existence. So therefore, at the most basic level in this plane made of points, which look like stars, there are three primary dimensions and three secondary dimensions, which sounds a lot like 25 space dimensions and 9 space dimensions.
So String Theory seems to agree with my ideas. I have described a flatland that actually has six dimensions or three dimensions, starting with the idea: what exists is what exists; nothing does not exist.
Math starts with a blank sheet of paper and you can put points or numbers anywhere. But we can't start with a blank sheet of paper, or a "target space". We start with the array of dots. The dots are all that exist. The blank paper does not exist.
We can't start with nothing, we have to start with existence!
What exists is limited. To make it bigger, we break it up and send it out in all directions.
I certainly agree that we have to start with existence... that's what the whole search is all about.
Saying "what exists is limited" though... doesn't answer the "what," or the how or why or when.
Breaking it up and sending it out in all directions, if that is the case... might have more to do with making it more diverse than bigger?
Regardless of how big all the matter in the universe is, there can be something bigger. If all the matter is in one place it is a singularity, like two drops of water that become one drop when they touch. Matter has a tensile strength which is the weak force, just like water has a weak electromagentic attraction to itself (ultimate matter and water are very similar). The whole universe was once a great sea of matter, as described in the Bible. There was no up or down or sideways and no measure of time. Matter combined with the nothingness around it to form a more interesting and diverse world. This forming with nothingness was a kind of fuzzy logic. How can you combine with something that does not exist? But in fact, nothingness existed as the opposite of matter. And life also existed in the form of heat.
Three things, three dimensions combined to form what we know. It always takes a mininum of three dimensions to make something.
Dlanorrenrag
Apr5-04, 09:48 PM
Might there be aspects of being and concepts such as “nothing” that simply defy consistent, unambiguous, or perfectly mathematical analysis, even though still being helpful for conveying aspects of meaning subject to limited perspectives? How much changing and ambiguous oscillation is there at the points of theories that attempt to relate order to chaos, pattern to flux, *something to nothing*, meaning to non-meaning, belief to doubt?
Is even Physics subject to being ruled by limitations in language, as manifested in failures to communicate that necessarily oscillate with changing identities, points of view, contexts, and emotions?
***If not for “nothing,” then for what fundamental concept can meaning be communicated, independent of point of view, context, and emotion?*** Is it only well outside areas of oscillation that differences can temporarily collapse to become of kind rather than of degree?
Admittedly, I have little background in physics. And, as Simon and Garfunkel once said, "after all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." So, my wonder is, HOW IS IT THAT WE SEEM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AT ALL?
There is meaning (nothing is nothing).
There is relative meaning (nothing is no-thing, nothing is only a subset of thing, thing is absolute).
There is degree (the more thing encroaches on nothing, the more force is needed).
Math people are very comfortable thinking only in degree, but that can't answer a lot of the questions. It can give us very accurate indications. If our logical ideas don't agree with what math tells us, our logical ideas are wrong. But Einstein said imagination is the most important part of discovery.
I'm with you, I think. Could you rephrase this?
As many of participants to this thread have already said: "nothing" is nothing.
But this frase is an Antinomy (i.e. it declares its own falseness as true).
I think that this particular antinomy, being by definition outside any language contest (there's no language yet defined), can be considered a primary vibrating status from which anything could be derived.
In other terms any thing we consider, ourselves included, can be described by interacting rules among void points. There is no need of anything else (like mass or energy). The only real things are the rules of the Universe and these rules come out from the rule-generator that we call "nothing".
Think of space-time as a frame due to some "3d symmetry" manifesting n times.
The symmetry rules lead to "space" and the occurrencies lead to "time".
This approach leaves all unchanged and doesn't conflict with any phisics law, but could re-define almost all known concepts:
Mass is the limit of pulsating contraction of 3d space towards a point (at c speed)
Energy is the change of space curvature (due to contraction)
Light is still (i.e. it does not travel through space: rather it is the pulling of space that brings information to mass)
Any explosion is accompanied by light emission when some parts of mass stop contracting (i.e. become still points)
Light acts as an anti-inertial screen (i.e. the real mass of stars is partially "masked" by the still points of light that surround them)
And so on.
A last observation: Space is 3dimensional due to 3d symmetry of contraction. This contraction has to happen in a 4th (3+1) orthogonal dimension to work as we see (i.e. it's projection in 3d space concides with the center of contraction and it is not perceived as "space").
As many of participants to this thread have already said: "nothing" is nothing.
But as I asked at the beginning of this thread... "is there a difference between nothing (no-thing) and absolutely nothing?"
If the answer is no... then so be it.
But if it isn't... then?
Logic requires definition. The concept of infinity is not contrary to logic - it violates none of its precepts - yet it is beyond the realm of logic because it is UNdefined.
The Universe occupies volume; hence it HAS size. It's size is; however, undefined. Between every two points in the Universe there is a finite distance, but there is no furthest point. . . that is the RELATIVE concept of infinity.
By the same token if you define 'nothing' as that which does not exist, well - "that which does not exist" does not exist - it is a fiction. In the relative context, nothing is the relative value of zero or the empty set.
By the same token if you define 'nothing' as that which does not exist, well - "that which does not exist" does not exist - it is a fiction.
To accurately define something that doesn't exist, as "not existing"... doesn't necessarily make it fiction.
Doesn't it simply mean, that we've arrived at understanding and using language and logic, more completely.
Could understanding something "not existing"... help us better understand the "something" that might exist?
paglren,
What you said was exactly wrong. You started with nothing, and went to vibrations, and then went to laws.
The problem is that all of math and phsyics is incorrectly starting with nothing. The very concept of nothing presupposes a thing. To have no thing you must have a thing, therefore nothing cannot exist on its on, therefore the universe can't grow out of nothing, starting itself with vibrations and laws.
Instead, we start with something. All the matter in the universe existed as one giant blob. It had to be finite because anything that exists is finite. But more importantly, it could exist on it own, without needing anything outside of itself for its state of existence. It just existed. But this thing was finite, and outside this "thing" was nothing. Now we have contradictions. We have nothing, which is zero, and nothing is infinite. It exsits because the "thing", which is all there is, is finite. All there is, is finite, wow, contradictions. This fuzzy logic almost operates like people themselves operate.
For example, let's define matter. Matter is what is, therefore it can't be something else, therefore it has inertia, therefore it can't change. Yet the slightest force can change it. I tried to show in another post that only if something doesn't have mass can it have infinite inertia, and really can't be changed. Here is the 0, Infinity correlation over and over. Logic breaks down.
In this fuzzy logic universe, we don't have empty space; we have a universe made of individual points of matter. The only thing that is real is the points themselves, but because of how they must be arranged, we have six extra physical dimensions. When consdering we start from something, we realize we have a solid matter universe made of points of matter that have distance between them, not an empty universe. The solid matter unvierse (the one that exists) has at least 10 dimensions and has secondary dimensions because of how the points can line up, and how you can go between them. Going between points is why particle fragements spiral wildly, sometimes. Their paths are not pure spirals. They have little angular changes in them, which indicate they are passing by real points in space. You only see this when you realize you must start with something and something is all you can have. You can never have nothing. But nothing has a radical effect, which is the strong force. The strong force; all force, is the result of fuzzy logic, which says things such as, 0 is infinite; and it's true, there really is an infinite amount of nothing. We can't build a universe there, though.
pelastration
Apr7-04, 04:27 AM
Instead, we start with something. All the matter in the universe existed as one giant blob. ...
...
In this fuzzy logic universe, we don't have empty space; we have a universe made of individual points of matter.
John, Why many individual points of matter?
Start with one.
Apply
Occam's Razor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)
What is the most logic and simple ... (1) start with one point (First Point) or (2) postulate billions of points from the start?
Do you need to destroy (with Universal Scissors) this point ( or boundary) to make billions of subsets (micro-points). No.
How can we come for one point to billions of points? The billions of points are on another level (dimension).
I explain:
One point (The First Point being All) has boundary. Yes?
Can we say that the First Point is just it's boundary? Yes.
The boundary has the properties to reshape.
In the PRIOR-GEOMETRY there is in our language no-THING (thus no-matter, no-energy like we know it in dimension), but this does not mean zero. There is always prior-geometry dynamics (Chaos). Yes, the boundary is a pre-geometrical some-THING, but that's not the geometric some-things.
The dynamic boundary can now restructure to (appearent) independent GEOMETRICAL sub-sets. So on a geometrical sub-level we see a lot of some-THING's : sub-sets that we call Energy and Matter : restructured boundary.
Between these sub-sets is an never-broken linkage: the boundary. Tear on one spot and the total system will be effected. That's the interconnectness (called attraction or gravity) of this universe(s). That's the real fundament of All.
whitelighter
Apr7-04, 05:59 AM
A few years ago I put this little abstraction together as a way to stimulate debate on "Nothing" and just how important this thing that "doesn't" exist by default is.
Time in continuum.
A while ago I posted a question at a forum about the nature of the Time continuum and how Science comprehended it’s nature.
The response I got was simply stating that the words “time continuum” meant very little to the reader. May be this was because of the terminology used or simply the idea of a time continuum is foreign, I am not sure. Thus the reason for this post.
When looking at the nature of time and understanding the variations in dilations and compressions one can still see that everything moves through time in continuum and together.
The philosophers will argue that what I am referring to is the “Now” and that is as simple as it gets.
The time continuum is just a uniform universal existence in the “Now” even with curved space and time dilations etc. are considered.
The question is: How does it all stick together and move through time as one?
Keeping in mind that the word “move” is not really correct in that the “Now “ goes no where as such.
The notions that I have of it is that the true “Now” is a time event horizon, the “now being right in the middle between the past and the future. Essentially the “Now “ is nothing and could be considered the centre of time.
Because the past is always “starting to exist” it can be inferred that everything we are cognizant of is actually a memory. Therefore the event horizon of the “Now” is actually only able to be comprehended as “nothing”. The “Now” is actually nothing , being ahead of cognition.
So to the original question about the physical nature of the time continuum.
I would suggest that the universe shares the same centre of time ( Nothing ) and all stems from this nothing to become the past that we can recognise as the present.
The present being a collection of past and future aspirations.
Because the past determines the future there is nothing separating the past and the future thus the “Now” is only an event horizon that in itself is not time or nothing- time. The actual moment of the event horizon could be considered as a moment of anticipation, the anticipation that movement is about to happen. As we know movement and time are essentially the same thing.
Another reason for considering this notion is that in the centre of all matter and space ( if centre is the right word to use) is this event horizon, as matter “Moves” in continuum with every thing else, so therefore it can be suggested that in the centre of matter is nothing, thus nothing exists only because it doesn’t.
An earlier post tried to put forward the notion that “Nothing” is in fact the most important source of energy “inversely applied”, in the universe.
If one thinks of time as a physical entity in gravitational and spacial terms then what creates a continuum of universal movements is the existence of nothing by is absolute nature “pulling” it all together. If one thinks of “Nothing” as being an absolute vacuum then in pressure terms it is extremely powerful in attracting pressure to it. So “Nothing” is what holds the universe together not only regards time but everything else as well.
The time continuum being essentially supported by the inverse energy of Absolute Vacuum.
As Vacuum is omni attractive, it is attractive to itself thus all matter has an attraction to all matter. This attraction I would suggest is the action of Absolute vacuum (Nothing) and is currently referred to as gravity.
Further to this
A photon is suggested to travel at a constant speed. It is even suggested that to travel faster than 'c' is to travel back in time. This would suggest that the photon travels at a speed that is right on the middle of time neither past or future therefore "nothing"
Light can only be seen in reflection where it achieves a state of "something" ( over time.) The reflection having a past and a future but not the photon itself as it exists only in the "now" thus it is "nothing"
Dlanorrenrag
Apr7-04, 09:54 AM
It sometimes seems that immunity from final solutions by mortals results in conflict and rage, but it seems also to be a source for oscillating ranges of both practical and creative freedom---in mathematics, technology, and art.
Can there *be* time or existence *when* there is NO EXISTENCE and no *potential* for existence? Even though time is relative, is time also an absolute, as a continuous *now* within a continuum of existence?
Are both of the foregoing questions, or are they just noise? Can either be answered with anything more than noise? Are they antimonies, ineffabilities, paradoxes, unsolvable ambiguities, or are they issues that might be solvable only to “God”?
My hunch is that considering such questions leads to continuous progress in perspectives, but not to a complete answer or final solution.
It sometimes seems that immunity from final solutions by mortals results in conflict and rage, but it seems also to be a source for oscillating ranges of both practical and creative freedom---in mathematics, technology, and art.
Can there *be* time or existence *when* there is NO EXISTENCE and no *potential* for existence? Even though time is relative, is time also an absolute, as a continuous *now* within a continuum of existence?
Are both of the foregoing questions, or are they just noise? Can either be answered with anything more than noise? Are they antimonies, ineffabilities, paradoxes, unsolvable ambiguities, or are they issues that might be solvable only to “God”?
My hunch is that considering such questions leads to continuous progress in perspectives, but not to a complete answer or final solution.
It's a dimensional perspective:) (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=178618&postcount=22)
Some can see better then others?:)
To accurately define something that doesn't exist, as "not existing"... doesn't necessarily make it fiction.
Doesn't it simply mean, that we've arrived at understanding and using language and logic, more completely.
Could understanding something "not existing"... help us better understand the "something" that might exist?
Nothing in the context of that which doesn't exist is not defined. Logic requires definition.
Nothing in the context of the value zero is the only logical definition
selfAdjoint
Apr7-04, 11:33 AM
I can't resist quoting the Greek philosopher Parmenides: "That which exists, is. That which does not exist, is not." In other words existence is all there is, non existence simply doesn't exist (as it says), and therefore change, a transition from an existing state to a not existing one, does not exist either.
whitelighter
Apr7-04, 12:06 PM
Another absolutism
"Nothing is dependent on absolutely everything being dependent on absolutely everything"
and
"Once I realised I was nothing I became something for to realise I am nothing is to be something. Like realising you are asleep and there upon this realisation causes you to awaken from your slumber."
I can't resist quoting the Greek philosopher Parmenides: "That which exists, is. That which does not exist, is not." In other words existence is all there is, non existence simply doesn't exist (as it says), and therefore change, a transition from an existing state to a not existing one, does not exist either.
Truer words were never said.
But as I asked at the beginning of this thread... "is there a difference between nothing (no-thing) and absolutely nothing?"
If the answer is no... then so be it.
But if it isn't... then?
Why don't you admit that an antinomy can be stated but cannot be stated it's trueness or falseness?
The answer to your question is a series of infinite: Yes-No-Yes-No-..... to be affirmed in zero time.
And this is a very interesting start point for intuition of what is inside matter and anything else.
In fact, what are quarks? Only words (that explain some effect of something that we cannot really grasp)
A paradox (antinomy) can be stated.
A paradox doesn't always represent something that is ultimately unsolvable.
freemind
Apr7-04, 01:44 PM
But the very act of trying to define nothing makes it something. Nothing is nothing. I may just as well define nothing as a linear combination of linearly dependent vectors. Is this the only definition of nothing? No it is not. There is an infinity of definitions of nothing. So there is no definition. (Zero and Infinity are two sides of the same coin) There cannot be a definition.
What theories that will arise if you cant define anything ;P
Like realizing you are asleep and there upon this realization causes you to awaken from your slumber
That's exactly the kind of logic that created the universe. It's the way God talks. It's the way people think.
Matter has inertia, absolute resistance to movement, therefore movement and change is possible.
Nothing has no concept of space, but can be encroached upon, creating a concept of space that to our surprise has many dimensions. Nothing becomes something when you invade it with matter.
Our mistake in math and science is that we start from 0, empty space, when we need to start from a solid matter universe. And it is still a solid matter universe, but the pieces are more spread out.
In this space where the R's are the only thing that is real... from the bold R, you can only go in a limited number of directions, because you can only go from that R, to any other R without going through an R. I count twelve possible places you can go, which equates to six dimensions, since a dimension goes in two opposite directions.
RxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxR
xxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRx
xRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxx
xxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRx
RxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxR
xRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxx
xxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRx
In a cubic space, you have about 25 total dimensions.
To get from one bold R to the other bold R, you must go though two dimensions, since the Rs are all that exist, you have to follow the path of the Rs, fragments of the original solid universe. There is no open empty space. At the most basic level, you can't go directly from one bold R to the other bold R.
Dlanorrenrag
Apr7-04, 06:43 PM
Does string theory posit our universe as occupying one universal membrane? If so, does string theory rule out, explain, measure, quantify, or qualify how a present, unbounded, perpetually continuous vibrating is connected, directly, potentially, or at all, by either SOMETHING OR *NOTHING* within the one membrane?
I can't resist quoting the Greek philosopher Parmenides: "That which exists, is. That which does not exist, is not." In other words existence is all there is, non existence simply doesn't exist (as it says), and therefore change, a transition from an existing state to a not existing one, does not exist either.
Applause ! !
Existence is not a state of being it is being, itself. Before something can change it must exist - hence "change is a function of being" and NOT "being is a function of change".
Applause ! ! Existence is not a state of being it is being, itself. Before something can change it must exist - hence "change is a function of being" and NOT "being is a function of change".
More applause!
Does string theory posit our universe as occupying one universal membrane? If so, does string theory rule out, explain, measure, quantify, or qualify how a present, unbounded, perpetually continuous vibrating is connected, directly, potentially, or at all, by either SOMETHING OR *NOTHING* within the one membrane?
A brane is a two dimensional with time, configuration of a 5d space?
Remember our computer monitor?
When we are a part of time in this universe, it is a very dynamcial flow of events. "Being" assumes existance always. There is no separation?:)
Since you mentioned the computer montor, do you realize it is made of pixels that define its space? Those round pixels are arranged in triangles. Lines that go in certain directions are squiggley because the directions the pixels lay in cannot reproduce lines in certain directions. The same is true for any monitor even modern HD monitors, because they are made of physical structures that have to line up in specific ways. If our universe is made of things that exist rather than being full of nothing or empty space, then those physical things must have a structure.
To say a computer screen has 5 dimensions is perfectly accurate. The pixels line up in three directions. They can't produce perfect lines in other directions, the lines are squiggley. The way they line up is three dimensions, but when you move back far enough so all the lines look perfect, you can say the lines exist on a 2-dimensional screen. That's five dimensions, a 5d monitor screen. (Forget time.)
If the screen were made of nothing there could be no picture. But if it is made of something that exists, those pixels have to be arranged in a specific structure that limits the perfect representation of lines in directions other than the three directions the pixels line up in. Most of the lines have to squiggle through two "dimensions" to appear straight.
We have a universe that is made of matter, in which things have to squiggle through multiple dimensions, or we have a universe that is made of empty space and made of nothing. We have argued that nothing can't exist, so it must be made of points of matter arranged in a pattern which happen to line up is six directions in 3D space, giving us 9 spatial dimensions.
We have a universe that is made of matter, or we have a universe that is made of empty space and made of nothing.
Or... nothing doesn't exist... no-thing does... sortof.
The pixels or points or wavicles, or strings, co-"exist" with the no-thing.
A relatvie pair making up a universe, but not making up an absolute.
i dont know if nothing exists, if something can exist apon nothing, what then becomes?
If A singularity exists as nothing then a point exists, so why not nothing be the inverse of something, and exist between the two. 0 = chaos combined to equal a universe. What then becomes the most obsured question? what is 0 / chaos?
I have a weird idea, relating nothing to a divisional continuum. I just wrote it this year, kind of a ruff draft. but its at http://n0n.madtracker.net/idea.htm if your interested.
Applause ! !
Existence is not a state of being it is being, itself. Before something can change it must exist - hence "change is a function of being" and NOT "being is a function of change".
You might want to read Parson's theory of nonexistent objects, which carries on the philosophy of Meinong.
The basic idea is that existence is a property. So something like Pegasus, which doesn't exist, still "is" in a different sense.
So existence is in fact a state of being, not being itself.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's worth reading. It's also worth reading Meinong, and Russell's replies to Meinong. Russell himself, despite disagreeing with Meinong, claimed there was value to be found in the work of Meinong. I think the same holds true for Parsons.
Does existence come from nothing changing into something... or was something always there and it somehow created change?
Does existence come from nothing changing into something... or was something always there and it somehow created change?
Well, Parsons construction is analytic. I think, IIRC, that existence is a predicate that can be applied to an object (bound variable).
So to answer your question, I think it would be correct to say that something was always there. Whether it became predicated by existence due to itself only, or also by other factors, I'm not sure. It may depend entirely on the individual situation.
Incidentally, this obviously has interesting theological connotations.
:smile: There is no such thing as nothing. If you look at hope. hope is something. the question is, does something have to first exist to have hope,? or is hope something that just is?
In my personal experiences with God, I asked God that if his love is real, than why can't we describe it with human words. The answer that he gave me through insight was that "he told me when he showed me." It took me a while to understand. Then it hit me. The begining of love is hope. you hope that the other person feels the same way that you do. The you come to know that they feel the same way that you do. It is then that you become one. God's love is the line that runs through hope, knowing, and oneness, and this line rus to infinity. This is the reason why there is no end to love. This is also why I believe that hope is the origin of everything
"Something from nothing," is nothing?:)This is logical?
"Something," from nothing, is "something". Is not logical?
Can someone define this mathematically?
MythioS
Apr13-04, 07:35 AM
You cant get "something" from nothing.. thats how its logical.
Even in physics with quantum mechanics and things popping in an out of existance, the only reason (as far as i understand for a layman anyways) that thats happening is from an incomplete theory, not because things are actually vanishing in an out of reality.
if its zero to begin with you cant get a 1 out of it unless it came from somewhere else. in which case its not "from" nothing its from somewhere else.. and if its from somewhere else you also add into the picture that it couldnt have been a picture of just zero but now theres dimensions that need to locate the difference between point a and b 0 and where something came from in which case 0 is now "0"@xy & "1"@x2y2.
What if the something didn't come from nothing, and the nothing and the particle(?) interchange inside the something, while leaving the something unchanged?
MythioS
Apr13-04, 07:25 PM
lol it doesnt matter.. and thats how this whole post is redundant. this is more of a english class thread then philosophy or physics cus were just getting cought up in 2 dif definitions of the same thing...
its like either its nothing or its something. this is a boolean (true or false) concept. You cant have both. In order for something to exist there must be variables that define its existance. For it to even be discussed you can say "Something=S" without even know what it is.
If its nothing then thats it. There is no.. something-nothing.
If your trying to say like "theres nothing there" well then there exists "no" solid body within a location but for something to be able to be there or not a co-ordinate system must be established.
So you no longer have an absence of a universe but atleast now a universe exist for us to define what its contents are.
So which one are we talkn about?
Anyone smell eggs?
Erring Flatley
Apr13-04, 07:48 PM
To create something out of nothing, begin by mapping an x,y,z coordinant sytem on the nothingness. Then assign to each point in the space a value g,a,b,c where g is the gravitaional-strong scalar value, and a,b,c is the electromagnetic-weak vector value. Define a function such that each point (x,y,z,g,a,b,c) is defined as a function of all points dx,dy,dz from it, (that is all the points around it). Call this function the unified field function. You now have the universe out of nothing.
You cant get "something" from nothing.. thats how its logical.
Even in physics with quantum mechanics and things popping in an out of existance, the only reason (as far as i understand for a layman anyways) that thats happening is from an incomplete theory, not because things are actually vanishing in an out of reality.
if its zero to begin with you cant get a 1 out of it unless it came from somewhere else. in which case its not "from" nothing its from somewhere else.. and if its from somewhere else you also add into the picture that it couldnt have been a picture of just zero but now theres dimensions that need to locate the difference between point a and b 0 and where something came from in which case 0 is now "0"@xy & "1"@x2y2.
lol it doesnt matter.. and thats how this whole post is redundant. this is more of a english class thread then philosophy or physics cus were just getting cought up in 2 dif definitions of the same thing...
its like either its nothing or its something. this is a boolean (true or false) concept. You cant have both. In order for something to exist there must be variables that define its existance. For it to even be discussed you can say "Something=S" without even know what it is.
If its nothing then thats it. There is no.. something-nothing.
If your trying to say like "theres nothing there" well then there exists "no" solid body within a location but for something to be able to be there or not a co-ordinate system must be established.
So you no longer have an absence of a universe but atleast now a universe exist for us to define what its contents are.
So which one are we talkn about?
Anyone smell eggs?
I strongly urge you to read Parsons "Nonexistent Objects". It will make you reconsider whether something can not exist but still "be".
If existence is a contingent property, then saying that "either there is nothing or there is something" is a confusion. (At least, in the sense I think you mean by something. I think that statement does still apply in a more general case if we allow for existence to be a contingent property.)
As far as your claim that in order to say whether something is somewhere or not we need to define a co-ordinate system, there are two problems. Firstly, co-ordinate systems do not necessarily have physical meaning. Secondly, you presuppose that space is a "container" - an entity which can be colocated which objects of a different kind - which it is not necessarily.
We don't know what "stuff" is and we don't know what "empty" is.
Both of them seem to be unreachable.
Maybe it's because they are.
Maybe at the root of the universe is another principle.
Not "is" or "is not"... but "change."
Without change there would be no universe... just one thing all the time.
A movie is change... a still picture is no change.
Ummmm... I smell popcorn!
We don't know what "stuff" is and we don't know what "empty" is.
What? couldn't stuff be related to chaos, infinite something and complexity. were as empty is 0, a place holder? and existance would be a middle ground someware? some empty space, and some stuff. Maybe thier is an infinite nothing if we imagine zooming out till our universe were just a speck or not even thier, and that would be the closest to 0 we could get. and what if the infinite complexity is the chain reaction apon chain reaction in any matter based universe. Or something like that.
You cant get "something" from nothing.. thats how its logical.
Even in physics with quantum mechanics and things popping in an out of existance, the only reason (as far as i understand for a layman anyways) that thats happening is from an incomplete theory, not because things are actually vanishing in an out of reality.
if its zero to begin with you cant get a 1 out of it unless it came from somewhere else. in which case its not "from" nothing its from somewhere else.. and if its from somewhere else you also add into the picture that it couldnt have been a picture of just zero but now theres dimensions that need to locate the difference between point a and b 0 and where something came from in which case 0 is now "0"@xy & "1"@x2y2.
I truly do not mean to be difficult in my position. It is from that logic, we must ask what math will arise?
I will give a phrase of Greene's to consider.
In fact, by making the object smaller and smaller, the physics and the mathematics align ever more precisely as we get closer and closer to physically realizing the abstract mathematical concept of a point.
The Elegant Universe, by Brain Greene, pg 233
We don't know what "stuff" is and we don't know what "empty" is.
Both of them seem to be unreachable.
Maybe it's because they are.
Maybe at the root of the universe is another principle.
Not "is" or "is not"... but "change."
Without change there would be no universe... just one thing all the time.
A movie is change... a still picture is no change.
Ummmm... I smell popcorn!
Empty is a poor choice of words, because it implies that there is a "container". Similarly, statements like "outside the universe" are misleading.
The question of "What is stuff?" needs to be clarified. Are we asking "What is empirical matter?" or "What is an object?". The two aren't always identical.
Empty is a poor choice of words, because it implies that there is a "container". Similarly, statements like "outside the universe" are misleading.
Maybe there's a container outside the universe?
Maybe there's a container outside the universe?
How about bubbles?:)
Maybe there's a container outside the universe?
Maybe. Maybe it's God. But there's no sensible reason to believe so.
I don't believe in the container theory of space. I think a lot of modern physics (apart from quantum theory) tells us that space is probably not a container, but is derivative of matter.
I don't believe space is a container either... there's always more matter... more space... more matter... ad infinitum.
Don't quite agree that space is a derivative of matter though... I think they are equal players in the game... one not being more essential than the other.
I don't believe space is a container either... there's always more matter... more space... more matter... ad infinitum.
Don't quite agree that space is a derivative of matter though... I think they are equal players in the game... one not being more essential than the other.
How do you mean more matter and more space, ad infinitum? The expanding universe?
Mad_Gouki
Apr13-04, 11:20 PM
Here is a link that speaks to this issue. I have struggle with this idea of nothing, and just doesn't make sense to me. From this perspective, I always start from something. Is this not logical?
Anyway here is a link of interest.
In the last 30 years, Particle Physicists, Cosmologists and Mathematicians have fought like alley cats, each redefining the concept of zero. But is zero "nothing"? "Nothing" is a serious matter. Understanding the "absolute vacuum" is a compelling quest. Does the Higgs Bosun exist? If we find it, what will it tell us? Why does the universe exist when matter and anti - matter should have cancelled each other out at the Big Bang leaving "nothing"?
http://www.infinite.linst.ac.uk/english/symposium/popsympintro.php
my theory on "Why does the universe exist when matter and anti - matter should have cancelled each other out at the Big Bang leaving "nothing"?" is that the universe will eventually become nothing... it may have started from nothing, and i dont believe that it is possible to determine how the universe began because even if it were recorded, it would be destroyed when the universe became nothing.
the universe is supposidly in a state of expansion... that is, the KNOWN universe. if the big bang theory is correct... where did the matter that "exploded","banged", whatever, come from?
i think it is quite possible that the universe will stop expanding and start shrinking, to the point where all matter becomes the same thing... what it was originaly, think down to smaller than subatomic...
then something would happen, and what, i dont know, and the process wuld repeat...
but back to answering that question from that article... the reason the universe is still around is because the universe is still changing.
One of the problems in understanding the universe... is that we are convinced that it IS something and it is based on something... that actually exists.
If we were to look at it as a relative state in constant change and look somewhere else for real existence... we might be ablle to put things in perspective
One of the problems in understanding the universe... is that we are convinced that it IS something and it is based on something... that actually exists.
If we were to look at it as a relative state in constant change and look somewhere else for real existence... we might be ablle to put things in perspective
I think the existence of the universe is a given. We may be wrong here and there about some of the details, but that doesn't change the underlying fact of the universe's existence.
Conceiving of it as a state of change relative to something else is very problematic from an epistemological point of view. If the universe defines our sphere of possible knowledge (and I see no reason to believe to the contrary) then we have no a priori reason to posit an external structure.
Our perception or sense of the universe existing is certainly a given.
As for our knowledge being limited to it... I'm not yet convinced of that.
Our perception or sense of the universe existing is certainly a given.
As for our knowledge being limited to it... I'm not yet convinced of that.
I don't see any reason how knowledge could be gained of something beyond the universe.
If the universe is relative... then going beyond it for knowledge is going to where knowledge really is.
If the universe is relative... then going beyond it for knowledge is going to where knowledge really is.
You can't assume that the universe is defined relative to something external to justify the claim that we can know what is beyond the universe. We have no a priori reason to believe that the universe is defined relative to something external.
If you look long enough and hard enough... is there a bridge at the outskirts of the universe that crosses over to a place that allows you to turn around and look?
If you look long enough and hard enough... is there a bridge at the outskirts of the universe that crosses over to a place that allows you to turn around and look?
Pure speculation.
I posed it as a question... but that doesn't necessarily mean I have't been there.
I posed it as a question... but that doesn't necessarily mean I have't been there.
It's a speculative question that can't be answered in any definitive way. You haven't provided any a priori reason why we should regard the universe as being defined relative to something else.
You haven't provided any a priori reason why we should regard the universe as being defined relative to something else.
I know I haven't... I could, but I haven't...and I think I should apologize. As I'm putting this thing together I've come to this forum to put a bit of it out there and get feedback and learn something about what I need to speak to. I'm not a math or science guy... it's been helpful for me to do this... and I can only hope it's been helpful to others.
I know I haven't... I could, but I haven't...and I think I should apologize. As I'm putting this thing together I've come to this forum to put a bit of it out there and get feedback and learn something about what I need to speak to. I'm not a math or science guy... it's been helpful for me to do this... and I can only hope it's been helpful to others.
No need to apologise.
What are you putting together, an essay? What's it about?
Thanks for understanding. This whole back and forth with you tonight has been nice.
I'm putting together book that has a TOE/GUT as one third of it.
The other two sections are about if "reality" works in a certain way... what does it tell us about how we could function as individuals and as a global society.
Thanks for understanding. This whole back and forth with you tonight has been nice.
I'm putting together book that has a TOE/GUT as one third of it.
What is GUT?
Grand Unified Theory.. there's also Unified Field Theory... let's see... or my made up version... Grand Unifed Field Theory of Everything.
Grand Unified Theory.. there's also Unified Field Theory... let's see... or my made up version... Grand Unifed Field Theory of Everything.
Thanks.
And how do you see the concept of "nothing" involved in your book?
There are two nothings.
One of them is no-thing and it is part of a relative pair... so it seems to exist, but being relative it doesn't actaully get there.
What is the other element of the pair? In what way does it seem to exist?
I'd have to say at this point to give it some thought.
The reason any of it seems to exist, is for the most part, because we occur at the same level of "reality" as it does.
pelastration
Apr14-04, 03:05 AM
I'd have to say at this point to give it some thought.
The reason any of it seems to exist, is for the most part, because we occur at the same level of "reality."
Indeed. We only can observe and measure with what we or our sensoring and measuring tools resonate with. Form that we make conclusions. That's one part of the game.
The other part is how we experience that reality. The individual emotions or awe for a sunset, a piece of art, a landmark, a religious experience, ... the sensation of just drinking wine ... can never be measured or caught by math or science. Still those feelings exist. Also here resonance is happening but on other (individual) value levels.
I'd have to say at this point to give it some thought.
The reason any of it seems to exist, is for the most part, because we occur at the same level of "reality" as it does.
Which is why I believe that the universe forms our epistemological boundary.
it may have started from nothing, and i dont believe that it is possible to determine how the universe began
because even if it were recorded, it would be destroyed when the universe became nothing.
the universe is supposidly in a state of expansion... that is, the KNOWN universe.
but back to answering that question from that article... the reason the universe is still around is because the universe is still changing.
Friedmann equation, Omega and the ideas of critical density speak to the dynamical nature happening in the universe. As a whole( can we conceptualize this) and given these equations do we accept nothing as a foundatin or shall we give it a flat space discription?
So zero is given a calibration point, and this move to dynamcal situations explained to us, by those like Saccheri, Gauss and Reinmann.
To see this dynamical nature, such leading points of consideration and the length meaure has become a issue in how we might see the early univese and in this enegy considration suprsymmetical points as a dynamical in relation to these flows Supegravity.
One has to make an assumption then, as to how you define these changes, whose basis is, and must become a geometrical defintion?
do we accept nothing as a foundation or shall we give it a flat space description?
So zero is given a calibration point...
(supersymmetical points as a dynamical in relation to these flows Supergravity.)
One has to make an assumption then, and [it] must become a geometrical definition?
What Sol said is actually what physicists think. They make up their own calibration point then make everyhing fit their definition. It works it label something then define it according to the labels you have given it. It tells you how it works. You can predict what it will do; but that doesn't tell us what we really want to know at this point in physics discovery.
What we really want to know is, what does it actually look like?
Since physicists start with nothing, then add their own reference points, it's good to ask this.
What is the other element of the pair? In what way does it seem to exist?
The "nothing" concept is made of two ideas: No Thing. To have No Thing, you must have Thing. So Thing is what can exist on its own, not Nothing. We start off assuming nothing can exist on its own; then give Nothing reference points, and call that math or geometry.
What if we start out with Matter, not with empty space?
PRyckman
Apr17-04, 09:29 PM
If you have nothing, you have zero energy if energy equals zero then
D=0(t)
Distance is zero and time is non existant
That is hard to imagine, but in nothing, you couldn't even have a ruler to measure anything, not only because the ruler couldn't exist but also because the distance to measure doesn't exist. Because SOMETHING(energy) is all that makes measuring anything possible.
Distance itself is what we live in. This could be akin to the so called ether physicists long ago imagined.
Distance itself is what we live in. This could be akin to the so-called ether physicists long ago imagined.
That is right!
What are the qualities of a non-dimensional point? A basic quality is, if another point occupies the same place, it is the same point. Therefore, there must be some distance between all non-dimensional points.
What is a basic quality of matter? Two pieces of matter can't occupy the same place. And two points can't occupy the same place. Matter and points are very similar.
If we think of matter and points as the same thing, then we have a space made of points. The distance between points is space itself, but the distance is created by separating a nearly infinite number of non-dimensional points that once occupied the same place (and thus were one point), separating them by first creating two points.
When you separate two points into into something that does no exist (since points are all that exist) there must be a resistance that pushes the two points back together. This resistance from separating two points into nothing is where all energy comes from.
If we have a universe made of a myriad of points separated across a distance and under tension we have the perfect medium for a wave, that is, we have the ether.
PRyckman
Apr18-04, 07:44 PM
I'm having difficulty understanding you, however if your agreeing with the validity of that equation I'm happy to talk about it, because I only came up with it last week and I'm still trying to comprehend some of it's meanings.
If your saying space gets energy from the space between the points, I'm going to have to disagree , we just defined nothing, so by default there is nothing between no distance, no energy.
However I believe the initial energy came from a parent universe, our universe is just a black hole in another. To support the point theory however, each point of space with enough energy to cause a black hole would be E=D=T All equaling one. Those points together makes a three dimensional universe.
The reason a black hole is black is because T=1 . Therefor time stands still. When time stands still energy does not move, Therefor we do not see things coming from the black hole.
Before anyone tells me about black body radiation, I know, and can explain that too
Moonrat
Apr18-04, 08:02 PM
nothing is mystery, just as mystery is no-thing
PRyckman
Apr18-04, 10:15 PM
a mystery isn't nothing, it is something, something which we don't understand. Maybe nothing is a mystery to you, but not to me
Moonrat
Apr18-04, 11:32 PM
a mystery isn't nothing, it is something, something which we don't understand. Maybe nothing is a mystery to you, but not to me
we are on the same page, nothing too is a mystery ( a something) that niether I nor you understand.
We cannot find 'nothing' other than in the realm of idea or concept. There is no way to even register 'nothing' other than as a concept or idea.
as as a concept or idea, nothing and mystery are inseperable. Mystery is the place that cannot be defined, and any interpretation is a thing, yes, but a false thing, the mystery is, objectivly, no-thing until the mind is applied to it and can distinguish between true and false, and even when this occurs, mystery still remains.
P-man is saying another universe provided the background for this universe to work in, like, we are standing on the other universe. But what if you have to provide your own background from one concept? That concept is "what exists". We try to start with nothing, but nothing is two concepts. What exists is one concept. Outside of what exists is nothing, so nothing requires existence. Existence doesn't require nothing.
The idea "it is" defines inertia. It is, therefore it takes energy to become something else; or, it can't become something else. It has inertia. Existence has inertia. Inertia is what caused repelling forces. A particle of matter hits something and knocks it away because of inertia. It takes time for the particle to reach the thing, and then it knocks it away. But a particle cannot take time to reach something, then draw it to it. Gravity doesn’t take time but acts instantaneously all over the universe. So maybe all attractive forces are different. It is not a repulsive force caused by inertia or existence. It is an attractive force, caused by what?
If the repulsive force comes from inertia, and inertia comes from the definition of existence, the best candidate for the attractive force is the opposite of existence: nothing.
We can't agree that particles make up and define all of space, as I think, but we can agree that particles make up and define all molecules and atoms. We have the idea that the strong force is some attractive force inherent to particles, like a charge. But charges get weaker with distance. I believe the strong force is really a particle trying to separate into nothing, like pushing against the walls of something that doesn't have any more space. That analogy makes sense when you know the further they try to separate, the harder it becomes, like they are trying to get out of an inner tube.
And strings, which have attractive tension are defined as tubes. A string is two particles trying to separate. Particles are existence. When they separate within the world of an atom, they are separating into nothingness, and the fact that nothingness has no space to separate into is the strong force.
There is no such thing as empty space. Having the concept of empty space would mean that something else, another universe had to create the empty space, as you said. Since it didn't, we have a space made of point particles, which has six underlying spatial dimensions since you can't arrange real points in any 3D pattern that has more than 12 directions total, six directions back and forth, six dimensions. This idea that space is made of strings under tension allows attractive forces to happen. Magnetism is a complex set of spatial strings that form in loops, creating an attractive force. Snowflakes form on the strings of space itself.
If you take literal strings or short sticks, like toothpicks, and glue them together to create a real 3D space, the toothpicks line up in six directions, with every angle 60 degrees. Every angle in a snowflake is 60 degrees.
we are on the same page, nothing too is a mystery ( a something) that niether I nor you understand.
We cannot find 'nothing' other than in the realm of idea or concept. There is no way to even register 'nothing' other than as a concept or idea.
as as a concept or idea, nothing and mystery are inseperable. Mystery is the place that cannot be defined, and any interpretation is a thing, yes, but a false thing, the mystery is, objectivly, no-thing until the mind is applied to it and can distinguish between true and false, and even when this occurs, mystery still remains.
Lets for the sake of kick starting the openess to what contitutes ideas from nothing:) As soon as you entertain this notion you are nothing:) So from this point forward?
Lets pretent the "nothing" is a cloudchamber? Or dark energy? Does this change the situation from zeropoint consideration? Is this not logical?
[QUOTE=John]And strings, which have attractive tension are defined as tubes. A string is two particles trying to separate. Particles are existence. When they separate within the world of an atom, they are separating into nothingness, and the fact that nothingness has no space to separate into is the strong force.
QUOTE]
John,
A string is a one dimensional discription of a particle. The ole Quark to Quark measure revealed the nature of the metric field, but we have to be consistent in our explanation from this geometical consideration.
Even here I am open to corrections
The idea of a string explains the fact that rules don't work when the particles approach 0 distance from each other. But an accurate definition of a point doesn't allow two points to be 0 distance from each other. If they are, they are the same point! So, all points must have distance between them.
If points are little strings, then this line
___________
and this line
____
have a different number of points. They don't both have an infinite number of points.
It is impossible for empty, totally open and free space to exist. Space must be made of real points that must have distance between them, even logically. Points must have distance between them; and if logical points must have distance between them, then space has nine actual spatial dimensions, just like string theory predicts!
The idea of a string explains the fact that rules don't work when the particles approach 0 distance from each other. But an accurate definition of a point doesn't allow two points to be 0 distance from each other. If they are, they are the same point! So, all points must have distance between them.
If the distance is consistent, then this line
___________
and this line
____
have a different number of points. They don't both have an infinite number of points.
It is impossible for empty, totally open and free space to exist. Space must be made of real points that must have distance between them, even logically. Points must have distance between them; and if logical points must have distance between them, then space has nine actual spatial dimensions, just like string theory predicts!
John it is a energy determination?
We have supplanted particle discription for something else? That's part of accepting the paradigmal change of strings/M-theory. We know at the basis of these explanation there are metric points to consider, and becomes much more dynamcial when it hits supergravity( think of plasmatic consideration here and the early universe in a ever supersymmetrical state of recogntion).
Hhaving reached planck length, there is a problem. :)
again I am defintiely open to corrections
Moonrat
Apr19-04, 12:26 AM
P-man is saying another universe provided the background for this universe to work in, like, we are standing on the other universe. But what if you have to provide your own background from one concept? That concept is "what exists".
yes, but only as a concept, right?
If I say only mystery existed before the big bang, that can include nothingness or another universe, either way , it's mystery until a better understanding of infinity can be approached.
Look, forgive me too, for I am the layman writer, and do not have some of the saavy that many of you possess, but to say that one can understand mystery or nothingness seems to be a bit of a stretch, because if it was understood, it would no longer be mystery, and mystery seems more appropiate to the circumstance than mere 'nothingness'
I'm also tired! Yikes, maybe say different thing in morning!
Moonrat
Apr19-04, 12:32 AM
Lets for the sake of kick starting the openess to what contitutes ideas from nothing:) As soon as you entertain this notion you are nothing:) So from this point forward?
Ideas from nothing or ideas from mystery? Different perspective, same co-ordinate.
Ideas come from mystery in the form of true ideas or false ideas.
We dont know what they mystery is, every new law of physics reveals only more mystery underneath.
Lets pretent the "nothing" is a cloudchamber? Or dark energy? Does this change the situation from zeropoint consideration? Is this not logical?
IF nothing is a cloud chamber than it is no longer nothing but a cloud chamber, distinguished by all that which is not cloud chamber.
See, the 'concept' stays mystery, mystery is always here, so perhaps it should be more included in models and presentations of universe. after all, if a model can not contain mystery (nothingness) then it does not completly represent universe...
?
mystery may be the working constant! The thing that is nothing....To me this seems logical
Moonrat
Moonrat
Apr19-04, 12:34 AM
It is impossible for empty, totally open and free space to exist. Space must be made of real points that must have distance between them, even logically. Points must have distance between them; and if logical points must have distance between them, then space has nine actual spatial dimensions, just like string theory predicts!
I like that
:biggrin:
selfAdjoint
Apr19-04, 09:47 AM
It's wrong. John's "accurate definition of a point" is contradicted by self-consistent measure theory. Actual spacetime may be continuous or discrete, but not because either state is logically inconsistent. It's an empirical question.
It's wrong. John's "accurate definition of a point" is contradicted by self-consistent measure theory. Actual spacetime may be continuous or discrete, but not because either state is logically inconsistent. It's an empirical question.
Ah thank you.
It's not always clear what I want to say, but from such a stanpoint then you have to assume a position. In the case of the universe there is something that underlies its existance. Here i might say the spacetime is flat and use zeropoint to demonstrate the vitality of this universe in its movement?
In this case we might say superstringtheory/M theory and the dynamics of the unverse arise from these interpretations. Would this be correct?
PRyckman
Apr19-04, 05:51 PM
we are on the same page, nothing too is a mystery ( a something) that niether I nor you understand.
I'm saying I understand what nothing is. So it is not a mystery to me.
P-man is saying another universe provided the background for this universe to work in, like, we are standing on the other universe.
Correct, but that is not the nothing I'm talking about.
Gravity doesn’t take time but acts instantaneously all over the universe.
I'm pretty sure E=mc^2 proves that gravity only propegates at roughly light speed.
It's wrong. John's "accurate definition of a point" is contradicted by self-consistent measure theory
Though your vocabulary exceeds mine, I believe you are saying, that if there is no distance, then theres no distance, plain and simple. Which I agree with
Cmon guys what all with these crazy theories about nothing. NOTHING IS NOTHING. There is no theory better than that sentence. Theres no quarks theres no time, theres no points or dimension, theres no energy theres no superstrings, theres no gravity light or anything at all. Nothing is nonexistant. To put any type of thought into it is a waste of time.
If you guys don't believe I understand the concept of nothing then look at this equation.
Lets say Energy equals zero, nevermind anything else
D=E(t)
if energy equals zero then so does distance. Time can be whatever the hell you want because it doesn't matter. But it must be either infinite or zero.
Moonrat
Apr19-04, 07:08 PM
PRycman, nothing is no-thing..yes
No-thing is mystery, for only no-thing can describe it..
you define nothing as 'nothingness'
you know that it cannot be defined any other way or be quantified or understood by any other thing other than 'nothing'
it is not distinquisable inside of itself
you know this, but you cant see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?
we are debating semantics, for if you understand nothing to be nothing, that does not mean you disregard it....nothing 'is' it is not 'absense' but the thing that is nothingness itself....
you cannot show me a 'nothing' I cannot show you a 'nothing' for 'nothing' cannot be represented.....
toloXXX
Apr19-04, 07:48 PM
PRycman, nothing is no-thing..yes
No-thing is mystery, for only no-thing can describe it..
you define nothing as 'nothingness'
you know that it cannot be defined any other way or be quantified or understood by any other thing other than 'nothing'
it is not distinquisable inside of itself
you know this, but you cant see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?
we are debating semantics, for if you understand nothing to be nothing, that does not mean you disregard it....nothing 'is' it is not 'absense' but the thing that is nothingness itself....
you cannot show me a 'nothing' I cannot show you a 'nothing' for 'nothing' cannot be represented.....
Brad !
To me,
Nothing is actually everything, everything also means nothing
things come into existence when humans can 'see', 'feel',....'sense' them. but if we cant sense, see, etc them, that doesNOT mean they are not existing, or they are nothing, if they are not NOTHING, they are THINGS, since they ARE THINGS, and it will depend on each person's viewpoints about THINGS, we have a scale for THINGS and generally speaking, we have EVERYTHING.
As a side note, i know you posted right over here to draw some one attention, right ?
I am trying to help you...
If you want to use people's tone, you should read their posts a little more, Brad !
Like what i have explained, if you should go and learn more about religions rather than abuse people like that...
If I dont see face by face or any signs that can tell me it is true, that guy is just a follow-up monkey.
BTW, philosophy is a good subject, learning it more can help you be a better person.
See you around right on your board, I will come and make many questions...:tongue:
]FIONA[/b]
[edit]So sorry, I forgot to include my signature[edit]
Moonrat
Apr19-04, 08:55 PM
Brad !
umm, I'm not Brad!
To me,
Nothing is actually everything, everything also means nothing
things come into existence when humans can 'see', 'feel',....'sense' them. but if we cant sense, see, etc them, that doesNOT mean they are not existing, or they are nothing, if they are not NOTHING, they are THINGS, since they ARE THINGS, and it will depend on each person's viewpoints about THINGS, we have a scale for THINGS and generally speaking, we have EVERYTHING.
Now they we cleared up that confusion about who I am, yes, everything also can be no-thing or mystery until we define it and distinguish it from ourselves (objective-subjective)
nothing is the thing that is no-thing!
I do hope Brad agrees!
there is subjective nothingness and objective nothingness, and I think, although I may be mistaken, that this thread is about 'objective nothingness'
tootles! say hi to Brad for me!
Moonrat
PRyckman
Apr19-04, 09:30 PM
you know this, but you cant see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?
I don't see how something that we just agreed on explaining is a mystery.
Mystery: "One that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the understanding; an enigma"------ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mystery
It is not a mystery because I understand the concept of nothing.
toloXXX
Apr19-04, 10:35 PM
umm, I'm not Brad!
Now they we cleared up that confusion about who I am, yes, everything also can be no-thing or mystery until we define it and distinguish it from ourselves (objective-subjective)
nothing is the thing that is no-thing!
I do hope Brad agrees!
there is subjective nothingness and objective nothingness, and I think, although I may be mistaken, that this thread is about 'objective nothingness'
tootles! say hi to Brad for me!
Moonrat
Brad, you know why I colored red the word above, in the quote ???
Only Brad will put an exclamation mark at the end of his name ? You rewrote what I wrote but you still put it up over there...Wanna show off. If you are not Brad, you wont put it right there right next to 'd' whereas I was deliberately gave it a space...:p
You know I dont like you at all, because you are not lovely.
BTW, tell Jeffrey Richter to stop using so many usernames to make people misunderstand each other...
Give you another hint, if Mick wants to use a smiley, he would use it immediately, not using stuff like :-D, :-) :pipsrioueotdskhgk:oudgo and his tone would sound 100% different.
I should have known about this place sooner, this is a great place for civilized people, academic students...
You, out of place, old monkey !. I have registered some other usernames there at your sites, please be happy to help Nina, okay ? :tongue:
-Hometown-Fiona, :tongue:
Back to OP, as I already said, nothing is everything, everything is nothing, an example you can see right here is that, this moonrat said he isnot Brad, BUT what if he is Brad!, who knows ?
I know, and we now all know...THIS MEANS, from NOTHING to EVERYTHING or vice a versa, there is actually no boundary at all.
:smile:
PRyckman
Apr19-04, 10:41 PM
I think you guys are out of it, nothing doesn't exist by definition. You shouldn't even have to be told that.
toloXXX
Apr19-04, 10:52 PM
I think you guys are out of it, nothing doesn't exist by definition. You shouldn't even have to be told that.
Pryckman :smile:, I know please understand, just wanna give him a lesson, this is not his place, we are safe...
Please everybody stop posting for a week in this thread...only a week
I would like all the people who joined this forum, to read this Moonrat-Bradley L jones, or (avi), :tongue: if you keep posting, this thread will get to another page and no one can read him then.
Moonrat
Apr20-04, 03:16 AM
Brad, you know why I colored red the word above, in the quote ???
Only Brad will put an exclamation mark at the end of his name ? You rewrote what I wrote but you still put it up over there...Wanna show off. If you are not Brad, you wont put it right there right next to 'd' whereas I was deliberately gave it a space...:p
You know I dont like you at all, because you are not lovely.
:smile:
lady, I dont know what the hell your talkin' 'bout and I aint no Brad...
dig?
Moonrat
Moonrat
Apr20-04, 03:27 AM
I think you guys are out of it, nothing doesn't exist by definition. You shouldn't even have to be told that.
My friend, this is a difficult concept to grasp, because, well, words dont really do the concept much justice, not nearly as much justice as experiance has.
When we move into areas such as 'nothing', it is hard not to stumble upon paradox after paradox...
So let's be clear. There is the 'non-existant', which cannot even exist as idea or concept...if this is which you define as 'nothing' then so be it, I can see that concept too, and there are roads shall part.
If, however, you are defining a co-ordinate of universe, and have a point, center, circumfrence, or vector that includes 'nothing' in each equation, I can assure you that mystery fulfills that end of the bargain far greater than the above 'nothing'
What you are referring to is only a subjective co-ordinate based only in conceptual representation (thus almost contradicting itself right there, but hey, paradox is unavoidable)
You cannot distinguish 'nothing' from outside of yourself, using the above definition..
Now, there is always a factor infinite and unknown, x. Therefore, there is a perspective in which one can see that 'all one cannot see' is the mysterious 'no-thing' that could and exceed any and all possiblities that one may have in their thinking about it.
Indeed, any Grand Unified Theory of Everything must contain a working co-ordinate for this 'no-thing' or mystery.
If it doesnt, than it is impossible, I suggest, for it to hold up to scrutiny after serious thought.
Who was it, Von Nueman, who said a computer cannot model itself because information cannot be accurate of itself in a closed system or something like that..I dunno, I ferget, same thing though..
Or, perhaps I myself may have a false idea, but if I do, I request you explain where in my co-ordinates I have made an error.
Keep it simple too cuz I'm slow.
Thank You !
Moonrat
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 05:40 AM
There is the 'non-existant', which cannot even exist as idea or concept...if this is which you define as 'nothing' then so be it, I can see that concept too
Yea that's what I define it as, glad you understand.
It needs no further explanation.
Simple things are always better.
How can something not even exist as idea or concept?
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 05:52 AM
It can exist in your mind, which is why your trying to prove it exists.
But it can never exist in reality, again by definition.
It can exist in your mind, which is why your trying to prove it exists.
But it can never exist in reality, again by definition.
Why can't existence be a contingent property of objects, in general?
For instance Pegasus doesn't exist physically, but isn't it also an object in a different sense, as a mythological creation?
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 06:12 AM
yes mythological meaning not real
And yes existence is a contingent property of objects, but nothing isn't an object
yes mythological meaning not real
And yes existence is a contingent property of objects, but nothing isn't an object
Why isn't nothing an object?
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 06:29 AM
an apple is an object, an absence of an apple is not an object.
an apple is an object, an absence of an apple is not an object.
Ok, so let A be the proposition: There is an apple.
Then, ~A would be the proposition: It is not the case that there is an apple.
If we allow for A to be a proposition which has an objectual reference, why do we not allow for ~A to be a proposition which has an objectual reference?
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 06:37 AM
your putting too much thought into it, no matter what definition we could possibly get from this it is irrelevant because it doesn't exist.
if you want to represent it mathmatically i'd say here we have an apple 1
and here we do not 0
But you are assuming that empirical things are the only things which we can legitimately call objects, which is precisely what I am questioning.
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 06:42 AM
no im saying that in nothing there is not even space time or dimension itself
So how does that entail that nothing is not an object?
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 06:47 AM
what's the opposite of having an object?
what's the opposite of having an object?
Well that's an interesting question...
The obvious answer is "Not having an object".
But then we are just talking about the negation of a proposition, and why should we claim that one proposition refers while its negation doesn't?
An answer may be that it's a matter of perspective, or a matter of defining our domain, and that there is no maximal domain. For if there were, then we could construct a proposition with the universal quantifier, and the negation of that proposition would fail to refer to any object. But the above question would again apply.
What is the ontological significance of the negation?
I'm gonna head off, but I'll say this: I'm really just playing devils advocate. I prefer having a "robust sense of reality" (as Russell said). But it's worthwhile pointing out that constructing a sensible theory of propositions which claims that nothing is not an object is not so obvious or easy. Conversely, claiming nothing is an object can perhaps be implemented in a sensible theory of propositions.
PRyckman
Apr20-04, 07:07 AM
I hear you there, But I really think it just stops at not having an object.
Messiah
Apr20-04, 08:44 AM
For clarity, it is important to note the connotation (there are two) about which you are commenting.
Nothing - in the abstract - has no definition. It is a fiction. It doesn't exist.
Nothing - the value of Ø - is the null value. It is defined. It does exist.
I may be crossing subjects, but isn't there no such thing as "nothing" because where there was belived to be "nothing" there was dark matter. If i am wrong, i belive that there is nothing that can be called "nothing". it just does not exist to our minds. Its just like trying to think up a flat object that is perfectly flat when you look at it from all angles, even when you go around.
zeta101
Apr20-04, 09:37 AM
not sure if this is actually true, its just my interpretation of things and what i believe is true. Have you every heard people try and be clever and say "if the universe is everything and its expanding, then what is it expanding into?"
Ive never had a problem with this because the way i see it is that a vacuum in space is not nothing, even if you disregard particles that can pop in and out of existance for minute amounts of time, i still think there is "something" to a vacuum. Space itself is something, or should i say space-time...i mean doesnt space-time bend due to the effects of mass and energy?! so surely "empty" space or a vacuum has to be something.
The true nothingness is what exists outside of the universe...it is void not only of matter and energy but of dimension and time...for this reason you can say how big the nothingness is outside the universe, you cant say it extends for an infinite distance, because "distance" has no meaning without space-time...the same goes for time...you cant say that this viod has always exisisted, ie before big bang, and you cant say it will continue to exist forever, ie after big crunch or whatever...because time has no meaning in the void.
I think that matter and energy are closely connected to space-time, so i dont think matter or energy could even exist outside of our universe and in the void without a space-time canvas to paint them onto.
hmmm, just spent 10 minutes talking about nothing :D
I may be crossing subjects, but isn't there no such thing as "nothing" because where there was belived to be "nothing" there was dark matter. If i am wrong, i belive that there is nothing that can be called "nothing". it just does not exist to our minds. Its just like trying to think up a flat object that is perfectly flat when you look at it from all angles, even when you go around.
The understanding of Dark matter as a measure is good choice again as I have reiterated earlier. Its a empirical question, of what can exist and from where it began.
If one assumes such a position then in this context the primordial basis of the universe comes into question. It's strength and weakness in a energy detrmination?
Also, might we point to the brain's matter and and call it a souls artifact, when it is capable of mind?
This would run in contradiction to evolution? Might we see then where dimensional significance could have been entangled in these matters?:) How is it mind could direct?
It would raise the question of what the mind may gather from the pool of ideas and project them into reality? Some would say then that ideas come from nothing, or they gather in neural connection and spark recognition?
If this were true then, what would the cosmological significance of the mind be when one looks at Kravtsov computer models as string models and neural correlates?
Neurol Coding (http://mind-brain.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4041)
Just thought I would add it for consideration.
zeta101
Apr20-04, 09:49 AM
btw to those that are trying to mathematically describe nothingness, if you are talking about the absense of an object on the sapce-time "canvas" then i suppose you can use zero. But In the void of nothingness you cant quantify anything, so i dont think you can use mathematics or numbers to describe it
btw to those that are trying to mathematically describe nothingness, if you are talking about the absense of an object on the sapce-time "canvas" then i suppose you can use zero. But In the void of nothingness you cant quantify anything, so i dont think you can use mathematics or numbers to describe it
Again I would draw your attention to this link for consideration
Andrey Kravtsov (http://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/soft/p3d/p3d_evol.gif)
Zeta101 said,"The true nothingness is what exists outside of the universe...it is void not only of matter and energy but of dimension and time...for this reason you can say how big the nothingness is outside the universe, you cant say it extends for an infinite distance, because "distance" has no meaning without space-time...the same goes for time...you cant say that this viod has always exisisted, ie before big bang, and you cant say it will continue to exist forever, ie after big crunch or whatever...because time has no meaning in the void."
There cannot be no outside the universe. The computer model describes for us an artifact of those higher dimensions? Do you see?
When is a Pipe a Pipe? (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?13@63.hEg8bi18Uyt.0@.1dde6c2f/19)
zeta101
Apr20-04, 10:12 AM
i dont really understand what your trying to say, but you say there cannot be an "outside" of the universe...and i agree, but my post is still valid...my post does not say there is an outside of the universe, it says the opposite! thats there is nothing. That is how i have chosen to define nothingness
That is how i have chosen to define nothingness
ok:)
I just gave you a map:)
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=20932
zeta101
Apr20-04, 10:33 AM
Hi, i read the post in that thread but i dont really follow and understand the relevance here. Can you summerise and explain please?
Hi, i read the post in that thread but i dont really follow and understand the relevance here. Can you summerise and explain please?
If its going to be a emprical question, would this not add more value to this conversation on nothing? Its seems to be a belaboured point at this stage that if we do not accept something, we'll always continue with nothing:)
Sincerely, the question arises about what can exist and what cannot. One has to take a stand. There is always something?:)
Maybe it is whatever nature abhorrs.
Moonrat
Apr20-04, 01:13 PM
In the realm of concepts and ideas, all can have existance in a subjective enviroment, like dreams or myths, beliefs, and what not.
All though these do not exist as objects outside of us, they very much heavily influence HOW we percieve objects outside of us...
Such is the puzzle of the quantum realm, does a photon exists as a particle or a wave, or is that how it appears to us when we look for it?
Are we only looking out our own contructs or the thing itself..
or..BOTH!
The subjective realm has an inseperable effect on the objective realm...
Like if someone asks 'Hey, what did that person want on the phone?"
and we reply 'Oh..NOTHING, it was just a salesmen"
so something that is truly non-existant would have no representation in both subjective and objective enviroments, other than a idea of 'non-existant'.
However, when certain physicists claim that the universe sprang from 'nothingness' this is where we run into problems, for nothingness here is undefinable mystery, and is a thing that is no-thing, not a non-existant, but an existant 'no-thing'
a vacuum is not a 'non-exsitant' but a 'non-directional' brining the 'uni-directional' into it, thus, Nature abhors a vaccume.
heady concepts, but the distinction is important to make.
thanks Pryckman, and good luck with your work, I will read more about soon
Moonrat
Messiah
Apr20-04, 07:00 PM
i dont really understand what your trying to say, but you say there cannot be an "outside" of the universe...and i agree, but my post is still valid...my post does not say there is an outside of the universe, it says the opposite! thats there is nothing. That is how i have chosen to define nothingness
Applause ! !
Universe = all which exists
If it ain't here, it ain't.
pelastration
Apr20-04, 08:58 PM
what's the opposite of having an object?
... a virtual object?
Moonrat
Apr21-04, 12:38 PM
LOL
this discussion sure is proof that something can come out of nothing!
I still like 'mystery' as 'nothing' as in the universal nothing.
existance exists! it exists as mystery, true, and false, completly dependent upon the subject (me and you) to view the 'object'
I understand prychman when he says nothing is just nothing and it needs no thought..let's focus on something! that which we do know! (mystery) we know there is mystery and mystery is a constant in both the quantum and universal realm.
is the quauntum realm the realm of the subjective, and universal the objective, I wonder? I cant help but notice the similarities in paradox
Moonrat
... a virtual object?
I would need some help here.
The dynamics and pathways Feynman toy models, had to arise out of Dirac matrices?
What then would be the value of { i }if it was a negative response. So we drum up supersymetrical particles to show us the virtual objects?:)
Ok, you all confuse me, allot. You seem to agree that 'nothing' cannot exist as a whole because then something couldn't exist, but I think your missing a point to think about. What is the opposite of nothing? You’d probably say something, but what is that. Mathematically nothing is 0, and then mathematically what is something? It cannot be just 1 or just 2 or 3 because that cannot define the something we have, at all. Maybe something is chaos? But that something is forever changing, and that cannot produce an order simple enough for something to exist either. And I guess I won’t post that web address any more, because well you can’t see the vision of what it produces, I wrote a program that does exactly what that site describes, and string theory, or at least what I’ve read of string theory is honestly explained. I cannot comprehend the pathways it takes, but who gives a whatever, the only thing I like about it is that everyone should be able to comprehend it. What would science give, 10 page equations that no one could ever comprehend, how pointless existence would be for us. So I’ll just stick with my idea, because hay, you might think its all incomprehensible numbers, but that’s the point, not to understand every aspect of existence, just the concept of it. Me and my dumb typed mind. And if you want to find the site just look for the only other post by me. Good luck on your quest for oblivion.
Maybe something is chaos? But that something is forever changing, and that cannot produce an order simple enough for something to exist either.
Assume then, that the spacetime fabric is a O point consideration (flat) and that from it, there are two ways of the universe to unfold. If we were to understand these dynamics of movement, how shall you describe them in your numbers?
I don’t think a single 0 point can exist for it is "a" which means 1. I think the best way to think of it is infinite 0 points which would be the equivalent to no point or complete void. Which should mean every place a 0 point had a potential to be, could be infinitely expanded upon by an infinite amount of other potential 0 points, even unto the initial potential of the 0 point (so pretty much if a point of 0 existed it would only be because of its own infinite group of 0 potential points). Space is directionless inertia right? I think this is a pretty good description of it. But see this makes space chaotic, which fits perfectly in a duality scheme, 0 order and infinite complexity. Say these expanses exist, and expand in a single instant at any point and at any angle in dimensionality, to any other point at any angle in dimensionality. The angle could totally be equivalent to a number, and there is nothing that says a group of expansions at angles couldn’t collide into another group of expansions at angles, or even unto its own group of expansions at angles. And that looks everything like “my numbers”. Yea this is awesome, a complete realization typed, me and my dumb mind. But is this any were close to a good realization though? Are their concepts of nothing I’m missing? Does this unify a fundamental source for something to be? I don’t know, all I know is what I observe and what makes sense to me from that, else I think I’m missing a light switch or something, what?
Space is directionless inertia right? I think this is a pretty good description of it. But see this makes space chaotic, which fits perfectly in a duality scheme, 0 order and infinite complexity. Say these expanses exist, and expand in a single instant at any point and at any angle in dimensionality, to any other point at any angle in dimensionality. The angle could totally be equivalent to a number, and there is nothing that says a group of expansions at angles couldn’t collide into another group of expansions at angles, or even unto its own group of expansions at angles. And that looks everything like “my numbers”. Yea this is awesome, a complete realization typed, me and my dumb mind. But is this any were close to a good realization though? Are their concepts of nothing I’m missing? Does this unify a fundamental source for something to be? I don’t know, all I know is what I observe and what makes sense to me from that, else I think I’m missing a light switch or something, what?
You recognized the state of inertia as a state between? From this, "time is a factor that is allowable in the aspects of rotation, that moves to the nature of the future and past? How would we see this?
Someone can correct here.
I think it is of great value once you move to hyperdimensional understanding about the nature of such plasmatic features we understand this movement?
As a issue in supergravity and supermetric points, how did this graduate from metric point considerations arise? There is a mathematical basis to it. Yet, we are describing nature:)
From this, "time is a factor that is allowable in the aspects of rotation, that moves to the nature of the future and past? How would we see this?
Yes time is a factor but not at the level I'm talking about. Science say's it cannot make any judgments about pre big bang for time is a measure of movement compared to 'something', not 'nothing'. It’s the moment right before time is a factor, how time flows and unfolds I think could be completely depending on how the instant defines it. Maybe, I don’t know I haven’t gotten that far yet; I’m still working on the expanding of instances.
As for super gravity, and super metric points, correct me here, are definitions after the 0 instant and can be defined as almost anything in a multi-verse, in the moments after a big bang. If these are formations a moment after the initial 0 instant then each would be defined independently in its own universe at hand, and since existence is probably a multi-verse, defining these becomes a process of testing and comparing, just like any other scientific process. Like Hyper-dimensional processes, this is why I need pictures of my stuff (I’ll get them put up shortly); this is what honestly convinced me that a continuum of divisional existence exists. See this is were all the confusion of my ideals, and others ideals collide, it’s pretty simple but I can only described it vaguely without visual confirmation to know you understand what I’m trying to portray(my bad). My feeble mind can’t explain it as easily as actually seeing of the process. I could use hefty equations, but to actually see what it means is 1000 words more then a small equation the average human isn’t going to sit down and figure out. Sorry, I shouldn't have said some of the stuff about equations, I should be scolded. But I got a program fallowing a single path of recipicals, compiled and everything. It’s all dos and displayed in a 3d state, and looks weird, the form keeps changing, yet stays connected so it either stays in one place or expands. I also have a 2d version and thoughts out comes are either a weird looking square, inverted square, or fallow a path away from the origin. If you want to take a look, I’ll through together a help file or something, and attach it or something. Sorry again.
PRyckman
May2-04, 07:34 PM
i still don't see why all the hub bub on this subject nothing is nothing, nothing isn't dark matter, dark matter is dark matter. nothing is nothing, nothing is absence of something, nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero and anything else is non zero.
selfAdjoint
May2-04, 08:21 PM
Perfectly reasonable.
nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero...
These two statements contradict each other... don't they?
I guess that depends on whether you consider Existance as an operator, or as an element of some set.
If you consider existance as being an element of some set, then consider the following line of reasoning:
Let A be the set of all things that exist.
Let B be the set of all things that do not exist.
"a" exists and thus is an element of the set A.
"b" does not exist, and thus is an element of B.
Thus B exists and is an element of A.
So, A is the set of all things that exist, and B is the set of all things that do not exist. If B is an empty set, then an emtpy set of non-existance exists, and thus non-existance {B} is an element of the set existance {A}.
So non-existance is a sub-set of existance.
If existance is an operator, then it is a little different. It is no longer a class of objects, but a process, or action, like addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.
There is a set of symbols in logic that are used to describe two types of existance operators, a Universal operator, and an Existance operator. The Existance operator is described by a backwards E, and the Universal operator is described by an up-side down A. The upside down operator is denoted to give a set of objects as a universal truth. The existance operator would describe an absolute truth that extends beyond a given universe, or global set. Just my take on it, I could be mistaken.
Best Regards,
Edwin
Hello Edwin,
Thanks for presenting the logic. I am new to this, but understand its importance.
"b" does not exist, and thus is an element of B.
Can a double negative be allowed? Does this make sense? This would destroy the logic?
If existance is an operator, then it is a little different. It is no longer a class of objects, but a process, or action, like addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.
If we continued with that logic then this would be supported from what you are demonstrating? A-b=?
I waited to see how some woud post and from such logic. I looked at this situation (http://superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages16/65.html) for consideration.
The basic structure of this process from a philosophical point of view could govern how Penrose saw (http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/hartle60/2-penrose/033.jpg) such discriptions as you have shown as the basis of discussion.
Would it be accurate to say all philosophical discusssions must be raised from the basis of the logic? It does not shine on any favorites from a personal point of view , but deals directly with the ignorance, if such a stance is not taken?
You could have a Messianic personality, and be extremely good in math, and if your logic is sound, there can be no repercussions as long as the statements that are supplied are accurate, and speak from the basis of that logic. Why the battle lines in the new era of Solvay can't be ignored when taking sides, but can be in regards to the math:)
Any new math will arise from that discussion?
PRyckman
May3-04, 04:39 AM
These two statements contradict each other... don't they?
no they don't. Zero is a term we made to describe nothing, if you are counting apples you have zero apples.
I guess that depends on whether you consider Existance as an operator, or as an element of some set.
If you consider existance as being an element of some set, then consider the following line of reasoning:
Let A be the set of all things that exist.
Let B be the set of all things that do not exist.
"a" exists and thus is an element of the set A.
"b" does not exist, and thus is an element of B.
Thus B exists and is an element of A.
No where in that shows that B exists and is an element of A.
If you are saying that b is absolutely nothing and a is what you are saying is nothing, both are equal to zero so it doesn't matter. a=0,B=0,Z=0,Q=0,:smile:=0, all the same
i still don't see why all the hub bub on this subject nothing is nothing, nothing isn't dark matter, dark matter is dark matter. nothing is nothing, nothing is absence of something, nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero and anything else is non zero.
Logic (and discussion) require definition. There are 2 connotations of nothing
1) that which does not exist (no definition)
2) the value Ø (defined)
That value can be qualitative, quantitative or positional (the three criteria of Logic)
Much of this discussion arises from the blurring of the distinction between the two connotations.
You could have a Messianic personality, and be extremely good in math, and if your logic is sound, there can be no repercussions as long as the statements that are supplied are accurate, and speak from the basis of that logic.
Why the battle lines in the new era of Solvay can't be ignored when taking sides, but can be, in recognition of the math:) (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201846&postcount=229)
And further.....one soon recogizes the basis of that logic is called for inthe new era of discussion and must be based on what is presented here?
Parity for spinning particles depends on their handedness, which should be described in the tables. C-parity is just based on electric charges; +1 for positive charges and -1 for negative charges and 0 for neutral particles.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201986&postcount=4
You are forced to deal with "something," once the logic is accepted, and is not tainted with lack of respect for philosophical discussion? Dislike all you like, but the logic cannot be ignored:)
This wouold not reflect on those who are endeavoring to question the relevance of the reality we deal with. Those actions ( lack of respect ) are governed (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=200719&postcount=17) by other things? :smile:
But logic is not a material thing, just like ‘nothing’ is not a material thing. You can define all of logic into one statement that is equivalent to defining all of nothing into one statement, logic = true or 1, nothing = false or 0. It is or it is not, but a process between the 2 has to always be. Why else would dualities exist on almost every possible level? Which also logically means a blend occurs some were in some way we don’t usually think about. I will attach that program now, read the txt file first. I was thinking; how would anyone know if I’m the only one going down this path (probably in a ball of fire)? Oh well, this is just a 2nd hobby. And who cares what I think, what do you think? I ask ‘possible, or not possible?’ What process would cause a universe to define itself, not us defining the universe? And nothing, still I don’t know what it truly is; I just wanted some most likely perception of it. If any of you got other perceptions of this magnitude please say them, cause for now, what are we talking about?
Anything that can be "perceived" is a material thing... isn't it? No matter how subtle it seems to be. Logic, ideas, feelings, thoughts, smells etc.
Logicism
Logicism holds that logic is the proper foundation of mathematics, and that all mathematical statements are necessary logical truths. For instance, the statement "If Aristotle is a human, and every human is mortal, then Aristotle is mortal" is a necessary logical truth. To the logicist, all mathematical statements are precisely of the same type; ............
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/philosophy_of_mathematics
Seems they can build up from a whole lot of nothing:)
http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=202470&postcount=41
But their not material things, I don’t think at least. Is their any one instant were all logical concepts are combined or combining? Presumably that aspect is chaos, in some movies, books, and if you just think about it. But, what about that whole "god" thing, if "god" is complete logic (understanding), then god should be chaos; through which nothing can define. Then logically what can chaos define, or can chaos define anything other then the logic involved? So, maybe chaos cannot be compared to anything and still be logical. Do I see a true, false duality within a single concept, logically chaos can make sense as a process of being chaos, but to compare that chaos to anything is illogical for the logic is self-contained and might be the definition of nothing (looking at it in the most ignorantly obvious way). And so if they are 2 classes of a concept 'chaos = true and false' and 'nothing = true and false’, then is their any other thing that can also fit into a true and false definition other then human relations?
Let's take the early universe for instance. There is a time line of events. One of these events on that timeline reveal a very chaotic time. A time, where it is believed that many things were once, one.
In today's world this theory of everything is trying to combine the gravity into the undertsnding of this issue to make the standard model complete.
Now if we look to that early universe and in those first three minutes, what was the nature of reality then? Was such a plasmatic universe "real," that we could have spoken about supersymmetric points of consideration? How did it begin? Or was there always a universe, that was cyclical in nature, that such events were always a state of becoming? Universes dying and new ones born.
This then had to become encapsulate?:)
The point is the consistancy of the first three minutes had to have a geometrical recognition right from the word go. Here we have talked about the realization of what is born into reality?:)
Dayle Record
May4-04, 11:02 AM
Nothing is what exists before everything else becomes attracted to it. Nothing is the absolute attractor.
I wish I was attracted to nothing... my life would be a lot more simple.
I'm attracted to almost everything... but I end up with nothing.
Dayle Record
May4-04, 11:26 AM
You win. Nothing is going to bring you everything. Then you have to turn down everything, in order to have more nothing.
Even the Dalai Lama practises logic ( more said here later and resource link supplied then), and we have to wonder about attachments?
What do we own, and the philosophical discussion has gone and taken a turn here? :smile:
Oh I am not a Buddhist, I just accept the logic:)
But sure if we want to extend this logic into generalize concepts, then you have to remember the basis from which we are speaking?
When is a Pipe a Pipe (http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/magritte.gif)?
http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@253.cqKeb8LaY4i.0@.1dde6c2f/19
"Nothing" is substantial if it remains in nothing? You killed it before it even started. What Lies beneath?
Dayle...Well said.
The substance of your comment is substantial.
Logic is slightly more fundamental than math or physics... if I'm not mistaken.
And... there's more to semantics than might meet the eye.
Is Math natural or created?
From what pool do we draw such ideas, that such ideas could exist? This statement has to be philospohically defined. If not in logic then where?
Will existence allow us to define itself?
And if so... do we have to be outside of existence in order to do it?
And if so... how do we do that?
Will existence allow us to define itself?
Can you define you, not the physical part but your mind defining thought? Could this be considered art? Listen to some music, it's a creation all its own, both logical and random. Or even drawings, no 2 paintings are ever alike, and yet can have the same idea behind it. Is this the very essence of a potential single point or ideal everything and nothing consumes (both truth and false)?
Is Math natural or created?
Tell me what in the universe is not natural and let it be a comparision of void.
You are forced to deal with "something," once the logic is accepted, and is not tainted with lack of respect for philosophical discussion? Dislike all you like, but the logic cannot be ignored:)
I agree completely with this sol2. So nothing must also be logical, and logical must also be nothing. And what are they then?
young e.
May6-04, 01:13 AM
" N O T H I N G "!!!!! for me is the collapsing the fundamental block of the universe- the proton. In which this is the core of every hydrogen atom, which runs out in about 10^32 years. With about that halflife, protons( and all the complicated nuclie containing protons) will "decay", releasing much energy as they are transformed into lighter particles. And so if all protons will gone the UNIVERSE will be empty of all complex matter, there will be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no organisms, no atoms, no nuclie........the end of everything " that is nothing"!!!!!!!
young e.
May6-04, 01:14 AM
" N O T H I N G "!!!!! for me is the collapsing the fundamental block of the universe- the proton. In which this is the core of every hydrogen atom, which runs out in about 10^32 years. With about that halflife, protons( and all the complicated nuclie containing protons) will "decay", releasing much energy as they are transformed into lighter particles. And so if all protons will gone the UNIVERSE will be empty of all complex matter, there will be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no organisms, no atoms, no nuclie........the end of everything " that is nothing"!!!!!!!
PRyckman
May6-04, 05:17 AM
Logic (and discussion) require definition. There are 2 connotations of nothing
1) that which does not exist (no definition)
2) the value Ø (defined)
Isn't that what I said? 2 is non zero right?
PRyckman
May6-04, 05:19 AM
i agree with you young. I also believe one day all matter will decay into discreet particles, and the universe will cease to exist.
Yea, I do to, and it’s funny. That’s the projection I have with this idea of a divisional continuum, I did some more testing and a similar program to take random paths down the reciprocals, and all end, eventually. So the infinitum of math in this form isn’t infinite but so close and complex it could be seen as it, it could be just like this universe maybe. Hell how many theories really define a something out of nothing idea, as so far I’ve seen none, and as of so far blah, blah, blah. It’s right; I’ll finish the program completely one day and prove it. But as of right now I'm to sick to even comprehend it. So I’ll just go and lay on the couch.
....the end of everything " that is nothing"!!!!!!!
A complete lack of everything, might look like the end... but does it look like the beginning?
felipefas
May6-04, 03:37 PM
Nothing (we assume) to be the lack of something. For there is no other word to describe it. It is a concept not an entity. It's man-made and therefore it has no cosmic relevance. It's much bigger than us because it also means the lack of something or somebody to question it.
How big and how powerful are our imaginations?
young e.
May6-04, 11:06 PM
Nothing (we assume) to be the lack of something. For there is no other word to describe it. It is a concept not an entity. It's man-made and therefore it has no cosmic relevance. It's much bigger than us because it also means the lack of something or somebody to question it.
What i mean is that the end of everything which is " N O T H I N G " has no borders, it may cosmic, biological and whatsoever under the universe. The end of all things that is the real meaning of nothing....
young e.
May6-04, 11:23 PM
[QUOTE=Erck]A complete lack of everything, might look like the end... but does it look like the beginning?[/QUOTE=Erck]
Yupz.... Because in biblical thoughts God created UNIVERSE out of nothing for HE is the source of Unmeasurable Dynamic Energy which causes the creation of the UNIVERSE and whether HE created this Universe by means of BIG BANG or whatsoever method- we dont know...and since the he created the Universe it means it includes the proton which is the core of Hydrogen atoms which is one of the essential of life and other complex nuclie...and since it has a limited halflife of about 10^32 years then this would also back to nothing. In summary from nothing to nothing....What i am trying to imply is the real essence and complete thoughts of nothing is this....
I understand what you'e saying... but at least two questions go unanswered with the logic.
One of course, is where did god come from?
The other, is that if the universe came from nothing and will someday return to nothing, what does that say about "eternal life?"
Is "god's house" outside the universe?
In addition, did god create something from nothing, inside of itself or outside of itself?
3 points that will forever, I guess, go unanswered (according to whatever, to me it’s simple). Is nothing, nothing if something exists? Is something chaos if nothing exists (a comparison)? And is their an essence behind logic (we think for our selves and we are logical processes, so why not, and why so)?
How about this, at what point is friction taken out of the explanation of the universe. For as soon as friction becomes frictionless you are dealing with math, even if that means it cannot break the speed of light. Or even if it does, a transfer of kinetic and potential energy is always instantaneous even if something (say falls) at a slow rate, the change is instant transferring, slowly. Or is it? And if it is, what would cause friction to exist in a model universe, one cycle of something against or flowing with another cycle of something, and by cycle I mean a ratio if instant energy transfer, compared to another instant of energy transfer layered on top or within? what?
If the energy value of the universe is zero... then ultimately there is no real friction.
There are so many illusions to see through...
young e.
May11-04, 11:28 PM
.....so the way to make the thing larger and more complex was to break it up. Breaking it up makes it expand into nothing.
"expand into nothing". We are not sure that if a certian matter would expand and break up it would result to nothing. But one thing for sure if the core of every complex nuclie composing a certain matter would decay, it would result to nothing...Another is we could not break up protons which is the core of almost complex nuclie in the universe. But it has a limited span of life (halflife) that if that time would come all composite things decay and it will result to nothing...
young e.
May11-04, 11:40 PM
1.One of course, is where did god come from?
2.The other, is that if the universe came from nothing and will someday return to nothing, what does that say about "eternal life?"
1." We cant pathom HIS wisdom and so HE'S will be done...."
2. Eternal life would just come after the end of everything. Just read the whole book of REVELATION. There says"...and i see the new heaven and new earth and the new Jerusalem for all thing from the past are already gone..."
What i mean here is that all things in the universe now is composite and subject for decay and it has an end. We humans being are mortals hence still we are composite and still subjected aforesaid. While GOD HE is immortal and we couldnt pathom he wisdom nor ask where he came from so HES will be done..........
selfAdjoint
May12-04, 08:42 AM
So your answer to "where did it come from" is "Don't ask don't tell?"
felipefas
May12-04, 12:22 PM
How big and how powerful are our imaginations?
It will be big and powerful when we can imagine in three dimensions.
I can even imagine women in three dimensions... am I missing something here?
pelastration
May12-04, 06:14 PM
I can even imagine women in three dimensions... am I missing something here?
I even saw them 10 minutes ago. Big and powerful. The three dimensions were impressive! :biggrin:
Now... back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Hey I had another idea, now a real "M theory" wouldn't exclude anything. Which is to say, how are we ever going to find the answer to something if we cannot understand nothing? Why would mathematics be any different from an all inclusive theory? We have 4 fundamental mathematical processes, subtraction, addition, multiplication, and division. Say if the original big bang occurred, mathematical processes wouldn’t be excluded in any way, now which one has the best chances of producing a multi-verse? Cause that’s were it starts, at the very fundamentals, just were any real 'M theory' should start. Yea, it might be hard to understand gravity, atoms, and everything else under a M theory, but the way science is looking for it, is looking for a near infinitum that can not be explained except by the most natural of means. With so many other ways to find the proof of this, with the limits of something .0(infinite 0's) 1 = infinitely close to 0 and .9(infinite 9's) = infinitely close to 1. Now this is the range from which our universe must take place, for if our universe were 0, 1 couldn’t exist and if our universe is 1 then 0 couldn’t exist, and we are so obviously a hybrid of all things. Now if you look at subtraction, it could = 0 for it is less something. Addition could = 1 for it can sum the .0(infinite 0's) 1 + .9(infinite 9's) = 1 or should, it becomes again, infinitely close to 1 while being separate entities. Multiplication could = 2 for it is a duality of multiple additions. Division could = 3 for it is the sum of all 3 concepts, -, +,*. Now think of it as a base 3 number system (I use base 3 for it is the first of the bases to use the symbiant 10 both 0 and 1 simultaneously), and ask yourself what then would be 10? And I figured it would be duality of multiple divisions, and were It should start for it is the only place were their actually is enough freedom to create a universe, and still mean both 0 and 1 and the whole range in between.
Whew, just finished reading 18 pages of posts! :bugeye:
Two fundamental questions are posed: 1) how did we come into existence, 2) was there anything before "that"? A third question: are our thoughts based on reality?
The first two can be answered with either God or ether. God, a universally accepted religious theory, existed all the time and there is no such state as “no-God”. It follows that it made everything from the cosmos to life since we came from the cosmos. And we certainly did since we are composed of the same primary elements, and mankind has always had an affinity and urge to return to it.
Ether has the same fundamental qualities as God but is more provable. What are the similar qualities? Both are omnipresent, always existed and the source of all energy/matter. Wouldn’t it be great, if ether really existed as all the great scientist of the last few centuries believed? But what about Michelson-Morley?
M-M were disproved by their student Dayton Miller, who studied the ether a few decades longer than M-M and found a shifting in the interferometer, proving its existence. Aside from his proof, Wilhem Reich, working independently, discovered “orgone”, which is just ether with subjective/objective qualities that can be verified. In a logical manner, evidence “poured out” by itself, and Reich was able to see the formation of sub-DNA life under the microscope, solve the riddle of the formation of hurricanes and galaxies (and thus all cosmos), and to show that what we sense (if we are so “tuned”) has an objective reality.
So matter.., does really evolve out of “energy” every second of time, just as matter disintegrates also. I’m sorry though, I don’t believe in a fatalistic entropy, since living matter is proof of its and gravity’s opposite.
Which brings us to the main point of the “Big-Bang”: it’s not real but wishful thinking. When did anybody see matter or life develop out of a powerful explosion? Quiet the opposite, destruction occurs. Let’s use logic here and not mysticism, because it seems the B-B is just that. Wouldn’t it make more sense, that matter forms out of fusing together as in molecules and the sexual embrace? Any one in love has known the feeling of pulling and merging that precedes sex. And if we are from the cosmos, the same would apply to the heavens. After all, aren’t we looking for a “universal theory”?
More can be found on Reich at: [URL=http://www.orgonelab.org]
selfAdjoint
May13-04, 04:44 PM
Out of a lot of questionable assertions, I'll respond to this:
M-M were disproved by their student Dayton Miller, who studied the ether a few decades longer than M-M and found a shifting in the interferometer, proving its existence.
Miller's results have been debunked. They are found to have a systematic error in them, apparently caused by winds shaking the mountaintop lab where he did his measurements. His reasoning was that ether clings to matter and so to get a good experiment the equipment had to be surrounded by as little matter as posible. So he built his lab high and light. Unfortunately that exposed him to the elements, which gave him false results.
Ah ha, proof again, logic is "god" or existance, not the human reasoning behind them or it.
felipefas
May15-04, 10:19 AM
I can even imagine women in three dimensions... am I missing something here?
You can imagine a woman's skin at most. Maybe you can imagine them with clothes on. But to imagine a woman in three dimensions, you would have to imagine her as an MRI scan. All the way thru. Seeing every particle of her body at one time. There is another thread on wether we see in two or three dimensions. This because we can only see the reflections of the photons on a two dimensional surface of any object.
I had a feeling I was missing something.
I think I see in 3 dimensions... but maybe I'm mistaken.
I see this apple sitting in front of me. It has height, width and depth.
I can see how the surface of the apple, if I consider it to have zero thickness is a two dimensional object... but do I have to be able to see thru the apple to see the apple as a whole and not just it's surface... as having three dimensions?
Is it possible that seeing thru it is not a question of dimension... but of... I don't know what to call it? As I see through it I'm seeing particles of three dimensions... this is an interesting question... again, maybe I'm missing something?
Janitor
May15-04, 01:31 PM
Felipefas has inspired me! I am working up a letter to mail to Penthouse magazine. :approve:
LOL... see-thru centerfolds!
I'd also like them to have to turn around twice, before I can see all of them.
felipefas
May15-04, 06:11 PM
This was quoted from Eh on the thread "do we see in three dimensions?"
"The gist of it would seem correct. We cannot imagine a 4 dimensional object because we cannot even know what a 3 dimensional object looks like. We never see volumes - only the surfaces of objects. That doesn't prevent us from coming up with mathematical models to describe universes with more dimensions that we directly experience."
And this was posted by Hypnagoge a pf mentor:
The popular view is that we see in 2 1/2 D. The photonic images that strike our retinas are essentially 2D sheets of information, but the brain uses various heuristic tricks and tactics to convert information in those 2D images into some semblence of 3D information. For instance, binocular parralax (the relative displacement between retinal images in the left and right eye, as made apparent by alternately looking at an object with one eye closed and then the other) is used to infer some information about an object's distance. If one object in the visual field occludes another, the brain automatically deduces that the occluding object is closer than the occluded, thereby giving a clue about their relative distances. Objects appear farther in the distance the more they take on the bluish tint of the sky. The necker cube illusion demonstrates that the brain even constructs pseudo 3D models of objects at least partially on the basis of very basic aspects of their geometrical structure as encoded in their 2D projections onto the retina.
You are absolutely correct to say that our difficulties in understanding the 4th dimension arise from the nature of our consciousness. Our brains are basically perceptually hardwired to see and think in 2 1/2D. We can think abstractly of higher dimensional spaces, but it is just fundamentally beyond us to visualize such spaces in the same sense that we can visualize, say, a park as described in a book.
__________________
"The true voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in seeing with new eyes."
- Marcel Proust
Try to think of this: A reflection of an apple in a mirror is two dimensional. Isn't the same thing you are seeing with your eyes? You are not seeing the depth, just the surfaces facing you.
The Iguana
May17-04, 02:35 AM
And the universe is not expanding into un-chartered nothingness.
The Universe only seems to expand - it is only changing all atomic structures by shrinking to accommodate proportionate distances for an appearance of expansion.
Otherwise it would have to deal with nothing - which it can't - since nothing does NOT exist.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it! :approve:
selfAdjoint
May17-04, 10:01 AM
Stick as you will, it doesn't agree with GR or quantum field theory - or string theory where we have Weyl invariance!
..and YES I am the "Subspace Engineer" at www.treknology.org.
Ok, I read all the posts...from thread #1 to thread#19, some of them have very interesting ideas...however:
No-one proclaimed themselves an..ahem "Information Theorist"..and in liu of someone stopping by (like Seth Lloyd)..or Dr. Kaku..let's try this:
1. "0" Ladies and Gentlemen is NOT a number. Ask a number theorist..it is a label for a counting algorithm that a counting machine can not count.
2. Quantum machines...if and when..(or how) they exist may determine what
they think is "zero"..or "emptyness", or "the emptyset"..or "quantum nothingness"...ad infinitum. These labels (or reference states in these machines) can be clearly defined..or loosely defined..depending upon the requirements or processing needs.
3. Some "machine events" that the machine cannot describe can also be labeled as "artifacts" and/or "artifact sets". Colllections of infinite zeroes in infinite sets under quantum conditions could still be labeled..but perhaps not completely processed. IBM machines for instance uses a 5 qubit machine for its experiments because 4 qubit machines do not have stability or suffiencient
error management requirements. It has been speculated that at least 1000 qubits (1024?) may be needed for complete error management of real world created quantum machines. There are speculations in various other approaches that a layer of such machines (or "universes"..hint hint) might decompose one after another when its error correction mechanisms decay..and it no longer can perform "universe tasks". The so-called "Plenum"
the energy density opposite of the vacuum (i.e. 10^95 ergs/cm^3) might contain layers of these older defective universes..or other similar "materials".
That stuff is NOT "zero"..but a newer machine or universe might have to assume its no longer useful..and assign it a 'zero'.
4. Back to the math...UltraPI1 and others were getting close...symbols like
infinity/infinity , zero/zero , empty set x empty set (product spaces) are
to be considered "artifacts" (like NaN.."not a number" on your calculator)by the processing systems..and not useful for data purposes..unless tagged. One might create a "test-zero"...{@} or something that behaves as though it's both a empty set and a zero..for data restructing purposes....there are recent papers on "Negative Information Theory" on this (as me for the paper URL).
5. The topology people also have answers, but they are only good in 2 dimensions{see SO(2)/2D Gravity} at this time. Soliton theory for instance can create "somethings" from nothings..in that during "boundary shift events"...the state of those operator metrics marches past a +/- or even infinite measure...and the sets involved can create functional signatures (usually log/trig related) of the light or dark events that occured.
So what is nothingness? Complexity theory might know...perhaps numbers so huge...that ANY machine..quantum or otherwise (this might include all possible/probable universes)..their products create a "zero inside"...unmeasurable outside..unmeasurable ab initio..but 'certain regions'..
have a 'limited zero number'..i.e. the machine can count its total zeros..but nothing else.
Confused?
Next time you see spilled paint on the sidewalk...look for the center of that spill...if it's clean and smooth..and the edges are fractal..or broken up...you have found a "nothingness". A "readable zero"...surrounded by stuff you can't use.
film at 11:11
ww
Manly Smite
May17-04, 02:13 PM
0 = x time base. it is not a number. 37= ((3 x base) +7)
Now that we have a zero out of the way.
Lets look at what is nothing.
Nothing is a no state. it has a place, that is yet to be filled with something.
Think of it as, the other side of the edge, at the edge of space. Space can fill it, and will, given the time it needs to expend. But till then, it is nothing.
Nothing is hard to think about. It is not part of life. We have a need to think of things, we put names to all we see and feel. We do not feel nothing, we do not see nothing, you can't touch it, taste it, smell it. (it) is not even there. We have no words for nothing. The Mind will place a space to nothing, it is the only way it can handle the consept of nothing. Nothing is a no-state. you can't go there. It is not the center of paint, it is not!
M.
ranyart
May17-04, 04:19 PM
..and YES I am the "Subspace Engineer" at www.treknology.org.
Ok, I read all the posts...from thread #1 to thread#19, some of them have very interesting ideas...however:
No-one proclaimed themselves an..ahem "Information Theorist"..and in liu of someone stopping by (like Seth Lloyd)..or Dr. Kaku..let's try this:
4. Back to the math...UltraPI1 and others were getting close...symbols like
infinity/infinity , zero/zero , empty set x empty set (product spaces) are
to be considered "artifacts" (like NaN.."not a number" on your calculator)by the processing systems..and not useful for data purposes..unless tagged. One might create a "test-zero"...{@} or something that behaves as though it's both a empty set and a zero..for data restructing purposes....there are recent papers on "Negative Information Theory" on this (as me for the paper URL).
ww
Try this, my take on nothing is:Nothing is the smallest approximation of a something.
from the post no 74
Relatively speaking one can ask this:How 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?
One can state below:
One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero)
Total Zero cannot be defined, but you can get pretty close when one adopts the Zero + = nothing (positive zero=smallest possible something).
Ebolamonk3y
May17-04, 06:55 PM
Nothing is __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________And thats what I have to think about that.
felipefas
May17-04, 07:16 PM
I think this thread has lost is usefulness
Ebolamonk3y
May17-04, 08:26 PM
Perhaps you are seeing nothing in this topic of something.
Moonrat
May17-04, 10:05 PM
Perhaps you are seeing nothing in this topic of something.
hehe, what can one get out of a discussion about nothing other than nothing!
If you have a hard time understanding nothing, then just look at what you dont understand to see what nothing is....
Miller's results have been debunked. They are found to have a systematic error in them, apparently caused by winds shaking the mountaintop lab where he did his measurements. His reasoning was that ether clings to matter and so to get a good experiment the equipment had to be surrounded by as little matter as posible. So he built his lab high and light. Unfortunately that exposed him to the elements, which gave him false results.[/QUOTE]
SelfAdjoint, perhaps you are referring to the well-known paper by Shankland et al, which analyzed Millers’ experiments? [Not having read the above or the actual works by Miller] I base my response on the critical papers of Demeo and Allais (you can see them at http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm), which claim that all interferometer experiments, including the original Michelson-Morley had fringe readings. What one does or does not do with experimental data is strictly a human/scientific dilemma.
While Miller was still alive, he was able to defend against the accusations of his colleagues (including Einstein) about solar and radiant heat contamination of his readings. Actually, his interferometer was specially built for him, making it by far the most sensitive and stable of its kind. To mention again, he took about 200,000 readings compared to M-M who did about 46. According to Demeo’s paper the data was selectively chosen by Shankland to prove his point. Adding to this, the over three hundred pages of data that Miller accumulated were given to (his student) Shankland, but have since disappeared.
If ether theory turns out to be true, Einstein’s GR has some holes in it. Allais found from Miller’s work that the velocity of light is not the same in all directions and that it is possible to determine the motion of the earth from purely terrestrial experiments.
Aside from the scientific experiments on “energy” what about its philosophy? Can one really say that space is empty, or just composed of numbers? What rotates and moves the planets and also makes life“grow/move”? It seems that people who were closer to nature (and nature is science!) as Galileo and primitives, could feel God/aether in themselves. I’m sure if they were asked the questions that are posed in this forum, they would have no doubts about their answers, since they were not cut of from their objective sensations as we "up-in-the-head" moderns are. And can we argue against personal feelings regarding “the power of the universe” or love? Where do purely abstract numbers divorced from sensation fit in this schema?
PRyckman
May19-04, 01:42 AM
A complete lack of everything, might look like the end... but does it look like the beginning?
It depends what you mean by beginning. Before things started, or when they started. Like wise with the end. The last moment, or after it's over.
PRyckman
May19-04, 02:06 AM
Wow, that was a lot of reading, I had like 7 more quotes but my browser timed out. I like that star trek guys comments it really brought a new perspective into it. I agreed with most of them. As for the quarrel about a given value for zero, I think we will forever be getting closer, but never achieve a measurable zero. That seems obvious to me, because you certainly couldn't witness an infinity.
What if zero was expressed as +1? Because for plus one to equal one there must have been zero to begin with. This would allow for the fact that we can never measure a zero. Note thats what it is defined as in D=E(t)
you certainly couldn't witness an infinity. What if zero was expressed as +1?
Yes 0 cannot be observed as a whole (a perspective is something too), but you couldn’t observe any of infinity as a whole either, weather it be .11 INF, or 3.1415926 inf. both order and chaos which means absolutely nothing. We can apply meaning to whatever and we do every day, and that is a +1, but it is also a perspective of observation. Not with a whole of infinity just part, just part of nothing, just part of something, just part of simple order concepts, just part of complex order concepts (chaos). but in a realistic universe surrounded by everything mathematically infinite we have a finite (which is also to say, nothing has a finite of observation from our hybrid minds of something/nothing), so the real idea behind finding a source is finding that finite within the infinite math, and time naturally causes such a finite to occur, in all objects of math. So a concept needs to prelude time, it needs to make time its essential bone to exist. As for nothing, it doesn’t exist, look at the bases of number systems, how is it that in base 3 all concepts of mathematics are harmonious, but in base 10, 1/3 is an illogical when checking errors (1/3 * 3 = .99 when it should = 1), could it be that illogical is a viewing unto nothing(I think so). Base 10 is an all consuming of concepts, and so an illogical must also exist for it to be such a living concept.
Note to all: The idea of a continuum from nothing, is just a concept to fit an idea of oblivion to the best of all compared ideologies of ‘nothing’, so yes I get that nothing does not exist but like any mathematical concept it is infinite some were, and if it is, then it must have created us from within its own ability to be nothing. Naturally, that’s all, and that’s what I try to explain.
PRyckman
May21-04, 01:02 AM
uhhh, huh?????
tabloid
May21-04, 03:52 AM
if something is expanding towards 'nothing',then both smthing and nothing are elastic i.e. they both have property of elasticity.its like pressurizing some kind of elastic ball.
Gil Fuller
May21-04, 08:26 PM
Nothing is simply the opposite of something. Nothing cannot contain anything, do anything, or be anything. If it does any of these things,or anything else at all, then it is something. Nothing is a simple concept.
Why there is "something" is the interesting question.
paglren
May22-04, 03:45 AM
Nothing is a simple concept.
Why there is "something" is the interesting question.
Sorry, but also a simple concept is "something".
The most fascinating answer to the question is that "everything" is coming out from "nothing", or better from the infinite "way" (out of space-time) in which "nothing" represents its own concept.
In other words: since "absolute nothing" (i.e. "the unmentionable"), let's call it "", IS ITSELF, then it ISN'T as well.
This paradox cannot be put into time because it cannot be both true and false, but the same paradox could "generate" an infinite "vibration true-false" that we perceive as space-time due to our "perception rules".
What about a video game that nobody has already imagined? Is it "nothing"? Has it a self-time? Truely it is not yet born... so does have it a "negative" age? Relative to which?
shrumeo
May28-04, 03:31 PM
wow, what a philisophical question to be answered in the physics forum.
my 2 cents about the matter is that if you can imagine "infinity" (which you really can't even if you believe you can) then you can imagine "nothing" (it seems easier to imagine nothing than infinity, but when you do it, you always are thinking 'absence of anything' which is something, not absolutely nothing. ) for you to even imagine "nothing" you would have to not exist, or anything else for that matter.
well, i wonder why this one has 20 PAGES of replies when it has jack to do with physics and everything to do with metaphysics. I think we need to go check out some Jean-Paul Sartre to clear this one up.
killerinstinct
May28-04, 03:46 PM
Nothing is simply the absence of everything.
Messiah
May28-04, 03:50 PM
wow, what a philisophical question to be answered in the physics forum.
my 2 cents about the matter is that if you can imagine "infinity" (which you really can't even if you believe you can) then you can imagine "nothing" (it seems easier to imagine nothing than infinity, but when you do it, you always are thinking 'absence of anything' which is something, not absolutely nothing. ) for you to even imagine "nothing" you would have to not exist, or anything else for that matter.
well, i wonder why this one has 20 PAGES of replies when it has jack to do with physics and everything to do with metaphysics. I think we need to go check out some Jean-Paul Sartre to clear this one up.
It's easy to imagine nothing (in its abstract definition). It takes absolutely no effort - In fact it REQUIRES you not to imagine. Infinity, on the other hand, might keep you busy for a while . . . a L O N G while :approve:
If for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction then the value of the outcome of every processes is 'nothing'.
UltraPi1
May28-04, 10:04 PM
I've made a few threads on other forums called the Reality of Non-Existence. The jist of it is that reality is a conceptual entity, and not a physical one. That we are made up of discrete quantities of nothing, and that this Non-Existence is infinitely divisible. We are but parts of a finite whole that is continually increasing in stature toward the infinite possibility.
In our universe there are ony ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing that ones are composed of.
wow, what a philisophical question to be answered in the physics forum. Well, i wonder why this one has 20 PAGES of replies when it has jack to do with physics and everything to do with metaphysics. I think we need to go check out some Jean-Paul Sartre to clear this one up.
I suppose the Theory of Everything or any other way we choose to describe the search for the fundaments of existence, is something that might be inacurately described as Physics.
Isn't the root of physics, metaphysics, math, philosophy etc. actually logic?
Gil Fuller
May29-04, 08:55 PM
While it is true the "concept of nothing" is something-an "idea", it is also true that the essence of "nothing" is "non-something."
Something cannot originate from "nothing" ( the essence-not the concept) because "origination" requires something change. If nothing changes, there is no origination. Since the essence of "nothing" is "non-something" and since there is no "something" present in "nothing" to change, something cannot originate from nothing. Conclusion: The Universe has always existed as something. It is impossible to originate from nothing.
I suppose the Theory of Everything or any other way we choose to describe the search for the fundaments of existence, is something that might be inacurately described as Physics.
Isn't the root of physics, metaphysics, math, philosophy etc. actually logic?
I think that if you studied Smolin's approach in three roads there is a synthesis that is taking place.
Topos Theory in a Nut Shell (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topos.html)
Now the basis of the new math as topos theory (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9910005), arises out of the logic[?], but it also arises from the philospohical discourse on such approach. The road to the new math recognizes all the maths that currently exist. Having accepted this, and knowing what has taken place, assume here all pathways of Klein's order of geometries also have laid over them all the maths of string theory. If strig theory has a dry spell, then indeed it has lacked the luster of vision and means, to verification. How will ingenuity spark possible scenarios for consideration if no one can see what the heck they are talking about?
String theory needs philosophers[?], as well as their logic, in order to know what new steps could be taken. That's my personal opinion:)This forces all of us to ask the question of origination and how such maths will arise. It defintiely cannot arise from nothng, so we have to make certain assumptions about the nature of the background?
From such paradigmal acceptances, such previews allow new vistas for consideration, as Smolin does in three roads. That is a lesson of consideration for me.
Kip Thorne took the vision to a new level with the interferometer experiments in the construction of LIGO. If you have simultaneous positions, also recording, what similarities would say that such a event exists.
But there is more to it if we really want to delve into the subject of the universe and the ideas behind gravity, especially if we recognize the strength's and weakness, as part of the ends of dimensional significance.
This information then allows us to see what was capable in the events unfolding history. The geometrical dynamics revealed in those gravity waves? :smile:
Here’s a philosophical comparison of logic, reduction of something to nothing. You all remember reduction of factors to find the least or most common denominator (something like that) right? Well what are the differences in something becoming nothing, and nothing becoming something? A Latin word for something out of nothing exists (and for the life of me I cannot remember), but I'll just call it a free lunch. So what makes a lunch free? The answer is life undoubtedly, but what aspects of life cause a "free lunch", to give all, in one moment, and reduce? Is this not E=mc^2'ish as well?
you know, this drunken meandering means nothing..... :rolleyes:
your absolutely right. I came across these documents on-line, its for a class or something like that but pretty much, I just looked at the universalness of what is being said. It works so why not this:
'uncertainty reduction theory' (http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/micro/Uncertainty%20Reduction%20Theory.doc/)
Drive reduction theory (http://tip.psychology.org/hull.html)
Size reduction theory (http://www.fluidairinc.com/Products_files/Size_Reduction_Files/sr_theory.htm)
inf. n=1->
N = inf. distance & inf. closeness
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number
N = (0*10^n) (0/10^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (fractals)
maybe ? I dont know. <- and that is nothing, that is why intellegance is something. For one consept is the whole of nothing and something is the whole of all consepts. haha looks like I killed another forum, I seem to be pretty good at that, must be doing something right cause no one wants to really argue it? Or maybe its just too lucid?
Rahmuss
Jun24-04, 09:12 PM
Nothing is what most discussions are about.
Absolutely nothing is what this discussion is about.
:biggrin: I couldn't resist. :biggrin:
Doctordick
Jun24-04, 09:28 PM
What you miss is a very important issue. There exists only one thing which can produce knowledge from nothing. That is the comprehension of symmetry. Symmetry is essentially a statment that some piece of knowledge is unavailable: spherical symmetry is a statment that no information exists which can differentiate between directions. That constraint imposes some very fundamental relationships which must be true. If you want to understand the issue, ask me. I will do my best to explain it to you.
Have fun -- Dick
wow, Can you not see the symmetry involved in such a consept? Its the only place in mathmatics, that has the ability to create something like matter. We have super computers trying to figure out how large pi is and thats nothing, this could explain the universe and no one wants to look other then me. now why is that?
The consept is so simple and insignificat how could it be such a thing, I dont know, maybe it has to do with going from simple to complex in some weird "mathmatical truth" fractal. Which is what this consept creates eventually, in the early stage the outcome is infinitly complex, but I have taken single divisional numbers and they create squares, inverted squares ( four smaller squares, 1 of each attached to the courner of a larger center square, well thats what it looks like, not how its drawn), and lines. The only thing I changed when I observed such things were what A equals, and what B equals, in a division of (A/B=C).
here's a pretty good visuall of what I'm trying to get across. Take a seed from a tree, say it was on the ground, now if thier is the right amounts of sun, water, dirt, and even right time of the year, that tree would grow. now thier are seriouse odds against the seeds because what that seed gets seems to be pretty random and lots of seeds means a greater chance of survival, or continue some proccess it cannot help but to continue.
another adventure, take the whole of nothing, and imagine that symmetrical sphere of nothing (you being outside of it), now if you see the whole of the sphere as an opposed reaction to something (doesnt matter what it is jus that something is) it becomes infinitely small. now say this is an accelleration at ininity ( I use this because mathmatics is infinite), and the universe is so infinite that thier is another point of opposed reaction to something, what would that create if they collided? N0N is just another consept of becomeing infinitly small. and 0 is the random process of creathing something, it dont matter what its is, just as long as it is.
If thier is no symmetry within this then I havent a clue what you mean, and please explain it.
Messiah
Jun25-04, 01:09 PM
Symmetry = for every value there is an opposite equivalent
bettysfetish
Jun25-04, 08:34 PM
I love this topic :rolleyes: However it's quite problematic :cry:
The closest you'll get to "nothing" would be the eternal moment that was just before the creation of the energys that E=mc2'd into matter.
On one other point I read about 18 pages back; If a Big Bang explodes in the place with no time and no one is there to see or hear it, - - Did it happen?
I'd bet the entire exsistance of the universe on it.
What do you suppose happens to this medium of virtual activity? "Nothing" (theres that darn word again) needs to be displaced. This place might, or should, be goverened by virtual forces that would be opposite ours; this place being of matter and "that" place being of "no matter, or "nothing." It seems the two states of being should be "mutually attractive."
These two events would easily add to an expotential expansion rate. But at this point we're discussing matter again. It seems nothing has to move out of the way yet what isn't there might be attractive to the matter being converted.
It should still be there surrounding us, and the deeper we look into space the sooner we will see only the nothing that exsisted before there was matter. That very void may still be excerting an underterminable pull on the matter in the intire universe contributing to our accelerated expansion. "Could solve this "dark matter" quandry we seem to be in." Mabey theres no repulsive forces between particles; perhaps an external gravity or anti-gravity, if you will.
Oh Well - - - :redface:
----"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."-----
connect
Jun25-04, 09:28 PM
Science is the arbitary division of the whole to study the wonder of its movement....nothing only ever appears before or after something.
Once nothing is understood, it is still nothing.
Once something is understood, it is always something.
PhalanxGun
Jun26-04, 01:42 PM
Being that I'm not 5-dimensional-at least to the point of interacting with all 5 dimensions :)- I cannot fathom "nothing-ness". How can you people even conceptualize the actual "nothing". For me, nothing implies an endless region with nothing in it; and since there is nothing there how would we know it exists? :)
-Just Your Regular Neighborhood Computer Programmer/Wierdo
-PhalanxGun
(U.S. 20mm Phalanx CIWS (Close In Weapon System) Vulcan Cannon)
:)
RAD4921
Jun26-04, 01:47 PM
The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe
by John D. Barrow
Search inside this book
List Price: $15.00
Price: $10.50 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details.
You Save: $4.50 (30%)
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours
22 used & new
UltraPi1
Jun26-04, 09:58 PM
I cannot fathom "nothing-ness". How can you people even conceptualize the actual "nothing". For me, nothing implies an endless region with nothing in it; and since there is nothing there how would we know it exists?
I consider the universe to be the concepualization of nothing. In short - We are the reality of non-existence. There are no physical realities - Only conceptual ones. In our universe there are only ones - One at a time, where time is the nothing that ones are composed of.
toe, or Theory of Everything, is a blend of all things conceptual, and what are all things conceptual? nothing/something, and they must blend, and blend they will, who deside's this, the multiple minds in the society of science. only one can blend them, for their is only one way to blend them (still as of yet to be found). only 1 can define 0 for within a 1 is the ability to be both 0 and 1 and so is a choice or a process of equalization (you cannot have 1 dimension without 2 infinitely small points as infinite in distance).
hence logic becomes physical reality, morality lays physically as a process that cannot be helped due to some misinterpretation in reduction to realization. "yes, I agree", "no, I disagree" when really any answer may also exist "correct" in null (how can nothing choose yes or no, unless you give a shifted statement/question like," if you want to go then you come with us now, if not were leaving" nothing cannot go and so the shifted statement would be you stay).
UltraPi1 , that's a good way to look at it, time is 0 and whatever is involved in time is 1. brings up the question of, does the moment right before I typed this still existing, or is it 0. I say it still exist as a scar to some shape of a fractal.
what i don't get is why hasn't science looked at the mind as a form of black hole? I wonder about it all the time, it makes a lot of sense, just absorbing everything (well light any ways, energy too, but information just gets sucked in, like a substance created black hole taking all logic in and releasing that single geyser of light or consciousness.
see, someone could say here it is, the answer to the universe as some huge equasion, And i would pick up every book I could just to teach my self to understand it. but as that has yet to happen. I will still think its going to be the most obvious answer, why? cause if it seems just blunt and to the point isnt it usually correct?
connect
Jun27-04, 04:33 PM
1's and 0's, 0's and 1's.
I believe its like 'feet' that are 'walking' down the street.
Look to the left, look to right.
We are really in a plight that is stalling our flight.
The mind - an absolute point by which all relative measurements are taken.
How does it work.....tick, tock, tick, tock........where does time come from.....tick, tock, tick, tock.
My heart 'beats' and blood runs 'through' my viens.
Do people want 'knowledge' or 'understanding'?
UltraPi1
Jun28-04, 06:44 AM
does the moment right before I typed this still existing, or is it 0. I say it still exist as a scar to some shape of a fractal.
I would say it is the concept of nothing that still exist. Any closer examination of this fundamental concept will yield nothing. I.E Examination beyond ONE nothing will leave you conceptually bankrupt. The universe is a conceptual geometric construct of nothing, and we can expect an infinity of these geometric entities to be possible.
bettysfetish
Jun29-04, 08:10 PM
:frown: Well, we'll never "really" know the answer here; perhaps in a few generations. PhalanxGun - - it seems you've answered your own question a while back. You questioned how we could possibly invision "nothing", "It's like such & such - - -..." Well, you've done it. It's an intirely conceptual thing.
And to all;
Using numbers to try and pin this down will not work, "Unless" we can come up with some "Conceptual Numbers" to use. One must remember to never include anything that is, or is made of, particles when trying to invision this place.
We can all agree that all matter came from one singular, infinitly small point. And before that is infered speculation, conjecture and theoritical conceptualization. The infinity problems?; I don't have that problem anymore, not since giving String Theory a chance. I see there are some of you that frown upon, or have not accepted it for one reason or another, some alternitive theorys. This is certainly not the T.O.E., but we must keep building a foundation for it. Unless some one has found something completely absurd or intirely unfounded by current theorys in some new theory then it should at least be investigated.
"Nothing was there" and "nothing" is an unstable system. "Any" quantum fluxuation would have tipped the balance our way.
L8R
pelastration
Jun29-04, 08:32 PM
Using numbers to try and pin this down will not work, "Unless" we can come up with some "Conceptual Numbers" to use.
We can all agree that all matter came from one singular, infinitly small point.
In Pascal's triangle all starts for one.
Catalan numbers give all possible combinations (of also geometric 'shapes').
Conceptual Numbers? Maybe take a look at http://www.mu6.com/numbers.html. It all starts from one. That one is the total set, and by dynamic restructuring it creates sub-sets. That's conceptual. Since one stays one the math is surely correct.
here is the answer, what is nothing, nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself. Thats what I'm getting at.
ok, i appologise for any nievity caus im only 18 and not massively smart, but this is a subject ive thought about too. unless ive completly missed the point, the answer seems quite simple to me. if you really do have "nothing" as in the absence of everything, then you must by definition have the absence of time, as well as everything else of course. the absence of time means that there are no rules, therefore any activity can occur. this means at one instance, you will have nothing, and yet at the same instance everything. this i found is a hard concept for people to bend their heads arround, and quite hard to describe in a way that makes sense, simply because it doesnt - we cant really comprehend "no time" because of the way we are. the only way i can describe it is to imagine not a time period, but a time point - a single value of time. now, imagine that every event happens at that very point, because of there being no rules (bearing in mind that this is occuring because of absence of time, and so could never actuly happen at a time-point) this includes the event that there is nothing, everything, and every possible value inbetween, all at the same point in time (which again i point out is only a way of thinking of it, as there would be no time)
if this makes sense to ne1, does it help answer the question or do i need to try to explain more?
may i also add the fact that humans share one very important attribute with the universe. Bill Clinton summed it up recently by saying - "..I did it because I could.." and thats exactly how the universe behaves - it does things because it can. thats y we exist - because we can. In the beginning, there were no rules so the universe could do what it liked, so it did, and here we are.
UltraPi1
Jul1-04, 08:46 PM
if you really do have "nothing" as in the absence of everything, then you must by definition have the absence of time
I would disagree here - Rather .....Thats all you would have is time. There just wouldn't be a tic or tock to time.
bozo the clown
Jul1-04, 11:06 PM
What is nothing ?
nothing is what lies between Jessica Simpson's ears
pelastration
Jul2-04, 09:55 AM
one simple physical parameter T=0K =-273,160C.
The origin of Existence begins with this temperature.
Ever considered that this may be a local parameter following from local conditions? A relative factor.
fundamental answer.
nothing = force
distance from me to nothing = 0 meters
measurements from ME to NO-THING = 0 degrees = 0 miles = 0 days = NO-degrees = NO-distance = NO-time.
NO:
1 - particle used to express negative reply to question, request, etc.
2 - not any, not one.
3 - not, by no amount, not at all.
THING:
any possible object of thought including persons, material objects, events, qualitys, ideas, utterances and acts.
The dictionary is a great non-linear history of language.
I get what your saying connect, I think. and as such anything that will or does appear is random at first, and order becomes the unfolding.
Randomness from order contains hope.
Order out of randomness is depressing.
Only you make hope and only you make depressing, what is depressing to one, could be joy to another. say I have a toy and I brake it in some random place but still could do its toy job, put it in the trash and some one maybe some were, which means a point that is completely random, picks it up. Get what I'm saying? thier is also, per say: a man and his wife, and one cheats on the other, then the other finds out the other is cheating, the partner that is doing the cheating took in a random person, within an order of marriage.
so really its both, but both can eather be good or bad it becomes choice, and what we confuse is all things must eather be yes or no, one or the other, but thats not correct. For thier is a point of null, within each yes/no and that is the "question". and the "question" is a first step within finding the "answer", but thier can be multipul questions to an answer or their can be multipul answers to a question.
And that which is random is of a complexness a human mind cannot understand, right? unless it (the human mind) can observe the entirety of all events within, including all steps, all changes, all uhmm.. everything. Beautifull things can come from randomness, clouds for one, placement of stars, music is a huge one (thier is such realization within sound), and we are aware randomness. I know none like myself, I look like some people but not exactly at all, even twins experiance completely different things (unless one can tell the other absolutely everything within existance during the experiance).
and so,
What is nothing? Nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself. thier for,
inf. n=1->
N = inf. distance & inf. closeness (or Time and Nothing)
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number
N = (0*10^n) (0/10^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
something within time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (multi - fractals).
what is order to ever changeing complexity? is it a single fractal? but fractals cannot explain the universe within a whole, but it does explain our individual minds. the idea of multi-fractal can. but do not doubt the size of infinity, for as our universe will die it will become like eather a seed or like the randomness that causes the seed to grow. it will take an almost infinite amount of time but it will happen and existance will all occur again in some other way. for the infinitness of a multi-fractal would be so huge that our universe is at that point of infinite closenes, at this time.
ok so what do you think of this version of Divisional continuum? close? even at all? good? bad? anything? please?
Beautifull things can come from randomness, clouds for one, placement of stars, music is a huge one (thier is such realization within sound), and we are aware randomness.
This is a good example of randomness coming from order.
There is an underlying order to the randomness and diversity of life.
That "order" is what we're looking for.
We get a good feeling from randomness... but only if it's on the surface.
If we think that randomness underlies all things... well, welcome to chaos.
To some chaos is the preferred reality... or is it really?
Imagine that at the core of reality there is nothing.
Then imagine that at the core of reality there is something.
Which gives you hope and which doesn't?
I still think you deside, or we deside. me I found music to be my holy of all things, My music is my out for everything, good and bad, happyness and sadness it covers it all (n0n.madtracker.net) . its not that thier is hope or thier isnt hope its just "is", and then live your life to be happy, find a girl friend if that makes you happy, write a dream as a book if that makes you happy, just be at peace with everything and everything will be at peace with you. At least thats what i've found.
If you look down on things of course there wont be hope, because hope isnt a thing given, its a way of thinking, just like luck. And thier is only one way to get there and that is by accepting only what you think is correct, if it dont seem logical it isnt, but if you reach a realization of its correctness later then it is. point is question everything how else could E=mc2 come into our existance (wish I could have met that guy).
why? because we start as a blank page when were born, and everything we learn from school is from people just like you, just like me, passed down year after year to some other person. But if you find greatness in something (the whole "yea thats what I want to do for the rest of my life") grab onto it. I can garentee that you will suck at it at first, cause with me and music I so just sucked at it, I didnt learn it from anyone else I just wrote music all by my self and it gives me such respect for it. and every song I wrote I thought was cool at the time even if it did suck cause that made me write even more. why, cause if people can write good music, or be good at anything, so can you if you truelly want it, but you truelly have to want it.
I like what you said Erck, and is a great point in your words "Imagine that at the core of reality there is nothing. Then imagine that at the core of reality there is something." what better to describe such a thing then Pi, or E, or whatever else number is chaotic. sorry I shouldnt use "random" for that is an action without a cause, and all things have a cause because life is "be-cause", not reaction without a reason.
Everything that we experiance is remembered, all of it is, including the things we would rather forget. Do not forget because " its so much more an insane event to remember something then it is to forget it" - Waking life, tward the end of the movie. why, because time is the greatest distance from everything else, and as such the point of were some object was can be detumined by observing were it is now. hmm.. could that be taken as religious?
Time is so misunderstood, time is compounded of 2 aspects.
A linear and circular/pendulum effect.
Linear - 1, 2, 3, 4
Cyclic - odd, even, odd, even.
Consider a tree, it lives in a world of day and nights (circular), but it grows upwards (linear).
The compounded effect is growth (expodential).
Start by drawing a small circle at the bottom of a page, continue growing the size of the circle and moving upwards.
The effect this gives is tree/mushroom shaped.
I would disagree here - Rather .....Thats all you would have is time. There just wouldn't be a tic or tock to time. but thats my point, if u have time, that is something, therefore is not nothing.
Chronos
Jul11-04, 07:51 PM
Much adieu about nothing here [I couldn't resist]. It is more useful and scientific to discuss 'nothing' in mathematical, rather than philosophical terms. In science, 'nothing' is easily defined. It's the number zero. There are an unlimited number of ways to arrive at an answer of zero in science. But, it has no stand alone meaning, only relational [which is true of any number]. If you properly construct the reference frame of a problem in heuristic terms, you will have experiment which has three possible outcomes: either it will result in achieving state A, state B, or neither [zero]. e.g., if you mix the proper proportions of base and acidic solutions, the ph of the resulting mix will be zero.
I agree Chronos, but thats why its a philosophy, because it covers a grater area then state a or state b or 0. thats what the whole consept of N0N is about, were both N's are a single point and 0 represents an n amount of N.
on a side note. Time couldnt be a tick or tock or a - then + for or even both for one tick tock is a gear (effect of gravity) and - or + is a (photon emition), its a clock which cannot measure time correctly but only for its body, and no other body in motion. thierfor time is a frame of a % in the relation to 299792458m/s or c. c is 1 frame of time within all the distance of the universe if c is mantained. and still proof time = infinite distance
c = 299792458 m/s
time units to travel distance @ speed = ((Distance / (Speed / c)) / Distance)
Time = Distance / Speed , or 0 time dialation ie, speed = c, distance = 299792458 will result in the correct reading of just Time = distance / speed
offset of time bassed on gravity and photon emition = Time - time units to travel distance @ speed
and this works hehe, no graphs, just an uncompiled program testing it, cause microsoft wont give out any free stuff cause they got 6,billion$ in random stocks. gready lamors
Messiah
Jul12-04, 06:49 PM
From a vantage of finite logic - relativity - if you had the same quantity of +mass and -mass located a trillion light years distant from each other, then you would have the equivalent of 'Nothing' in two locations a trillion light years apart.
From a vantage of the undefined reality of infinity the picture is a little different.
Using any given point in space as an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of polar coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, every point in the cosmos is its center.
Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/99^999,999,999,999,999 . As the denominator of a fraction increases, its value decreases. Though infinity is undefined and cannot be represented by a value, it is obvious that if the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator may be, the ratio approaches Zero as the denominator grows to ‘approach infinity’. Any finite distance compared to infinity yields a ratio of Zero.
From an infinite vantage, the equal quantities of +mass and -mass occupy the same point (the center) and the distance between them is Ø (in fact their size is also Ø).
So long as qualitatively the two subjects are opposite equivalents, then relative to infinity "NOTHING' exists - has no size and no positional differential.
*Applauds* TOE includes nothing and so is answered as such. :D
Did you read post #329.. they only thing I dont have included is why pi = 0, its just something I happend to find in my pi days (snicker's, like a year, if that, ago).
Date: 10/17/97 at 11:29:15
Equasion From: John K. Koehler
e^(2*i*pi) = 1
e^(-2*pi) = 1 (raised both sides to i and 1^n is 1)
-2*pi = 0 (took the ln of both sides and ln(1) = 0)
pi = 0 !
and thier is another possable proof, is pi big enough to collapse in on itself at a finite distance of instant? Ie. pi is infinite right, well at some point could it reconnet to its self causeing a division. oh and I dont know if the opposite wouldnt be an exact equivalent for that would just equal 1/1=1 so a slite offset must be. it doesnt even have to be pi could be e or i or that wierd cursive L thing.
puts a weird face on god thou, I still think god exists, thou not the christian god. I like my version of god alot better, not cause of morals, the interpetation of morals for the christian population seems to be pretty good. but christ didnt walk on water, nor do I think healed the sick or rase the dead or even rasie from the dead himself. I look at it more like santa clause, he was a real person, and now he visits every good little boys, and girls homes once a year and never misses a date. Even if he's been dead for who knows how long.
hehe I remember hearing a story about why reighndeer could fly. something like it being an irish tradition to drink reigndeer urin or something (maybe it wasnt irish, I cannot remember, could have been american :P j/k) and the reighdeer would eat shrooms (the drug kind), and they'd start trippen or something.
Chronos
Jul13-04, 01:41 AM
I agree Chronos, but thats why its a philosophy
And that is my objection. Philosophy is not science. Language is inexact and inefficient as a description of reality. Mathematics is the preferred language of science. It is not complete, but, it is a much better descriptive model than logic. Since the time of Aristotle, math has scored more TKO's than logic ever dreamt of.
Philosophy and intuition may point us in the right direction, but, they will not validate or result in useful theories.
Scientist: I am standing up.
Philosopher: On what?
Scientist: My own two feet.
Philosopher: How do you know that?
Scientist: Because I can feel it.
Philosopher: Now what do you feel?
Scientist: You standing upon my own two feet.
Philosopher: You and I must be the same person.
connect
Jul13-04, 11:58 AM
Modern (imperical) science is a method for accummulating data to find patterns in what appears to be the unknown behaviour of a subject object within a particular context over time.
The intentions of the methods are too discover general rules (patterns) for the apprent behavior.
Philosophy is the root of science, it is in philosophy that you learn how to ask questions. Questions can then have their answers revealed (the discovery of patterns/expressions) by using a method (imperical science).
What is the point of asking if time exists or not?
The question is flawed from the start, time is something that we define to express a concept or notion. Philosophy is the discussion of notions using abstract variables where the variables can be numbers or expressions (numbers are actually expressions of the relationships between aspects in a binary framework).
Nothing (0) is the 'intial' state of something, before it has been related to the 'next' state (1).
Once the 'next' state comes along (1) you can explore the relationships between the first state (0) and the second state (1).
What is the point of asking if time exists or not? Nothing (0) is the 'intial' state of something, before it has been related to the 'next' state (1). Once the 'next' state comes along (1) you can explore the relationships between the first state (0) and the second state (1).
In terms of an "initial" state... the nature of nothing doesn't contain time... therefore that implies at least one reason why nothing can't change to something. It would have to do it at a certain time. Not to mention that there wouldn't be any space for it to happen.
After something exists is a different story.
hmm.. so philosophy contains no answers? I think thier for I am. is that not a philosophic answer. whatever, science and philosophy must blend for they are both correct and are incorrect without the other. for one an answer in philosophy is deduced with the same means as science, It must make Sence. and that should be enough.
what is that fake mask of life, but that core from which you place everything on? for if you cannot understand that then how do you know what you understand as science isnt flawed, or is better stated, how do you think outside the "box"? or should we think every action taken is a random effect of things we eat, breath, preseive, dream, and think (and if you know what random is then you have found yourself to know nothing, pun intended) If you can find philosophical trueth within the science of reaction then you have found a mathmatical proof of such. and hence you get " every action has an equal and opposite reaction". which is again philosophy of trueth, especially within a world whos only trueth is based apon every other persons version of thier own, like a handed down story (remember santa clause, he did exist now hes dead for who knows how long and he makes yearly visits to all the good little boys and girls).
I made up my own from the ground up, and said screw society because if I cannot figure it out on my own then it is not for me to be knowen. find your own way, which means if it makes sence then let it make sence but do not stop thinking about it. I question my ideas nearly every day in every way I can possably think of. I had to drop like 3 other TOE's that I had developed because I found flaws in every one of them, but not this one not yet, so far the only thing I get is "dont think about incomprehensable numbers" and all I can say is, " are you crazy, cause if i did think just about incomprehensable numbers I would be". if you dont want to see what it means then dont, I could really care less, I am free beyond anything anyone has defined as free for as me to know what "I" really means is beyond a definition for its is a respect of understanding, that knows whatever it learns.
in reply to erck, I say a 0 is a state of time thier for so are random or chaotic events of logic.
connect
Jul13-04, 03:31 PM
What is the distance between 2 and 7?
in reply to erck, I say a 0 is a state of time thier for so are random or chaotic events of logic.
Which kind of "zero" are you refering to?
The zero that comes after something... meaning a lack of something?
Or the zero that preceeds the something?
Manly Smite
Jul14-04, 06:43 PM
Zero has a value of X time base, it is not a number! please quit using zero as a value of nothing.
10 = 1 times base
11 = 1 times base pluse 1
22 = 2 times base pluse 2
A5 = A times base pluse 5
the Zero is a place holder for the times base value.
Nothing = Nothing = no movement, no time, no space, it is a place not yet made.
Get Over it! you can't go there. It is out of your reach...
Philocrat
Jul14-04, 08:18 PM
Our conception of Reality is the problem by design, or should I say by 'Original Design'. It is perfectly possible to claim that there is no such thing as Nothing. To make such a claim as 'this room is empty' or 'the universe is empty', or whatever, is almost pointlless. However, I am not saying that we should stop relating the concept of a thing to the concept of Nothing or Nothingness. It's currently a matter of representational convenience, at least by the standards of the original design of the human mind. The mind by its original design is constantly relating things as we find our ways around the world. This is not going to end overnight, not unless we are ready to go back to the drawing board.
The biggest problem is this:
Qauntitatively, we return to the problem of description and explanation of things; especially when any attempt to mathematically or logically destroy a universal set always returns us back to some spatiotemporal relation, therefore disposing of the possibility of there being Nothing. How can there Nothing when everything seems to be eternally enslaved in its own being? Infact, both mathematics and logic owe their existence entirely to this possibility.
Philocrat
Jul14-04, 08:47 PM
A more disturbing part of this problem is the persistent claim that 'Something can manifest or come from Nothing'. Well, I don't thinkl so....not unless we are prepared to counter-claim that 'Nothing is Something'. Why? Because I have always thought of this to be a design error transmuted from the 'subject of perception to the object of perception', and not the reverse. I will expand on this later....
Chronos
Jul15-04, 03:40 AM
Quantum physics routinely permit something from nothing, albeit for a very short time.
connect
Jul15-04, 05:40 AM
Has any one read Liebnez?
The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9 (Loemker 1969: 308). It states that no two distinct substances exactly resemble each other. This is often referred to as ‘Leibniz's Law’ and is typically understood to mean that no two objects have exactly the same properties. The Identity of Indiscernibles is of interest because it raises questions about the factors which individuate qualitatively identical objects. Recent work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the principle fails in the quantum domain.
An example of this is a controlled experiment, although we are only meant to change one property, two will actually always change. What is meant by this is that it is:
- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen in the same space at the same time. This by defintion makes it the same event.
- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen at the same time in the same space This by defintion makes it the same event.
To summarise, things that happen in the same place and the same time are the same thing. So if we do experiments in the same test tube one after the other they will have occured at different times. If we do experiments in different test tubes but at the same time....think about it.
Philocrat
Jul16-04, 06:03 PM
Quantum physics routinely permit something from nothing, albeit for a very short time.
Well, mathematical physics proposes thus, but multivalent aparatus of logic professes otherwise. The failure to reduce mathematics to pure logic does not undermine this fact. If any, the relation between Something and Nothing is fictional. It remains a representational convenience that has no foundation in reality. And until the human mind is redesigned, man will always tie a fictional relationship from Nothing to Something.
The BIG question is this:
If there has never been any REAL relation between Nothing and Something, how then is it possible for there to be any change from one to the other. Going in and out of existence in real terms is not only quantitativey absurd but also logicaly filthy.
My own belief is that something always changes from something to something, and never to nothing, let alone from nothing back to something.
Chronos
Jul16-04, 08:17 PM
Then we are in agreement Philocrat, as odd as that may seem. Absolute nothing is a philosophical concept. Philosophical 'nothing' is utterly undefinable in terms of any known measurable properties, such as position, mass, velocity, charge, etc. And it is incapable of affecting the properties of 'things' we can measure. Therefore, philosophical nothing does not exist in the physical universe.
The term 'nothing' only has meaning when used in the mathematical sense [zero], which is a relational concept. How many apples are in a barrel of pickles? None, zero. However, the pickles would disagree if you concluded the barrel held 'nothing'.
Quantum phyics predicts 'virtual' particles continuously pop in and out of existence everywhere and all the time. This has been confirmed by observation and is widely accepted by the scientific community. However, virtual particles do not arise from 'nothing'. They are manifestations of fluctuations in the quantum field which fills all of spacetime. You cannot directly observe the quantum field itself. It has no inherent properties that can be observed or measured [at least at present]. So it looks like absolutely 'nothing' is there, until a virtual particle pops in. That is how we know 'something' was there all along [the quantum field].
connect
Jul17-04, 01:41 PM
I believe I have described the quantum field as a matrix (that create space) with a set of atomic operations (that create time). This is a mathematical model that can account for any the effects of any theory.
All numbers stem from binary activity, i.e. one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other.
The distance between whole numbers is the same, numbers have a circular (regular intervals) nature.
Modern physics is about studying fluxuations in the relationships of component parts in an enclosed observation moving through space.
(Note I said the observation was moving as well, what I mean is - if we observe something, our 'point of focus' [the observation] moves with it.).
pelastration
Jul17-04, 06:19 PM
All numbers stem from binary activity, i.e. one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other.
The distance between whole numbers is the same, numbers have a circular (regular intervals) nature.
Also numbers are relative from your framework, point of view or goal. For example numbers can refer to steps (cfr. in Catalan numbers) or can refer to identical units (distance like you call it).
connect: 1- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen in the same space at the same time. This by defintion makes it the same event.
2- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen at the same time in the same space This by defintion makes it the same event.
the first one I agree with, but the second Is not true. for I can have a rock, say its green, and it weighs, has momentum, and is a tempeture. so I can have now 5 different events happen at the same time, and the are linked to one event but they themselfs are 5 different events each independent. we can call the rock a pet plane, and art lumes, or even humor.
connect
Jul19-04, 05:06 AM
the first one I agree with, but the second Is not true. for I can have a rock, say its green, and it weighs, has momentum, and is a tempeture. so I can have now 5 different events happen at the same time, and the are linked to one event but they themselfs are 5 different events each independent. we can call the rock a pet plane, and art lumes, or even humor.
The examples given are logical equivelants, i.e. 2 ways of saying the same thing!
The 'five events' you refer to are actually properties or aspects of that event, i.e. the sum of the observers properties = the total of the observers subject object.
Everything is fluxuation so cannot really have a 'fixed' weight in motion, only in a single point of time. A point has no distance it is just a perceptial horizon, i.e. is part of the observers reality.
but time is an event too, for it exists, and thier is no single point of time unless your going the speed of light. you replace frame rate, with the term event. for time is fluid with the speed one is traveling, and one is always traveling at veriable speeds, and temp., ect., say for instance the center of our earth is ageing differently then us on the serface, and is a linked event of speed.
hmm.. what if I then spray the green rock black heat it up till it fractures, cool half the fracture with liquid nitrogen, and heat the other half back up to melting, squish them together, dance around sining labamba with on foot straped into a snowbaord, trying to make the rain god bring bearded frogs to over take the world, I through the rock as a sacrafice to the rain god, but to my dismay he didnt reach far enough and it knocked myself out to stop the event from even happening.
is that considered one event too? think this kind of falls under the whole, is god real thing, were god = all. but see if all = all , then all can only explain all and cannot explain the inner workings of the linked events to cause a car to run, or for life to breath.
thier for if any said event is said, it then exists within the physical.. so I just saved the world :D on accident, you all better be grate full hehe .
see connect under that priciple a stream of events could be called one event, but its not one event for every aspect is an event separet from the other, when I heat up a rock it expands as it gets hotter, that is a linked event or one event. but to call a green rock the same event as a rock that is say in my front yard going around the planet the same event. in general they are effecting the same object, but I could paint the rock red set it back down, and the event of rotation wouldnt be effected at all. thier for the connection between the events is not of the same linked point.
see what I'm getting at?
All "things" are events, of course.
Time itself however, is not an event. Nor is space.
All events happen in space, separated by distance, because of time.
Space and time are contained within something else.
connect
Jul20-04, 04:33 PM
Space and time are contained within something else.
Why?
Contained in what exactly?
It appears to me that space and time are a bit more consistent than we are.
It also appears to me that we actually live in and are defined by space and time?
I agree we live in space and time... but it doesn't mean they aren't contained in something else.
If I told you, I'd have to shoot you. :)
connect
Jul20-04, 07:16 PM
Im just trying to find the basis for 'space that exists outside of other space'.
If you think about that, it just means that 'on the outside of one space there is other space'.
Ill put it to you again that 'it is only possible to have space'.
Or a bit more refined 'it is only possible to have different types of space configurations relative to other space configurations'.
These space configurations are in constant flux, changing, from one to the next, hence time.
I think its one of those things that is so obvious it is taken for granted and forgotten.
Im bullet proof (to a certain extent...)
;)
Chronos
Jul21-04, 03:06 AM
If space and time are 'contained' inside of something else, what contains the 'container'? Kind of defeats the whole notion of a 'universe' when you rely upon external entities to explain it. For the most part, that just neatly avoids the question.
If space and time are 'contained' inside of something else, what contains the 'container'?
The container is the container.
The question is... "what is the container?"
What is it that has no "outside?"
If space/time is the container... given enough time and space, one will always encounter more universe... never reaching the container.
Not to mention not being able to answer the question of whether it's always existed or was created from a condition that didn't include space/time.
Working with "space/time or universe" to find the container is most likely fruitless.
Endless circles leading nowhere.
connect
Jul21-04, 02:32 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,1266057,00.html
Bing bang theory is out the window.
It wasn't much of a theory to begin with.
It couldn't find the beginning, much less before the beginning.
selfAdjoint
Jul23-04, 03:36 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,1266057,00.html
Big bang theory is out the window.
A black hole is not the big bang. Hawking's talk had NOTHING to do with the big bang. For that matter it didn't have too much to do with black holes.
I would suggest a black hole and the big bang are the same.
They both surmise that something and nothing can interchange. One goes from something to nothing... one goes from nothing to something.
Niether seems to be that case.
Or am I misunderstanding it?
selfAdjoint
Jul23-04, 07:41 PM
I would suggest a black hole and the big bang are the same.
They both surmise that something and nothing can interchange. One goes from something to nothing... one goes from nothing to something.
Niether seems to be that case.
Or am I misunderstanding it?
I think you are misunderstanding. These categories are not specific enough to distinguish things that are really different.
The black hole does not go from something to nothing, it's just one-way. What goes in can't get out again.
In the black hole, spacetime geometry is pretty fixed, in the big bang, spacetime is expanding rapidly. The physics is completely different. And I repeat that Hawking's talk was specificllly about interacting with black holes, not anything at all to do with the big bang.
The black hole does not go from something to nothing, it's just one-way. What goes in can't get out again. And I repeat that Hawking's talk was specificllly about interacting with black holes, not anything at all to do with the big bang.
I realize his talk had nothing to do with the big bang.
I also realize that it's not commonly thought of that the big bang and black holes are the same thing... but I think they are representations of each other. The big bang being the macro and the black hole being the micro.
Doesn't Hawking's old theory state that what goes in disappears (albeit into another universe, theoretically), and isn't just trapped?
The power of a black hole to suck up stuff and make it disappear is very akin to the idea of a black nothingness being able to make stuff appear.
The new idea that black holes leak stuff back into the universe is like saying that somhow something leaks from nothing and the universe begins.
The new black hole theory has some strong merit... but it's dealing with a pre-existing relative state... the big bang theory doesn't have an ounce of merit since it's trying to deal with an absolute state which is quite different.
I think the big bang is a metifor for nothing befor this matters. not because of nothing or time, but because if any previsous other universe existed it wouldnt effect this universe. see what I think happend is: a complete unversal expantion, meaning the big bang occured and is beyond extendable limits for life, and say one atom just going in some direction, at some speed. and say thier were another univere were the same is occured, and a single atom million trillion light centuries (cool made up a new thing? maybe dont know) apart from any other atom from its universe, travleing at some speed acording to its universe. and they collide, now our universe has its own idea of what speed is, and so does the other universe, which is to say 20 mph here could mean 100 * C thier. if it weren't then maybe they would just bounce off eachother.
if this occures then a huge big bang would occure to disperse the energy of the collision. and a black hole is just what a black hole is, a gravity death trap created by a colapsing something, star or whatever.
isnt that the way the atomic bomb works thou? like doesnt it cause space time to bend at the moment of the 2 element impact, cause one has got to be going near c., oh well nvm, way too tired to think anymore night.
Chronos
Jul24-04, 03:17 AM
'a priori' assumptions cannot be proven within the theory that assumes them [a Godel thing]. It is simpler to apply the quantum model to the universe as a whole. Which is to say the universe arose from quantum fluctuations in the 'nothingness' that preceeded it. This particular universe resulted from a fluctuation that had just the right properties to evolve into the structures we now observe. This reality is, therefore, the sum of all possible histories.
Which is to say the universe arose from quantum fluctuations in the 'nothingness' that preceeded it.
Can't have a fluctuation or anything else in nothingness.
This particular universe resulted from a fluctuation that had just the right properties to evolve into the structures we now observe. This reality is, therefore, the sum of all possible histories.
Explaining this universe using other universes doesn't get us down to the bottom of it.
There are essentially, only two choices.
Explain how something came from nothing without using any other thing in the explanation.
Explain how something has always existed without using another thing as it's source.
Manly Smite
Jul27-04, 07:51 AM
OK, lets try this again.
Time is only the measurement of movement thru space. Time = the length of space that one thing travels in an agreed counting system. Lets say 88 hart beats = 60 units and the speed of light = 299,792,458 m / per unit or c / t so time has no value with out movement.
Lets keep in mind that if you’re the one moving (you are) thru space, you use time(t) as a measure of that movement. c = the t it takes for light to move 299,792,458 m measured from where you.
Space is a place that c travels in. We use t to measure c units of space as a way to give the mind a grasp on what it is not able to grasp on it's own.
I.E. a light year =c * sec * min * hour * day * 365.4 Time is a name that only places
one at a place in space when that space is at that place...
Just how fast are we moving any way?
:rolleyes:
Prometheus
Jul27-04, 02:03 PM
OK, lets try this again.
Time is only the measurement of movement thru space.
This statement is true in the context of Newtonian physics. It is false in the context of the theory of relativity.
Prometheus...
How would you restate it in the context of the theory of relativity?
Gil Fuller
Jul27-04, 08:07 PM
There are really two forms of "nothing": 1)rational nothing-nothingness by definition and 2)empirical nothing-what could be there when one is at the limit of ones senses or sensors but detects nothing. In a rational system, something can either come from something or nothing but not both, otherwise, they would mean the same thing instead of being opposites. Because our senses and sensory devices are finite, we can never be empirically sure we have seen the smallest thing. Things can appear from "empirical nothing" but not from "rational nothing."
Philocrat
Jul27-04, 08:28 PM
If space and time are 'contained' inside of something else, what contains the 'container'? Kind of defeats the whole notion of a 'universe' when you rely upon external entities to explain it. For the most part, that just neatly avoids the question.
Self-contained entities do not have to be contained. There is currently nothing readily available to demonstrate that our universe is in a container. Your question is equivalent to asking: God created everthing and what created God? The Container-container theory as it is sometimes called always leads to what is known in philosophy as infifnite regress. The sausage inside sausage inside sausage .....ad infinituum!
On the issue of there being such thing as a 'nothing', my argument remains the some: there is none. Nothing remains what it has been, is, and will ever be: nothing. It cannot in reality relate to that which may be wholly construed as something.
Philocrat
Jul27-04, 08:30 PM
If space and time are 'contained' inside of something else, what contains the 'container'? Kind of defeats the whole notion of a 'universe' when you rely upon external entities to explain it. For the most part, that just neatly avoids the question.
Self-contained entities do not have to be contained. There is currently nothing readily available to demonstrate that our universe is in a container. Your question is equivalent to asking: God created everthing and what created God? The Container-container theory as it is sometimes called always leads to what is known in philosophy as infinite regress. The sausage inside sausage inside sausage .....ad infinituum!
On the issue of there being such thing as a 'nothing', my argument remains the some: there is none. Nothing remains what it has been, is, and will ever be: nothing. It cannot in reality relate to that which may be wholly construed as something.
Self-contained entities do not have to be contained. There is currently nothing readily available to demonstrate that our universe is in a container. Your question is equivalent to asking: God created everthing and what created God?
There is also nothing readily available to demonstrate that our universe is the container.
I think the task is to define "container."
Is it impossible to logically define the container that isn't contained?
Given enough time we can theoretically reach the first or last thing in the universe and peer out over more space.. inside of what?
What comprises the "edge" of the universe?
Philocrat
Jul28-04, 07:56 PM
There is also nothing readily available to demonstrate that our universe is the container.
I think the task is to define "container."
Is it impossible to logically define the container that isn't contained?
Given enough time we can theoretically reach the first or last thing in the universe and peer out over more space.. inside of what?
What comprises the "edge" of the universe?
Well, on the physical side side of things, you are right, there is currently no analytical tool or procedure to substantiate it. But on the supernatural side of things, you probably know that there are those who always use the 'First Mover Argument' in philosophy to equivalently attempt to substantiate it. I am skeptical as to the possibility of both.
Philocrat
Jul28-04, 08:22 PM
There are really two forms of "nothing": 1)rational nothing-nothingness by definition and 2)empirical nothing-what could be there when one is at the limit of ones senses or sensors but detects nothing.
I agree with your observation about emperical-nothing.....it's a mere signal to observational or visual limitations. I believe that there has never been any accountable relation between something and nothing at any level of contemplation. Our constant ettempt to make such connection is fictional and has no base in reality.
In a rational system, something can either come from something or nothing but not both, otherwise, they would mean the same thing instead of being opposites. Because our senses and sensory devices are finite, we can never be empirically sure we have seen the smallest thing. Things can appear from "empirical nothing" but not from "rational nothing."
Even a rational system, if it is to make any sense at all, has a base in reality. My own examination informs me that even in a rational stage there is no room for nothing. Something always comes from this thing or from every other thing and not from nothing. This controversy has caused headache in may areas of philosophy and I beg you understanding to steer clear of it. You might say to me; such logic sucks! yes, it does. But that's the way the cookies crumbles!
I believe that there has never been any accountable relation between something and nothing at any level of contemplation.
I wonder if sufficient contemplation could arrive at an accountable relationship between something and nothing... and if that "idea" would be so compelling that it would be taken as "fact?"
Philocrat
Jul28-04, 11:24 PM
I wonder if sufficient contemplation could arrive at an accountable relationship between something and nothing... and if that "idea" would be so compelling that it would be taken as "fact?"
Perhaps.....and it's debatable whether only under sufficient contemplation could one draw such an amazing 'conclusion', of which you are quite right may be mistaken for a fact. Well, if you like take it as an ordinary suspicion. I am merely expressing my own personal doubt as to whether nothing can give rise to something, let alone any conceivable thing construed as something able to take the form of 'nothing'.
I'm actually not questioning your doubt as to whether nothing can give rise to something... nor am I assuming that a very fundamental idea can only be "mistaken" for fact.
I'm actually wondering if at the root of existence... idea and fact are the same thing?
Plato "seems" to suggest it when he said... "and idea is an archetype of which a corresponding being in phenomenal reality is an imperfect replica."
Prometheus
Jul29-04, 01:25 AM
II'm actually wondering if at the root of existence... idea and fact are the same thing?
Plato "seems" to suggest it when he said... "and idea is an archetype of which a corresponding being in phenomenal reality is an imperfect replica."
Plato thought that geometry is perfect. The reason that it doesn't correlate well with the real world is due to imperfections in the real world, not with his perfect model of geometry.
Do you agree?
My feeling is that they are both imperfect... the geometry and the real world.
True perfection only happens once.
That's the nature of perfection in it's truest sense... at the fundamental level we are talking about.
Anything inside the universe including geometry, and probably the universe as a whole, is not the singular perfection I'm refering to.
nothing is the absence of personal,group,country of things but that others have.
absolute nothing is the absence of space,time and dimension,therefore with absolutely no possibility of bringing forth any something, seen or unseen.
bettysfetish
Aug10-04, 07:20 PM
:biggrin: Well, I've been just reading these threads for awhile and doing alot of reading; everything from Thales- about 600 b.c. to Newton, Einstein, Greene, Reese and Hawking. And all those in between.
This "nothing" thing is simply not going to be solved in our time. If this "must" be included in the T.O.E. then that theory may simply not solidify. Whatever state exsisted before the "Planck Time" will never (i use that term loosely) be determined. We are forced to accept that this "unknown state" must have exsisted. Even through the application of well known quantum theorys like those of Heisenberg we're forced to accept that the conditions must have been right sooner or later for energy to quantum tunnel into exsistance.
It just happened. Now it's up to entropy to take it's course; and in the termoil we exsist, "For there can be order in the chaos." This temporary order is held in check by gravity, and "that" being the result of mass will eventually disipate as well. Then all will be calm in the universe.
L8R
--------"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."------------
pallidin
Aug10-04, 08:14 PM
There is no such thing as "nothing" within any framework of reality. As such, it is a concept which can not exist.
After all, if nothing were something it could not be nothing.
Thus, "nothing" is not only the absence of substance, but also the absence of reality.
... and, more specifically, what is the difference between nothing and absolutely nothing?
Nothing: This is an absence of what our senses and measuring instruments detect. For example, we may think of empty space as void, when it could contain solid ether. But we fail to detect it and so think empty space has nothing in it.
Absolute nothing: This is the ultimate in emptiness. Even if our senses and measuring instruments we set to detect everything that existed. In this case there is nothing there. Absolute nothing is void of everything: force, gravity, photons, ether, etc.
So "nothing" and "absolute nothing" are not the same thing.
wisp
"particles of nothingness"
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 02:06 PM
What is "nothing?"
It is something which cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched, cannot be tasted, cannot be smelled, cannot be thought of and hence cannot be discussed.
Nothing is the complete opposite of the whole purpose of science. Science is the search for truth and truth is always something although truth can more often hide behind the concept of nothing if the truth is relative, but if the truth is absolute then it is the biggest thing in the universe and it is as clear as the purest crystal found in nature.
you cant nor will we ever define nothing or no-thing cause once that happens it becomes something...
michelle s
Aug11-04, 02:54 PM
What if space is infinite?
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 02:58 PM
What if space is infinite?
We will never be here to talk about it.
michelle s
Aug11-04, 03:03 PM
We will never be here to talk about it.
please could you elaborate on that, i do not understand... :confused:
C. Michael Turner
Aug11-04, 03:25 PM
Nothing by definition does not exist. Therefore space itself is something. It is the monopole gravitational wave evaporating, decaying, from mass creating the actions of time, SPACE, and gravitational wave sychronization(i.e. brining mass together through the path of least resistance. Everything is made up of the bound or unbound gravitational wave- even space itself. It ain't that hard to see from God's view point of how hecreated it all--- for you.
Antonio Lao
Aug12-04, 05:31 AM
please could you elaborate on that, i do not understand
If space is infinite, it can have no beginning and no end. It is always there and there is no need for change of any kind. It is full and empty at the same time. This might be one of the ideas that the debunked cosmological proposal of steady state theory of the universe.
But even the big bang theory (accepted by many since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation) has its share of problems. The latest more effective problem solving theory of the universe is the inflationary theory.
:biggrin: Well, I've been just reading these threads for awhile and doing alot of reading; everything from Thales- about 600 b.c. to Newton, Einstein, Greene, Reese and Hawking. And all those in between.
This "nothing" thing is simply not going to be solved in our time. If this "must" be included in the T.O.E. then that theory may simply not solidify. Whatever state exsisted before the "Planck Time" will never (i use that term loosely) be determined. We are forced to accept that this "unknown state" must have exsisted. Even through the application of well known quantum theorys like those of Heisenberg we're forced to accept that the conditions must have been right sooner or later for energy to quantum tunnel into exsistance.
It just happened. Now it's up to entropy to take it's course; and in the termoil we exsist, "For there can be order in the chaos." This temporary order is held in check by gravity, and "that" being the result of mass will eventually disipate as well. Then all will be calm in the universe.
L8R
--------"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."------------
___________________________________________
"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.but "absolute nothing" has no undefined,hidden substance,this is a problem conjured up by the big bang theory.
There is no such thing as "nothing" within any framework of reality. As such, it is a concept which can not exist.
After all, if nothing were something it could not be nothing.
Thus, "nothing" is not only the absence of substance, but also the absence of reality.
___________________________________________
yes there is a such thing as nothing, nothing can be used in the practical sense,an expression.but in the strictess sense your right.
you cant nor will we ever define nothing or no-thing cause once that happens it becomes something...
___________________________________________
you can define nothing in terms of action(which you have done here)i've done nothing all day,an expression or absolute existence of substance.
What if space is infinite?
___________________________________________
it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.
[QUOTE=Antonio Lao]If space is infinite, it can have no beginning and no end. It is always there and there is no need for change of any kind.
___________________________________________
define what you mean by SPACE does not change. do you mean pure space with no substance or the universe,which has of course substance.
___________________________________________
michelle s
Aug12-04, 07:33 PM
[QUOTE=north]___________________________________________
it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.[/QUOTE
so... space is substance?
and there are no ends to the universe...no nothing, always something
Antonio Lao
Aug13-04, 01:30 AM
define what you mean by SPACE does not change
Defined in cosmological theories as that is expanding. Infinite space implies no such expansion hence does not change. Steady state theory implies continuous creation of matter, it does not implies an infinite space, but it implies eternal, self-replicating expansion of something either matter or space.
bettysfetish
Aug13-04, 08:04 PM
[QUOTE=north]
"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.
:wink: Hello all. I was going to drop out of this thread since there seems to be no answers at this time, but I'd like to clarify one point.
North, I'm honered to be one of thoses you've singled out for comment. I may not have elaborated enough to make myself clear, sorry. I was refering to whatever "state", or whatever term you personally might apply to it, that "may" have exsisted, since this "is" theoriticle, or didn't or couldn't have exsisted, depending on your viewpoint, before the creation of matter.
I used the word "state" for just the reason you've pointed out as problematic, simply because it does not imply the exsistance of matter. The only reference I made to matter was in using the word "mass" in reference to a point in time "after" the conversion started.
As Antonio stated, the best problem solving theory right now is the inflationary theory. What theory do you subscribe to? And what was there before "that" started? How do you "set the arrow of time" without real particles, be they antiparticles or not. And before this point could there not be energy? Photons are energy with no decernable mass, or mabey it's nutrinos, but there seems no reason to think this type of energy can't be present without mass to stretch the fabric of space. And even if that be the case, what lead to the creation of the energy?- - and so on and so on. What I was concerned with was what it may have been like to lead to the creation of mass.
But as I said, as far as I can find, there is no answer now or on the horizon. Even if string theory works out it won't answer absolutly every question.
I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new or intresting, but this "is" getting a bit trite. And North, I'd like to hear from you, I think I sortof ment things the way you stated them, perhaps I just didn't choose my words or phrasing correctly.
L8R
----------"Atfter all is said and done, Gravity Rules."--------------
Antonio Lao
Aug14-04, 08:09 AM
I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new
The ideas that I'm proposing is that we are living in a quantum universe. The quanta are 1D spacetime structures giving two distinct topological geometries. These geometries can describe both mass and charge concept in physics. And what is quantized space is definitely different from what is quantized energy and from what is quantized mass.
Quantum theory as set forth by Planck is the quantization of energy. But the atomic theory did partially the quantization of mass for it did not give good explanation why some masses could be zero. For a theory to account to zero mass, it must defnitely take negative valued mass into consideration even if only for mathematical equations and not for any physically meaningful negativity. So the quantum of mass is really the Planck mass and the mass of the electron is just some multiples of positive and negative of the Planck mass.
What if space has mass?
The concept of "nothing" doesn't contain the concept of space. We think of nothing as empty space, but that is not accurate. A creator would make space in nothing by having points of matter that define the places. So imagine space as being a dust cloud of points of matter. Space has mass.
A photon supposedly doesn't have mass, but what if a photon is one of the points in the dust cloud that makes up space? Now a photon and space have the same mass, which we define as zero mass, but really it has some mass.
If something were lighter than space, it would have negative mass.
[QUOTE=north]___________________________________________
it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.[/QUOTE
so... space is substance?
and there are no ends to the universe...no nothing, always something
___________________________________________
to the first question,no.(space and substance become at the same time,to me) the universe is the result of SPACE,for if there was no space, substance could not be. of all dimensions space is most important,think about it.
Defined in cosmological theories as that is expanding. Infinite space implies no such expansion hence does not change. Steady state theory implies continuous creation of matter, it does not implies an infinite space, but it implies eternal, self-replicating expansion of something either matter or space.
___________________________________________
why do you say that infinite space does not expand? why not infinite expanding space?
is there a continuous creation of substance? if there is show it.(no disagreement here, just asking,define the thought)
[QUOTE=John]What if space has mass?
The concept of "nothing" doesn't contain the concept of space. We think of nothing as empty space, but that is not accurate. A creator would make space in nothing by having points of matter that define the places. So imagine space as being a dust cloud of points of matter. Space has mass.
___________________________________________
no, nothing(or absolute nothing,in the strictess sense of the word) is not just empty space,it has no time or dimension.
___________________________________________
[QUOTE=north]
"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.
:wink: Hello all. I was going to drop out of this thread since there seems to be no answers at this time, but I'd like to clarify one point.
North, I'm honered to be one of thoses you've singled out for comment. I may not have elaborated enough to make myself clear, sorry. I was refering to whatever "state", or whatever term you personally might apply to it, that "may" have exsisted, since this "is" theoriticle, or didn't or couldn't have exsisted, depending on your viewpoint, before the creation of matter.
___________________________________________
there was no before substance.that would lead to "nothing" producing something.but this is erroneous.since substance must be infinite.
so why do i think that, simply because "nothing" would be infinite(since there is no possibility of form to the concept) and therefore "nothing" would always be "nothing". there is no possibility of change.
___________________________________________
I used the word "state" for just the reason you've pointed out as problematic, simply because it does not imply the exsistance of matter. The only reference I made to matter was in using the word "mass" in reference to a point in time "after" the conversion started.
___________________________________________
to me it is ALL intertwined,energy in all it's forms is only limited by it's self and that which holds it(space for instance).
more later,got to go!
___________________________________________
As Antonio stated, the best problem solving theory right now is the inflationary theory. What theory do you subscribe to? And what was there before "that" started? How do you "set the arrow of time" without real particles, be they antiparticles or not. And before this point could there not be energy? Photons are energy with no decernable mass, or mabey it's nutrinos, but there seems no reason to think this type of energy can't be present without mass to stretch the fabric of space. And even if that be the case, what lead to the creation of the energy?- - and so on and so on. What I was concerned with was what it may have been like to lead to the creation of mass.
But as I said, as far as I can find, there is no answer now or on the horizon. Even if string theory works out it won't answer absolutly every question.
I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new or intresting, but this "is" getting a bit trite. And North, I'd like to hear from you, I think I sortof ment things the way you stated them, perhaps I just didn't choose my words or phrasing correctly.
L8R
----------"Atfter all is said and done, Gravity Rules."--------------
___________________________________________
UltraPi1
Aug15-04, 09:00 AM
Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.
Hence - In our universe there are only ones ..... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.
Nimbupani
Aug15-04, 09:23 AM
Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.
Hence - In our universe there are only ones ..... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of. So you are saying that if we came from nothing we can expect to be made of nothing? How can one nothing effect another nothing?
UltraPi1
Aug15-04, 09:52 AM
So you are saying that if we came from nothing we can expect to be made of nothing? Yes - There are no other choices when beginning with nothing.
How can one nothing effect another nothing? To exist - (ONE) must have form, and the universe is full of these forms. To have form - difference is established. I.E. Inside the form verses outside the form. Plus verses minus. If all forms carry with it (difference). We can expect (effect) between forms. Thus - No form can pass another form without effect. Keep in mind that all forms are conceptual in nature. Physicality is not possible in a universe made from nothing.
To add to this - Contradiction is at the cornerstone in this model. Suffice to say ........... A thing is equally dependent on what it is not. I exist because I don't exist as a necessary statement. I.E. 0 and 1 ... pure contradiction.
Antonio Lao
Aug15-04, 11:42 AM
why do you say that infinite space does not expand?
For infinity has nowhere to expand to. It is full and empty at the same time.
Continuous creation of matter is a proposal of the debunked steady state theory of the universe originated by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in the 1940s. The observed high redshift of many objects is a proof that the universe is changing as if it's aging hence it's not infinite.
bettysfetish
Aug15-04, 04:20 PM
Well, I certainly don't know where to go with this. For one thing, I'm not formally educated enough to use the proper terms when required and I have a hard time keeping all these concepts and theorys straight. It sometimes makes it difficult to convey what one truely means.
Antonio, what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?
To all; Can we agree that spacetime has an origin?, A begining? And what might that have been? No one seems to be able to offer anything beyond this. And here is where I dwell. I'm getting just about leary of proposing any ideas at all because every idea put forth seems to get tossed in the blender, but thats the way it's been since Gallilio, Newton and many others. I have no problem if shown a more enlightend path and to date see no reason to exclude my postulations because of a more rational concept.
Who here beleives that some form of energy quantum tunneled into exsistance to be the embryo for mass? There might be a few of you. That said, from what place might you think this energy came from? Where ever or whatever it was there was certainly no "arrow of time" at that point. Therefore that "place" (and i use that word quite unspecifically) would have "been" for ever; infinitly.
And North; "No possibility" of form to the concept, and "no possibility" of change? - - In the system in question? Here before us is the concept of infinity; fragmented time which follows no specific direction. Surly you jest. Hiesenburg would be quite put out with the thought. In some limited time frame perhaps the impossibiltys would prove you correct, but how can we assume nothing like what is put forth here could happen when we have forever to wait? This topic does seem to usually end up discussing aspects which require "matter" to be added to the equation. We might fare better to not go that far in the timeline. After all we're discussing "what is nothing" here so the subject should stop with the creation of matter.
L8R
We start with nothing, then realize, that is not a first principle but a second principle. Nothing is made up to two ideas, no and thing. We can’t start with nothing. We have to start with “thing”. Whatever existed or didn’t exist was thing. What is thing? The definition of thing is: what it is. That means it can’t be something else, and right there, we have the definition of mass. "What is" resists movement or change. It resists becoming something else.
And by the definition of existence, two things can’t occupy the same place. That is the same definition as a point. Two points can’t occupy the same place. So the universe had to start as a thing, a single point of existence. That point, that thing was surrounded by nothing.
The third quality of a thing: it must occupy some amount of volume. That can be debated. A point is a thing that pure math says doesn’t occupy any volume. String theory says that a point is not really a volumeless thing, but it occupies a certain distance on a number line. And then, string theory goes on to say, in fact, a string is a hollow tube and has volume.
So a point occupies some volume. Now this point, this thing, which occupies volume is surrounded by nothing.
If it occupies volume, then it can occupy less volume. So let’s break this string in half and separate the two halves. What resists the separation? Nothing. What are they separating into? They have nothing to separate into. So they can’t separate, yet nothing resists their separation. Two things are possible at the same time, which gives birth to? Force. It takes force to separate the divided string into nothing.
Let’s remove the force that broke the string and separated it. Here is the first place we ask ourselves, “Does nothing contain a lot of empty space?” If it does, then the two strings, or points that have volume can float in the nothingness of empty space. But we have already defined space or volume as a quality that only exists in a point, because we call the point a string, and really a hollow tube that has volume. Therefore, no volume exists in “the nothingness of empty space”. The only volume that exists is within each string, and now, we have definitely separated the two strings. Let them go, in you imagination, and what do they do? They must come back together because there is nothing between them, yet they are separated.
Ask yourself, "When do they come back together?" Not instantaneously, but after the mass is overcome because the mass says they are in a state of separation. The thing required for them to come back together is time. The thing pushing them back together is an attractive force the same direction as gravity. It always pushes masses together. The coming back together is from the fact they are separated into nothing, which does not contain space.
Here, by pure defintion we have created mass, force, time and distance. We also created the concept of gravity.
We created those things from no, and thing. Imagine what can be created from mass, force, time, and distance, and gravity!
Don't confuse nothingness with the physicists "vacuum state", which is the state you can't subtract particles from.
Surely "nothing' or 'absolute nothing' are both states that carry the force of vacuum, just as gravitons carry gravity etc. That is to say 'nothingness is a vacuum state.
Antonio Lao
Aug16-04, 09:10 AM
what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?
The mainstream physics is going into higher dimensional formulation using tensor analysis. But for the sake of visualization in many specific demonstration of theories, the theorists, more often than not, use 1D of space and time. For example the Feynman diagram and the light-cone diagram in Einstein's relativity theories.
Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.
___________________________________________
really,so what came first,the elements of biology,or biology? which of course the essence of conceptualisation of any thing,which is based on substance being already there.
___________________________________________
Hence - In our universe there are only ones ..... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.
___________________________________________
but time is happening everywhere,in all instances(in the universe)beyond just our perception and conception.
For infinity has nowhere to expand to. It is full and empty at the same time.
Continuous creation of matter is a proposal of the debunked steady state theory of the universe originated by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in the 1940s. The observed high redshift of many objects is a proof that the universe is changing as if it's aging hence it's not infinite.
___________________________________________
but space is also infinite,so substance and space proceed together.
Well, I certainly don't know where to go with this. For one thing, I'm not formally educated enough to use the proper terms when required and I have a hard time keeping all these concepts and theorys straight. It sometimes makes it difficult to convey what one truely means.
Antonio, what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?
To all; Can we agree that spacetime has an origin?, A begining? And what might that have been? No one seems to be able to offer anything beyond this. And here is where I dwell. I'm getting just about leary of proposing any ideas at all because every idea put forth seems to get tossed in the blender, but thats the way it's been since Gallilio, Newton and many others. I have no problem if shown a more enlightend path and to date see no reason to exclude my postulations because of a more rational concept.
Who here beleives that some form of energy quantum tunneled into exsistance to be the embryo for mass? There might be a few of you. That said, from what place might you think this energy came from? Where ever or whatever it was there was certainly no "arrow of time" at that point. Therefore that "place" (and i use that word quite unspecifically) would have "been" for ever; infinitly.
And North; "No possibility" of form to the concept, and "no possibility" of change? - - In the system in question? Here before us is the concept of infinity; fragmented time which follows no specific direction. Surly you jest. Hiesenburg would be quite put out with the thought. In some limited time frame perhaps the impossibiltys would prove you correct, but how can we assume nothing like what is put forth here could happen when we have forever to wait? This topic does seem to usually end up discussing aspects which require "matter" to be added to the equation. We might fare better to not go that far in the timeline. After all we're discussing "what is nothing" here so the subject should stop with the creation of matter.
L8R
___________________________________________
nothing is nothing is nothing in the nonexpression sense.in nothing there is nothing to change.as far as Heisenberg is concerned then he is wrong,whether he's put out or not.
simply i don't get what the problem with " absolute nothing" is. it has no space,time or dimension.so where does the possibility of change come from? put another way if we start with the above mentioned criteria,then what happens?
Don't confuse nothingness with the physicists "vacuum state", which is the state you can't subtract particles from.
Surely "nothing' or 'absolute nothing' are both states that carry the force of vacuum, just as gravitons carry gravity etc. That is to say 'nothingness is a vacuum state.
___________________________________________
nothing has well NOTHING,there is NO force of any kind.is seems to me that we ADD things to nothing.nothing is nothing people,plain and simple.nothing hidden or to be discovered, nothing in it's purest formless concept is all it is or ever will be.
Antonio Lao
Aug16-04, 02:57 PM
but space is also infinite,so substance and space proceed together.
This statement is an assumption. Because it can be observed that the domination of redshifts against blueshifts is an astronomical fact and that can only be described if the universe is finite and has a beginning. The universe might expand forever if the value of omega is less than 1. Omega is defined as the ratio of observed total density of matter to the critical density.
[QUOTE=John]We start with nothing, then realize, that is not a first principle but a second principle. Nothing is made up to two ideas, no and thing. We can’t start with nothing. We have to start with “thing”. Whatever existed or didn’t exist was thing. What is thing? The definition of thing is: what it is. That means it can’t be something else, and right there, we have the definition of mass. "What is" resists movement or change. It resists becoming something else.
___________________________________________
nothing may have two ideas but not "absolute nothing" mass cannot even exist here since in absolute nothing there NOTHING for mass to exist IN.
This statement is an assumption. Because it can be observed that the domination of redshifts against blueshifts is an astronomical fact and that can only be described if the universe is finite and has a beginning. The universe might expand forever if the value of omega is less than 1. Omega is defined as the ratio of observed total density of matter to the critical density.
___________________________________________
in Halton Arp's idea mass is created all the time.(his book SEEING RED isbn#0-9683689-0-5)
further this a discussion of nothing,substance always was and will be since nothing has NO possibility of creating substance.or show that nothing can.substance survives always,no ifs ands or buts.if you disagree explain.
Antonio Lao
Aug16-04, 03:30 PM
Another alternative but hopefully more comprehensive description of nothing is the following:
In physics, when we say nothing we usually mean there is no mass. But what is mass? There is still no satisfactory answer. In experiment, we defined equal mass with respect to other mass (the standard mass) when the gravitational attraction to both is balanced. Gravity is a force. What is a force? When a force moves an object thru certain distance, the product of this force and distance is defined as the work energy or kinetic energy. But a motionless object a distant apart from a gravity field of force is defined as possessing potential energy. So that in a time independent isolated system, the total energy is a constant and is equal to the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy.
if the universe is considered as an isolated system, then its total energy is a constant. From this constancy of energy, we can defined two kinds of mass: the potential mass and the kinetic mass. Everything is composed of some amount of potential and some amount of kinetic mass. When the amounts are equal, the object has zero mass and its speed is always equal the speed of light.
Antonio Lao
Aug16-04, 03:42 PM
in Halton Arp's idea mass is created all the time
This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.
This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.
___________________________________________
it seems to me that red shift and blue shift are relative to where you are to the source of the shifts,north-south-west-east and all points in between are a matter of observational perspective.blues would be hidden more than reds.
nothing has well NOTHING,there is NO force of any kind.is seems to me that we ADD things to nothing.nothing is nothing people,plain and simple.nothing hidden or to be discovered, nothing in it's purest formless concept is all it is or ever will be.
QT states that the void has a minimum energy state, so
1)how does it get into the state envisaged in the above statement? and
2) if such a state ever existed what caused creation to commence?
This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.
All that has to be done to make sense of the steady atate theory is to replace 'galaxy' with 'universe'. Bondi-gold- and Hoyle did not think big enough.
Another alternative but hopefully more comprehensive description of nothing is the following:
In physics, when we say nothing we usually mean there is no mass. But what is mass? There is still no satisfactory answer. In experiment, we defined equal mass with respect to other mass (the standard mass) when the gravitational attraction to both is balanced. Gravity is a force. What is a force? When a force moves an object thru certain distance, the product of this force and distance is defined as the work energy or kinetic energy. But a motionless object a distant apart from a gravity field of force is defined as possessing potential energy. So that in a time independent isolated system, the total energy is a constant and is equal to the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy.
if the universe is considered as an isolated system, then its total energy is a constant. From this constancy of energy, we can defined two kinds of mass: the potential mass and the kinetic mass. Everything is composed of some amount of potential and some amount of kinetic mass. When the amounts are equal, the object has zero mass and its speed is always equal the speed of light.
___________________________________________
this getting away from the original forum here.lets not loose sight of what the original question is here.i mean now you are talking of mass.in "absolute nothing" there is nothing,no energy of any kind.what you are talking about is some sort of mathematical definition of nothing based on cancellation of energies in an equation and yet this a contridiction of nothing,THERE IS NO EQUATION. nothing is nothing is nothing.physics DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEARER,PLAIN AND SIMPLE there are no variations of the theme.there is no mass,time,space or dimension period!! physics is not the answer to nothing,its a contradiction,physics NEEDS something physical to analyze,nothing HAS NOTHING physical TOO analyze.
BoulderHead
Aug16-04, 05:17 PM
[foot in door] There was a show I saw on television where young people were asked to draw air in a syringe, then, the same amount of air in the syringe under compression. Virtually all drew little dots to represent air molecules, closer together in the compressed stage, not as close in the other. The troubling question was then asked; what’s in-between the dots? It made them pause, but none of them seemed comfortable with the idea of ‘nothing’. [/foot in door]
Does the vacuum exist between planets, stars, and galaxies? The answer is, nothing as powerful as the vacuum could exist between planets.
So, what does exist between the planets and stars?
We have the idea that matter (from stars to atoms) live in this empty expanse of nothing. But we really have two definitions of nothing. The more sophisticated definition is “vacuum state” which we have found inside the structure of atoms and greatly affecting particles. What exists between stars? Space is different from the vacuum, so what is space?
The old answer was “ether”. Ether, or anything that makes up space would involve the vacuum state and something else filling it, making it less intense. Empty space, like the space inside a box, is literally a collection of points. A line is literally a series of points. Ask the question do the points take up any space on a line?
Strings do take up space on a line.
Are points on a line non-dimensional? or are they strings? Strings would be little segments of the line. If you put any number of non-dimensional dots side by side, you still have a non-dimensional dot. You don’t have a line. To make a line, you have to separate the dots and then you have something between the dots. If you constructed a line, it must be constructed of strings not non-dimensional points, and strings take up space on the line. The strings fill up the vacuum state and create a line.
What is the space between stars? Little tetrahedrons, not strings can make up a 3D space. The tetrahedrons must have some volume. You have space made of little tetrahedral points that have volume. Tetrahedrons have six edges, six dimensions. Add the classic three dimensions and that is nine dimensions, with one dimension of time, and that is exactly what string theory predicts. String theory, in pure math terms, is a theory that says a point on a line is really a little segment of that line. Likewise, a point in space would really be a little segment of space. It is shaped like a tetrahedron and has six edges, which could be called six dimensions. This space filled with points that have volume is not absolute vacuum. It is something else, like ether. If space were the absolute vacuum, then all the stars would be sucked together in a few years. This tetrahedral structure of space is what makes the vacuum less intense and converts the vacuum to gravity, and this tetrahedral structure with nine dimensions is what light, cosmic waves, and all particles travel through.
C. Michael Turner
Aug17-04, 05:30 AM
Something exists, nothing doesn't. Therefore expanding space is something because nothing doesn't exist. Space is the expanding monopole gravitational wave as it changes from bound matter to unbound wave. an Unwinding! Everything is something and something always eventually becomes the gravitational wave, therefore nothing is outside the realm of matter which includes the gravitational wave and therefore space!
Antonio Lao
Aug17-04, 06:51 AM
it seems to me that red shift and blue shift are relative to where you are to the source of the shifts,north-south-west-east and all points in between are a matter of observational perspective.blues would be hidden more than reds.
Hubble didn't think so and Einstein agreed with him.
Antonio Lao
Aug17-04, 06:56 AM
this getting away from the original forum here.
The "nothing" in physics is the false vacuum. The "nothing" in philosophy is the true vacuum. The true vacuum is unreachable either by time or space or force or energy.
bettysfetish
Aug17-04, 04:49 PM
:uhh: O.K. - - I'll agree that nothing is nothing. To have something, you need mass. Do we agree? But do we agree the Big Bang provided the essential requirments to create the mass we see today in our universe as it is today? All things considered, this mass originated at a singular point, right? Where would that have been; in what environment?
Antonio, help me here - - as you stated, the nothing in physics is the "false Vacuum State." Does anyone else here grasp that concept? That is the key to where the singularity came into exsistance, or "what" the environment was like before mass. I ask; can energy "be" without mass? And why not? Does space really "need" to be strecthed by mass to "be there"?
We may fare better to pursue the false vacuum angle as it represents a state of nothing where virtual particles can interact for an infinite length of time untill one lucky pair of particles don't annililate one another in a timely mannor. This would create quite an imbalance in the system in question. I will stand by proven theory or the most reasonable and logical theorys to date. Heisenburg may have tried to bomb us first and thanks to many operatives he failed, but his theorys stand firm. Nothing is an unstable system. If one waits an infinite length of time, something will happen.
L8R
Bettysfetish-- To have something you need mass.
I won’t question why you said it, but it’s absolutely right; and you put that statement at the beginning. It is the beginning of understanding creation and the big bang, at least, according to my theory. To have something you need mass. Everything else you said was on the same point and it was the point I was going to address next. Let's see if we can understand each other and maybe agree.
A single point on the number line is considered non-dimensional, which, by definition, is nothing. We say number lines are made up of non-dimensional points. Are they? An infinite amount of nothing is still nothing, so we have a real contradiction in our most basic concepts. We think a number line is made of an infinite amount of nothing. We think the universe was made from nothing.
We say that in the line from 0 to 1, you can divide it in half and find a non-dimensional point halfway between. Divide it in fourths and you find four non-dimensional points. Divided it by infinity and you have an infinite number of non-dimensional points between 0 and 1. You can say the line from 0 to 1 is constructed of an infinite number of non-dimensional points. In other words, it is constructed of an infinite amount of nothing. But can you?
If you divide the number line by 10 million, then each point in the number line is a small segment 1/10millionth long, or each non-dimensional point is separated by 1/10millionth.
Something in that equation is real: either the non-dimensional point is real, or the separation of 1/10millionth is real. The non-dimensional point is not real, because “to have something you need mass”, or at least, you need a numerical value. So instead of a non-dimensional point, we have the length between two points that is 1/10millionth long, and that is real. It could be called a string point. We could take 10 million of those string points and make the line.
No matter what we divide the line by, we can divide it by a little more (or even a lot more) so we never reach infinity, therefore a non-dimensional point, which has the value 1 / Infinity doesn’t exist. The only thing that does exist is a string point.
If the singularity that the universe was created from was a string point then the point that the universe was created from had to have some value or mass. Here is the cool part. You can always cut a string point in half. In fact, you can cut it into any number of pieces. So if all the mass in the universe was one string point, you could cut up the singularity into a large number of pieces and explode it all into the vacuum of nothing.
Now you have a dynamic, which is, "nothing" has neither any space to separate into, nor any ability to resist the separation. That is a dynamic. A dynamic is a force, in this case a force pushing inward, like gravity. Scientist say the solution to the whole mystery is to understand gravity. Two strings that have value or mass, separating into nothing... nothing neither allows then to separate nor can resist it, creates a force that has the same direction as gravity, pulling the two strings or points back together.
Since the singularity is a string point and must have some value, some mass, we can have a normal big bang, which is the explosion of something that does have mass. Now the creation looks a lot more normal.
A single point on the number line is considered non-dimensional, which, by definition, is nothing. We say number lines are made up of non-dimensional points. Are they? An infinite amount of nothing is still nothing, so we have a real contradiction in our most basic concepts. We think a number line is made of an infinite amount of nothing. We think the universe was made from nothing.
You are missing the point made first by Newton, who realised that the centre was a Zero Point (no dimensions) but all other volumes have dimensions and therefore must have a quantity greater than zero. Newton decided this is a quantity of force, hence gravity, but gravity is a hypothetical term.
Newton was the first person to use the term Zero Point but it has since be given a different definition.
Chronos
Aug18-04, 01:54 AM
Permit me to step out of this argument in the same way I stepped in. 'Nothing' quantifies the operator in a 'null premise' mathematical argument. What remains is philosophy. You guys are on the wrong board.
Antonio Lao
Aug18-04, 06:59 AM
Where would that have been; in what environment?
In physics, it's called the quantum vacuum fluctuation. Proven to exist by the Casimir effect. This expeiment was suggested by the Dutch physicist in 1940s.
Antonio Lao
Aug18-04, 07:15 AM
Does space really "need" to be strecthed by mass to "be there"?
Actually, it's spacetime not space alone that is being stretched by mass. It is very hard or impossible to visualize but using math, it can be calculated. But because Einstein's field equations of general relativity are 16 coupled hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations, their solutions are infinite. Even Einstein himself, at first, thought that a solution could never be found. Subsequent works by many other have led to many particular solutions forming various models of the universe.
Antonio Lao
Aug18-04, 07:35 AM
Since the singularity is a string point and must have some value, some mass, we can have a normal big bang, which is the explosion of something that does have mass. Now the creation looks a lot more normal.
My hypothesis is this: before the string point can exist, it needs to possess 8 properties of a principle of directional invariance.
These 8 properties are 3-way permutations of right-left, back-for, top-down symmetries.
All 3D objects possess these properties. A left, a right, a back, a front, a top and a down. If either one is missing, the object cease to exist in 3D. When these properties become dynamic then the object becomes 4D of space and time. This 4D object is what we call mass. The 3D object is what we call energy. The 2D object is what we call continuous space. The 1D object is what we call quantized space. The 0D object is what we call the false vacuum.
bettysfetish
Aug18-04, 08:58 AM
:approve: Well, the last few threads "were" quite thought provolking. And thanks to Antonio Lao. I'll digest this and return.
L8R
I wrote a kind of proof that said a non-dimensional point can’t really exist on a 1D line: the point must be a string. That explanation would have been too involved if I had not just accepted the fact that if a point has to be a string on a line, it has to have volume in 3D.
It takes four imaginary points to make a 3D structure, and those four imaginary points form a tetrahedron. If you use string points, it takes six strings to form a tetrahedron, which is the number of extra dimensions in string theory.
If you construct 3D space out of strings, you are met with an amazing fact that you can only travel back and forth in six directions in the string space you have constructed. And the smallest structure in 3D space with string points, the tetrahedron, has volume.
When you realize you can’t have any point that doesn’t have numerical value on a line, you are faced with a 3D space that has an underlying structure of little tetrahedrons, which are little things that turn in on themselves underneath 3D space, like the underlying dimensions of string theory. A string point in 3D space is a hollow tetrahedron with six edges.
When you prove, or realize you can't have a non-dimensional point that isn't imaginary, and when you realize what you can have, you arrive at physical space with 9 dimensions! There could be considered six extra dimensions in the little tetrahedrons underneath the 3 dimensions.
Each little tetrahedron, which has volume and mass and is therefore able to create space out of nothing, is just a point in the 3D space, but in that underlying tetrahedron space, you can only go back and forth in six directions!
bettysfetish
Aug19-04, 02:08 PM
:smile: Hello all. Antonio is right about the "Casimir Effect"; that was 1948, and the dudes first name was Hendrick. The experiment indicates some very compellingly possibiltys. "Acually, it's spacetime, not space alone, that is being stretched by mass." -- O.K., I'll grant you that, but it seems that if gravity was the last force to "freeze out" and manifest itself as "real" then that "in itself" requires the presence of mass. Gravity gradually took hold as more and more energy converted to more and more mass. So heres my problem; before this point, at about 10-35 > 10-45 seconds "Was it a "SpaceTime" or just "Space?" At this point, (how 1o1), you realize the pressures and energys keep everthing in an energy state; we're a "Plancks Hair" before the beggining of conversion to mass. Now, without mass, and all this energy contained within a 3 millimeter radius, if your into the expanding universe thing, but then you have to explain X-particles and Monopoles, "or" a radius of 3x10-35 centimeters, which needs "expotential expansion" for the inflationary universe, Is there gravity yet? Might the false vacuum be space without matter so therefore no "time?" Or might the timeline be there without a particle of mass "to set a direction" by it's very disintigration. It seems the very first particle of mass created would have set history in motion; entropy was already at work here. Where did the beggining of entropy begin? Could energy itself trigger time? Is energy "something"? It exsits without mass. If it's timeless then is it something or not? Hummm.
L8R
Mass has to exist. Mass is the very definition of existence: I am, therefore I can't be something else, which is inertia. Energy is mass in motion. Simple.
But ask yourself, where does attractive force come from? It comes from something on the outside pushing in. There is an envelope of nothing around primal matter, such as the matter inside of atoms. The envelope of nothing, pushing in, creates the strong force.
To get from the strong attractive force to gravity is not mathematical, but mechanical, like trying to figure out equations between how much gas you put in a car and how much energy you get out. It goes through a mechanical process and there is no set answer. Gravity is essentially the mechanical relationship between mass which has volume; and nothing, which is perfectly empty and has no space.
The radical concept here is that mass has volume; and emptiness has no space. Physics believes the opposite, that a point particle is dimensionless and there is a vast amout of empty space, though they are questioning the latter.
String theory at its root says that a point particle has volume.
Permit me to step out of this argument in the same way I stepped in. 'Nothing' quantifies the operator in a 'null premise' mathematical argument. What remains is philosophy. You guys are on the wrong board.
___________________________________________
couldn't agree more,guys the original question was what is the difference between "nothing" and "absolute nothing".it has been answered.but the discussion NOW IS BASED ON MASS AND MATH.
i suggest a NEW TOPIC board.then go from there.
What is nothing? is the perfect title for what is being discussed.
If mass has volume, then it fills the absolute vacuum. Filling the absolute vacuum with something that has volume makes absolute nothing into the less intense nothing of space.
But we are not talking about the mass of galaxies that we can see. We are talking about dark matter that fills the void of absolute nothing and creates the properties of space. If we realize space is made of absolute vacuum, and mass which is distributed throughout that vacuum as dark matter has volume, filling the vacuum with its volume and making it less intense, then you can answer a lot of questions.
If mass has volume, then it fills the absolute vacuum. Filling the absolute vacuum with something that has volume makes absolute nothing into the less intense nothing of space.
There is an implied assumption in this statement which is that absolute nothing has dimensions. Newton, QT, black holes and now string theory all give absolute vacuum as dimensionless zero points, or have I missed something?
there is no such thing as an "absolute vacuum" in reality. have any of you heard of "chiral condensate"?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.