View Full Version : nothing
i have struggled with with theories for creation for one
reason, and that is they all start with something.
how can anything come from nothing, is nothing a meaningfull
word in creation theories?
i find it totaly ilogical that nothing exsisted befor
creation.
the best i can come up with for a psudo nothing is two
forces that cancel each other.
our exsistence must prove that absolute nothing is
imposible?[g)]
I've had this argument before in the physics forum. When I ask someone to define what existed before BB, they say nothing. I say that there had to be something, because something doesn't spring from nothing, and there it stops.
No one knows what was before the universe was, but I know it must have been something. People say "nothing" because we can't define it, we have no frame of reference, or conceptualization. I believe it was something.
well pre BB it is said that no space or time existed, if that
is so then i cannot see how we could exsist.
what would no space be? a solid?
i think this space creation by BB is a way to explain gravity
and that it leads to a cul-de-sac, if space did not exsist
before the BB what was the stuff that it came from? maybe
a no dimentional thing exsisting in nothing.
[g)]
Originally posted by wolram
i have struggled with with theories for creation for one
reason, and that is they all start with something.
how can anything come from nothing, is nothing a meaningfull
word in creation theories?
This gives a lot of people trouble because of the way the English language is. We tend to refiy just about anything. But "nothing" is not some mystical state to wonder about. The word only has meaning as logical negation of "things". It is the same for other words like nowhere, nobody, etc. Only when the word is placed into a sentence does it take meaning, which is as negation. For example, "nothing travels faster than the speed of light".
As for creation, let's take a look at a statement. The universe was created from nothing. This sentence does not claim that the universe was created from a state of nothingness, but is equivalent to the statement — The universe was not created from anything. Hence, "creation of the universe" becomes a misnomer.
A little examination of the language we use can clear up some confusion. In the case of nothing, you might say there is nothing to it.
See but that's one part of BB theory I don't acccept. THe world around us shows that through cause and effect, everything comes from something. The universe is an infinite series of cause and effect steps. To say that the universe just "blinked" into existence, goes against everything else that we DO know and have confirmed about the laws of the universe. Just because we can't prove there was nothing, doesn't mean there wasn't something. It may not have been anything that we could concieve of, but saying it was "nothing" is only a theory for lack of a better description
what is space? what is empty space? What is nothing? and what constitutes 'something?'
Space is a property of physical things. In the real world, that "thing" is the gravitational field. Space has no existence independent of it.
In the ontological sense, anything that exists is considered to be a "thing".
so if nothing exists does that make it a thing? or does that just mean that it's impossible for nothing to exist because it contradicts itself?
nothing exist but we can't comprehend it. So trying to explain it is meaningless.
Originally posted by Gale17
so if nothing exists does that make it a thing? or does that just mean that it's impossible for nothing to exist because it contradicts itself?
Correct, it's a logical contradiction. As such it's no more possible than the existence of a circle square.
hypnagogue
Sep26-03, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Eh
Correct, it's a logical contradiction. As such it's no more possible than the existence of a circle square.
Or a particle wave? [;)]
Anyway, I agree with you, Eh. Saying "nothing exists" does not assert the existence of some abstract thing that we call 'nothing'; rather it asserts the complete absence of existence of any 'things' in the first place.
Maybe there is some confusion because our concept of 'nothingness' itself is a thing-- after all, we must have some existent concept of 'nothingness' to be able to talk about it, however paradoxical that might be. But a concept is just a concept, just a mental pointer used to refer to something else. In the case of the concept of 'nothing,' it just so happens that the pointer has no referent.
Ahh but you're missing the point. I'm simply saying that before BB there wasn't "nothing". There was "something" we just don't know what it was, so we say it's nothing.
For the sake of dicussion, we'll say that there wasn't "nothng", there was alpha existence. What alpha existence was like, we may never know-but it's was there
steersman
Sep26-03, 01:36 AM
Calling nothing something doesn't solve anything. You're back at square one again because in our world of cause and effect, what created this something? nothing?
hypnagogue
Sep26-03, 01:52 AM
Zantra, I was just addressing the notion of 'nothingness,' not your point. The idea that something came from nothing is highly counter-intuitive, but as steersman points out, we have to come to grips with it at some point unless we assume that the Universe is eternal and has no beginning-- which, in a way, is just as counter-intuitive as the alternative.
to avoid insanity i prefer to think that "space" is eternal
there is no opposit or alternative for space, so logicaly
it must have always exsisted, to my way of thinking its
the people that say space was created who are out to lunch.
Guybrush Threepwood
Sep26-03, 06:46 AM
couldn't be that the sapce-time is eternal and the BB just offered some kind on mechanism to bend it and thus to have gravity?[?]
guybrush, you are thinking along the same lines as i am
it is far more logical to think of space as eternal.
what other options are there, no space, null space
total non exsistence of anything, all highly non intuitive
and impposible to make "something" from.
the creation of space by the BB is a gimmick used by
scientisis to explain gravity, given time im sure this
theory will be diss prooved.
The big-bang theory does not describe the creation of the universe. It might come very, very close, but there is a "wall" of time beyond which it can not describe what was going on. We may push that wall arbitrarily close to t=0, but not beyond. If there was something verifiably extant before the big-bang, then the big bang was not the start of our universe. This is certainly a valid point of argument.
Asking what existed before the creation of our universe is meaningless. Our universe is, by definition, everything which could conceivably interact with us in some way. What exists outside our universe is manifestly unknowable. Even theoretical predictions are meaningless, because there is no need any supposed extra-universal continuum to be governed by our physical laws.
It is possible that there could be something "outside" our universe. "Outside" includes before and after. But it doesn't matter. By definition, there can be no interaction with it, and no prediction made about it.
Njorl
As I said, "creation of the spacetime" is a misnomer. You can have a beginning of time, but it just means there is no before the first event. In this scenario, there is no time when the universe did not exist.
As I said, "creation of the spacetime" is a misnomer. You can have a beginning of time, but it just means there is no before the first event. In this scenario, there is no time when the universe did not exist.
__________________________________________________ __________________
ok EH that is understood, but how can you have a "first event",
if time does not exsist?
it is logical to me that something space, time, has to exsist
before you can have a "first event"
and yes it is pointless to hypothosise what came before the
BB if that theory is 100% correct, but if it is found that
the BB occured in a pre exsisting "something", then science
can look before it.
Then I can't accept that scenario. Just because we can't define it, doesn't mean we shouldn't theorize about it. And it certainly doesn't mean we can pretend it isn't there(well I can't anyhow). There is something else out there- beyond the universe. Beyond BB, beyond what we concieve of as the beginning of time. We may not be able to describe it, but it's still out there. And besides- you can't prove me wrong[;)]
Originally posted by Zantra
Then I can't accept that scenario. Just because we can't define it, doesn't mean we shouldn't theorize about it. And it certainly doesn't mean we can pretend it isn't there(well I can't anyhow). There is something else out there- beyond the universe. Beyond BB, beyond what we concieve of as the beginning of time. We may not be able to describe it, but it's still out there. And besides- you can't prove me wrong[;)]
Yes I can. The very semantics of the issue kill any concept of something "outside of the Universe". The word "Universe" means "everything" or "all that exists", as njorl already pointed out. Thus, even to say "outside the Universe" is logically meaningless.
Also, to the point of the misuse of the word "nothing", I think Eh did an awesome job of conveying the point in his first post on this thread. I thought that this problem was over when we went through it in the E.I.N.S thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99&highlight=Exercise+Nothing+Semantics), but I suppose newer members have never seen this thread before. I suggest that all who get a chance read at least the first post, since this issue of what the word "nothing" refers to is really a complete non-sequitor.
i can only agree with MENTAT if the BB is the B all and
end all of the universe ,but if it had a totally
different begining then it is not.
I ascribe to the multiverse theory myself, so the term "universe" to mee seems too limiting. Sure, you can prove me wrong by "theorizing" that there is the universe and nothing else. But I can theorize that the outside of the known universe is coated by a thin layer of green jello, and you couldn't dispute it. Well you could, but not with any degree of certainty.
That's my point. We're all only speculating when it comes to anything beyond BB or the known "universe". Who's to say someone theory is anymore solid then anyone else's. We can make hypothyses about the known universe based on observation, but anything beyond what we know is just a blind guess. So what we do, rather than make wild guesses, is say there is "nothing" beyond what we know. I prefer to keep an open mind, myself.
As far as I'm concerned, there are only two theories that make any possible sence. either something has always existed, or space and time just blinked into existence, which is the same thing. as far as creationism goes, god(s) is/are considered a thing/things, which means that nothingness did not exist before.
Also, it is theorized that before the big bang, the universe was compressed to an infinitesimal size. It is also thought that it was decompressed before the Big Bang, and may have been much like, or exactly like, the universe as it is now.
It seems likely, from what we observe of planets, and what we know of light waves, that the universe is either expanding, or moving apart. we can tell this because everything seems to be moving further and further away from us.
I might also say that if space and time blinked into existence, it would likely be exactly the same as if they had existed forever, as no time would have passed before.
the only thing that can be proven is that something exists. what that thing is may vary.
If there was a Big Bang there are many speculations about what caused it or where it came from. There can only be speculation because if there was a big bang then all information, if any, about what was before was destroyed or we are forever cut off from it by the big bang itself.
Whatever may have been just begs the question of where that came from or what caused that which was before the BB ad infinitum, ad nausium.
It may be infinit and eternal whatever 'it' may be. My favorite is "God said; "Let ther be light." --- Big Bang." Everybody already knows that God is infinite and eternal so that answers the speculation. It is at least as reasonable (or unreasonable) as any other speculation.
Everybody already knows that God is infinite and eternal
No,they do not.
But anyway, this is getting off track. we were wondering if noting can exist,which it can't, as it's just the lack of something. It is nota noun, really.
Originally posted by Pyrite
No,they do not.
It was tongue in cheek, pure speculation that is as reasonable or unreasonable as spacetime being eternal and infinite. What's the differenc?
[QUOTE]
But anyway, this is getting off track. we were wondering if noting can exist,which it can't, as it's just the lack of something. It is nota noun, really.[/QOUTE]
Sorry I thought the original question was about what came before the BB, that something coming from nothing was the issue. I thought that it had already been concluded that "nothing" does not exist but is just a nonreferential negating term in our language, by your own quote shown above.
Originally posted by Royce
It was tongue in cheek, pure speculation that is as reasonable or unreasonable as spacetime being eternal and infinite. What's the differenc?
One difference is that we at least know spacetime exists, whether eternal or not. We do not know any supernatural being exists at all, let alone one that it is eternal. So speculations do always have the same merit.
Darrenicus
Sep29-03, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Eh
As I said, "creation of the spacetime" is a misnomer. You can have a beginning of time, but it just means there is no before the first event. In this scenario, there is no time when the universe did not exist.
Change must emanate from some changeless state of being - an essence of change.
Originally posted by Eh
One difference is that we at least know spacetime exists, whether eternal or not. We do not know any supernatural being exists at all, let alone one that it is eternal. So speculations do always have the same merit.
A few corrections; We THINK we know that spacetime exists but not what or how it is. There is speculation that spacetime is a characteristic of matter,i.e. without matter space time does not exist.
YOU do not know that an eternal "supernatural" being exists. I put quotes around supernatural because I think it is a misnomer. A more appropriate term would be IMHO ultra-natural. There are those who know that such a being does exist, I am one of them. There is more to this universe than science and the scientific "knowledge" of Man.
Did you mean to say, "So speculations do NOT always have the same merit."? If we know something then it is not pure speculation. We only speculate about what we do not know.
I did not mean to, and will not subvert the topic of this thread to speculation about a supernatural being. It was an off hand remark and should have been ignored possibly after a chuckle.
Originally posted by Royce
A few corrections; We THINK we know that spacetime exists but not what or how it is.
Everyone with a functioning visual cortex will experience something we have labeled space. Anyone who is not a vegetable experiences change and we call that time. For the most part, no one seems to dispute this experience. However, most people in the world aren't likely to claim any experience of supreme being, and those that do usually aren't consistent. We do know of people who do claim to experience unsual things, but we tend to lock them up in institutions.
There is speculation that spacetime is a characteristic of matter,i.e. without matter space time does not exist.
This speculation has been shown to be incorrect by science.
YOU do not know that an eternal "supernatural" being exists. I put quotes around supernatural because I think it is a misnomer. A more appropriate term would be IMHO ultra-natural. There are those who know that such a being does exist, I am one of them. There is more to this universe than science and the scientific "knowledge" of Man.
I don't doubt you and others experience something you label "God". But I would argue the explanation of this experience has a more rational (and less complicated) source. Much like how our senses like sound and taste are explained in terms of brain processes, it would seem that kind of explanation for unsual experiences is much simpler than postulating some superpower wielding being our ancestors would cll magical.
Did you mean to say, "So speculations do NOT always have the same merit."? If we know something then it is not pure speculation. We only speculate about what we do not know.
That's right, I meant to say NOT. I often make typos, so you'll have to watch for it. At any rate, my point is that saying "God did it" is not on equal footing as a naturalistic explanations. One explanation may be based on rational thought and observations of the world, while the other is completely made up with no explanatory power. One might as well say Santa created the universe.
As I said, all speculations do not have the same merit. We cannot truely know anything outside our own experience, but the speculations we have about the outside world differ in that some offer explanatory power while others do not.
Originally posted by Eh
Everyone with a functioning visual cortex will experience something we have labeled space. Anyone who is not a vegetable experiences change and we call that time. For the most part, no one seems to dispute this experience. However, most people in the world aren't likely to claim any experience of supreme being, and those that do usually aren't consistent. We do know of people who do claim to experience unsual things, but we tend to lock them up in institutions.
Seeing and experiences spacetime as quoted above is a bit simplistic.
I wasn't speaking of spacetime at that level but at a deeper more scientific level and the properties of spacetime. "We" also fed them to the lions, ovens, mass graves and crucifications.
This speculation has been shown to be incorrect by science.
I am not questioning this but am very curious about when and how this was done. can you point me to link, article or book in which this is discussed?
I don't doubt you and others experience something you label "God". But I would argue the explanation of this experience has a more rational (and less complicated) source. Much like how our senses like sound and taste are explained in terms of brain processes, it would seem that kind of explanation for unsual experiences is much simpler than postulating some superpower wielding being our ancestors would cll magical.
It always amazes me to what lengths nonbelievers will go to attempt to explain in scientific natural terms what others experience and accept as natural spiritual or religious phenomena. What could be more natural than the creator of the natural universe? What is so hard to accept about that possibility but so easy to accept without qualm an infinite and eternal spacetime and/or universe. One is in my mind just as magical and improbable as the other. I do not understand the antagonistic bias against a creator.
That's right, I meant to say NOT. I often make typos, so you'll have to watch for it. At any rate, my point is that saying "God did it" is not on equal footing as a naturalistic explanations. One explanation may be based on rational thought and observations of the world, while the other is completely made up with no explanatory power. One might as well say Santa created the universe.
There are no naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Big Bang or the Big Bang itself. Nor are there any observations or rational thought as no one was there to observe. It is all specutation and can never be proved or disproved one way or the other. To say that one form of specutation has more merit than another merely admits to a bias in thinking, a preference of one over the other or preconceived notions. One is just as possible and has just as much merit as the other despite your and other's bias agains s "supernatural creator."
Yes, one might as well say that Santa did it and there is no proof that he didn't. Is that your problem with supernatural beings, you discovered that there is no such thing as a real physical Santa Claus; so now there can be no other supernateral beings including God too? [:D]
As I said, all speculations do not have the same merit. We cannot truely know anything outside our own experience, but the speculations we have about the outside world differ in that some offer explanatory power while others do not.
While I agree that all speculations do not have the same merit and that we cannot truly know anything outside our experience, the only difference that I see here is one explanation is acceptable to you while another is not simply on the basis that you do not believe in God the creator. That's fine with me. You have the right to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want just as I do. That does not, however, make you right and me wrong or qualify me for the loony bin.
There be no creator for there is no creation.
Originally posted by THANOS
There be no creator for there is no creation.
Ahh, the infinite ,immortal, eternal, all knowing THANOS has spoken.
The issue is now settled once and for all. We are wiser and grateful for the proclamation from above. One question, THANOS, Where then did the universe come from and where did you come from? Did something indeed come from nothing as the original question of this thread asked?
Of course our universe didn't come from just nothing. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. I personally believe we always existed, for i see no proof or even a sign that creation exist. All the things man claimed to have created was merely just converted.
Plus i don't claim to know all but i do know enough*.
Nothing or no one can claim to know all under the fact that knowing all is impossible. You'll drive an all knowing being nuts if you asked that being "What is the one question that you can not answer?" Leaving them that insoluble question would prove them almost all knowing.
*partial line from matrix when morpheus speaks to neo and referring to the oracle.
maybe "know", is a word that we cannot use as yet,
"probability "is a word we can use with confidence,
the probability of the eternal existence of something
is very high, we exsist.
the probability that the something was energy is also
very high, what can happen whithout energy?
to exclude a god from creation may mean defining the
difference between primal energy and primal being,
one creation by a god would be by design, the other
by scientific laws.
if one is willing to accept that something has always
exsisted ,then nonintuitive theoies for creation can be
rejected.
Agreed Wolram; but, who or what made the scientific laws and who or what makes them work with the high probability and accuracy that they do? The question is unanswerable. The belief in a supreme being, creator, or consciousness is still just as ceditable as the eternal universe existing as it does with the laws that it has and follows.
Both beliefs are equaly improbable and hard to get hold of in our minds. Neither is satisfactory or intuitive. Neither explains anything but begs the question until it becomes not only unanswerable but unaskable if there is such a word.
To refute one belief over the other because of predjudice and call it logic is just as absurd as believing one over the other by claiming intuitive and/or absolute knowledge.
None of us KNOW and nothing is PROVED and so it is all speculation, hypothesis and theory.
MathematicalPhysicist
Oct2-03, 08:41 AM
for example the vacuum is composed from virtual particles.
sepultallica
Oct2-03, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Pyrite
Also, it is theorized that before the big bang, the universe was compressed to an infinitesimal size. It is also thought that it was decompressed before the Big Bang, and may have been much like, or exactly like, the universe as it is now.
It seems likely, from what we observe of planets, and what we know of light waves, that the universe is either expanding, or moving apart. we can tell this because everything seems to be moving further and further away from us.
I might also say that if space and time blinked into existence, it would likely be exactly the same as if they had existed forever, as no time would have passed before.
the only thing that can be proven is that something exists. what that thing is may vary.
hi all! first post here so i want to make it as confusing and circular as possible so here goes
my understanding of the big bang theory stemms from this compressed pile of ****. all of a sudden, the forces acting within this compressed universe became so great that **** just hit the fan and bang here we are. now if the universe is infinitely big, then the universe cannot be expanding. it will have no where to expand to. if the universe is not infinitely big, then it can be expanding but then you have the issue of what's beyond the universe. well, you have the universe again. we'd have to continue calling this empty void (or whatever it would consist of) the universe until we came up with another description. so lets assume that the universe is not infinitely big and that there is another barrier with something else that we do not know about. now from the original compressed pile of **** (prior to the bb), could it have been possible that outside of that compresed state, could be the same as the current state of the universe with that outside barrier still existing only the universe is now taking up more space within it? this seems more probable than the universe is infinitely big. we can see that something is happening within the universe because it appears to expanding. now in the universe's current state, is it possible that it is also compressesd and is trying to expand and escape from this compressed state as in the bb. is it possible that the bb is an ongoing event that does not stop and is taking place this very second? gots to get back to work now.
may i say that the one thing this thread has established
is that "something", has allways exsisted.
personally i prefer some form of energy, i find it difficult
to imagine an all powerful eternal god, but maybe they
are one and the same, god is energy, energy is god, it
requiers a little stretch of the imagination to think
that energy could thoughtful, but then science asks
far more from our imaginations.
i think therfore i am, could that be all it takes?
Originally posted by Royce
Seeing and experiences spacetime as quoted above is a bit simplistic.
I wasn't speaking of spacetime at that level but at a deeper more scientific level and the properties of spacetime. "We" also fed them to the lions, ovens, mass graves and crucifications.
I don't know what you're talking about here.
I am not questioning this but am very curious about when and how this was done. can you point me to link, article or book in which this is discussed?
I think we can go back to Einstein for this, since he also wrote a lot about the philosophy of space and time. In The Meaning of Relativity, he covers this. Space does not owe it's existence on quarks, and GR can consistently describe universes that contain no matter at all. It is the field that space owes it's existence to. Space then is a property of this field (perhaps fundemental) and is a quite real property.
It always amazes me to what lengths nonbelievers will go to attempt to explain in scientific natural terms what others experience and accept as natural spiritual or religious phenomena.
How is offering the simplest explanation available going to great lengths? We know people have dellusions as a result of different activity in the brain, and no extra entities are required to explain them. It is those claiming "God did it" that are adding an extra complicated being as an explanation.
What could be more natural than the creator of the natural universe?
God, as defined in classic theism does not fit the definition of natural by any means. This being is said to be outside of space and time, and whether you call it ultra natural, supernatural or downright magical, the definitions are equivalent. So by very definition, God is an unnatural explanation.
What is so hard to accept about that possibility but so easy to accept without qualm an infinite and eternal spacetime and/or universe.
It's not the possibility I'm talking about. It's trying to compare one explanation that is simple and requires no great ad hoc, contrived explanations, to one that is the complete opposite. God is magic.
There are no naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Big Bang or the Big Bang itself. Nor are there any observations or rational thought as no one was there to observe. It is all specutation and can never be proved or disproved one way or the other.
There was no one around to observe the formation of the planet either, but that is irrelevant. What I mean by rational explanation is taking a few observations and seeing where it leads. For example, the big bang theory itself is a perfect example. Take the observation that the universe is expanding, and wind the clock back and you can rationally conclude that at one time the universe was much hotter and denser. Any speculation about what happened before that will require additional observations or premises. An example of this would be if observations allow us to add the premise that supergravity is an accurate description of spacetime, then the picture changes. Now from the premise that the cosmological constant in supergravity is likely to go from having positive pressure to negative, it follows that the universe could be oscillating. That would an example of a simple line of rational thought process leading to a simple explanation for what came "before" the big bang.
Now you might say that at this point there are no models that go beyond the standard model, and you'd be correct. But in this case, these new and up and coming models at least have the potential to be testible. God on the other hand, is an explanation that will never be testible, explains nothing and is just an extra entity being tacked on.
posted by EH.
I think we can go back to Einstein for this, since he also wrote a lot about the philosophy of space and time. In The Meaning of Relativity, he covers this. Space does not owe it's existence on quarks, and GR can consistently describe universes that contain no matter at all. It is the field that space owes it's existence to. Space then is a property of this field (perhaps fundemental) and is a quite real property.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i agree to all of the above except, space owing its exsistence
to the field. how can you have a field without space for it
to exsist in?
pyrophoric
Oct3-03, 10:03 AM
have struggled with with theories for creation for onei find it totaly ilogical that nothing exsisted before creation the best i can come up with for a psudo nothing is two forces that cancel each other. Our existence must prove that absolute nothing is impossible.
If you look at how every known thing in the universe, interacts and balances each other...from the micro to the macro, everything relates and is sustained on the principle of balance/symmetry/mathematic relations, I like to assume that the force which brought about our existence was aware enough of itself to be in reaction to something. We are more of a "code" or "pattern" that was layed out with a purpose in "mind". or an reaction to an action. "nothing", in our common understanding of the word, would have no purpose, so I don't believe we came from nothing. I don't believe in God, I choose to think in dimensions. If I were to toss around a theory it would be that the "nothing" before the big bang was a black hole, (which fits our definition of nothing now as no one has ever seen one and it doesn't operate according to our physical laws), if a black hole is eating light, and spits it out on the other side, then the big bang would be the reformation of a parallel dimension as it was shot out of a black hole as the black hole (nothingness) was devouring the light and energy on the other side. absolute nothing would just be "black" or "absolute darkness" in that we just can't see what is there.
The word "Universe" means "everything" or "all that exists", as njorl already pointed out. Thus, even to say "outside the Universe" is logically meaningless.
we created words and their meaning, as with slang, any word can have any meaning anyone wants to give it and the word can never alter or change the actual "thing" described. It is whatever It is...regardless of what we name It.
either something has always existed, or space and time just blinked into existence, which is the same thing. as far as creationism goes, god(s) is/are
time only exists because of light and man's need to give light a reference point....space is a density that allows light to move through it
In this scenario, there is no time when the universe did not
exist.
that's true, in that, time only exists because there is a universe through which light travels and when we came along, we counted periods of change.
If we know something then it is not pure speculation. We only speculate about what we do not know.
If we never second guessed things that are said to be known, then we would never have come up with science at all. They "knew" the earth was flat because they could see straight ahead...some speculated on whether or not what they knew was true. I only "know" what hasn't been proved to be wrong. or "the wise man knows he knows nothing."
that the universe is either expanding, or moving apart. we can tell this because everything seems to be moving further and further away from us.
or is it just that as "time" passes, we can see farther away...that light is travelling outward and when it is reflected back as us it has to travel farther back?
Originally posted by wolram
i agree to all of the above except, space owing its exsistence
to the field. how can you have a field without space for it
to exsist in?
Why would it need outside space to exist in? Logically, it need not. It goes against intuition, but if we think in terms of logic there isn't a problem.
Arc_Central
Oct4-03, 01:06 AM
An understanding of nothing can't be had in the absence of something. It is a necessary part of existence, as Non-Existence is a requirement to Existence.
We then have a reality to Non-Existence. That reality is currently a finite number of somethings representing a finite sea of nothing defined by an infinity of Non_Existence. Your reality is confined to the current limit of definition on Non-Existence.
thanks for all replies.
the broad spectrum of views is interesting, in general
it seems that ideas are split three ways.
1 "something", has allways exsisted
2 "nothing", is indefineable
3 a god created everything
i am struggling to stick with main stream theoris BB, GR, etc
"space" expanding, space bending due to gravity, frame dragging,
entanglement etc etc.
i can only hope that projects like "gravity probe b", can send
back some real evidence as to what is going on.
until then number 1 is my prefference.
Hmmmm.... I think I'll start by asking how you know that there is SOMETHING now. How do you? How do you know that anything is anything?
Now, we can agree, I presume, that empty space is nothing? If there are no objects in all the space in the universe, the universe does not exist, correct? It is nothing? Assuming that this is true, we can examine the universe. Between every "thing" we find nothing. Upon magnifying our "thing" we find smaller "things" (atoms shall be used in our example) seperated by nothing. When we magnify atoms, we find electrons, protons, and neutrons surrounded by nothing. Upon magnifying the protons and neutrons we find quarks and gluons, seperated by nothing. Quarks, gluons, and electrons are sopposedly elementary particles, and theoreticly they take up no space. They are geometric points- nothing.
Therefore it might appear that the universe is, in fact, comprised of nothing. Barring this, however, what other solution might be found to our problem? Well, the phrasing you used (not of your own fault, but due to the ineptitude of the english language) was that nothing EXISTED before the universe. Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist- for to exist it would be something. Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe. The universe would appear to have always existed.
There are two ways (that is, two ways that I can think of) that the universe could have always existed (ignoring the possibility that the universe does not exist at all). Either the universe had no beginning and thus shall have no end, the universe simply recycles itself and continues forever, or it did, in a way, have a beginning. Let us examine the latter first. We find every point in time can be specified in two ways: either relative to the past or relative to the future. For instance, observing that we are about to drop a glass plate from a set distance above the floor, having calculated the time it will take from our dropping the plate to its shattering, we can define the instant in two ways. We can say "This instant is so and so hours and so and so minutes since midnight last night" (relative to the past) or we can say "This instant is so and so seconds before the shattering of the plate" (relative to the future). Any point in time can be specified like this, in two ways. Any point, that is, except for two.
The beginning of time and the end of time cannot be specified in this way. Indeed, how can time have ever begun and how can time ever end? For in order for time to begin, it must out of necessity have not existed the moment before. Yet, there WAS no moment before. There is no past. The opposite goes for the end of time: out of necessity there must be no time after the end. But there is no "after the end" which can be devoid of time!
Therefore it is similar to an asymptotic function. We can get ever closer to the beginning (or end) of time, but we can never reach it save as an abstraction.
Now we move on to the second possibility for an eternal universe: one which has simply, in the most conventional way, existed forever and shall continue to exist forever. This universe can take one of two forms: either that of a line, extending outwards infinitely from a central point (the central point being the present), or a circle, endlessly repeating.
We could go into far greater detail concerning these possibilities, but I believe they have been sufficiently covered in light of our enquiry. Nothing is not simply an absence of things, but simply an absence. It is unexplainable in the English language, an abstraction. It is a lack of anything and everything, yet it cannot, by its very nature, exist.
well sikz, i think you have covered just about everything
in your post, its amazing the time it takes thinking about
nothing.
Originally posted by Sikz
Hmmmm.... I think I'll start by asking how you know that there is SOMETHING now. How do you? How do you know that anything is anything?
By definition, of course. It's just like asking how we can know A=A. "Things" is just the label we put on our various experiences.
Now, we can agree, I presume, that empty space is nothing?
No, see the posts above. Empty space is beyond a doubt a thing, given the claims of GR and QM. Regardless, there is no justification in taking the concept of a volume with geometric properties and claiming it to be "not anything". It would be like claiming non-existence can exist, which is a logical impossibility.
Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist- for to exist it would be something. Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe. The universe would appear to have always existed.
But we can say it, because the english sentence "nothing created the universe" does not refiy "nothing" to be something. It is a negative sentence that is literally equivalent to saying "the universe was not created from anything".
Or, "there was not anything before the big bang". Which is equivalent to "there is no before the big bang".
Nothing is not simply an absence of things, but simply an absence. It is unexplainable in the English language, an abstraction.
No it isn't. It's a word that has a function as logical negation, but does not have any meaning without being placed into the context of a sentence. A perfect example is "nothing can go faster than the speed of light". The sentence does not claim the existence of something called nothing which has the ability to exceed the speed of light, but merely negates the proposition that some things can travel faster than c.
Arc_Central
Oct5-03, 03:39 PM
Opposition is an absolute requirement.
Non-Existence carries no meaning in the absence of Existence.
If the universe is Existence - There will be an opposition to it. I.E. Non-Existence. It is this difference that provides the definition, but there is a little more to it than that. At least as far as we are concerned. We don't Exist in a Non-Existent world. We are within the boundries of the Existent world, and to Exist within those boundries ... a difference must be noted between finite entities. These finite entities are the geometric equivalents of the initial beginning construct. The beginning construct is our universe. In the beginning - The universe cannot move in relation to anything else ... There isn't anything else ... so it expands into the infinite sea of Non-Existence. This expansion is an ongoing definition of what isn't. The product of this definition is finite entities (geometric equivalents of what initially is). These finite entities do move in relation another thing. It is this motion that provides the difference that is notable. I.E. Something slaps you in the face, and yet another thing slaps you in the face an instant later. This is what provides our understanding of things.
Non-Existence is not in our neck of the woods. There are only things, but if there are only things - how is it wee can establish a difference to be noted? The answer comes with motion (time) The seperation of one event to another.
In regards to nothing? There are several definitions to it. In relation to the universe - Nothing is what the universe is made of, and it is the concept of it that makes us whole, and it is these concepts that slap us in the face.
Eh, you are quite right about what you said in your previous post. On a few of my points, however, I obviously did not communicate my meaning effeciently.
I said: Hmmmm.... I think I'll start by asking how you know that there is SOMETHING now. How do you? How do you know that anything is anything?
By definition, you say. We are postulating that the universe is "something" in order to find the identity of another entity (not really an entity, but you shall have to bear with the inadequacy of language to describe "nothing"), "nothing". My comment was not directed towards finding the identity of "nothing" so much as simply analyzing our postulate itself. A=A only if you accept the postulate of the "Reflexive Property". While I cannot dispute this, I can dispute our postulate that the universe is "something".
I also said: Now, we can agree, I presume, that empty space is nothing?
The next sentence mentioned my true meaning, but I should have noted that. I meant that we can agree that infinite empty space is nothing- if the entire universe is comprised only of empty space then the entire universe is nothing, for empty space can only be defined in relation to a "thing", to non-empty space. Obviously a square foot of perfect vacuum is "something", but if the netire universe consists only of perfect vacuum, the entire universe is "nothing".
Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist- for to exist it would be something. Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe. The universe would appear to have always existed.
Your comments on this are entirely correct. "Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe." was intended to mean "We cannot say that before the universe an entity called nothing existed." The universe would appear to have always existed because before it there wasn't anything- there was nothing.
While you are also correct about "nothing existed bofore the universe" implying simply an absence of things (rather than a presence of nothing), the entire point of this thread was finding the identity of "nothing" (or the lack thereof).
Originally posted by Sikz
A=A only if you accept the postulate of the "Reflexive Property". While I cannot dispute this, I can dispute our postulate that the universe is "something".
The universe meets what our concept of a thing is, doesn't it? Try to list the properties of an object we would consider to be a thing, then compare it the properties we think the physical universe actually has.
The next sentence mentioned my true meaning, but I should have noted that. I meant that we can agree that infinite empty space is nothing- if the entire universe is comprised only of empty space then the entire universe is nothing, for empty space can only be defined in relation to a "thing", to non-empty space.
Keep in mind that space is only a property of the gravitational field. In an empty universe, a volume of space is still defined by the geometric relations of the field. To simplify, the field can be described as nothing but three sets of field lines. Each physical event has a corresponding geometric configuration. Empty space could be seen in terms of flat field lines.
Obviously a square foot of perfect vacuum is "something", but if the netire universe consists only of perfect vacuum, the entire universe is "nothing".
It is a thing in the ontological sense, given that it would exist.
Your comments on this are entirely correct. "Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe." was intended to mean "We cannot say that before the universe an entity called nothing existed." The universe would appear to have always existed because before it there wasn't anything- there was nothing.
That's true, but the english language is often a problem here. Instead of taking nothing to be a negative, the brain refies it to be something in it's own right. No wonder so much confusion has arisen over something that doesn't exist.
While you are also correct about "nothing existed bofore the universe" implying simply an absence of things (rather than a presence of nothing), the entire point of this thread was finding the identity of "nothing" (or the lack thereof).
As I said, nothing is a negative used to express negation. It doesn't have an identity outside this context.
It is a thing in the ontological sense, given that it would exist.
But WOULD it exist? The only way it could be observed would by by changing its nature, by letting photons or something in. Even imagining it gives it properties that it doesn't have, for by imagining it we imagine it from a viewpoint- and there can be no viewpoints within it since nothing exists in it TO view.
It's like if you have a totally closed system that takes up no space and absorbs no energy and affects nothing outside of itself. It cannot be taken for granted that the system exists at all- in fact most people would probably state that it does not.
Guybrush Threepwood
Oct6-03, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Eh
Originally posted by wolram
i agree to all of the above except, space owing its exsistence
to the field. how can you have a field without space for it
to exsist in?
Why would it need outside space to exist in? Logically, it need not. It goes against intuition, but if we think in terms of logic there isn't a problem.
I may be wrong, but mathematically a field is a function of space and time. So if there's no space what's left of the field?
Only in philosophy can you find 4 pages of NOTHING[6)]
But seriously, the bottom line of all this discussion is that we do not know. I'm no more right in saying there is a something, than anyone else is in saying there is nothing.
Arc_Central
Oct6-03, 09:05 AM
A dictionary will tell you that nothing is the absence of a thing. The problem with that is we must know what a thing is to understand the meaning of nothing. Yer in a bit of a quandry when you discuss the beginning of the universe, because yer job ... should you choose to accept it is to make a universe not knowing what a thing is. A blank slate requires that you remove yourself from the picture also.
What to do ... What to do ... What to do
Removing yourself leaves you with no way in or out of a pure state of nothing.
There are no options.
This leaves you with the impossiblity to the state of nothing, and since this is so, and we are here.
We can't begin with nothing in an absolute sense.
Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
I may be wrong, but mathematically a field is a function of space and time. So if there's no space what's left of the field?
The gravitational field is different from other fields like the EM. Those fields are just a distribution of some force throughout each point in spacetime, but the gravitational field (not Newtons) is spacetime itself.
Originally posted by Sikz
But WOULD it exist? The only way it could be observed would by by changing its nature, by letting photons or something in. Even imagining it gives it properties that it doesn't have, for by imagining it we imagine it from a viewpoint- and there can be no viewpoints within it since nothing exists in it TO view.
A line or plane still exists whether we observe it or not, ignoring the silly assumptions of extreme idealism. And as I said, even in an empty universe space is still defned by the geometric relations of the field. Flat spacetime shouldn't have any less of an ontological status than curved spacetime.
Arc_Central
Oct7-03, 09:01 AM
The gravitational field is different from other fields like the EM. Those fields are just a distribution of some force throughout each point in spacetime, but the gravitational field (not Newtons) is spacetime itself.
These fields may be different in some ways , and the same in other ways. In fact they may be the same field. The difference may only be the meathod by which they propogate.
Although I may not disagree that a gravitational field is spacetime. How is it you know it is? Please explain.
Given that fields in general is a foggy subject. Perhaps you could shed a lttle light on the subject.
It's just something that comes out of GR. Any notion of distance is defined as a property of the field, and so it follows that if the theory is true, then space may have no independent existence. This is not proof, as it is possible that the gravitational field does sit on a backdrop of some absolute space, somewhat like icing on a cake. But this backdrop of space is completely redundant. If everything can be defined in terms of the field, the simplest explanation is that space and the field are inseperable.
But the debate over whether space has independent existence has a long history. Modern physics seems to support Descartes notion that space only exists if there is something present in it.
gcn_zelda
Oct7-03, 09:07 PM
Is there even such thing as nothing? Everything is something. Even nothing is something.
Originally posted by gcn_zelda
Is there even such thing as nothing? Everything is something. Even nothing is something.
I refer you to the first post of this dusty old thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99&highlight=Exercise+in+Nothing+Semantics).
all these words of wisdom have come from a brain, obviously
not all brains are connected the same way, that is a good
thing it inspiers origonal thinking.
it seems this thread could go round in circles for the
life of humankind may we let it RIP?
thankyou all .
Originally posted by THANOS
nothing exist but we can't comprehend it. So trying to explain it is meaningless.
nothing doesn't exist, isn't that more reasonable and explainable ?
Does that mean that it doesn't exist(that it's only substance everywhere), or does that mean that it's vacuum (as I from what I understand, is your oppinion) ? Should it end in no words, or a difficult realization ?
To say that nothing exist, we only think or feel it does, is imo unecessary scepticism. We clearly feel, see, taste, hear, think existence all the time.
I'm tempted to say I don't believe in true vacuum, that substance is everywhere. Saying that nothing is a little more than nothing and is a some form as Vacuum just make less sense than say that nothing is nothing and doesn't exist, existence reigns. (also infinity and eternity because that there somehow is a wall of stop somewhere makes less sense that there should be something behind that wall)
Is that interesting ?
He isn't saying we don't exist, or that there isn't anything that does. Instead, he is just making the logical fallacy of reifying the zero.
Originally posted by Eh
He isn't saying we don't exist,
Oh I'm sorry, the middle pharagraph was for somebody else said. I understood his sentence as that he believed in true vacuum.
(Thanks for clarifying)
What's wrong with a true vacuum? The concept is at least logically consistent.
Originally posted by Eh
What's wrong with a true vacuum? The concept is at least logically consistent.
As I said, that nothing should be a little more than nothing: true vacuum. Makes less sense to me than just saying: nothing isn't there, substance is.
0 = 0
,
nothing=nothing
,
nothing= ........ = don't agree
but:
............... = agree.
Thus nothing should necessarily end in: ......... (no words, no mathematics, nothing) We logically say a lot of stuff, we never really say nothing. And we've never experienced nothing, even the air around us was oxygen as we learned. So it's logical and sensical.
What do you define to be a substance?
Originally posted by Eh
What do you define to be a substance?
Another subject, np,
Everything. [:))] And of it we experience all sorts of modes and attributes. (Spinozistic)
Edit: Although I dunno how very interesting all this is. As Spinoza once said:
(IV)P67: A free man thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation on life, not on death.
look eminent people, very few have the stamina to keep up
with this thread, can you agree to disagree? i will always
be open minded on this subject, the crux of the matter is
lack of evidence, i hate the verbalism put up or shut up
but i think it applies here.
you are all unique.
Originally posted by wolram
the crux of the matter is
lack of evidence
Yes, the lack of evidence for nothing. [:)]
Originally posted by pace
nothing doesn't exist, isn't that more reasonable and explainable ?
Does that mean that it doesn't exist...
That what doesn't exist?
quartodeciman
Oct10-03, 02:07 PM
Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?
Please forgive one piece of nonsense:
Q: Which should one prefer, happiness or a sandwich?
A: A sandwich.
Q: Why?
A: Nothing is better than happiness.
Q: Agreed!
A: A sandwich is better than nothing.
Q: Wait a minute! :(
A: So, draw your own conclusion. :)
.
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?
Please forgive one piece of nonsense:
Q: Which should one prefer, happiness or a sandwich?
A: A sandwich.
Q: Why?
A: Nothing is better than happiness.
Q: Agreed!
A: A sandwich is better than nothing.
Q: Wait a minute! :(
A: So, draw your own conclusion. :)
.
What exactly is your point, quartodeciman?
sepultallica
Oct10-03, 02:34 PM
man this thing is still going? i think the thread lost its productivity around page four.
Originally posted by sepultallica
man this thing is still going? i think the thread lost its productivity around page four.
It keeps going because people aren't listening to what Eh said on the first page!
It's been somantics for the last 5 pages. For myself, I still do not accept that we KNOW there was nothing before BB. Perhaps something unlike anything we know, but not nothing. That's an assumption I"m not willing to make.
If there was nothing, I accept that there was nothing. But we do not know that beyond a reasonable doubt.
selfAdjoint
Oct10-03, 10:03 PM
Science does not know, cosmology does not know, of anything before the big bang. There are theories, but they have yet to be confirmed even as math, let alone with physical evidence.
Science does know, with a beautiful and rich and growing body of interlocking theory and evidence, what has happened since some epsilon time after the big bang.
Arc_Central
Oct10-03, 10:33 PM
Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?
Now yer talkin !!
Nothing is the thing.
Nothings are the things.
Nothing as a thing must be finite.
An infinity of nothing is another story. It is undefined (not a thing) - Yet it is the source of the definition of one thing of nothing , and any number of things (nothings).
In a mathematical sense - Infinitely nothing over one nothing is the initial beginning of our universe. (One) being the conceptual understanding of nothing as a thing. I.E. The brains of the whole operation.
Nothing, one , and infinitely nothing are constants. They remain that way no matter when or where you are in the universe regardless of how many nothings there are in existence.
The thing is nothing, and it's the ones that count.
I can't help but do nothing - It's all there is.
Originally posted by Mentat
That what doesn't exist?
Excatly! [:D] Hello substance.
It isn't much scientific. But philosophicly the issue is more than just a semantic debate.
Originally posted by Zantra
It's been somantics for the last 5 pages. For myself, I still do not accept that we KNOW there was nothing before BB. Perhaps something unlike anything we know, but not nothing. That's an assumption I"m not willing to make.
If there was nothing, I accept that there was nothing. But we do not know that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fine, just remember that when you say "there was nothing" it is perfectly equivalent to "there wasn't anything". The semantic problems arise when people treat statement like "there was nothing" as though they meant "there was something called 'nothing'", which is just wrong.
Originally posted by Arc_Central
Now yer talkin !!
Nothing is the thing.
Nothings are the things.
Nothing as a thing must be finite.
An infinity of nothing is another story. It is undefined (not a thing) - Yet it is the source of the definition of one thing of nothing , and any number of things (nothings).
In a mathematical sense - Infinitely nothing over one nothing is the initial beginning of our universe. (One) being the conceptual understanding of nothing as a thing. I.E. The brains of the whole operation.
Nothing, one , and infinitely nothing are constants. They remain that way no matter when or where you are in the universe regardless of how many nothings there are in existence.
The thing is nothing, and it's the ones that count.
I can't help but do nothing - It's all there is.
Arc_Central, I strongly suggest you read this (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99&highlight=Exercise+in+Nothing+Semantics) ASAP, your post is full of semantic errors (in fact, the concept behind the post, is itself a semantic error).
I mean no offense by this, I'm just pointing it out.
Originally posted by pace
Excatly! [:D] Hello substance.
I don't understand what you mean. I asked "that what doesn't exist", because people have been referring to the word "nothing" as though it referred to something (which it obviously doesn't).
It isn't much scientific. But philosophicly the issue is more than just a semantic debate.
Not really. The fact that people are using the word "nothing" as though it referred to something is a semantic problem, and from it arises many seemingly substantial problems, which would not exist if it weren't for a semantic error in the premise.
quartodeciman
Oct11-03, 04:24 PM
Mentat: What exactly is your point...?
No point intended.
Two items: an invitation to view the question in reverse; a humor dialogue, exemplifying the mistake described by the later replies of Mentat
(laughter is not required)
Originally posted by Mentat
Not really.
Really, the discussion is philosophicly more than semantics. Parmenides(there is no empty space). Democrit, Lucretius and the atomists(said: reality=atoms and empty space. Beside some other talk about 'nothing'). Spinoza(and Descartes?) who denied vacuum(empty space). But after that it's pretty silent. It's not much of a talked about issue, no. Democrit's atomist theory has prooven very fruity, but it's been mostly denied by philosophers. Your negative semantic arguments also pushes itself towards my conclusion which I thought was funny, ergo my last comment.
Arc_Central
Oct12-03, 12:03 AM
Arc_Central, I strongly suggest you read this ASAP, your post is full of semantic errors (in fact, the concept behind the post, is itself a semantic error).
I mean no offense by this, I'm just pointing it out.
No offence taken.
I may be in error, but I can't for the life of me see it. Nothing in the absolute sense is undefinable. The meaning in a dictionary requires that you know what a thing is to proffer an understanding, but nothing in the truist sense does not allow that option.
quartodeciman
Oct12-03, 02:37 PM
How can nothing come from something?
Let's apply the Mentat translation:
How can no thing come from something?
or
How can any thing not come from something?
or
How can things not come from something?
Precisely inasmuch as any thing or things do(es) not come from some thing.
It isn't exactly a semantic mistake.
------
How can something come from nothing?
Let's apply the Mentat translation:
How can something come from no thing?
or
How can something not come from any thing?
or
How can something not come from things?
Precisely inasmuch as some thing does not come from any thing or things.
------
The next problem is dealing with 'come from'. Can any thing come from itself?
quatodeciman, you have completely missed the point of the E.i.N.S., allow me to correct you:
Originally posted by quartodeciman
How can nothing come from something?
Let's apply the Mentat translation:
How can no thing come from something?
or
How can any thing not come from something?
or
How can things not come from something?
This was done completely wrong. Let's apply the actual Mentat translation:
"How can there not be anything coming from something?" is the actual translation of "How can nothing come from something?". If nothing is coming from it, then there isn't anything coming from it. The two statements are identical.
How can something come from nothing?
Let's apply the Mentat translation:
How can something come from no thing?
or
How can something not come from any thing?
or
How can something not come from things?
Again, completely wrong. Let's apply the actual Mentat translation:
"How can something not come from anything?" is the actual translation of "How can something come from nothing?". Notice how, in both of my actual translations, the meaning is not changed at all, but the word "nothing" isn't used to describe a thing (since it shouldn't be used that way).
The point of the E.i.N.S. is to eliminate foolish debates about what the word "nothing" refers to. The answer: it doesn't refer to anything (btw, "it doesn't refer to anything", when taken in backward E.i.N.S. = "it refers to nothing", which obviously what the word "nothing" refers to [:)]).
Originally posted by pace
Really, the discussion is philosophicly more than semantics. Parmenides(there is no empty space). Democrit, Lucretius and the atomists(said: reality=atoms and empty space. Beside some other talk about 'nothing'). Spinoza(and Descartes?) who denied vacuum(empty space). But after that it's pretty silent. It's not much of a talked about issue, no. Democrit's atomist theory has prooven very fruity, but it's been mostly denied by philosophers. Your negative semantic arguments also pushes itself towards my conclusion which I thought was funny, ergo my last comment.
I don't understand what point you are trying to get at, pace. The issue of what "nothing" refers to (note: when I say "nothing" in scare-quotes, I am referring to the word "nothing", nothing more [:D]) can become more than semantics in the eyes of those who have misunderstood it, but the issue really is a semantic one at its heart. If people would just apply the E.i.N.S. (which, btw, I don't think of as some genius break-through or anything, it's merely the logical consequence of thinking of the word "nothing" like your supposed to) to sentences such as "What is the internal nature of 'nothing'?" or "How could 'nothing' spawn something?", they would see that they make no sense at all...as per E.i.N.S., the become "What is the internal nature of that which isn't anything at all?" (in this case, it is obvious nonsense, since you cannot refer to "that" if it's nothing at all), and "How could something not be spawned from anything?", which is not so ridiculous a question, so much as it is unnecessary, since not every "something" was spawned from something else.
quartodeciman
Oct13-03, 05:58 PM
If a designated thing came from one thing, then it didn't come from nothing.
If a designated thing came from multiple things, then it didn't come from nothing.
What cases are left out?
The designated thing didn't come from one thing and it didn't come from multiple things.
I guess it either didn't 'come from' at all or it must have come from 0 things.
------
The hot steam came from cold water, potassium permanganate and hydrogen peroxide. The hot steam didn't come from just one of these things.
What is the purpose of eliminating foolish debates?
Originally posted by quartodeciman
If a designated thing came from one thing, then it didn't come from nothing.
Right, since to "come from nothing" is equivalent to "not having come from anything".
If a designated thing came from multiple things, then it didn't come from nothing.
Obviously.
What cases are left out?
Those that didn't come from anything.
The designated thing didn't come from one thing and it didn't come from multiple things.
I guess it either didn't 'come from' at all or it must have come from 0 things.
Exactly...in fact the following are logically and semantically equivalent:
I didn't "come from" at all.
I didn't come from anything.
I came from 0 things (translated, "the amount of things that I came from is exactly 0", which means I didn't come from anything)
I came from nothing.
The hot steam came from cold water, potassium permanganate and hydrogen peroxide. The hot steam didn't come from just one of these things.
What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
What is the purpose of eliminating foolish debates?
To spare myself and others the frustration of having to repeat the same debates over and over and over again, when we could be progressing beyond them onto more fruitful endeavors.
Mumeishi
Oct23-03, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by wolram
i have struggled with with theories for creation for one
reason, and that is they all start with something.
how can anything come from nothing, is nothing a meaningfull
word in creation theories?
i find it totaly ilogical that nothing exsisted befor
creation.
the best i can come up with for a psudo nothing is two
forces that cancel each other.
our exsistence must prove that absolute nothing is
imposible?[g)]
Time began (according to theory) with the big bang, as did space.
There was no time when the universe did not exist.
There is no nothing outside of existence for existence to come from.
There never was a time when there was no place;
There never is a place where there is no time;
There never was a time when there was no time;
There never is a place where there is no place.
- from I Just Made That Up, Pretty Cool Huh? by Mumeishi
this thing still going[8)]
how about giving a prize to the one that has the last word?
or is this the nearest we will get to perpetual motion[:)]
Originally posted by wolram
this thing still going[8)]
how about giving a prize to the one that has the last word?
or is this the nearest we will get to perpetual motion[:)]
This is nothin'. You should see the "Why the bias against Materialism" thread. It's got over 50 pages, and there are still occasional responses to it.
Originally posted by Mentat
This is nothin'. You should see the "Why the bias against Materialism" thread. It's got over 50 pages, and there are still occasional responses to it.
BTW, please note how when I said "this is nothing", it was immediately understood that that statement is exactly equivalent to "this isn't anything".
Arc_Central
Oct25-03, 05:33 PM
Mentat
Yer confused.
The nothing you so profess to know so well is undefinable.
The "This is nothing" statement itself relegates nothing to a thing. As if to say - Here (it) is. Well .. where is it? If it's over there ... then there puts limits on it. I.E. It is finite and therefore a thing. If you swear it has no limits - Then there is no definition available .. for this places you with the prospect of not knowing what a thing is. So ... saying "this isn't anything" has no meaning.
The definition of the nothing you speek of is one nothing....then two nothings...then three...and so on. There is an infinity of nothings in the nothing you speek of....defined by the finite nothing which also happens to be a thing.
Mumeishi
Oct25-03, 07:59 PM
Nothing is not a thing or state in the same way that nobody is not a person.
mikelus
Oct26-03, 12:20 AM
if you describe nothing as death. Then we have alot of nothing in our life related to death. Fears and belives. mikelus
Mumeishi
Oct26-03, 03:12 AM
We have a lot of misconceptions about death. Death is not a thing or a state. Subjectively there is no death, only anticipation. Death is something that always exists in our future, never in our present. For the subject, death does not exist.
Similarly there never was a time when we were waiting to be conceived.
Even from the outside, although the death of another is an event, it is a process not a state. My grandparents do not continue to exist in a dead state. They no longer exist.
The way I understand it,
No words are the things they are describing either. It's pointless to say that just because nothing doesn't logically work with 'nothing', it's no idea talking about it.
The physical world isn't trying to live up to the words, it's rather the words that's trying to describe the physical world. Or maybe even the whole thing.
But how far can the words reach?
Originally posted by Arc_Central
Mentat
Yer confused.
The nothing you so profess to know so well is undefinable.
The "This is nothing" statement itself relegates nothing to a thing. As if to say - Here (it) is. Well .. where is it? If it's over there ... then there puts limits on it. I.E. It is finite and therefore a thing. If you swear it has no limits - Then there is no definition available .. for this places you with the prospect of not knowing what a thing is. So ... saying "this isn't anything" has no meaning.
The definition of the nothing you speek of is one nothing....then two nothings...then three...and so on. There is an infinity of nothings in the nothing you speek of....defined by the finite nothing which also happens to be a thing.
And yet none of the statements that you have just made are logically valid. The second you speak of the word "nothing" as though it referred to something (anything, no matter how undefined) you have committed a semantic and logical error. That's why the E.i.N.S. works so well, it only appeals to the word "nothing", and to the way it is supposed to be used, it does not try to assign what concept the word "nothing" refers to since "nothing" cannot refer to any concept at all.
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Nothing is not a thing or state in the same way that nobody is not a person.
Exactly, Mumeishi, very well put. When one uses the word "nobody" we don't assume they are talking about some person named "nobody" (which would be foolish), and so we should not assume that the word "nothing" refers to anything.
Originally posted by Mumeishi
We have a lot of misconceptions about death. Death is not a thing or a state. Subjectively there is no death, only anticipation. Death is something that always exists in our future, never in our present. For the subject, death does not exist.
Similarly there never was a time when we were waiting to be conceived.
Even from the outside, although the death of another is an event, it is a process not a state. My grandparents do not continue to exist in a dead state. They no longer exist.
Very elegantly put, Mumeishi. I admire your post here, and just wish to draw attention to it again, since it deals with an issue that needn't be an issue at all, and tackles this with...well, with an elegance that is to be admired. Kudos.
Originally posted by pace
The way I understand it,
No words are the things they are describing either. It's pointless to say that just because nothing doesn't logically work with 'nothing', it's no idea talking about it.
The physical world isn't trying to live up to the words, it's rather the words that's trying to describe the physical world. Or maybe even the whole thing.
But how far can the words reach?
Well, pace, I agree that the words are supposed to be used to describe the physical world (not the other way around). However, doesn't that completely work against the idea of using the word "nothing" to refer to something, since the words are supposed to be assigned to concepts that already exist, and instead - with this problem of the word "nothing" - people are trying to come up with a physical construct or state that would satisfy the word.
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, pace, I agree that the words are supposed to be used to describe the physical world (not the other way around). However, doesn't that completely work against the idea of using the word "nothing" to refer to something, since the words are supposed to be assigned to concepts that already exist, and instead - with this problem of the word "nothing" - people are trying to come up with a physical construct or state that would satisfy the word.
defining Nothing is more of a search than it's the truth I think.
I simply don't see your problem. I existed before I knew words.
The word Nothing doesn't ponder me, it's the state that does.
Arc_Central
Oct28-03, 02:03 AM
Mentat
Obviously you didn't undrstand me. I (can) say ... without a doubt ... that I understand precisely what you are saying. I used to think that way to a T.
I'll try some other words.
All fundamental things are made of nothing (no parts). All things have a field, and it is the field that is the reality of Non-Existence. These individual entities denoted by the field ... have form. Form is all that is necessary to be a thing.
I say a particle is a misnomer - It is actually a field ( a partially localized field). We see where these localized fields are by the grace of free ranging fields (photons).
Keep thinking that Existence is equally dependent on what it is not, and you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.
Originally posted by pace
defining Nothing is more of a search than it's the truth I think.
I simply don't see your problem. I existed before I knew words.
The word Nothing doesn't ponder me, it's the state that does.
My problem is that you still think there is a state of nothing. If there is a state, then it's not nothing, because a state is something! How is this so hard to understand?
Originally posted by Arc_Central
[B]Mentat
Obviously you didn't undrstand me. I (can) say ... without a doubt ... that I understand precisely what you are saying. I used to think that way to a T.
I'll try some other words.
All fundamental things are made of nothing (no parts). All things have a field, and it is the field that is the reality of Non-Existence. These individual entities denoted by the field ... have form. Form is all that is necessary to be a thing.
And how/why did you happen to form all of these completely unscientific and unsubstantiated consclusions? Besides, you've violated semantic logic again, since if there were a field, then the field would exist...hence there is not field of non-existence.
I say a particle is a misnomer - It is actually a field ( a partially localized field). We see where these localized fields are by the grace of free ranging fields (photons).
A field of what? It must be a field of something or other, and thus isn't relevant to a discussion of the meaning of the word "nothing".
Keep thinking that Existence is equally dependent on what it is not, and you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.
And yet your statement, as per the E.i.N.S. = "...you will not find anything in the bowels of reality".
Mentat, some people have such a poor grasp of logic that it's not worth wasting your time with them. If they can't think logically then no amount of reasoned arguments will convince them they are wrong. If some folks want to go on and on with pseudo intellectual drivel, let em. Save yourself the trouble.
If one can't discuss, at the least one can teach.
Originally posted by Mentat
My problem is that you still think there is a state of nothing. If there is a state, then it's not nothing, because a state is something! How is this so hard to understand?
Well, yea that's what I'm saying(said some posts ago, I said I didn't believe in nothing), only it didn't come out so well in my last post there, but I was more reffering to our processes along the way, ie how Democrit argued that reality was atoms+empty space. My issue was that it is a physical question, not a labyrinth of words. I think we agree that nothing isn't there, only you started to use logic of words, and I started to insinuate about physical things.
I quoted some Philosophy History btw, if my poor languange skill don't tell you anything, read up on some, it's very fascinating.
Arc_Central
Oct29-03, 10:18 PM
And how/why did you happen to form all of these completely unscientific and unsubstantiated consclusions?
You mean as opposed to your scientific well reasoned thought? [:D]
We are only talking about zero, one, and infinity at best.
A field of what? It must be a field of something or other, and thus isn't relevant to a discussion of the meaning of the word "nothing".
A field of nothing! <--- This is a thing.
Think of it this way - You have a balloon... Inside the balloon is nothing..... Outside the balloon is nothing...The material of the balloon (you know .... the stretchy stuff) is the concept of one (the field).
You will not find anything (nothing) in the bowels of reality (the field)(the concept of one) in the context an infinity of nothing.
Arc_Central
Oct29-03, 10:39 PM
Eh
Mentat, some people have such a poor grasp of logic that it's not worth wasting your time with them. If they can't think logically then no amount of reasoned arguments will convince them they are wrong. If some folks want to go on and on with pseudo intellectual drivel, let em. Save yourself the trouble.
Then Mr. logic - why did you post drivel?. It would seem you think mentat is logical. Therefore it follows to assume that you have no need to tell em.
Your mistake in logic is that it is equally dependent on what it is not. I.E. The universe is both logical and illogical - (one and zero).
Originally posted by Arc_Central
Your mistake in logic is that it is equally dependent on what it is not. I.E. The universe is both logical and illogical - (one and zero).
Great. Now that we've established you don't believe in basic logic, I won't waste any more time on your silly posts.
Originally posted by pace
Well, yea that's what I'm saying(said some posts ago, I said I didn't believe in nothing), only it didn't come out so well in my last post there, but I was more reffering to our processes along the way, ie how Democrit argued that reality was atoms+empty space. My issue was that it is a physical question, not a labyrinth of words. I think we agree that nothing isn't there, only you started to use logic of words, and I started to insinuate about physical things.
The idea of what ontological status empty space has is an interesting topic. Of course this thread has become quite silly that it might be better off in another. There is discussion here (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7875) that might be a good place to start.
As for the atomists, several early Greek philosophers pointed out the idea of completely empty space was logically inconsistent. One argument was that if atoms were seperated by nothing, they wouldn't be seperated by anything, and would be touching. The universe would be a solid mass and no motion would be possible. The atomists did not ignore this problem, and responded that the void was not truely empty, consisting of the spatial reality. It was only empty in the sense that no atoms were present.
Arc_Central
Oct30-03, 12:27 AM
Great. Now that we've established you don't believe in basic logic, I won't waste any more time on your silly posts.
I hope so, and since you think the whole thread has gotten silly. It behooves you to leave in the logical sense.
Goodbye! CYA
Arc_Central
Oct30-03, 12:50 AM
As for the atomists, several early Greek philosophers pointed out the idea of completely empty space was logically inconsistent. One argument was that if atoms were seperated by nothing, they wouldn't be seperated by anything, and would be touching. The universe would be a solid mass and no motion would be possible. The atomists did not ignore this problem, and responded that the void was not truely empty, consisting of the spatial reality. It was only empty in the sense that no atoms were present.
Although Eh won't be back if he is to be logically consistent. I find this paragraph to be close to what I am saying. That space is not truly empty. It is represented by individual entities of nothing, and for that matter - So are the atoms we recognize. The difference between atoms and space is minimal. Our understanding of it all is time (motion) oriented.
Originally posted by Eh
Of course this thread has become quite silly
We're discussing nothing, I wasn't expecting much [:D]
Originally posted by Eh
As for the atomists, several early Greek philosophers pointed out the idea of completely empty space was logically inconsistent. One argument was that if atoms were seperated by nothing, they wouldn't be seperated by anything, and would be touching. The universe would be a solid mass and no motion would be possible. The atomists did not ignore this problem, and responded that the void was not truely empty, consisting of the spatial reality. It was only empty in the sense that no atoms were present.
spatial reality? I think your 'how can anything be moving if nothing exist, because then everything would be solid mass' is a good point, and makes me stumble. Still, what you conclude with, I feel like going some posts back where I argue that, how 'nothing' can be a little more than 'nothing' doesn't make sense to me. Still when I say that I don't believe in nothing, there's something I don't like about it. Is it because I'm refuting myself the search ? itchy-witchy this is!
Anyways I think Mentat got a point, maybe concluding nothing isn't there, since we're talking here anyway, is (better) prooved by words. But are really words, maths, and physics standing alone by themself? Or don't they interfer with eachother somehow? They do if you're a Spinozist.
Mentat, if words doesn't matter, how should I then search for nothing? Go around with no words, searching, touching, feeling? That doesn't make anymore sense does it?
Don't know what mystifies me the most tho: nothing, or that we exist.
Touching these issues makes me feel the whole life is absurd? Or is the word 'mystic'? Wittgenstein said: the mystery about life isn't how it exists, but that it exists...
Originally posted by Eh
Mentat, some people have such a poor grasp of logic that it's not worth wasting your time with them. If they can't think logically then no amount of reasoned arguments will convince them they are wrong. If some folks want to go on and on with pseudo intellectual drivel, let em. Save yourself the trouble.
I've been given this (probably very good) advice before (remember the never-ending debates with Lifegazer and Alexander?). Maybe I'll finally heed this advice someday (but not until my post count's the highest again [;)][6)][:D]).
Originally posted by pace
Well, yea that's what I'm saying(said some posts ago, I said I didn't believe in nothing), only it didn't come out so well in my last post there, but I was more reffering to our processes along the way, ie how Democrit argued that reality was atoms+empty space. My issue was that it is a physical question, not a labyrinth of words. I think we agree that nothing isn't there, only you started to use logic of words, and I started to insinuate about physical things.
I quoted some Philosophy History btw, if my poor languange skill don't tell you anything, read up on some, it's very fascinating.
I guess we were kind of pointing to the same point then, pace, but you still (even in this post) use the word "nothing" as though it referred to something, which it doesn't. That's a real concern, since some people seem to get caught in debates about absolutely nothing, simply because of a semantic error.
Originally posted by Arc_Central
A field of nothing! <--- This is a thing.
Think of it this way - You have a balloon... Inside the balloon is nothing..... Outside the balloon is nothing...The material of the balloon (you know .... the stretchy stuff) is the concept of one (the field).
This is the problem. Inside the balloon there is something: air. And even if there wasn't, there'd be space, which is something. But the word "nothing" doesn't refer to something, it doesn't refer to anything.
Originally posted by Mentat
I guess we were kind of pointing to the same point then, pace, but you still (even in this post) use the word "nothing" as though it referred to something, which it doesn't. That's a real concern, since some people seem to get caught in debates about absolutely nothing, simply because of a semantic error.
bob bob(norwegian expression for 'maybe, maybe not').
I think maybe you're taking your semantic issues too far.
As much as I think it's imperative that we do something about our world-state, I hate to keep people from searching, they are trying to do something too. I don't believe we're talking about nothing, we're being active beings that search. And talking about 'nothing' isn't a waste of time, ie The atomists definitions has prooved very fruity. (On a side note, thus you are counter-talking yourself in your above post, saying 'caught in debates about absolutely nothing'. Cause you're saying like me, you don't believe in nothing.)
Originally posted by Arc_Central
I hope so, and since you think the whole thread has gotten silly. It behooves you to leave in the logical sense.
Goodbye! CYA
The thread wouldn't have become silly if people didn't combat basic logic with personal opinions. You are not the only one, but he was partially referring to you, since you tried to say that Universe was both logical and illogical at the same time...which is a completely illogical (silly?) statement.
Originally posted by pace
bob bob(norwegian expression for 'maybe, maybe not').
I think maybe you're taking your semantic issues too far.
As much as I think it's imperative that we do something about our world-state, I hate to keep people from searching, they are trying to do something too. I don't believe we're talking about nothing, we're being active beings that search. ie The atomists definitions has prooved very fruity. (On a side note, thus you are counter-talking yourself in your above post, saying 'caught in debates about absolutely nothing'. Cause you're saying like me, you don't believe in nothing.)
And that is the point, I said they are debates about nothing, which - as per E.i.N.S. - is equivalent to saying "They are not debates about anything". The fact that you took my use of the word "nothing" to be referring to something is indicative of what I suspected: even you (in spite of your very logical arguments and good posts) have not completely grasped the semantic issues at hand.
Originally posted by Arc_Central
Although Eh won't be back if he is to be logically consistent. I find this paragraph to be close to what I am saying. That space is not truly empty. It is represented by individual entities of nothing, and for that matter - So are the atoms we recognize. The difference between atoms and space is minimal. Our understanding of it all is time (motion) oriented.
This is why Eh is calling the thread silly: You actually just referred to discrete units (individual entities) of nothing. If they (a pronoun) are discrete units, then they are something.
Well, I never was any good with words, so thank you for saying my posts are good. Math was more my thing [:)]. But I think philosophy is good stuff, it connects language and math afaiu. If you like math, maybe you start to like language more, and via verca.
Edit: I don't want to say Semantics isn't important though, I think a lot of conflicts happen because we don't understand what's outside of us, or misinterpretate eachother. But not just others, but also ourself
Mumeishi
Oct30-03, 01:11 PM
I am following this silly thread with interest.
Sorry, what is E.i.N.S. ?
Arc_Central
Oct30-03, 02:44 PM
This is the problem. Inside the balloon there is something: air. And even if there wasn't, there'd be space, which is something. But the word "nothing" doesn't refer to something, it doesn't refer to anything.
If you followed this thread a little more closely - You would understand that the balloon analogy was in reference to the fundamental unit (the individual (one). I wasn't discussing Bozo making balloons for kids.[:D]
Let me try this again - The balloon (an analogy) is a representation of what a (fundamental unit) is like. No - It's not full of air...No - it's not full of space. Space is made up of these fundamental units... along with what we call matter. Whats inside these units is nothing. If you could examine whats inside one of these units ... you would find nothing. There are no parts to a fundamental unit - get it?
In this particular case ....nothing is a thing.
You actually just referred to discrete units (individual entities) of nothing. If they (a pronoun) are discrete units, then they are something.
Now yer gittin it. Nothing is a thing....Bravo!
If you want to talk about nothing in the sense that you propose. You would have to leave the universe. I prefer not to go there, because there would be (nothing) to discuss. You know .... The kind of nothing that isn't anything at all. [;)]
you tried to say that Universe was both logical and illogical at the same time...which is a completely illogical (silly?) statement.
Completely illogical? That wouldn't work either.
Logic would make no sense whatsoever if it were like this (1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111). Therefor it's like this (1111111000000110000011011010111111111100000000010 00011010010010010100111111111000100100100100000001 10011111), or this (0 0 00 0 000 00000 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0), or this (1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111111111 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 1).
For every logic is a corresponding illogic.
I am following this silly thread with interest.
how can anyone call this thread silly i have found it
deep as deep can be, shame on you MUMEISHI
[:)] [:))]
Mumeishi
Oct31-03, 01:10 PM
There is nothing to discuss!
Mumeishi
Oct31-03, 01:12 PM
Anyway, the best theory we have for the ultimate nature of matter and energy is that it is composed of superstrings not nothingness.
Originally posted by Mumeishi
I am following this silly thread with interest.
Sorry, what is E.i.N.S. ?
Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics. (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99&highlight=Exercise+in+Nothing+Semantics) My little gem from times past. You can just read the first post, to get the gist, if you want.
Originally posted by Arc_Central
If you followed this thread a little more closely - You would understand that the balloon analogy was in reference to the fundamental unit (the individual (one). I wasn't discussing Bozo making balloons for kids.[:D]
Let me try this again - The balloon (an analogy) is a representation of what a (fundamental unit) is like. No - It's not full of air...No - it's not full of space. Space is made up of these fundamental units... along with what we call matter. Whats inside these units is nothing. If you could examine whats inside one of these units ... you would find nothing. There are no parts to a fundamental unit - get it?
In this particular case ....nothing is a thing.
Then why do you call it "nothing"? What kind of sense does it make to use a word that isn't supposed to refer to something, to refer to the most fundamental unit of existence? Besides, why should this be the case, when there is much more evidence for string theory, or other such scientific endeavors?
Now yer gittin it. Nothing is a thing....Bravo!
If you want to talk about nothing in the sense that you propose. You would have to leave the universe. I prefer not to go there, because there would be (nothing) to discuss. You know .... The kind of nothing that isn't anything at all. [;)]
That's the only kind of "nothing" there is. That's the only thing the word "nothing" is supposed to be used for. It would save us all alot of trouble, if you would rename your fundamental unit.
Completely illogical? That wouldn't work either.
Logic would make no sense whatsoever if it were like this (1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111). Therefor it's like this (1111111000000110000011011010111111111100000000010 00011010010010010100111111111000100100100100000001 10011111), or this (0 0 00 0 000 00000 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0), or this (1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111111111 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 1).
For every logic is a corresponding illogic.
Say what? Yes, for the body of prescriptions that we call "Logic", there is a corresponding set of things that are "illogical", of which set your hypothesis is probably a member (no offense, but that's what I meant when I said "completely illogical", and it's what Eh probably meant when he said "silly").
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Anyway, the best theory we have for the ultimate nature of matter and energy is that it is composed of superstrings not nothingness.
What a guy/gal! You see, this is the kind of thing I like to hear. [:D]
Mumeishi
Oct31-03, 09:36 PM
Without wishing to offend him or her, I don't see much point criticising a half-baked pet theory for which there is no evidence. Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.
BTW: I am a guy. You can call me Mumeishi-San. [;)]
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Without wishing to offend him or her, I don't see much point criticising a half-baked pet theory for which there is no evidence. Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.
BTW: I am a guy. You can call me Mumeishi-San. [;)]
Alright, I just try to avoid making assumptions about the gender of a poster, without good reason to do so, since I could offend someone.
Anyway, you may be right about Arc, but I just want to clear up that empty space is still something (I know you probably already know this, but I'm clearing it up for the rest of the people here, since there has been debate on this point numerous times in PF history).
Anyway, the best theory we have for the ultimate nature of matter and energy is that it is composed of superstrings not nothingness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as i know superstrings are just another theory, probably
the hardest theory to prove, to say that superstrings have
always existed is like saying that the electron has always existed
or anything you care to choose, in the final analyasis there
is no posibility of anything existing, unless it is "the thing"
from which everything has come from, as far as i am concerned
the oposite of "thing" is "no thing" for us to exist we must
have had a begining one cannot have a begining from "no thing"
so some "thing" must have always existed.
any one who makes something from pure vacuum will surely win a nobel prize
Mumeishi
Nov1-03, 02:33 PM
Even empty space is something. The modern view of physics is that 'empty space' is a geometrical 'entity' (perhaps a Higgs field) with three extended spacial dimension and one extended time dimension. This space is not absolute or fixed - it can be distorted. Not only that but at a small scale this supposedly empty space has a froth of virtual particals popping into and out of existence.
That's not nothing. It is something that can be described with some precision geometrically with relativity and microscopically with quantum mechanics.
That is not nothing. Nothing cannot be described.
Mumeishi
Nov1-03, 02:34 PM
Wolram,
Perhaps some 'thing' has always existed. For as long as there has been time anyway.
"no thing", in my argument is "pure" vacuum to have an
alternative to that is to have some "thing", which has
to come from some "where", even the "where" is supposed
to have come from the BB, so the BB is posited to be
the start of everything, so what existed befor the BB?
MUMEISHI, thankyou, you must be one of the few that understands
pure logic.[;)]
Mumeishi
Nov1-03, 05:38 PM
A pure vacuum is what I just described. If you got rid of the virtual particles, you'd be describing something which probably does not exist, and even so, it would still be a space-time of 4 extended dimensions. As I said, that is not nothing.
According to the theory, not-a-thing existed before the big bang, bacause there was no time before the big bang. 'Before' did not exist until then. At the 'beginning' space-time curves around to meet itself like the pole of the earth - if you go back in time far enough you will find that you are moving forward in time.
Time is not an absolute entity within which the universe exists. Time is a property of the universe, just as space is and both of them are distorted by local events in the universe. Haven't you heard of Albert Einstein? [;)] The universe is all. There is no outside. There is no before and there is no after - just reality itself.
Arcs_Central
Nov1-03, 06:57 PM
Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.
I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist. That existence comes in the form of a field - not a particle. That a particle is nothing more than localized foci of fields.
I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.
What is your definition of a particle? Let me try this analogy as to what I think you think a particle is. There is this ten foot diameter steel ball that when you hit it with a hammer - It goes cling clang.
If I'm wrong...please explain.
Mumeishi
Nov1-03, 07:09 PM
cling clang
When did I mention particles ? In what way does my argument depend on a conception of particles as like steel balls that go 'cling clang'? Straw man.
I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist.
What do you mean? Can you be more precise?
I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.
Of course you don't think of particles as 'full' (whatever that means), given that you don't believe in particles.
Arcs_Central
Nov1-03, 07:23 PM
It would save us all alot of trouble, if you would rename your fundamental unit.
A fundamental unit would have no parts. It has to be made of nothing, but if it will make you happy.....I'll call it a loogetite.
[:D]
A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence. Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.
I have a question for you.
How many loogetites can you fit into a voltswagon?
Mumeishi
Nov1-03, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
A fundamental unit would have no parts.
True
It has to be made of nothing,
Perhaps this is the semantic source of your confusion. If something has no constituent parts you could arguable say that it is 'made of no thing', but that doesn't mean that it IS nothing. If it was nothing it could never be able to be form the constituent parts of anything else. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence. Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.
Have you been eating those funny little cakes again?
How many loogetites can you fit into a voltswagon?
An infinite number - nothing occupies no space. Unlike the fundamental particles in the real world, which is why there is a finite (but high) number of those that would fit in a VW.
Arcs_Central
Nov1-03, 08:14 PM
When did I mention particles ? In what way does my argument depend on a conception of particles as like steel balls that go 'cling clang'? Straw man.
Just trying to figure out where you stand. So do they go cling clang?
Of course you don't think of particles as 'full' (whatever that means), given that you don't believe in particles.
On the contrary - A localized foci of a field is particle like in the clasical sense, but they don't go cling clang. I.E. There is no such thing as a collision. A particle is like a Christmas present (a bunch of fields wrapped up). Unwrap the present and out comes the fields in the form of free ranging photons.
What do you mean? Can you be more precise?
I find myself asking - Why bother. I can't get anyone past nothing as a thing in the form of a field. How then could you accept a foci of a field that gets localized (orbits) where half the field eminates inward to a point as a particle, and the other half generates outward as a gravitational field?
Arcs_Central
Nov1-03, 10:00 PM
Perhaps this is the semantic source of your confusion. If something has no constituent parts you could arguable say that it is 'made of no thing', but that doesn't mean that it IS nothing. If it was nothing it could never be able to be form the constituent parts of anything else. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
This is the nitty gritty of it all - to reduce to pure simplicity. We can take the reductionist approach down to absolute nothing in the clasical sense of not anything. At which time we must turn around and make something from nothing. I can't think of any other way to do this other than to part out nothing (geometry at work). In this approach there is an infinity of nothings in nothing. It begins with one nothing, then two, then three, and four, and so on. In this situation - infinity/389577577759 is the same as infinity/949994999. Any number of nothings would be equal to any other number of nothings up against an infinity of nothing.
You might ask - how can you tell one nothing from another? This is somewhat of a sticking point with me, and it requires more thought for sure. I will say that if I consider nothing as a thing - It must have form....absolutely. At the moment....that form is a field.
One might argue that a particle is something as opposed to the space (nothing) that surrounds it. There are few knowledgable people that would make that claim - me included. If this is not true...there are few choices for a replacement. I say that there are only things made of nothing. We differentiate one nothing from another through motion (time). I.E A field acts upon you, then a time passes before another field acts on you. When a field acts upon you ...it is a one - When they don't.....it's a zero. This is absolute logic verses it's total absense, and it's quite telling.
Mumeishi
Nov2-03, 02:29 AM
But, as has been said many times now, a field is not nothing. Its description is quite different to a vacuum is quite different. If you are pointing out that a particle isn't a solid billiard ball of indivisible matter, then I'm afraid to reveal that that conception went out a long time ago.
i think our picture of everything is to abstract, this
all originates from the BB theory and GR, i know they
are the best theories we have and are testable in part.
but i find them totaly nonintuitive, we are told that
befor the BB there was no space, time, matter, energy
outside the, "singularity or whatever one wants to call it",
and when this thing went bang or phut out popped our
neat universe in its embryonic state, complete with
this thing that is called gravity, but unless the
graviton is found gravity is not a thing, according
to AE it is distorted SPACETIME, time is considered
to be a "dimention", this is far to abstract for me, if time
is a true dimention i should be able to travel back
as well as forwards in it.
if one considers all the above "generally correct", then
all our thoughts are tied to theories that are incomplete
and may be shown to be totally wrong.
Arcs_Central
Nov2-03, 02:26 PM
But, as has been said many times now, a field is not nothing. Its description is quite different to a vacuum is quite different. If you are pointing out that a particle isn't a solid billiard ball of indivisible matter, then I'm afraid to reveal that that conception went out a long time ago.
It would seem we agree that a particle is not like a billiard ball of indivisible matter. So what other options are there? If matter is not like the cling clang analogy given earlier, then we must accept that matter and space are composed of the same things. If this is so, then the difference between matter and space is minimal at best.
What is a thing? I propose that all things on all scales are understood through the same process. A baseball, a stop sign, a fundamental unit, a planet, a monitor, are all understood to be things under the same premise. You see a thing..like your monitor and the procedure is - nothing inside it, and infinitely nothing outside it. This is the geometric reality of the monitor (The conceptual understanding of one).
In regards to saying the field is not nothing. I say to you that the field is not a thing either. The field is entirely conceptual. The field contains the information about a thing. In the case of the monitor - it is fields that contain information about the monitors field of information (the geometric embodiment of one monitor).
The fundamental unit - Take a blank sheet of paper - Call that blank sheet of paper nothing. Now...grab a pencil and draw a circle on it. This is the conceptual undertanding of a fundamental unit. Nothing inside the circle, and infinitely nothing outside the circle. You need but make a plethora of these circles, and imagine them moving around at C, where one unit acts upon you, and then another does not. This is the equivalent of ones and zeros for your brain.
This is yer brain on zeros.[g)]
This is yer brain on ones.[*(]
This is yer brain on zeros and ones.[;)]
Mumeishi
Nov2-03, 04:22 PM
Wolram,
A theory failing to coincide with what humans happen to find intuitive is not evidence against it. You cannot move back to a previous time, but then you cannot move back to a previous space either, since, as far as i understand, by the time you get there it is already 'a different space'. Space and time are aspects of the same fabric, but time has a different sort of symmetry to spacial dimensions.
Arcs,
The nature of fundamental particles is an ongoing investigation. They seem to be quantised waves. They certainly have a different energy state from a vacuum (which is apparently very close to, but not quite zero - this is the proposed 'dark energy').
EDITED to make sense
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist.
Here is where you start to go wrong. Think about it, Arc: How can something be the embodiment of something else that doesn't even really exist? Embodiment, by it's very definition and meaning, requires something being embodied.
That existence comes in the form of a field - not a particle. That a particle is nothing more than localized foci of fields.
Fine, it could be nothing but fields, but the fields would be something.
I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.
I don't understand this comment.
What is your definition of a particle? Let me try this analogy as to what I think you think a particle is. There is this ten foot diameter steel ball that when you hit it with a hammer - It goes cling clang.
If I'm wrong...please explain.
I think a particle/wave (since no "particle" is just a particle, but also a wave) is a tiny superstring. Does that help?
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
A fundamental unit would have no parts. It has to be made of nothing, but if it will make you happy.....I'll call it a loogetite.
[:D]
It makes no difference what you call it, if there is no "it", in the first place.
Besides, a fundamental unit is made of nothing, but that sentence just means (as per E.i.N.S.) "a fundamental unit isn't made of anything".
A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence.
You might as well say that it isn't a geometric representation at all, since a representation, by it's very definition and meaning, must have something to represent.
Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.
Which, of course, is a logical and semantic contradiction.
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
It would seem we agree that a particle is not like a billiard ball of indivisible matter. So what other options are there? If matter is not like the cling clang analogy given earlier, then we must accept that matter and space are composed of the same things. If this is so, then the difference between matter and space is minimal at best.
Yes, that may very well be very true. But here's the most important point that you constantly seem to be either missing or ignoring: Space is something!!.
Arcs_Central
Nov3-03, 01:40 PM
Mumeishi
Particles
[quote]They seem to be quantised waves.{/quote]
This is pretty much what I am trying to get across. I am saying that they are individual entities of nothing. The field (wave) is it's form. I'm saying that all fields (waves) move at an average speed of C. I say average because when a field moves - a section of it will be moving slightly faster than C, while another section is moving slightly slower than C. In the next instant the section of the field that was moving slightly faster than C will be moving slightly slower than C. So if you were to pick a point on a field - You would see acceleration and then deceleration of that point at whatever frequency that field happens to be. This is the wave aspect of a field.
The form of each individual unit is based on variations of speed within each unit, and forms vary depending on the direction of any given field. An EM wave verses a gravitational field have little difference other than there course of travel.
The difference between the void of space, and that of particles is locations of the foci of fields. In the particle sense - The foci of fields are localized (orbiting). In the dead of space - Those localized fields are recognized as gravitational fields. In essense it's same same ..all the same with a twist. :-)
Arcs_Central
Nov3-03, 02:26 PM
Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.
Which, of course, is a logical and semantic contradiction.
The entire universe is a semantic contradiction. If this were not so - How could I tell one thing from another?
I read this somewhere - This introduces a principle of "Difference Congruency" (meaning: two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door). Zero ... (nothing, a quality)
cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).
Space is something!!.
Never said it wasn't.
Besides, a fundamental unit is made of nothing, but that sentence just means (as per E.i.N.S.) "a fundamental unit isn't made of anything".
Correct!
Arcs_Central
Nov3-03, 03:23 PM
I think a particle/wave (since no "particle" is just a particle, but also a wave) is a tiny superstring. Does that help?
String theory - Hmmmmm
I can't help but think of an Italian as the originator of this idea. A plate of spaghetti comes to mind when I see the words string theory. At any rate people are eating it up. I would caution not to look to closely at yer food. You may not want to eat it. I would not however rule out this feed for consumption - If I could only learn to twirl my fork with the aid of a spoon...I might reach the point of placing some noodles between my palate and tongue. Therein lies the problem - Few if any are masters of this artform. Eating spaghetti is a sloppy business best left to people likes of Joey or Antonio. When or if they ever master the art - I shall arrive pronto with my spoon and fork to eventually pass it on to my ancestry.
I visited a site recently where the layout of strings looked like a cross section of a womans reproductive system. It was so real ..... I thought I was gonna go into labor.
Read this before - The dude says .... Nobody knows what string theory is - Yet there are multitudes that are perfectly happy to hand you a plate of spaghetti saying - Figure it out for yourself.
Arcs_Central
Nov4-03, 10:43 AM
One key point to be made here is that if we take a reductionist approach toward the removal of everything. We eventually come to the conclusion that nothing cannot be removed. We must accept that all things are made of nothing, and I must say that means everything to me.[:D]
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
The entire universe is a semantic contradiction. If this were not so - How could I tell one thing from another?
What?! Are you even trying to make sense? If everything were a semantic contradiction then we would not be able to tell one thing from another.
Never said it wasn't.
Yes you did. You constantly refer to empty space using the word "nothing".
Perhaps this is what you've been missing: There is either something, or there isn't. To say that there is something there, completely precludes saying that there is nothing there. To say that there isn't anything there at all, is exactly equal to saying "there is nothing there".
Correct!
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it is a "field of non-existence", or any other such ridiculous notion. No offense, but as I asked before, are you even trying to make sense, or are you just trying to see how much more of this nonsense we can all take?
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
One key point to be made here is that if we take a reductionist approach toward the removal of everything. We eventually come to the conclusion that nothing cannot be removed. We must accept that all things are made of nothing, and I must say that means everything to me.[:D]
Alright, I'm done with this thread. Before I go, I will leave you with one more little glimpse into the world of logic and rational thinking: If you take the reductionist approach and remove everything, then you don't have anything left there. There is no entity left over called "nothing", because if there were an entity there at all (a "field" counts as an "entity") you would not have removed everything. When you say "nothing cannot be removed", you are trying to say something else (I hope), since "nothing cannot be removed" = "there isn't anything that cannot be removed" which would contradict your own hypothesis.
Oh, and when you say "all things are made of nothing", you are saying "no entities are made of anything" and this is not true. Macroscopic, and even microscopic, non-fundamental entities are made of something. And the furthest you can go is to the fundamental entities, since...well, they are "fundamental", and that's what fundamental means: You can't reduce any further.
I'm sorry, but I have no more patience for this thread, since I have covered it logically, rationally, and scientifically, and I feel everything I say is going in through one ear, and flying right out the other when I talk to you anyway.
quartodeciman
Nov4-03, 12:53 PM
That is sad, Mentat. We all count on getting a visit from you merely by whispering sweet little nothings. But, we will see you around the yard.
------
Nothing is made out of nothium.
By the way, just where is 'nowhere', MI and does it really have a middle?
Couldn't resist (I'm just too proud of my gem from long ago (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99&highlight=Exercise+Nothing+Semantics), of which, the afore-referenced post is not the whole version)...
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Nothing is made out of nothium.
Translation, as per E.i.N.S. = There isn't anything made out of nothium. Really useful new word, quart [:((]. Keep this in mind before posting such nonsensical statements in the future, please.
quartodeciman
Nov4-03, 01:40 PM
Keep this in mind before posting such nonsensical statements in the future, please.
I guess I can comply with that. I shall henceforth post them only in the past.
bandonrun
Nov4-03, 10:44 PM
Just to let ya know. It looks like I've been banned from these boards.
I don't know why.
I am formally known as Arc_Central, Arcs_Central, Arc_Centralz.
I'd like to talk more about nothing :-), but it is likely this post will be deleted along with this latest user name.
Again - I don't know why I'm not allowed to post. Emails are not getting replies. I will post under this name as long as they let me.
bandonrun
Nov4-03, 11:55 PM
Mentat
I had a nice little post written up for you under the name Arc_Centralz, but it didn't post.[:D]
They is quick!
At any rate
Oh, and when you say "all things are made of nothing", you are saying "no entities are made of anything" and this is not true. Macroscopic, and even microscopic, non-fundamental entities are made of something. And the furthest you can go is to the fundamental entities, since...well, they are "fundamental", and that's what fundamental means: You can't reduce any further.
Yer missing the point - All things are fundamental regardless of thier parts. You can only take on one thing at a time. A car is fundamental from it's conceptual standpoint. It is noted by it's form and not by it's parts. A steering wheel is not a car...just as a car is not a steering wheel.
All things have this in common - Nothing inside it..Nothing outside it, and the oneness of its geometric form. Everything you see uses this process. It is the conceptual understanding of one. A duck is a fundamental unit in regards to it being a duck. One duck ...one geometric form. I could reduce a duck to a feather, but then it's not really a duck anymore ...is it? The feather is fundamental to what it is (a feather).
We could take this reductionist meathod of fundamentality to what we would actually call fundamental as opposed to say a duck with parts. The process is still the same for it's indentification. - Nothing inside it...nothing outside it, and the oneness of it's geometric form.
All things arrive at your doorstep one thing at a time. In the case of the unit called fundamental (no parts). It can act upon you (register as a one) or not act upon you (pass you like a ghost and not register at all (a zero)). This is how one unit can be differentiated from another - ( The time between recieving units). Time being - the passsing of a ghost (nothing unregistered). Yer brain reads these zeros and ones as something that could very well quack like a duck.
I hope ya stick around, because I can't say I've run across anybody so in tuned to nothing. I can say I've been doin nothing for quite some time myself. It really doesn't get any better than this. To leave now - You might as well say all yer time was fer nuttin. But if you do decide to leave - just remember (one thing) ....(nothing).
Alright, bandonrun, I'll stick around for a while. I just hope you aren't going to close off your mind, like certain other members here, and instead actually listen to what I'm saying to you.
You have made a gross error in your previous post. You said that each entity is fundamental in it's own right, and has "nothing inside; nothing outside". This is obviously not the case, for the following two reasons:
1) A duck does indeed have something inside...where did you think his guts were? [;)]
2) The use of the word "fundamental" is based on a reductionist mind-set, which requires that we take anything that has parts which make it up as not fundamental. Only that which isn't composed of anything, but only composes other things is truly fundamental.
Now, as to the use of the word "nothing": I just don't think you people are getting what I'm saying, and, alas, I don't have the full original version of the E.i.N.S. on PF3. However, I think that Eh has covered most of the points therein quite well in recent threads, and I don't think people are paying enough attention to what he and I have been saying.
If you refer to something - and it can be anything, fundamental or otherwise - you are not supposed to use the word "nothing". The word "nothing" has it's own meaning, and that is "not a thing" or "not anything". Therefore, for someone to say that there is a "field of nothing" is precisely equal to saying that there isn't a field at all; or that there is a field, but it isn't a field of anything at all, in which case it's really not a field anyway...
When you said "nothing inside; nothing outside", you used a sentence that should be translated as "there isn't anything inside, nor is there anything outside". However, people like Arc-Central (and, believe me, he's not the only one) use the word "nothing", even in this type of context, to mean that there is something fundamental there, which is called "nothing".
Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying, I'll paraphrase: The word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything, at all. It's proper use is in a non-literal sense, where it could be replaced by "not a thing" or "not anything" and still make sense. To use the word "nothing" otherwise is semantically, and logically, incorrect, and creates debates that needn't exist at all.
bandonrun
Nov5-03, 07:31 PM
You have made a gross error in your previous post. You said that each entity is fundamental in it's own right, and has "nothing inside; nothing outside". This is obviously not the case, for the following two reasons:
1) A duck does indeed have something inside...where did you think his guts were?
2) The use of the word "fundamental" is based on a reductionist mind-set, which requires that we take anything that has parts which make it up as not fundamental. Only that which isn't composed of anything, but only composes other things is truly fundamental.
There is no error here. You are misunderstanding the whole idea of what a concept is. What is basic to what a duck is - is it's form. When you read the word box ... a form comes to mind - Your understanding of a box is nothing in and nothing out in the form of a box. Never mind what the box is made out of. There is no mind to whats in it, or out of it. It's form is all there is at the moment you read the word box. A box is conceptually fundamental to what it is. At the next moment you may think...duck. The moment you think duck ... the box does not exist. The next moment you may think box. Now the duck don't exist.
When you read the word box - Did you think at the same time about an apple outside the box, or in it? Of course you didn't..thats because to understand box the requirement is nothing in it and nothing outside it. The apple cannot exist to you at the exact same time. In this respect... all things are fundamental unto themselves in thier own time frame. If you were to put two boxes in the same time frame - The two boxes together would equal one thing. The Earth is one thing in a sense that all the things that the Earth is made of are all in the same time frame conceptually.
In reality - There are only ones....One at a time.
Only that which isn't composed of anything, but only composes other things is truly fundamental.
A duck isn't compose of anything - It is the thing. I.E. A singular entity without parts. Should you choose to part it out - It aint a duck anymore. It's parts are fundamental to what they are - A duck bill, wing, leg, liver, neck are all fundamental unto themselves.I.E different things. If you change the form of a duck - It may just as well be your'e next meal. Which is an entirely different thing.
I'm having a hard time understanding how it is you can't understand nothing in the form of something. Perhaps it is the attempt to attach physicality to the form...rather than conceptuality of the form.
Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying, I'll paraphrase: The word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything, at all.
Just to make sure you understand - That when I point you to the inside of the fundamental unit...I am not referring to anything at all, but should you choose to go there for the purposes of parting it out for inspection - You would in effect...create the very things that are fundamental to your existence, and you would exclaim .... I am one with the universe, and theres (not a damn thing) I can do about it.
I will make a convert out of you yet.
Originally posted by bandonrun
There is no error here. You are misunderstanding the whole idea of what a concept is. What is basic to what a duck is - is it's form. When you read the word box ... a form comes to mind - Your understanding of a box is nothing in and nothing out in the form of a box. Never mind what the box is made out of. There is no mind to whats in it, or out of it. It's form is all there is at the moment you read the word box. A box is conceptually fundamental to what it is. At the next moment you may think...duck. The moment you think duck ... the box does not exist. The next moment you may think box. Now the duck don't exist.
I understand conceptual fundamentality, but it has not bearing on physical fundamentality. To take a reductionist approach one must assume that the term "box" would have no meaning if there weren't space between each side, and space is something in it's own right.
In reality - There are only ones....One at a time.
That may be how we think about things, but each thing is composed of something smaller, until you get to the fundamental units. There is, in fact, something that is smaller than a duck that is called "part of a duck".
A duck isn't compose of anything - It is the thing.
Wrong. A duck is composed of a different entity called a leg, and another entity called a feather, and another entity called a beak, etc. That none of these parts are "ducks" is just a result of backwards synergy.
I.E. A singular entity without parts. Should you choose to part it out - It aint a duck anymore. It's parts are fundamental to what they are - A duck bill, wing, leg, liver, neck are all fundamental unto themselves.I.E different things. If you change the form of a duck - It may just as well be your'e next meal. Which is an entirely different thing.
Not if I'm eating duck. Besides, if I take a duck's leg off (and fry it [6)]), the rest of the duck would still be called a "duck", would it not?
I'm having a hard time understanding how it is you can't understand nothing in the form of something. Perhaps it is the attempt to attach physicality to the form...rather than conceptuality of the form.
Wait a minute, it is not I that is without comprehension, it is I that am trying to explain to you the proper use of the word "nothing". For example, when you say that there is "nothing composing the duck" that doesn't mean that the duck is composed of something that is called "nothing", it means that there isn't anything composing it. If the word "nothing" were used to refer to something, then what word would we have for those occassions when we don't wish to address anything?
Just to make sure you understand - That when I point you to the inside of the fundamental unit...I am not referring to anything at all, but should you choose to go there for the purposes of parting it out for inspection - You would in effect...create the very things that are fundamental to your existence, and you would exclaim .... I am one with the universe, and theres (not a damn thing) I can do about it.
I will make a convert out of you yet.
What BS are you spouting now? No offense, but perhaps you should reconsider the level of arrogance you use in your posts.
I know that I am the fundamental form that can be referred to as Mentat, and that none of my parts serve that purpose, but that doesn't mean that this one entity isn't composed of many smaller entities.
bandonrun
Nov6-03, 06:27 PM
To take a reductionist approach one must assume that the term "box" would have no meaning if there weren't space between each side, and space is something in it's own right. In your mind the space between each side is not considered. The space must be a non-entity for purposes of understanding. Doesn't matter if the box is filled with rag dolls. The box must be taken to fundamentality in your mind to be understood as (one box). (One box) is fundamental in that it can't be broken down further and still remain the same box. If it's form is changed - So is it's identity.
In reality - There are only ones....One at a time.
That may be how we think about things, but each thing is composed of something smaller, until you get to the fundamental units. There is, in fact, something that is smaller than a duck that is called "part of a duck".I agree with you here ....but the thing you called (part of a duck) is an entirely different (thing) from the duck.
Not if I'm eating duck. Besides, if I take a duck's leg off (and fry it ), the rest of the duck would still be called a "duck", would it not? No it would not - You would have (duck without leg) as opposed to (duck). I.E. The duck with two legs (assumed) does not exist anymore. In fact ... if you did nothing to the duck but look at it - Then turn away to look at something else...then looked back at the duck. You would be seeing a new duck (Different thing). The old duck does not exist anymore accept for what you placed in yer brains memory for the old duck, and should you bring up that memory..that new duck becomes an old duck, and the old duck becomes the new duck. Better stop here before I get lost. The point here is that reality is now, and that reality comes in the (form) of one.
As I have said before - In reality ... There are only ones....One at a time. Time being a form (one) that fails to act upon you (passes you like a ghost), and this is the equivalent of the zero (nothing) that one is composed of.
Two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door).Zero ... (nothing, a quality) cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).
Wait a minute, it is not I that is without comprehension, it is I that am trying to explain to you the proper use of the word "nothing". For example, when you say that there is "nothing composing the duck" that doesn't mean that the duck is composed of something that is called "nothing", it means that there isn't anything composing it. If the word "nothing" were used to refer to something, then what word would we have for those occassions when we don't wish to address anything?
(((You said - If the word "nothing" were used to refer to something.))) Well - here is the problem that you are having, because I am not referring you to something when I refer you to within something.
Perhaps this analogy will help - It is in regards to matter and antimatter...the cookie cutter anology. You have this cookie cutter in the shape of an elephant, and you remove that shape from some cookie dough. The dough that is in the cutter is the matter, and the shape that is left behind is the antimatter. Zero and one are similar in this respect.
What BS are you spouting now? No offense, but perhaps you should reconsider the level of arrogance you use in your posts.You are confusing arrogance with the level of fun I have in discussing this subject.
I know that I am the fundamental form that can be referred to as Mentat, and that none of my parts serve that purpose, but that doesn't mean that this one entity isn't composed of many smaller entities. From the standpoint of you Mentat .. there is no other way to refer to you - other than in a fundamental way, for if I reference your parts..you don't exist anymore. The (one)that you represent - is in another time frame should I choose to part you out, and each time frame can handle only one thing. Should that thing not be you - It must be something else.
bandonrun,
I don't see how any of this discussion of conceptual fundamentality has anything to do with the issue of what "nothing" (the word) refers to, except when you mentioned this...
As I have said before - In reality ... There are only ones....One at a time. Time being a form (one) that fails to act upon you (passes you like a ghost), and this is the equivalent of the zero (nothing) that one is composed of.
Two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door).Zero ... (nothing, a quality) cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).
And that doesn't even make sense. Seriously, I'll break it down for you:
and this is the equivalent of the zero (nothing) that one is composed of.
How did you come to this? Why must "one" be composed of "zero"? You said that there are only "one"s, therefore they should not be composed of anything (which is equal to saying that they are not composed at all, they are fundamental - conceptually).
Two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door).Zero ... (nothing, a quality) cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).
But "zero" is not a quality. You gave me no reason, in your post, to believe otherwise.
As to your illustration (the cookie-cutter), all I have to say is that there was something left behind: space which happens to have less matter in it.
bandonrun
Nov8-03, 01:24 PM
Deleted to be resumed
To comprehend the simplicity of my own existence...I must abruptly exclaim to myself - How could I have been so stupid?
MENTAT deserves a nobel prize for perseverance above and
beyond the call of duty.
how would one inscribe the medal," he battled with nothing"
well nothing is not much of an enemy, so how about
"he beat nothing into non existence"?
oh bother, it did not exist in first place so how could
he battle with it?
the medal will be inscribed," protector of rationality"[:)]
bandonrun
Nov9-03, 03:56 PM
MENTAT deserves a nobel prize for perseverance above and
beyond the call of duty.
how would one inscribe the medal," he battled with nothing"
well nothing is not much of an enemy, so how about
"he beat nothing into non existence"?
oh bother, it did not exist in first place so how could
he battle with it?
the medal will be inscribed," protector of rationality"
Mentat sticks around because he has an open mind, and in so doing he is actually beginning to understand where I'm coming from. He need but jump a few more hurdles to get there. (Nothing) is a ball buster in that some of these hurdles are hard to get over. You come from the standpoint of there being no hurdles to jump, but if you are right about nothing ... how is it that that you could be so wrong? (You are here!)
Unless of course you envision a universe with no beginning. I am open to anything. Please explain to me how the universe has always been, and will always be. I suppose in this way (nothing) could be understood just as you prescribe, and I would be right there with you.
You must understand - I understand exactly where yer coming from. I am here to tell you ----Yer wrong, and for you to understand where I'm at. You need but take a leap. I'll leave it to you to decide what that means.
bandonrun
Nov9-03, 04:44 PM
I'm short on time here. That means I have a plethora of (ones) coming my way from other sources. That also means that I will be sending lots of (zeros) yer way. I'll be sending you (ones) when I have more (zeros) to play with. For the time being - I don't exist to you, but for the memory of it.
Unless of course you envision a universe with no beginning. I am open to anything. Please explain to me how the universe has always been, and will always be. I suppose in this way (nothing) could be understood just as you prescribe, and I would be right there with you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
this is the reason i started the thread, i can not prescribe
to any theory that requiers the universe to come into existence
from "nothing", by nothing, i mean, no particles no energy of any
kind, for us or anything to be here now requiers something to have always existed, what that something is or was is beyond me.
my way of thinking is that space is the infinite infinite, and
maybe its just imposible to exclude a mote of dust or whatever
from it.
Originally posted by bandonrun
Mentat sticks around because he has an open mind, and in so doing he is actually beginning to understand where I'm coming from. He need but jump a few more hurdles to get there. (Nothing) is a ball buster in that some of these hurdles are hard to get over. You come from the standpoint of there being no hurdles to jump, but if you are right about nothing ... how is it that that you could be so wrong? (You are here!)
You're not making any sense, bandonrun. My being here and there being a thing called "nothing" are completely unrelated. The sentence "nothing is a ball-buster" ≡ "there isn't anything that is a ball-buster"...if you want to check and see that I'm right, just think of it as having been asked "What is it that is a ball-buster in this case", if the reply is "nothing", then the intended concept is my revision of your sentence.
Unless of course you envision a universe with no beginning. I am open to anything. Please explain to me how the universe has always been, and will always be. I suppose in this way (nothing) could be understood just as you prescribe, and I would be right there with you.
The sentence "I suppose, in this way, nothing could be understood..." ≡ "I suppose, in this way, there isn't anything that could be understood...". You really must stop using the word "nothing" to refer to something, until you make a case for why this is semantically sound.
Besides, the Universe could have existed forever if time stretches infinitely backward and forward.
You must understand - I understand exactly where yer coming from. I am here to tell you ----Yer wrong, and for you to understand where I'm at. You need but take a leap. I'll leave it to you to decide what that means.
And if it doesn't mean anything (=means nothing)?
Originally posted by bandonrun
I'm short on time here. That means I have a plethora of (ones) coming my way from other sources. That also means that I will be sending lots of (zeros) yer way. I'll be sending you (ones) when I have more (zeros) to play with. For the time being - I don't exist to you, but for the memory of it.
bandonrun, I feel it only right to inform you that words put in parantheses, as per English grammar, are supposed to be regarded as supplementary to the actual information of the sentence (meaning that you can get the sense of the sentence without them).
Zantra opening this from the point of view that there is a multiverse(possibly an infinite number of them) then I submit that the areas/spaces/points/volumes between these multiverses constitute the absence of anything refered to as 'nothing'.
And since it cannot be disproved, I'll state that I believe before the BB or manifestatation of any of the multiverses, there existed only a being I refer to as the One and many call 'God'
bandonrun
Nov12-03, 03:47 AM
bandonrun, I feel it only right to inform you that words put in parantheses, as per English grammar, are supposed to be regarded as supplementary to the actual information of the sentence (meaning that you can get the sense of the sentence without them).
The parentheses are there to emphasize form, and that a (zero) is the same as a (one). The difference is that a (one) registers, and a (Zero) does not. I.E - A (one)that passes like a ghost .. is a (zero). A (one) that acts upon you is a (one).
Didn't you know that it's somewhat taboo to mention errors in grammar, just as it is for spelling. Otherwise we would waste our time telling each other that we can't spell parentheses.[:((]
Back to nothing.
If we can accept (zero) as being time as I have explained it. We can accept that nothing (not anything) has an infinity of time to be defined. Upon the completion of this definition ... a marker (form) is placed. This is the conceptual equivalent of what nothing is (one nothing). The size of this form is irrelevant. There would be an infinity of these forms possible in nothing. In essence - Something doesn't come from nothing. It is nothing, and over the course of an infinity of time - everything is nothing.
Time
In order for time to be sensed - motion must come into play. Without motion ... time would not pass. All fundamental things move at C - When I say things ... I mean each thing of nothing. When a thing of nothing registers - It constitutes a marker (a one). When a thing of nothing passes you like a ghost - It represents a (zero). This is your sense of time (nothing as a thing) passing you by in the literal sense.
I don't see how any of this discussion of conceptual fundamentality has anything to do with the issue of what "nothing" (the word) refers to, except when you mentioned this... Nothing .. the word .. by definition ... refers you to a thing (not anything) period. In regards to conceptual fundamentality - I will say that all things are conceptual, and they are as real as a bean ball in baseball.
Nothing is a ball buster. Being that nothing is a thing. Ouch!
I cleared a high hurdle about six months ago, and never looked back. There are still plenty left to jump, and many of those are gonna hurt. I know in the end I will have (nothing) to look forward to.
I wish I had more time to be more specific. The (ones) in my life leave me no other choice.
Nothing is a ball buster. Being that nothing is a thing. Ouch!
I cleared a high hurdle about six months ago, and never looked back. There are still plenty left to jump, and many of those are gonna hurt. I know in the end I will have (nothing) to look forward to
-------------------------------------------------------------------
well done ,it always gives one a good feeling when a goal has
been reached, maybe if you alter your stile of jumping you wont
hurt yourself to much[;)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
nothing+time=something? i havent seen this equasion before, i
think i will leave it to the mathamaticians to solve.
[:)]
Originally posted by bandonrun
Back to nothing.
If we can accept (zero) as being time as I have explained it. We can accept that nothing (not anything) has an infinity of time to be defined. Upon the completion of this definition ... a marker (form) is placed. This is the conceptual equivalent of what nothing is (one nothing). The size of this form is irrelevant. There would be an infinity of these forms possible in nothing. In essence - Something doesn't come from nothing. It is nothing, and over the course of an infinity of time - everything is nothing.
You are making new assumptions, violating Occam's Razor in favor of a practically ad hoc argument
It is for this reason that this will be the last post on this thread that I will respond to.
I feel it right to inform you that the above (quoted) doesn't make sense, though any reasoning I give on the matter will probably be completely ignored by you. You have a set paradigm, and I don't think you've been listening to anything outside of it. You speak of "one nothing". That means (as per the very meanings of the WORDS BEING USED) "not anything", or one of the things that aren't things, which is self-contradictory and irrelevant to rational conversation.
The sentence "not anything has such-and-such property" doesn't even begin to make sense. If "not anything" is something to be referred to, then it should be called "not anything".
Time
In order for time to be sensed - motion must come into play. Without motion ... time would not pass. All fundamental things move at C - When I say things ... I mean each thing of nothing.
Each thing of that which isn't a thing, isn't a thing. So, why do you refer to a thing, if you aren't talking about anything?
When a thing of nothing registers - It constitutes a marker (a one). When a thing of nothing passes you like a ghost - It represents a (zero). This is your sense of time (nothing as a thing) passing you by in the literal sense.
Nothing .. the word .. by definition ... refers you to a thing (not anything) period.
BS. Nothing, the word, by definition doesn't refer to anything. If it referred to something, it wouldn't be called "nothing" (which holds it's (ever so obvious) etymological roots in "no" and "thing").
Nothing is a ball buster. Being that nothing is a thing. Ouch!
I cleared a high hurdle about six months ago, and never looked back. There are still plenty left to jump, and many of those are gonna hurt. I know in the end I will have (nothing) to look forward to.
Yes, you are destined to a life with nothing to look forward to, if you constantly create ad hoc arguments, and still pretend like your being rational. As to nothing being a thing, the sentence "nothing is a thing" (by definitions) means "There isn't anything that is a thing". If you want to check for accuracy, think of being asked "What is there that can be called a thing", if one recieves the answer "nothing", then one has been told that there are no things that can be called "things".
I pity the runner who thinks he's jumped a hurdle, when he's really been knocked unconscious after having tripped on the biggest hurdle of them all.
Again, this is the last response I will make in this thread, since you are just wasting my time (of which I don't have much...one hour on-line per day) with irrationalities that I've refuted much too many times for me to keep on trying. I'm "kicking a dead horse", in the words of my good buddy, Royce, so I'm done here.
Fliption
Nov15-03, 09:16 PM
I feel you are very wrong about one thing Mentat. I can't believe no one has seen the flaw. I have to go right now but I'll be back later.
The existence of nothing is the only natural phenomenon which requires no logical justification.
Nothing is - in fact - the only manifestation which does exist ... always has, always will. Most people just do not know how to recognize or define it.
Theory of Reciprocity (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com)
UltraPi1
Dec6-03, 09:50 AM
As to nothing being a thing, the sentence "nothing is a thing" (by definitions) means "There isn't anything that is a thing". If you want to check for accuracy, think of being asked "What is there that can be called a thing", if one recieves the answer "nothing", then one has been told that there are no things that can be called "things".
I see no problem here in terms of accuracy of what Bandonrun is saying. I think your problem here is the inability to conceptually understand it as Bandonrun expects you to do. That your physicality is only conceptually understood as being so, and by this reference, all things of nothing act in accordance of this understanding.
He is saying that if you begin with nothing, that the only way to existence is conceptually. Creation is but one thought.
ONE NOTHING
He is saying you only think you are real.
You are saying you are real.
Both are correct, for both will foster the same effect.
The difference comes from whether there is a beginning, or a no beginning scenerio. On this you can agree to disagree.
UltraPi1
Dec6-03, 10:07 AM
The existence of nothing is the only natural phenomenon which requires no logical justification
To exist {{{{ONE Must be Justified}}}}
At first glance I would agree, but for nothing to exist, we must expect a logical foundation of {{{{One Nothing}}}}
'Nothing' has two connotations.
In logical terms - it is the value 'Ø' or the 'Empty Set'.
In the abstract, 'Nothing' is "that which does not exist".
But, "that which does not exist" does not exist. It is not the empty set - it is not a set at all. It has no properties or attributes, it lacks everything - including a definition. To consider 'Nothing' would be not to consider. To perceive 'Nothing' would be not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' would be not to understand. Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space.
Logic requires definition.
In the abstract, 'Nothing' is undefined. It is 'fictitious' and has no physical manifestation in the Universe.
The only definition of 'Nothing' which applies to logic and reality is the value 'Ø'. It is 'real' and HAS physical manifestation in the Universe.
The size of any finite body compared to infinity has a relative value of Zero.
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, in a relative context every point in the cosmos is its center - i.e. has a differential positional value of Zero.
If every QUALitative value in the Universe is offset by an equal and opposite value, then quantitatively, qualitatively and positionally (the three axes of logic) the logical equivalent of 'nothing' does, indeed exist.
Once you get over the hurdle of understanding 'Nothing', the rest falls into place and the phenomenon of existence is reconciled with the principles of logic.
Elucidation at -
Theory of Reciprocity (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com)
so is it logical to say "something", has always existed?
Originally posted by Messiah
'Nothing' has two connotations.
In logical terms - it is the value 'Ø' or the 'Empty Set'.
Man, I wish I could just let this be, but this was already handled in another thread, and somehow Messiah seems to have missed the conclusion. Your second connotation of "nothing" is the only one that the word is supposed to have (ever). It's etymological and epistemological roots require nothing more and nothing less.
As I said in the other thread, and empty set is still a set, and thus it is still [multiple choice...a)something; b)nothing; c)undecided]. The answer we ended up with is that, just as the word "nothing" is something, so the empty set is itself something - while there is no concept that word is referring to and there is nothing inside the empty set - the word and the set are both something.
Originally posted by Fliption
I feel you are very wrong about one thing Mentat. I can't believe no one has seen the flaw. I have to go right now but I'll be back later.
Go ahead, Fliption, I can't leave this thread alone with all the new people joining it anyway...but I still think some of you are either intentionally wasting my time, or not paying any attention to my responses and therefore not realizing that I've already addressed your arguments.
Originally posted by wolram
so is it logical to say "something", has always existed?
Yes...as much as it is logical to say that something exists right now. As per QM it appears that there isn't anything that definitely exists, but it's all a matter of probability. Therefore, everything you know to exist both does and doesn't exist at some level.
Originally posted by Mentat
Man, I wish I could just let this be, but this was already handled in another thread, and somehow Messiah seems to have missed the conclusion. Your second connotation of "nothing" is the only one that the word is supposed to have (ever). It's etymological and epistemological roots require nothing more and nothing less.
As I said in the other thread, and empty set is still a set, and thus it is still [multiple choice...a)something; b)nothing; c)undecided]. The answer we ended up with is that, just as the word "nothing" is something, so the empty set is itself something - while there is no concept that word is referring to and there is nothing inside the empty set - the word and the set are both something.
Exactly my point -
Abstract 'Nothing' is UNdefined.
Logical 'Nothing' IS defined.
The value (+1) added to the value (-1) is the logical equivalent of ZERO or 'Nothing'. The existence of 'nothing' requires no logical justification.
If you draw a white line and assign it the definition of 'positive' quality then draw an equal and opposite black line representing 'negative' quality, the qualitative balance is Zero. The Universe is infinite and doesn't care if the line has size or position. Relative to infinity, if the lines are finite, their size has a relative value of ZERO compared to infinity - and every point within the lines - compared to infinity - is the 'center of the Universe' i.e. they have a positional differential of ZERO.
The relative value of Zero is an existential point of balance from which all physical attributes and properties are derived. It is that necessary but indefinite element called ‘nothing’ which requires no justification and whose presence intrinsically complies with logic. It is a principle - the simple balance of nature - which justifies the phenomenon of existence, not an inexplicable spontaneous process or mystical event spawned from some abstract void.
Originally posted by Messiah
Exactly my point -
Abstract 'Nothing' is UNdefined.
Logical 'Nothing' IS defined.
But there is no "logical 'nothing'". That was my point. If there is a set that doesn't contain anything, then it is an empty set, but an empty set is still something - not nothing.
The value (+1) added to the value (-1) is the logical equivalent of ZERO or 'Nothing'. The existence of 'nothing' requires no logical justification.
"1 + -1 = 0" is an equation. And equation is something. "Zero" is a real number, and is thus something. The word "nothing", OTOH, doesn't refer to anything at all.
If you draw a white line and assign it the definition of 'positive' quality then draw an equal and opposite black line representing 'negative' quality, the qualitative balance is Zero. The Universe is infinite and doesn't care if the line has size or position. Relative to infinity, if the lines are finite, their size has a relative value of ZERO compared to infinity - and every point within the lines - compared to infinity - is the 'center of the Universe' i.e. they have a positional differential of ZERO.
Sure they do, but that doesn't make them stop being something, it just makes that particular "something" irrelvant.
What scientists call 'matter' and 'anti-matter' are not really countervalent qualities. When matter and anti-matter collide, energy is produced and mass is destroyed. Energy and mass are two properties of existence. A collision between bodies of matter and 'true' anti-matter would theoretically cause their mutual existences to cease and all properties would be annihilated, not just converted. There would be no energy and no mass.
Assume you have a bundle of matter and a bundle of 'true' anti-matter. When they collide, they are annihilated and an actual and very real manifestation of 'NOTHING' remains.
Those two bundles are the logical equivalent of 'NOTHING'.
quartodeciman
Dec6-03, 07:57 PM
Assume you have a bundle of matter and a bundle of 'true' anti-matter. When they collide, they are annihilated and an actual and very real manifestation of 'NOTHING' remains.
Those two bundles are the logical equivalent of 'NOTHING'.
You forgot the photons produced.
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Assume you have a bundle of matter and a bundle of 'true' anti-matter. When they collide, they are annihilated and an actual and very real manifestation of 'NOTHING' remains.
Those two bundles are the logical equivalent of 'NOTHING'.
You forgot the photons produced.
No -
When conventional matter and 'anti-matter' collide, energy is produced and mass is destroyed.
The matter and anti-matter to which I was referring would be truely countervalent existences. Their collision would cause their mutual annihilation, not just a conversion.
UltraPi1
Dec7-03, 12:17 AM
There are few possiblities regarding the existence of the universe.
1) A beginning and an end.
2) No beginning and no end.
3) A beginning and no end.
4) No beginning but has an end.
We must accept something from nothing, or something in nothing if the universe had a beginning.
Mentat seems to be in the no beginning camp. Meaning the universe has been here forever, and not a day less. We must accept a no beginning scenerio because Mentat says that no thing can come from nothing. Apparently the choices are narrowed down to two, but really it's just one choice (No beginning and no end), because the universe has been around forever, and yet here we are. Since Mentat is correct with absolute certainty. We must stop this nonsense of discussing the possibility of something from nothing, and anything related to a beginning to the universe.
Thanks Mentat ,,,,,,,,It's all so clear to me now. I wish somebody would tell all the great minds of our time that they could have come to you for all the answers.
Iacchus32
Dec7-03, 12:34 AM
No-thing is the "absence" of some-thing.
something came from everything.
Iacchus32
Dec8-03, 12:54 AM
There is no-thing wrong with the word "nothing" if, in fact this is what the issue is. The word nothing is a perfectly acceptable English word.
On the other hand, would it be possible to say that something arose out of nothing, such as the beginning of the Universe? I would be inclined to say no. However, it doesn't take much -- as in the case with us human beings -- for two of the tiniest little germs to get together, and create a fully fledged human being.
So, even though there may have been an appearance of nothing in the beginning, there must have been "something" there.
UltraPi1
Dec8-03, 12:51 PM
There are a couple of choices here that are equally distasteful. Something from nothing, or in the words of Rosanne Rosanna Danna - Theres always something. Proving either choice could prove to be impossible.
So, even though there may have been an appearance of nothing in the beginning, there must have been "something" there.Continue this charade with humans to germs, and do this ad infinitum with anything else you come up with beyond germs, because thats the choice you came up with. Theres always something. Perhaps when you have taken the universe back a trillion years, times a trillion times a trillion, I'll come runnin to your camp, or maybe I won't, because you have'nt even touched the surface of how long an infinity of time is.
What is rediculous is to rule out something from nothing with absolute certainty, which goes to show you, it's always somthin.
I'm willing to look at this at all angles including something from nothing, and it's always something as if both were true. That would entail nothing as a thing. Not possible? It is if it's conceptual. Meaning - The universe is not a thing, but a conceptual thing. All conceptual things think they are things, including a fundamental unit. I think - Therefor I am, and act accordingly - All in the course of not being anything at all even though I think I am.
Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'? Why do you presume the phenomonon of existence is explained by a process i.e. creation?
Most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.
No, the enigma of existence is explained by a principle - not a process.
Theory of Reciprocity (http://theory-of-reciprocity.com)
russ_watters
Dec8-03, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Messiah
Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'? Because the best evidence we have suggests it did. But creation would require a creator Why?
Originally posted by Messiah
No -
When conventional matter and 'anti-matter' collide, energy is produced and mass is destroyed.
The matter and anti-matter to which I was referring would be truely countervalent existences. Their collision would cause their mutual annihilation, not just a conversion.
There's no such thing as "true annihilation"...First Law of Thermodynamics, right?
Originally posted by UltraPi1
There are few possiblities regarding the existence of the universe.
1) A beginning and an end.
2) No beginning and no end.
3) A beginning and no end.
4) No beginning but has an end.
We must accept something from nothing, or something in nothing if the universe had a beginning.
Mentat seems to be in the no beginning camp. Meaning the universe has been here forever, and not a day less. We must accept a no beginning scenerio because Mentat says that no thing can come from nothing.
Actually, UltraPi1, I'm all for the Universe's having a beginning (QM does indeed allow it to come about without coming "from" anything), but it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion of what the term "nothing" refers to.
Apparently the choices are narrowed down to two, but really it's just one choice (No beginning and no end), because the universe has been around forever, and yet here we are. Since Mentat is correct with absolute certainty. We must stop this nonsense of discussing the possibility of something from nothing, and anything related to a beginning to the universe.
Thanks Mentat ,,,,,,,,It's all so clear to me now. I wish somebody would tell all the great minds of our time that they could have come to you for all the answers.
I honestly couldn't tell if there was sarcasm intended here (this isn't the best medium for it, and it's not helpful to a rational discussion anyway). Anyway, the existence of the Universe doesn't seem relevant to the discussion of nothing...why, exactly, did you mention it?
Originally posted by russ_watters
Because the best evidence we have suggests it did. Why?
What evidence?
create: To cause to be
creator: That which causes to be
Originally posted by Mentat
There's no such thing as "true annihilation"...First Law of Thermodynamics, right?
I certainly agree, that is why I think the term anti-matter is a misnomer.
What science terms 'matter and anti-matter' are not two countervalent qualities any more than nitrogen and tolulene...they are just two substances which go 'boom' when exposed to each other.
Originally posted by Messiah
What evidence?
create: To cause to be
creator: That which causes to be
Just don't use the word "create", and you've solved your problem. Pure semantics.
Originally posted by Messiah
I certainly agree, that is why I think the term anti-matter is a misnomer.
What science terms 'matter and anti-matter' are not two countervalent qualities any more than nitrogen and tolulene...they are just two substances which go 'boom' when exposed to each other.
But this is relevant to the discussion of the word "nothing", how?
Iacchus32
Dec8-03, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Continue this charade with humans to germs, and do this ad infinitum with anything else you come up with beyond germs, because thats the choice you came up with. Theres always something. Perhaps when you have taken the universe back a trillion years, times a trillion times a trillion, I'll come runnin to your camp, or maybe I won't, because you have'nt even touched the surface of how long an infinity of time is. Actually I only intended to take this as far as human beings are concerned, to illustrate the possibility, but not necessarily carry it over to the creation of the Universe, because I myself don't know what happened?
UltraPi1
Dec9-03, 12:04 AM
Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'? Why do you presume the phenomonon of existence is explained by a process i.e. creation?Obviously not everyone assumes this. My preference at the moment is that the universe had a beginning, and that there was a creator. That nothing is all that is necessary for the creation of the universe.
Originally posted by Mentat
But this is relevant to the discussion of the word "nothing", how?
Relative to our finite world, size and position matter.
Relative to the infinite universe, they do not.
In the realm of finite elements, 'the equivalent of nothing' exists within whatever volume a quality and a countervalent quality may occupy.
Relative to the Universe; however, that volume is a point with no relative size - and 'NOTHING' exists at that point.
Equivalence IS relevant to the issue of "nothing"
Originally posted by Messiah
Relative to our finite world, size and position matter.
Relative to the infinite universe, they do not.
In the realm of finite elements, 'the equivalent of nothing' exists within whatever volume a quality and a countervalent quality may occupy.
That is not the "equivalent of nothing" (per E.i.N.S. --> That is not "not the equivalent of anything"...or, minusing double-negatives: That is the equivalent of something), it is the equivalent of a quality and a countervalent quality, clearly something since I'm referring to them, right?
Relative to the Universe; however, that volume is a point with no relative size - and 'NOTHING' exists at that point.
Equivalence IS relevant to the issue of "nothing"
Not if you realize that cancelled out quantities have, in reality, more entities involved than just the original quantities, since you had to add something to reach the new equilibrium.
Originally posted by Mentat
That is not the "equivalent of nothing" (per E.i.N.S. --> That is not "not the equivalent of anything"...or, minusing double-negatives: That is the equivalent of something), it is the equivalent of a quality and a countervalent quality, clearly something since I'm referring to them, right?
(+1)+(-1) is the equivalent of Ø
Originally posted by Mentat
Not if you realize that cancelled out quantities have, in reality, more entities involved than just the original quantities, since you had to add something to reach the new equilibrium.
?????!!!!!
Originally posted by Messiah
(+1)+(-1) is the equivalent of Ø
How'd you make that symbol? Anyway, the empty set is something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define it (please note my use of the word "it" to refer to it).
?????!!!!!
It's quite simple, really (or, it seems simple to me): if I have one particle - say, an electron - then I introduced another particle - say, a positron - then I have a particle and its antiparticle, which equals 2 particles.
If I take the numbers 1 and -1, I have referred to two numbers, even if adding them together produces only one number (zero).
Messiah
Dec11-03, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
How'd you make that symbol? Anyway, the empty set is something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define it (please note my use of the word "it" to refer to it).
Alt 0216 = Ø
Yes - the difference between 'nothing' in the abstract connotation and 'nothing' in the logical connotation is that one is fictitious and the other exists. The problem most people have is in trying to reconcile the two - which cannot be done because only one exists.
Originally posted by Mentat
It's quite simple, really (or, it seems simple to me): if I have one particle - say, an electron - then I introduced another particle - say, a positron - then I have a particle and its antiparticle, which equals 2 particles.
If I take the numbers 1 and -1, I have referred to two numbers, even if adding them together produces only one number (zero).
Yes, but we are talking QUALitative, not QUANtitative. Positive and negative are qualities '1' is a quantity.
For every positive integer '+x' there exists an equal and opposite integer '-x'
For every positive quality '+apple' there exists an equal and opposite quality '-apple'.
Get the pix??
Originally posted by Messiah
Alt 0216 = Ø
Yes - the difference between 'nothing' in the abstract connotation and 'nothing' in the logical connotation is that one is fictitious and the other exists. The problem most people have is in trying to reconcile the two - which cannot be done because only one exists.
Look, I wouldn't have a problem with what you've been saying if you'd just stop using the word "nothing" wrongly. Can't you just say "empty set" or something? After all, if "nothing" is supposed to have one semantically correct use, then it only serves to confuse people if you use it for something else.
Yes, but we are talking QUALitative, not QUANtitative. Positive and negative are qualities '1' is a quantity.
For every positive integer '+x' there exists an equal and opposite integer '-x'
For every positive quality '+apple' there exists an equal and opposite quality '-apple'.
Get the pix??
Of course I do. Really, all I ask is that you not use the word "nothing" to refer to anything (which is logical, since "nothing" cannot refer to anything, otherwise it wouldn't be nothing), including empty sets or the number 0.
Messiah
Dec11-03, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Look, I wouldn't have a problem with what you've been saying if you'd just stop using the word "nothing" wrongly.
Ah - but
"The empty set" = 'Nothing' = Ø
"That which does not exist" = ' ' = !!!
That which does not exist lacks everything, it has no properties or attributes, not even a definition or a name...[;)]
Originally posted by Messiah
Ah - but
"The empty set" = 'Nothing' = Ø
"That which does not exist" = ' ' = !!!
That which does not exist lacks everything, it has no properties or attributes, not even a definition or a name...[;)]
Wrong, the whole point rests on this: there is no thing that does not exist
From this it can be deduced that the word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything at all, but is simply another way of saying "not anything", and is used for convenience.
That's the whole point of the exercise in nothing semantics.
As to the empty set (I still can't seem to make that symbol...is it: ?), "nothing" doesn't refer to the set (which is clearly something), but refers to that which is within that set...and, of course, there isn't anything within the set. Am I right?
Messiah
Dec12-03, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
As to the empty set (I still can't seem to make that symbol...is it: ?), "nothing" doesn't refer to the set (which is clearly something), but refers to that which is within that set...and, of course, there isn't anything within the set. Am I right?
Yes - that is one connotation.
My point is that there are at least two connotations...possibly MORE.
So far we have
"Nothing" - the empty set - Ø (hold down the alt key and enter the number 0216 simultaneously) the only logical definition
and
"Nothing" - That which does not exist - A fiction
How 'bout -
"Nothing" - That which neither HAS nor LACKS existence -
OR -
"Nothing" - a viable presidential candidate for the Democrat party
I could go on...and on...and probably will...
Jack
UltraPi1
Dec13-03, 11:02 AM
Here is a depiction of nothing as a conceptual thing. The circle in the pic is 2D, but think of it as in 3D. Like a balloon.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
What is inside the sphere is nothing. What is outside the sphere is nothing. The (concept) circle itself, or rather the balloon has no thickness. In other words - It is not physical. An example of this would be - Close your eyes and imagine a defined area within the darkness.
On the physical level - What we understand as physical is in reality ... a thought that acts in accordance with what we term physical laws.
If you think it's real - It is..............But not really.
Originally posted by Messiah
Yes - that is one connotation.
My point is that there are at least two connotations...possibly MORE.
So far we have
"Nothing" - the empty set - Ø (hold down the alt key and enter the number 0216 simultaneously) the only logical definition
Again, it's not that I don't think the empty set is the "right" definition of "nothing", it's that I think it just plain doesn't fit at all. What is inside the empty set? Nothing, right? However, the set itself is something, much like the word "nothing" is also something. This is the only way to remain semantically accurate.
and
"Nothing" - That which does not exist - A fiction
A fiction is something. If there isn't anything there, then there is nothing there (that is a redundant statement). However, if there is something, anything, (a word, a set, a belief, a story, anything) then it is not logical to say that "there is 'nothing' there". You need to stick within the bounds of proper semantics (and that shouldn't be so hard, since the word "nothing" is so obviously a compound of the words "no" and "thing"), otherwise there's no way to converse, since I will have a different definition of the words being used than you will.
How 'bout -
"Nothing" - That which neither HAS nor LACKS existence -
There is no such thing. You cannot say "that which" unless you are referring to something. "That which neither has nor lacks existence" (that which doesn't have existence, ITFP, for that matter) is completely meaningless.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Here is a depiction of nothing as a conceptual thing.
"Nothing" as a conceptual what?
UltraPi1
Dec13-03, 11:28 AM
"Nothing" as a conceptual what?Thing
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Thing
Then why did you call it "no...thing" if it's actually "some...thing"?
UltraPi1
Dec13-03, 11:44 AM
Then why did you call it "no...thing" if it's actually "some...thing"?Because thats what it is [One thing of nothing].
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because thats what it is [One thing of nothing].
Find another name for it, the word "nothing" is taken.
UltraPi1
Dec13-03, 12:06 PM
Find another name for it, the word "nothing" is taken.Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.
It is taken to be the word that doesn't refer to anything. Look it up. Find it's etymological roots (though I don't see why all this is necessary, since the word "nothing" is very obvious in its roots: "no" and "thing", ergo there cannot be a thing being referred to if one uses the term "nothing").
UltraPi1
Dec13-03, 12:25 PM
there cannot be a thing being referred to if one uses the term "nothing").I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.
Then why did you say "the 'thing of nothing'"?
UltraPi1
Dec13-03, 12:44 PM
Then why did you say "the 'thing of nothing'"? Because that's what it is.[g)] I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.
Back to the circle.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Your perspective is important here. Outside the sphere, inside the sphere, or the (concept) sphere itself. Which angle are you looking at?
how about trying another way, if one states that if something
has existed then it is possible for other things to exist.
or if existence is imposible then existence cannot exist.
Messiah
Dec13-03, 01:14 PM
Messiah
Dec13-03, 01:25 PM
(Had 'nothing' to say, but made an error and had to correct it - WEIRD!!)
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because that's what it is.[g)] I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.
Listen, UltraPi1. It may be funny, but your being illogical. To be completely rational, you must choose: Is it something, or is it nothing?
If it is something, then it becomes irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of the word "nothing".
If it is nothing, then you can no longer refer to it as "a thing of nothing" since that is self-contradictory.
Back to the circle.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Your perspective is important here. Outside the sphere, inside the sphere, or the (concept) sphere itself. Which angle are you looking at?
I still don't see the relevance of this illustration.
Originally posted by Messiah
(Had 'nothing' to say, but made an error and had to correct it - WEIRD!!)
No need to use the scare-quotes in this case, Messiah. You really had nothing to say. As per E.i.N.S.--> "You didn't have anything to say".
Semantically equal, and perfectly logical.
Messiah
Dec15-03, 11:19 AM
Nothing cannot exist - only its equivalent is permitted to exist within the realm of reality and logic.
Originally posted by Messiah
Nothing cannot exist - only its equivalent...
Only what's equivalent? When will you realize that these statements are completely non-sensical (semantically and logically)?
Let's go through the motions again: E.i.N.S. --> "There isn't anything that cannot exist - only its equivalent". [g)]
I don't mean to sound offensive, I'm just pointing out the utter futility of any debate that misuses the words therein.
Messiah
Dec15-03, 12:32 PM
Sorry - should have read "only an equivalent"
Some 'thing' comprised of countervalent sub-properties
UltraPi1
Dec15-03, 09:25 PM
Listen, UltraPi1 - Is it something, or is it nothing? It's both. What do you think I've been saying all along?
And there is no contradiction whatsoever.
Perhaps you are confusing this with some kind of physical representation. I'm also saying that reality is not physical, but conceptual.
I still don't see the relevance of this illustration.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
It's just a representation of a fundamental entity. The circle (sphere) you see is not physical. Whats outside the circle is not physical. Whats inside the circle is not physical. There is'nt anything there accept for the concept (thought) of a thing. I fail to see why this is so hard for you to understand.
Originally posted by Messiah
Sorry - should have read "only an equivalent"
Some 'thing' comprised of countervalent sub-properties
An equivalent to what?
Originally posted by UltraPi1
It's both. What do you think I've been saying all along?
And there is no contradiction whatsoever.
Yes there is. Are you, or are you not, referring to something?
If you are, then you are referring to a thing, not nothing. "Nothing" (the word) means "not a thing" it is a the compounding of the words "no" and "thing", and thus cannot be used to refer to a thing.
If you are not referring to something, then you are not referring, since reference is a way of pointing something out.
Perhaps you are confusing this with some kind of physical representation. I'm also saying that reality is not physical, but conceptual.
Well, it had nothing to do with physicality, but now that you bring it up, what is the difference between the "physical" and the "conceptual"?
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
It's just a representation of a fundamental entity. The circle (sphere) you see is not physical. Whats outside the circle is not physical. Whats inside the circle is not physical. There is'nt anything there accept for the concept (thought) of a thing. I fail to see why this is so hard for you to understand.
Actually, everything that I saw was physical. Photonic emission (aka, "Light") from the monitor screen was interpreted in the CNS (central nervous system) to illicit a similar experience as when I see a circular object. What's so "non-physical" about this?
Messiah
Dec16-03, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
An equivalent to what?
An equivalent to " " - of course
UltraPi1
Dec17-03, 01:29 AM
Yes there is. Are you, or are you not, referring to something?
The reference is to nothing.
If you are not referring to something, then you are not referring, since reference is a way of pointing something out.It is the concept that references to the form of nothing. The concept is not a thing, but a thought. Such as a thought of a thing. So far - I don't see a hint of anything physical at all accept for the concept of a physical thing.
what is the difference between the "physical" and the "conceptual"? There is no difference, because what you think of as physical - Is actually conceptual. The result is the exact same reality though. The universe is not physical at all - There is no such animal as physical, but for the concept of it.
Actually, everything that I saw was physical. Photonic emission (aka, "Light") from the monitor screen was interpreted in the CNS (central nervous system) to illicit a similar experience as when I see a circular object. What's so "non-physical" about this?It sure looks physical doesn't it? All your thoughts say it's physical ... right?
Think of it as a thought of physicality as opposed to an actual physical thought.
Originally posted by Messiah
An equivalent to " " - of course
And yet I haven't been answered...you didn't say anything that it was equivalent to.
You know, I think another problem is that you've equated being about to refer to something but not doing so with referring to "nothing". This is also not the case, but is much closer to correct. You did indeed refer to nothing (=you didn't refer to anything) but you are no closer to finding what the word "nothing" refers to then you were to begin with. " " isn't nothing, it's two quotation marks around and empty space (the empty space itself being something).
Originally posted by UltraPi1
The reference is to nothing.
"The reference is to nothing" is precisely equal to "The reference isn't to anything" (this cannot be disputed, it is semantically true) which is equal to not referencing at all (also semantically true).
It is the concept that references to the form of nothing. The concept is not a thing, but a thought. Such as a thought of a thing. So far - I don't see a hint of anything physical at all accept for the concept of a physical thing.
But what does physicality have to do with this subject? Besides, there can be no "form of nothing" since form refers to a state that something is in. "Form of nothing" is semantically equal to "that which isn't a form" or "the form of that which doesn't exist, and thus has no form..." making the statement non-sensical. If you'd just pay attention to what I'm telling you, you might finally get it. If you keep responding exactly the same no matter what I say to you, then you're being closed-minded and irrational, and I will have nothing left to say to you.
There is no difference, because what you think of as physical - Is actually conceptual. The result is the exact same reality though. The universe is not physical at all - There is no such animal as physical, but for the concept of it.
Prove it.
It sure looks physical doesn't it? All your thoughts say it's physical ... right?
Think of it as a thought of physicality as opposed to an actual physical thought.
Why should I think of it this way?
Messiah
Dec17-03, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
And yet I haven't been answered...you didn't say anything that it was equivalent to.
You know, I think another problem is that you've equated being about to refer to something but not doing so with referring to "nothing". This is also not the case, but is much closer to correct. You did indeed refer to nothing (=you didn't refer to anything) but you are no closer to finding what the word "nothing" refers to then you were to begin with. " " isn't nothing, it's two quotation marks around and empty space (the empty space itself being something).
"Nothing - Undefined/Abstract" = is a fiction, does not exist, cannot be pondered because logic requires definition
"Nothing - Defined/Logical" = The Empty Set or Ø
It is purely semantical. "Nothing" has two connotations. You seem willing to only accept the first connotation.
Originally posted by Messiah
"Nothing - Undefined/Abstract" = is a fiction, does not exist, cannot be pondered because logic requires definition
"Nothing - Defined/Logical" = The Empty Set or Ø
It is purely semantical. "Nothing" has two connotations. You seem willing to only accept the first connotation.
Because according to the semantics of the issue (and I know the semantics by now, I've been debating this same point throughout PF2 and PF3) the empty set is not nothing, but something. If you were to try to refer to what the empty set contained, then you wouldn't be referring to anything (IOW, you'd be referring to nothing at all), but the set itself is something...just as the word "nothing" is also something, but doesn't refer to anything.
What is so hard to agree with here?
Messiah
Dec17-03, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Because according to the semantics of the issue (and I know the semantics by now, I've been debating this same point throughout PF2 and PF3) the empty set is not nothing, but something. If you were to try to refer to what the empty set contained, then you wouldn't be referring to anything (IOW, you'd be referring to nothing at all), but the set itself is something...just as the word "nothing" is also something, but doesn't refer to anything.
What is so hard to agree with here?
Yes, the empty set is something - a set, but the empty set does NOT 'contain'. The logical representation of this set in mathematics is Ø.
'Nothing' - in the abstract - is not the empty set - it is not a set at all. "That which does not exist" does not exist. It (or they?? or can there be a negative number of them???) has/have no properties or attributes, it/they/-they lacks everything - including a definition. To consider 'Nothing' would be NOT to consider. To perceive 'Nothing' would be NOT to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' would be NOT to understand. Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space.
UltraPi1
Dec18-03, 02:39 AM
"The reference is to nothing" is precisely equal to "The reference isn't to anything"Thats what I said - The reference is to nothing.
which is equal to not referencing at all BS - The circle in the pic gives all the reference you need.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Whats inside the circle is nothing, and don't give some idiotic diatribe about photons coming from your screen. Surely you knew this to be an analogy of a fundamental entity, or maybe you didn't.
I've come to the conclusion you will never understand what I'm saying. Not that you couldn't understand, but that you in part refuse to understand. Plus you aren't thorough enough to piece it together. I find myself asking quite often - What the hell is he asking this question for? How could he not get it? Why did he dodge that question? I figured it out the other day when I checked the list of your last posts.
Here are the times of the posts I looked at.
4.52
4.53
4.57
4.58
4.59
5.00
5.01
5.02
5.07
5.09
5.12
You are spread pretty thin. So thin that you couldn't possibly have time to concentrate past 30 seconds on any percept within the context of forced induction. You in effect - Are running on fumes with an expectation that I supply all the gas.
Simply put - I'm not gonna fart with this anymore. At least not with you.
Originally posted by Messiah
[B]Yes, the empty set is something - a set, but the empty set does NOT 'contain'. The logical representation of this set in mathematics is Ø.
'Nothing' - in the abstract - is not the empty set - it is not a set at all. "That which does not exist" does not exist. It (or they?? or can there be a negative number of them???) has/have no properties or attributes, it/they/-they lacks everything - including a definition. To consider 'Nothing' would be NOT to consider. To perceive 'Nothing' would be NOT to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' would be NOT to understand.
Exactly! That's exactly how it (the word "nothing") is supposed to be used (according to the very semantics of the issue). No other way is even permissable, since it would fail to meet the criterion of not referring to anything.
"Nothing" doesn't refer to a set, "nothing" refers to what an empty set would contain (and, of course, an empty set doesn't contain, just as the word "nothing" doesn't refer).
Are you getting it yet?
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Thats what I said - The reference is to nothing.
Then why do you keep saying that, when referencing nothing, you are referring to something. And don't say that you didn't say you were referring to something, because you specifically said you were referring to "a thing of nothing". Do you not yet realize how non-sensical that statement is, if "nothing" = "not anything".
BS - The circle in the pic gives all the reference you need.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Whats inside the circle is nothing, and don't give some idiotic diatribe about photons coming from your screen. Surely you knew this to be an analogy of a fundamental entity, or maybe you didn't.
No, and I still can't see the analogy...what fundamental entity could possible be so big!? Seriously, a fundamental entity would be at the smallest incriment of space, and you would thus never observe empty space inside of it, you'd wouldn't be able to observe "inside of it" since there would be no "inside of it".
Besides, your first statement "what's inside the circle is nothing" is precisely equal to "there isn't anything inside the circle" which cannot be true because I clearly perceive some space and black color inside of it.
I've come to the conclusion you will never understand what I'm saying. Not that you couldn't understand, but that you in part refuse to understand. Plus you aren't thorough enough to piece it together. I find myself asking quite often - What the hell is he asking this question for? How could he not get it? Why did he dodge that question?
Don't you realize that I've asked myself the exact same questions about you? But I don't post those questions because I'd just as soon give you the benefit of the doubt.
I figured it out the other day when I checked the list of your last posts.
Here are the times of the posts I looked at.
4.52
4.53
4.57
4.58
4.59
5.00
5.01
5.02
5.07
5.09
5.12
You are spread pretty thin. So thin that you couldn't possibly have time to concentrate past 30 seconds on any percept within the context of forced induction. You in effect - Are running on fumes with an expectation that I supply all the gas.
Are you talking about responses on this thread, or on threads altogether? Besides, you have yet to - even once - attack my counter-arguments directly, so what use do I have for mulling over your constant repetitions of your opinion? Besides, I spend plenty of time thinking about what you've said before, when I'm off-line (right along with what everybody else has said), but I don't see any valid counter-argument on your part.
Simply put - I'm not gonna fart with this anymore. At least not with you.
Your choice. But, if you really think I'm not paying attention, just address my counter-arguments (about the semantics of the issue, and about the fact that you are making non-sensical and incorrect statements about the term "nothing" since the semantics of the issue do not allow it to be used as you are using it) directly and see. If you are correct, you shouldn't have any problem actually disproving what I've said - in which case, I'll admit defeat. However, don't think that repeating what you've said before, without directly countering my points, is going to constitute "proof" because that is not how logical debate works.
UltraPi1
Dec19-03, 09:58 AM
Then why do you keep saying that, when referencing nothing, you are referring to something. And don't say that you didn't say you were referring to something, because you specifically said you were referring to "a thing of nothing". Well if you kept track of what I was saying - You would have understood that when I say thing - It's conceptually oriented. You continue to remain on the physical level, and in doing so - Comprehension of what I am saying becomes quite unattainable. On the purely physical level - There is no thing. On the conceptual level - There are things of nothing. Reasoning upon this - There is no physical level, but for the understanding of it in physical terms. Understanding nothing on a purely conceptual level will proffer understanding of how one can get something in nothing. Just so there is no misunderstnding - The word something is entirely conceptual also. In fact - All words are conceptual, and if you should take this to completion. {All of existence is conceptual}.
No, and I still can't see the analogy...what fundamental entity could possible be so big!? Seriously, a fundamental entity would be at the smallest incriment of space, and you would thus never observe empty space inside of it, you'd wouldn't be able to observe "inside of it" since there would be no "inside of it".
Definition of analogy - Similarity between unlike things.
For cripe sakes - Obviously I can't draw an actual fundamental entity on your screen. It's an (drumroll) analogy! I assumed (rightly so) that you would take it that way. Considering that you spend but one minute on each post - I find it hard to believe you spend any time at all to digest what you respond to. I can't even discuss whats inside the circle in the pic, if you can't even get past a simple analogy.
Besides, you have yet to - even once - attack my counter-arguments directly, so what use do I have for mulling over your constant repetitions of your opinion? Besides, I spend plenty of time thinking about what you've said before, when I'm off-line (right along with what everybody else has said), but I don't see any valid counter-argument on your part.
I have no problem with your counter arguments accept that you remain on the physical level, which I say does not exist, but for the conceptual understanding of it. If you can't transition yourself to the conceptual level. I.E. Use some imagination. You will not understand what I'm saying. Judging by your failure with the analogy - I see no hope for comprehension on a conceptual basis.
If you are correct, you shouldn't have any problem actually disproving what I've said. Easy for you to say when you don't understand my point of view. If conceptual reality acts in accordance with what we term physical laws - How can one prove what seems to be entirely the same as a physical universe, to the point of choosing one over the other? Quite frankly ....I don't have a short simple answer to this. So you're stuck with the long one.
Messiah
Dec19-03, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly! That's exactly how it (the word "nothing") is supposed to be used (according to the very semantics of the issue). No other way is even permissable, since it would fail to meet the criterion of not referring to anything.
"Nothing" doesn't refer to a set, "nothing" refers to what an empty set would contain (and, of course, an empty set doesn't contain, just as the word "nothing" doesn't refer).
Are you getting it yet?
That is where we differ in definition.
Nothing - logical/defined - is the empty set or Ø
Nothing - abstract/undefined - is UNdefined
Are you willing to acknowledge that there are two connotations??
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Well if you kept track of what I was saying - You would have understood that when I say thing - It's conceptually oriented. You continue to remain on the physical level, and in doing so - Comprehension of what I am saying becomes quite unattainable. On the purely physical level - There is no thing. On the conceptual level - There are things of nothing.
But aren't semantics conceptual? I don't mean to be a pain, I'm just asking. Semantics, according to your reasoning, should be conceptual, and would thus apply to the idea that "nothing" can refer to a thing.
Definition of analogy - Similarity between unlike things.
For cripe sakes - Obviously I can't draw an actual fundamental entity on your screen. It's an (drumroll) analogy! I assumed (rightly so) that you would take it that way. Considering that you spend but one minute on each post - I find it hard to believe you spend any time at all to digest what you respond to. I can't even discuss whats inside the circle in the pic, if you can't even get past a simple analogy.
If you'd pay closer attention, you'd realize that I was simply saying your analogy is flawed. It's a fine illustration, but it is flawed as an analogy. You are supposed to find similarity between unlike things, not take one thing and say that it's similar while the facts disagree with you. The circle has space inside it (empty as it may be), and a fundamental entity does not. Where is the analogy?
Easy for you to say when you don't understand my point of view. If conceptual reality acts in accordance with what we term physical laws - How can one prove what seems to be entirely the same as a physical universe, to the point of choosing one over the other? Quite frankly ....I don't have a short simple answer to this. So you're stuck with the long one.
Which is?
Originally posted by Messiah
That is where we differ in definition.
Nothing - logical/defined - is the empty set or Ø
Nothing - abstract/undefined - is UNdefined
Are you willing to acknowledge that there are two connotations??
No. There may be two connnotations in common usage, but not in the logical semantics and etymology of the issue. The fact is that the word "nothing" remains a compound of the words "no" and "thing", and thus the word "nothing" does not qualify as nothing, and the empty set also does not qualify. Only the undefined/undefinable can qualify as the proper definition, since that is what the word "nothing" was made for: to refer to absence, not presence.
Just to be clear, if the empty set can be referred to, then it cannot be nothing at all, but is indeed something. If the stuff that's inside the empty set cannot be referred to (since there is no such stuff), then this does qualify as nothing at all.
Messiah
Dec19-03, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No. There may be two connnotations in common usage, but not in the logical semantics and etymology of the issue. The fact is that the word "nothing" remains a compound of the words "no" and "thing", and thus the word "nothing" does not qualify as nothing, and the empty set also does not qualify. Only the undefined/undefinable can qualify as the proper definition, since that is what the word "nothing" was made for: to refer to absence, not presence.
Just to be clear, if the empty set can be referred to, then it cannot be nothing at all, but is indeed something. If the stuff that's inside the empty set cannot be referred to (since there is no such stuff), then this does qualify as nothing at all.
To use the word 'nothing' is to define.
If you intend to illustrate the meaning of the word in the abstract sense, you would use no words.
heusdens
Dec20-03, 04:27 AM
Well, let's try to get this straight.
Firstly there is being, and then there is nothing, which is just the absence of being. Being and nothing are just each others opposites.
In the most abstract sense, being and nothing are the same, that is they are just the opposites of each other (being is not nothing and nothing is not being).
Being and nothing define each other. Without being there is no non-being.
In the dialectical sense, being and nothing are a dialectical unity, which is: Becoming.
Messiah
Dec20-03, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by heusdens
Well, let's try to get this straight.
Firstly there is being, and then there is nothing, which is just the absence of being. Being and nothing are just each others opposites.
In the most abstract sense, being and nothing are the same, that is they are just the opposites of each other (being is not nothing and nothing is not being).
Being and nothing define each other. Without being there is no non-being.
In the dialectical sense, being and nothing are a dialectical unity, which is: Becoming.
If that were true, then wouldn't the opposite of (+1) be (Ø) instead of (-1)
Originally posted by Messiah
To use the word 'nothing' is to define.
If you intend to illustrate the meaning of the word in the abstract sense, you would use no words.
I agree with the second statement, since "nothing" is not supposed to have a definition, except as a "lack of". However, what does that first statement mean?
Messiah
Dec20-03, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I agree with the second statement, since "nothing" is not supposed to have a definition, except as a "lack of". However, what does that first statement mean?
Words have meaning - by their very use, they define.
Logic requires definition.
You cannot define something which is UNdefined (abstract 'Nothing'); hence you must be referring to the logical 'Nothing' which is Ø
Originally posted by Messiah
Words have meaning - by their very use, they define.
Not always. "Dark" has no meaning, outside of the reference to an absence of light (or a lesser level thereof). It doesn't refer to something, but rather to the lack of something. "Nothing" is simply the epitomy(sp?) of this use of words to denote absence, it denotes the absence of all things.
Logic requires definition.
You cannot define something which is UNdefined (abstract 'Nothing')
But it is defined: The absence of all things (including wavicles, spacetime, words, and sets!).
; hence you must be referring to the logical 'Nothing' which is Ø
No, because that (for the millionth time) would be something. It would thus not meet the qualifications that the very semantics of the issue lay down for the use of the word "nothing".
Iacchus32
Dec23-03, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Not always. "Dark" has no meaning, outside of the reference to an absence of light (or a lesser level thereof). It doesn't refer to something, but rather to the lack of something. "Nothing" is simply the epitomy(sp?) of this use of words to denote absence, it denotes the absence of all things. No ... no-thing denotes the absence of some-thing, unless of course you're speaking of nothing in the "absolute sense." And yet it obviously can be used either way. [;)]
UltraPi1
Dec23-03, 05:31 AM
But aren't semantics conceptual?
I did say there is no physicality to the universe. That it's all conceptual. That would mean semantics are conceptual also.
If you'd pay closer attention, you'd realize that I was simply saying your analogy is flawed. It's a fine illustration, but it is flawed as an analogy. You are supposed to find similarity between unlike things, not take one thing and say that it's similar while the facts disagree with you. The circle has space inside it (empty as it may be), and a fundamental entity does not. Where is the analogy?
Obviously the illustration is not a fundamental entity. That makes it unlike a fundamental entity. The depiction was to point out similarities, and the need to use a little imagination to bring it in line with a fundamental entity. The purpose was to point out what a fundamental entity is. I can't show you an actual fundamental unit ... so I'll show you a depiction of one. Get it?
So rather than play along for purposes of understanding exactly where I'm coming from - You choose to discuss some photons coming from you screen, and argue from that angle. I'm trying to explain a conceptual understanding of existence, not a physical one as you know it.
Let me try this again.
Here is a depiction of nothing.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/non-existence.jpg
This is also what space looks like if space does not act upon you.
Heres a depiction of what space looks like when some of it does act upon you.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/030725_dark_nebula_04.jpg
Keep in mind I'm only speaking of what we see, and not what we feel, hear, smell and taste, although the process is the same for the other senses.
And here is yet another depiction of space acting upon you.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/mountains.jpg
The inquiry would be - What is it that is acting upon us in terms of what we see?
You would say that whatever it is - It's physical.
And I am saying it is entirely conceptual.
Lets get to the crux of the matter ( the original depiction).
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
This is what I term - A fundamental entity. Which is nothing inside it. Nothing outside it, and the concept of it. I'll even go as far as calling this a photon at rest, or this is what a photon would look like if it were at rest, Even though I know photons don't rest, and I can't actually see it the way it's depicted. This is a conceptual understanding of a photon (fundamental entity) through this depiction.
This is a 2D depiction. Essentially it is a slice from a spheroid shape for purpose of discussion. The circle in the drawing is not actually there on a physical level. If I zoomed in on a section of the circle - I'd get something like this.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/appl3.jpg
Lets zoom in a bazillion times closer for effect.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/appl2.jpg
The point here is that the line for the circle does not get fatter as we zoom in on it, because there isn't anything there. There is no physicality to it at all. It's there, but not physically. I would call this a conceptual reality of a fundamental entity, and all entities act in accordance and within the concept of physical laws.
On a mathematical scale - It's like this.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/Infinity.jpg
There is an infinity of these concepts possible, all in the primordial soup of nothing. Each and every concept after the first one is a geometric twin of the first. The purpose of the universe is for the eventual complete definition of nothing - Of which never happens, because nothing is undefinable given the infinity of it's very nature.
The closest I can come to the idea of nothing is perfect symmetry. Everything is the same everywhere; wherever or whatever that may be. [:D]
What I mean is, if there was nothing to differentiate one point from another or one thing from another then that could be considered pseudo-nothingness perhaps. I realize that this is not the same as the pure abstract notion of nothing since the potential for something seems to be implicit in this scenario. Maybe this is what god was and he simply got bored with sitting around nowhere being nothing and decided to shake things up a little. A little asymmetry to differentiate one place from another, one thing from another. *shrug*
I'm being a little silly but mostly serious.
Added later:
Damn this thread! I can't sleep now because of the sound of my brain buzzing as it trys to comprehend the incomprehensible.
Discussing nothing surely is a difficult task. I suppose that trying to comprehend it is futile. That won't make me stop though. The moment you think about the idea of nothing, you necessarily attribute properties to it. At that point the true idea of nothing vanishes. I suppose you would have to not think of nothing to really grasp it and yet not grasp it. Perhaps it is like infinity or the speed of light or absolute zero. You can get as close to nothing as you like but never reach it; next to nothing as it were. Maybe nothing is the sum of everthing. If you add all the numbers, negative and positive, the sum would be 0. -infinity...+...infinity=0
.
I'm going bed. My head hurts.[zz)]
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No ... no-thing denotes the absence of some-thing, unless of course you're speaking of nothing in the "absolute sense." And yet it obviously can be used either way. [;)]
"Nothing" denotes the absence of anything that an be called "some-thing".
Nice pics, UltraPi1.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Obviously the illustration is not a fundamental entity. That makes it unlike a fundamental entity. The depiction was to point out similarities, and the need to use a little imagination to bring it in line with a fundamental entity. The purpose was to point out what a fundamental entity is. I can't show you an actual fundamental unit ... so I'll show you a depiction of one. Get it?
Yes, but there was a distinct problem with the illustration: it had space inside the fundamental entity. This would not be the case if the entity were indeed fundamental, and that is a very relevant point. Can you see why?
So rather than play along for purposes of understanding exactly where I'm coming from - You choose to discuss some photons coming from you screen, and argue from that angle. I'm trying to explain a conceptual understanding of existence, not a physical one as you know it.
Why exactly do you think so? Just curious.
Let me try this again.
Here is a depiction of nothing.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/non-existence.jpg
This is also what space looks like if space does not act upon you.
Is it space, or is it nothing? Space is something, that's the problem with the previous illustration too. You've got to get rid of the space, or else there will always be something there. Aside from the fact that space is indeed a physical entity (AFAIC), you also have the fact that you said everything was conceptual...which would mean that even the concept of space is something, not nothing. "Nothing", by its very semantics, doesn't allow for the presence of anything.
The inquiry would be - What is it that is acting upon us in terms of what we see?
You would say that whatever it is - It's physical.
And I am saying it is entirely conceptual.
Then you said...
Lets get to the crux of the matter...
That's exactly what I think is acting on us: matter [:D]
( the original depiction).
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
This is what I term - A fundamental entity. Which is nothing inside it.
Then why is there space inside?
Nothing outside it, and the concept of it.
Then why is there space outside of it?
Jimmy, perhaps I can put you to ease by letting you know that which people have been trying to refute since PF2..."nothing" = not anything. Take any sentence where the term "nothing" is used, and you can replace it with "not anything", thus creating a sentence with equal meaning but less confusion. This is what I call the Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics, or E.i.N.S., for short.
Now, if the term "nothing" comes inside quotes (like it does in this sentence) then it is different: there is only reference to the word "nothing" and...well...nothing else [;)].
So...
Originally posted by Jimmy
The closest I can come to the idea of nothing is perfect symmetry. Everything is the same everywhere; wherever or whatever that may be. [:D]
The idea of symmetry is interesting, but it isn't nothing, it's something. Note, when I said "it isn't nothing" it means "it's something" (since it's a double negative on the phrase "it isn't not something). And, for your sentence (The closest I can come to the idea of nothing), the E.i.N.S. equivalent is "The closest I can come to no idea at all" or "The closest I can come to that which isn't an idea of anything".
See? There's no deep concept involved at all, if you stick to the proper semantics, as some are less inclined to do than others.
Mentat: The idea of symmetry is interesting, but it isn't nothing, it's something. Note, when I said "it isn't nothing" it means "it's something" (since it's a double negative on the phrase "it isn't not something). And, for your sentence (The closest I can come to the idea of nothing), the E.i.N.S. equivalent is "The closest I can come to no idea at all" or "The closest I can come to that which isn't an idea of anything".
See? There's no deep concept involved at all, if you stick to the proper semantics, as some are less inclined to do than others.
I did refer to it as pseudo-nothing. I said the closest I can come to nothing is... Despite my being semantically challenged I believe you understand the idea I was trying to convey or not convey. Like I said...
Discussing nothing surely is a difficult task. I suppose that trying to comprehend it is futile. That won't make me stop though. The moment you think about the idea of nothing, you necessarily attribute properties to it.
At that point the true idea of nothing vanishes. I suppose you would have to not think of nothing to really grasp it and yet not grasp it.
Now here, I should have left out the not and just said think of nothing. What I meant was not to actively think about that idea we are discussing.
I will read your thread, however. I'm sure you probably referenced it somewhere else in this thread. I admit to skimming through a lot of this thread because there was a lot to catch up on. I was anxious to jump in the discussion.
Besides, if nothing is equivalent to not anything, then is it really a mistake to just say nothing. I agree it can get confusing but within the context of this thread it's not that difficult to understand when people refer to that concept of not anything.
UltraPi1
Dec27-03, 09:26 AM
Is it space, or is it nothing?This would depend on how you look at it. If I reference the distance between two points - It's space. If I reference a point - It's a thing of nothing. When I reference the fundamental - It's a point. There are no points within or on a point.
As Jimmy pointed out - Discussing nothing makes it a thing. I say it's a conceptual thing. I say that thing is real. It's physical because we think it is. We are the logical fallout of the impossibility of the kind of nothing you wish to discuss. The futile attempt is on your side ,,,, for your nothing is undefinable. My discussion is about the reality of nothing - What I term the reality of Non-Existence. I accept nothing as a thing, and there isn't a thing I will do about it - For I know of nothing else.
Messiah
Dec27-03, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Not always. "Dark" has no meaning, outside of the reference to an absence of light (or a lesser level thereof). It doesn't refer to something, but rather to the lack of something. "Nothing" is simply the epitomy(sp?) of this use of words to denote absence, it denotes the absence of all things.
'Dark' and 'Light' are conditions, not existences. Light is simply the propagation of energy via a medium. Science uses the label 'photon' to explain the transference of energy. What actually occurs is that the condition of each media is - in turn - changed by its adjacent neighbor until something 'absorbs' the energy. You don't REALLY believe photons are elemental particles, do you? Where do they go when they 'die'?
Originally posted by Mentat
But it is defined: The absence of all things (including wavicles, spacetime, words, and sets!).
Yes - the LOGICAL connotation of 'nothing' is defined (logic requires definition). You seem bent on calling it 'the absence of all things', I tend to use the more abbreviated symbol 'Ø'.
Originally posted by Mentat
No, because that (for the millionth time) would be something. It would thus not meet the qualifications that the very semantics of the issue lay down for the use of the word "nothing".
I have no problem with the definition : "absence of all things" = Ø
What else do you think 'Ø' IS??
Messiah
Dec27-03, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Let me try this again.
Here is a depiction of nothing.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/non-existence.jpg
This is also what space looks like if space does not act upon you.
Wouldn't it be INVISIBLE instead of black??
Originally posted by UltraPi1
This is what I term - A fundamental entity. Which is nothing inside it. Nothing outside it, and the concept of it.
APPLAUSE ! !
Entities ARE the logical equivalent of 'nothing' . . . just not all compiled into a single point (unless you take an 'infinite' point of view and then they have no (Ø) size). They are comprised of countervalent sub qualities (+1-1)
Originally posted by UltraPi1
There is no physicality to it at all. It's there, but not physically.
?????????????
If something is present in the Universe, it is - by definition - a PHYSICAL reality - whether it be space or matter
Originally posted by UltraPi1
This would depend on how you look at it. If I reference the distance between two points - It's space. If I reference a point - It's a thing of nothing.
Why? Isn't it a point? A point is something.
When I reference the fundamental - It's a point. There are no points within or on a point.
Indeed, but it's still something, isn't it?
As Jimmy pointed out - Discussing nothing makes it a thing.
And as I've been pointing out since before PF3, you are misusing the term; semantically and etymologically, it can be seen that "nothing" was not intended to be used in such a manner. As per the E.i.N.S., your sentence is equal to "Not discussing anything makes it a thing", and you still haven't identified what "THING" you are talking about.
I say it's a conceptual thing. I say that thing is real.
What thing? The word "nothing"? The empty set? These are indeed things. HOwever, the word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything, and the empty set doesn't contain anything. Thus, as per the semantics of the issue, it is correct to say that there is nothing inside of the empty set, and that the word "nothing" refers to nothing, but it is incorrect to say that such things (or a fundamental entity or any other such THING) is nothing, since they are clearly something.
Basically, if you are using the word "nothing", and then realize that you are referring to something, you should then abandon the use of the word "nothing" in that context, and find another word.
Perhaps the title of this thread, nothing, is inappropriate. [:)]
Obviously, it is about something. It's about the meaning of the abstract concept nothing. The fact is we are all talking about what the word/concept "nothing" means. When I say I am talking about nothing in the context of this thread, I am not saying I am talking about nothing as in not talking at all. I am obviously talking about the concept "nothing". You seem to be a bit hung up on the whole semantic issue. I agree semantics are important but I think you are taking it too far.
Mentat: Basically, if you are using the word "nothing", and then realize that you are referring to something, you should then abandon the use of the word "nothing" in that context, and find another word.
According to this argument, we should abandon this whole thread. When talking about what the word "nothing" means, we are necessarily discussing some concept. I see no reason, in this case, to abandon the word "nothing".
I will admit to using the word "nothing" loosely at times. In reference to the phrase, "concept of nothing", I suppose it would be more appropriate to say the concept "nothing".
UltraPi1
Dec27-03, 09:11 PM
Wouldn't it be INVISIBLE instead of black??I would say it's both. In fact - You can see right through matter. All you need to do is stop all photons from registering in your eye. You might ask - Why can't I see through the Earth when it's nighttime, and take a gander at the sun? The answer is that you can see through the earth, but the photons can't make it to your eyes through the earth.
Just thought of that, and you can't prove me wrong. Hehe
APPLAUSE ! !
Entities ARE the logical equivalent of 'nothing' . . . just not all compiled into a single point (unless you take an 'infinite' point of view and then they have no (Ø) size). They are comprised of countervalent sub qualities (+1-1)I still fail to understand the +1 -1. I haven't got a clue.
?????????????
If something is present in the Universe, it is - by definition - a PHYSICAL reality - whether it be space or matter I would disagree here completely. Who could argue that if you ran into a tree with your car ,,,, that it's not physical, but thats exactly what I'm saying.
Each and every fundamental entity,,,,,and I term them fundamental conceptual things - act in accordance to what we term physical laws. In effect - There is nothing there on a physical scale as we know physicality to be. Each and every concept moves as if it were physical. Don't think of the circle in the pic as a physical barrier, rather a conceptual barrier.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Give these concepts laws like the physical laws we know, and the storyline is the same.
Heres a pic of the whole ball of wax.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/conceptualreality.jpg
What we have here is the smallest conceptual thing all the way up to the largest conceptual thing, and beyond it (the undefined nothing). The large circle in the pic is the extent of our universe. This circle is expanding outward, and will continue to do so for all likelyhood - forever. There is only one universe, and yer in it. It is the result of the ongoing definition of nothing. The product of the definition is fundamental conceptual entities shown by the smaller circle of conceptually nothing. Man is a collection of these fundamental conceptual entities.
In a nutshell - You are the reality of Non-Existence. In our universe there are only ones - one at a time.
Thallium
Dec28-03, 10:47 AM
Though I am a little late in this discussion I would like to add something.
Saying that there was nothing before Big Bang is the same as saying that energy can be created(eventually out of nothing). According to the law of energy, energy can not be created, nor can it extinguish. In my opinion, that means that there was something before Big Bang.
UltraPi1
Dec28-03, 01:10 PM
Saying that there was nothing before Big Bang is the same as saying that energy can be created(eventually out of nothing). According to the law of energy, energy can not be created, nor can it extinguish. In my opinion, that means that there was something before Big Bang.More like energy can be created in nothing, and out of this creation - We have the energy of nothing as a conceptual thing. Saying that energy can not be created or destroyed is a correct statement if all you are working with is that which has already been created.
One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist. This is a bit of a loaded sentence. Easily understood though if you accept that you are the reality of Non-Existence.
Messiah
Dec28-03, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Thallium
Though I am a little late in this discussion I would like to add something.
Saying that there was nothing before Big Bang is the same as saying that energy can be created(eventually out of nothing). According to the law of energy, energy can not be created, nor can it extinguish. In my opinion, that means that there was something before Big Bang.
Energy CAN be created. Mass converts to energy readily in nuclear processes.
'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).
UltraPi1
Dec28-03, 01:36 PM
A point is something.
Yes ( A conceptual something ) And that something is nothing. This is a contradiction to you. I see a contradiction, but I accept it for what it is. I can't note a difference without this contradiction. How can I tell one nothing from another without the concept of one?
Indeed, but it's still something, isn't it?
Yep - It's nothing (one thing of nothing). One defines ... Nothing is being defined by one.
your sentence is equal to "Not discussing anything makes it a thing"You twisted that sentence to fit your agenda.
Basically, if you are using the word "nothing", and then realize that you are referring to something, you should then abandon the use of the word "nothing" in that context, and find another word.Perhaps I could use the word (VOID) to make you happy.
UltraPi1
Dec28-03, 01:55 PM
Energy CAN be created. Mass converts to energy readily in nuclear processes.Rather Mass is Energy. It's more like a redistribution than a conversion.
'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).I'm in a forest without a compass. Point me in the right direction so I can get somewhere in the direction of understanding.
UltraPi1
Dec28-03, 02:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Messiah
[B] You don't REALLY believe photons are elemental particles, do you? Where do they go when they 'die'?
Although this is not a reply to me. I can't help but declare that photons are fundamental, and they never die.
'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).
Actually, I don't think it can. (+1)+(-1)=0, not 'nothing'. Zero describes an absence of things, nothing describes an absence. Not an absence of any particular thing, simply an absence. Unlike zero, there is no value "less" than nothing, because nothing is NOT a value at all, but rather a lack of one.
Thallium
Dec29-03, 09:53 AM
Ok, energy can be created. But out of nothing? Then what basic fundamentals is needed to create energy? There must be 'something', a source for the energy.
This brought another thought. A little digression from the energy-talk. We are all structured beings of chemicals and particles. Take the human embryo. Where do all the particles that make the embryo grow come from? Is everything from the mother?
The DNA creates new cells via mitose, but the particles in these cells, where do they come from? Are they created?
A mouthful of questions I know and to me it is very confusing.
Messiah
Dec29-03, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Rather Mass is Energy. It's more like a redistribution than a conversion.
Kind of. It's like saying ice is water. Same basic material (existence) - two different conditions (rapidly changing vs relatively static).
Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm in a forest without a compass. Point me in the right direction so I can get somewhere in the direction of understanding.
Elucidation at - Theory of Reciprocity (http://theory-of-reciprocity.com)
Originally posted by UltraPi1 Although this is not a reply to me. I can't help but declare that photons are fundamental, and they never die.
Where do they go when light is absorbed? They convert into heat/electricity/something else?? This shows that this is a condition - a chain reaction - which is propagated, not an 'entity' which moves very fast. Else we'd be knee deep in photon corpses.
Originally posted by Sikz
Actually, I don't think it can. (+1)+(-1)=0, not 'nothing'. Zero describes an absence of things, nothing describes an absence. Not an absence of any particular thing, simply an absence. Unlike zero, there is no value "less" than nothing, because nothing is NOT a value at all, but rather a lack of one.
{Ø X Everything = Nothing} doesn't it??
UltraPi1
Dec30-03, 01:29 AM
Where do they go when light is absorbed? They convert into heat/electricity/something else?? This shows that this is a condition - a chain reaction - which is propagated, not an 'entity' which moves very fast. Else we'd be knee deep in photon corpses.In my opinion a photon is not absorbed. There is no conversion. It is my contention that all matter is made of photons, and that all photons propogate at C always. I even go as far as to say that a gravitational field is an extension of a photon. Essentially all there is ... is photons. Matter to me is localized photons. I.E They orbit at C. I say that a photon never dies partly because there are no collisions - There is nothing there to collide with.
Messiah
Dec30-03, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Essentially all there is ... is photons. Matter to me is localized photons. I.E
Are YOU a photon?? Is your body comprised of photons??
Are you saying that the entire Universe is composed of a single species of homogeneous and structureless particles?
Originally posted by Messiah
Energy CAN be created. Mass converts to energy readily in nuclear processes.
'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).
It wouldn't be nothing, if "it" could be converted...there was something there and there wasn't (that's quantum reasoning for ya).
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes ( A conceptual something ) And that something is nothing. This is a contradiction to you. I see a contradiction, but I accept it for what it is. I can't note a difference without this contradiction. How can I tell one nothing from another without the concept of one?
This contradiction is easily resolved by using another term. The word "nothing" cannot be (correctly) used to refer to a thing...thus, when I say that a fundamental entity is something, it doesn't make sense for you to say that "that something is nothing". That something is something. A very real something.
Yep - It's nothing (one thing of nothing). One defines ... Nothing is being defined by one.
If nothing is being defined then there is no definition...think about it: if I were to ask you, "what have you defined", and you were to answer, "nothing", then the semantics would dictate that you had just told me that you hadn't defined anything...that's why the E.I.N.S. works.
You twisted that sentence to fit your agenda.
I rephrased the sentence in terms that are semantically equal to your sentence, but which make the true non-sensicalness of the sentence more apparent.
Perhaps I could use the word (VOID) to make you happy.
Indeed you could. A void is something, and there can be one void, or there can be many voids. However, the word "nothing" is already taken, and it doesn't equal "void".
Messiah
Dec30-03, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
It wouldn't be nothing, if "it" could be converted...there was something there and there wasn't (that's quantum reasoning for ya).
That is the difference between 'non-existence' - which is abstract and Ø - which is not.
If you look in ANY Webster's dictionary, both the abstract of 'non-existence' and the mathematical term 'Zero' are listed as definitions. There are two official connotations. If you wish to recognize only one, that is your privilege, but in communicating with other individuals, it is often necessary to recognize both.
UltraPi1
Dec30-03, 10:43 PM
Are YOU a photon?? Is your body comprised of photons??
Are you saying that the entire Universe is composed of a single species of homogeneous and structureless particles?
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al ya gotta do is look at the element chart and see how it is accepted that all those elements are made of the same stuff. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that. Whats the difference? We can make mass with a whole lotta photons under the right conditions. We can make a whole lotta photons with mass under the right conditions. Seems to me the writing is on the wall in capital letters.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al ya gotta do is look at the element chart and see how it is accepted that all those elements are made of the same stuff. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that. Whats the difference? We can make mass with a whole lotta photons under the right conditions. We can make a whole lotta photons with mass under the right conditions. Seems to me the writing is on the wall in capital letters.
That is interesting. There is a certain symmetry that exists between matter\antimatter and photons. A particle antiparticle pair can annihilate with each other to form a photon pair of equivalent energy. Photon pairs can also produce a particle/antiparticle pair.
Consider a photon: It has no rest mass, no charge, and has a purely space-like motion. It's a very symmetrical particle.
Consider a electron: It has rest mass, it has charge, it has a purely time-like motion; that is from the perspective of four-dimensional space-time, a massive particle's velocity vector always points in the time direction in the frame of the particle itself.
A massive particle, such as an electron, is now imbued with all these characteristics that the original photon did not have. The symmetry is broken but is maintained between the particle/antiparticle pair.
Just as the speed of a photon is constant in space, an electron (or any fermion for that matter) has a constant speed in time.
UltraPi1
Dec31-03, 12:39 AM
This contradiction is easily resolved by using another term. The word "nothing" cannot be (correctly) used to refer to a thing...thus, when I say that a fundamental entity is something, it doesn't make sense for you to say that "that something is nothing". That something is something. A very real something. Been through this before with you. Nothing does not do the referring - The concept does.
If nothing is being defined then there is no definition...think about it: if I were to ask you, "what have you defined", and you were to answer, "nothing", then the semantics would dictate that you had just told me that you hadn't defined anything...that's why the E.I.N.S. works.
You're twisting this one too. If I say - (I defined nothing) I didn't say that I hadn't, but that I had, and if I replace hadn't with had as it should be. It would still read wrong, because now it would read ( I had defined anything). It should read by your standards {I had defined not anything as a thing}. I would personally rather just say ( I defined nothing as a thing). I'll buy both, but prefer to say nothing - It reads better.
You apparently say it's impossible have a thing of nothing. I say it is possible. I will agree to disagree. You should too, because this merry go round is making us dizzy.
Thallium
Dec31-03, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al ya gotta do is look at the element chart and see how it is accepted that all those elements are made of the same stuff. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that. Whats the difference? We can make mass with a whole lotta photons under the right conditions. We can make a whole lotta photons with mass under the right conditions. Seems to me the writing is on the wall in capital letters.
Then why is it so that you contain other elements like carbon or H2O? These are not photons. Do I misunderstand?
UltraPi1
Dec31-03, 08:35 AM
Then why is it so that you contain other elements like carbon or H2O? These are not photons. Do I misunderstand?I would have to say yes - You do misunderstand. If we ask - What are we made out of? We could name off elements, and the percentage of each element that makes us up. We could go further and name off the particles that make up these elements. Such as protons, nuetrons, electrons. We could break this down further and name quarks, and such. I'm simply stating that in the end - Photons will be the last standing as the fundamental entity that makes up the entirety of Existence. This includes all matter, and the space around such matter.
I say if we attempt to break down a photon to other constituents - We will find nothing, and a photon is no more than a conceptual entity that follows physical laws as we know them to be. In effect - We are nothing but the thoughts of nothing.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum2.jpg
selfAdjoint
Dec31-03, 10:11 AM
So you are implying that elementary particles, including fermions like electrons and quarks, are made of photons. What arguments or evidence can you offer for such a view?
Thallium
Dec31-03, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm simply stating that in the end - Photons will be the last standing as the fundamental entity that makes up the entirety of Existence.
So you can divide an atom of a human body into other particles and them into other particles and so on untill you reach a photon? Is that a hypothesis or can you prove it or prove against it?
Originally posted by Messiah
That is the difference between 'non-existence' - which is abstract and Ø - which is not.
If you look in ANY Webster's dictionary, both the abstract of 'non-existence' and the mathematical term 'Zero' are listed as definitions. There are two official connotations. If you wish to recognize only one, that is your privilege, but in communicating with other individuals, it is often necessary to recognize both.
I do, of course, recognize that people commonly wish to refer to 0 or empty sets...even empty space, as though it were nothing. However, in philosophy, it is always best to have your semantics completely clear from the start, and the semantics of "nothing" (the word) are rather clear: If there is anything there, anything at all, it isn't nothing (which seems so obvious to me, but I have done the extra research to make sure, and semantics and etymology seem to agree with me).
Thus, if there is something there (be it an empty set (which is something), the word "nothing" (which is also something), or the number 0 (which is clearly something)), it becomes both incorrect and misleading to use the word "nothing" to refer to it...of course, if I were to ask you what was inside the empty set or the empty space, then "nothing" would be the correct answer, but if I can refer to the set or word as something then it is incorrect to also refer to them as "nothing".
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Been through this before with you. Nothing does not do the referring - The concept does.
But the concept can't refer unless it has something (note: something) to refer to.
You're twisting this one too. If I say - (I defined nothing) I didn't say that I hadn't, but that I had, and if I replace hadn't with had as it should be. It would still read wrong, because now it would read ( I had defined anything). It should read by your standards {I had defined not anything as a thing}. I would personally rather just say ( I defined nothing as a thing). I'll buy both, but prefer to say nothing - It reads better.
You have mis-interpreted the E.i.N.S., if you were to say that you "have defined nothing", you are saying "I have defined not anything" which is semantically equal to saying "I have not defined anything". The dispersal of the "not" and the "anything" among the sentence are a matter of grammar and maintainance of meaning, you can't always put the two words right next to each other, but together they replace the use of the word "nothing" altogether.
You apparently say it's impossible have a thing of nothing. I say it is possible. I will agree to disagree. You should too, because this merry go round is making us dizzy.
Not just yet. What I'm asking you to be is reasonable. I'll break down the deductive reasoning on this particular issue (of a "thing of nothing") for you:
("P" stands for "proposition", "C" stands for "conclusion)
P1: The word "nothing" is a composite of the terms "no" and "thing".
P2: A person may either refer to a thing or refer to no thing at all, but cannot do both at the same time (this stands to reason, since, if you refer to one, you disqualify reference to the other).
C: Therefore there can be no "thing" of "nothing".
UltraPi1
Jan1-04, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
So you are implying that elementary particles, including fermions like electrons and quarks, are made of photons. What arguments or evidence can you offer for such a view? Yes that would be the implication. I offer no proof at this time other than to give details of the overall model - Such as what a photon is, how it propagates, how they interact.
Heres a photon at rest. Even though I know there is no such thing as a photon at rest. Nevertheless here it is. It is the simplest form there is. If you can think of something simpler - I'm all ears.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
UltraPi1
Jan1-04, 12:31 PM
Mentat
You offer a complete definition of nothing. From my standpoint - This is impossible to do in the absense of a concept. The best you can hope for is a quantative measure of nothing, and in doing so ,,, we find an infinity of measure is required for completion. I.E. The definition of nothing takes forever, for it is the definition that makes it real. I contend that we are all a part of that ongoing definition.
Nothing = Not any thing
You use the word thing in your definition of nothing - So does the dictionary. This is a contradiction. I have no problem with this if nothing is to exist or not exist. Existence requires this contradiction. Non-Existence requires this contradiction. I don't wish to discuss nothing on the Non-Existent level - What would be the point other than to point out nothing on the existent level.
You are here ,,,,, Not nowhere.
You are here as the result of the definition of nowhere.
You are nothing in a quantative measure.
You exist as one measure of nothing.
I am happy to discuss the existence of nothing through conceptual means.
I cannot and will not discuss that which does not exist by any means whatsoever in the context of existence.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Mentat
You offer a complete definition of nothing. From my standpoint - This is impossible to do in the absense of a concept.
Wrong. I do not offer a definition of nothing, but to the word "nothing".
Here's an exercise for you:
What is this: "cheese"
And what is this: {1, 2, 3, 4...}
Is the first one actually cheese? No. It is the word "cheese". In the second one, did I actually write every natural number? No. That's simply a set of all natural numbers.
Now, the word "cheese" is something, and so is that which it refers to (thus, two distinct entities). The set of all natural numbers is something, and so is each natural number (an infinite amount of disctinct entities).
So, if I say the word "nothing", I have said something...that word is something. And if I use symbol for the empty set, which doesn't seem to work on this computer, then I will have used something...the empty set is something.
The difference between this word and this set, is that the word doesn't refer to anything at all (by its very semantic nature) and the set doesn't contain anything. Thus, it is logical to say that the word refers to nothing, but it is equal in meaning and logic to say that it "doesn't refer to anything". That's why the E.i.N.S. works.
It is logical to say that the empty set "contains nothing", but it is equal in meaning and logic to say that it "doesn't contain anything". Just another example of the E.i.N.S.
Thus, every time you use the word "nothing", it should be OK for me to re-write the sentence, without changing the meaning, under the terms of the E.i.N.S.
And, as you can see, I have not defined "nothing", but simply given and understanding of the fact that that word doesn't refer to anything.
The best you can hope for is a quantative measure of nothing, and in doing so ,,, we find an infinity of measure is required for completion. I.E. The definition of nothing takes forever, for it is the definition that makes it real. I contend that we are all a part of that ongoing definition.
But definitions do not make something real. I can define a unicorn, but that doesn't make it real. Sure I will get a picture in my head of that which I've been taught to be a "unicorn", but there really is no such thing.
Nothing = Not any thing
You use the word thing in your definition of nothing - So does the dictionary.
No I don't. I didn't even define "nothing", I jus gave an alternate way of saying any sentence in which you would normally use the word "nothing", which offers insight into the fact that "nothing" doesn't refer to anything.
You are here ,,,,, Not nowhere.
You are here as the result of the definition of nowhere.
Where do you get this from? That seems like the largest non-sequiter you've made yet. If I am here, then by default I am not nowhere (since "nowhere" refers to the absence of place), but I would be here regardless of whether "nowhere" was defined or not.
You are nothing in a quantative measure.
I am not anything in a quantitative measure? That's not true, I am quarks, leptons, and spacetime in quantitative measure.
I am happy to discuss the existence of nothing through conceptual means.
I cannot and will not discuss that which does not exist by any means whatsoever in the context of existence.
But that which "nothing" refers to does not exist, and that is what you are choosing to discuss.
Originally posted by Mentat
I do, of course, recognize that people commonly wish to refer to 0 or empty sets...even empty space, as though it were nothing. However, in philosophy, it is always best to have your semantics completely clear from the start, and the semantics of "nothing" (the word) are rather clear: If there is anything there, anything at all, it isn't nothing (which seems so obvious to me, but I have done the extra research to make sure, and semantics and etymology seem to agree with me).
Thus, if there is something there (be it an empty set (which is something), the word "nothing" (which is also something), or the number 0 (which is clearly something)), it becomes both incorrect and misleading to use the word "nothing" to refer to it...of course, if I were to ask you what was inside the empty set or the empty space, then "nothing" would be the correct answer, but if I can refer to the set or word as something then it is incorrect to also refer to them as "nothing".
APPLAUSE ! !
Then the correct word and definition for 'nothing' in its abstract and undefined connotation is - " ".
I TOTALLY agree.
UltraPi1
Jan2-04, 11:41 PM
Mentat
I'll repeat this - one last time.
I understand everything you are saying.
I will also say you will never understand what I am saying. Discussion with you regarding this subject is over.
UltraPi1
Jan2-04, 11:59 PM
Messiah
APPLAUSE ! !
Trust me - he doesn't get it the way you just got it from his post.
Originally posted by Messiah
APPLAUSE ! !
Then the correct word and definition for 'nothing' in its abstract and undefined connotation is - " ".
I TOTALLY agree.
"Nothing" is the word, were you even paying attention to my post? "Nothing" is the word, and there is no definition, aside from "the absence of all things". Please try to understand what I post before responding.
UltraPi1
Jan5-04, 11:15 PM
As I was saying.
Messiah
Feb19-04, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
"Nothing" is the word, were you even paying attention to my post? "Nothing" is the word, and there is no definition, aside from "the absence of all things". Please try to understand what I post before responding.
I think you are missing the point.
The phenomenon of existence did not 'begin' with Ø or 'nothing' - and then become 'something'. Existence is eternal. The nature of that existence is that for every logical value there is an opposite equivalent. Ø or 'nothing' never DID exist - only its logical equivalent
. . . of course UNLESS you want to consider it in the infinitive abstract, in which the size of any finite entity has a relative value of Ø (anything/infinity) and every position within an infinite Universe is its center (has a relative positional value of Ø), so since its qualitative value is also Ø relarive to infinity 'NOTHING' does exist.
well, i think there is confusion on what nothing really is->
i think nothing should be used with this pseudo or not definition when used in this context-> nothing humans percieve as in no physical anything, no particles, no waves, and maybe now no energy. so truly nothing cannot be as far as human perception goes... therefore whatever was 'before' the bb couldnt have possibly been anything comprehensible to humans.
besides, time was created with the bb in the bb theory (hence space-time). this is how it works in-> you really cannot say 'before' the bb... because your ability to distinguish one event from the next is non existent...
so there is no movement of time, or atleast the necessity of it is absent.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.