What is the Origin of Everything?

[Netme]

The universe will continue to expand until the universal disaster which will destroy not only the universe but all of existence occurs.
which we must stop.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Netme

What should we do?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, I'm not stuck on the idea of existence as a process. I'm stuck on the idea that words have specific meanings. The universe may be eternal, without beginning or end, for all I know. However the concept of eternity is illogical, irrational, and paradoxical.

Zeno of Elias was the first famous western philosopher to point this out. He asserted existence is in actuality indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. Talk about a view of existence that doesn't require process! What it does require is paradox as all explanations do.

The existence of 'nothing' is the only natural phenomenon which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If 'nothing' existed, it would need no justification. My contention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of 'nothing' as it pertains to logic. Logically, it is NOT "that which does not exist" because 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It has no properties. It is not defined and logic requires definition. The logical definition of 'nothing' is the empty set or Ø.

When you juxtapose the finite and infinity, suddenly the size and position of any finite element assume a ratio of Ø. If you throw in reciprocal qualities, then the LOGICAL equivalent of Ø actually exists. If (Logical) 'nothing' exists, it intrinsically complies with the precepts of reason. It is the principle of natural balance which explains existence, not a process.

 

[Netme]

Logically 0 cannot be defined as nothing since that is what all things are created from. I see 0 as the medium in which god uses to create existence.

 

[Netme]

Netme
What should we do?


__________________
You are what you DO.

Do something.

We should understand what our universe is actually doing and from what If we can figure this out then our role in existence will be known

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
Ok...ok...

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

What about the summation of all natural numbers, would that be 0?

Like:

(+1 + -1) + (+2 + -2) + ... = 0

but equally well it could be defined as:

+1 + (+2 + -1) + (+3 + -2) + ... = ? (infinite)

or

-1 + (-2 + +1) + (-3 + +2) + ... = ? (-infinity)

or any number between.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Netme (and they may)

If the Universe were an "eternal entity of energy" that explodes from a singularity that was made up of "Everything that Is"...

...then EXPANDS for a long while, still being "Everything that Is"...

...then, at a certain point, begins to contact due to natural forces until "Everything that Is" once more condenses into a singularity...

THEN...this pulsaing Eternal Entity of Energy would, in effect, be "giving birth" to ITSELF...through infinite incarnations...

THEREBY eliminating the need for "nothing" in favor of the eternal existence of "Everything that Is".


And "our role" -- I believe -- might be to HAVE AN INTERESTING EXPERIENCE ...a small part of the EXPERIENCE OF THE UNIVERSE...which I believe might be ITS Primary Intent:

In other words, it might be that the Primary Intent of the Universe is ...TO HAVE ANOTHER EXPERIENCE...via the experiences of us and everything else that It has given rise to.

I believe that there is NO "outside" force named "God" who "created the Universe." The Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity out to see what It can create THIS time...in this incarnation.



And this is why they may "net me" too!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Ok...ok...

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

There is no "that which does not exist". How much sense does it make to say that there is something that doesn't exist? If it's something, it exists. If it's not something, then there is no "it" to speak of.

Your flaw is rather evident in a post where you said that an abstract definition of "nothing" is " ". This is incorrect, as there is a defined place for something to exist (between the two quotation marks (thus it can be measured)), and you are referring to "it", thus showing that there is something to refer to.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of 'nothing' is the only natural phenomenon which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If 'nothing' existed, it would need no justification. My contention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of 'nothing' as it pertains to logic. Logically, it is NOT "that which does not exist" because 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It has no properties. It is not defined and logic requires definition. The logical definition of 'nothing' is the empty set or Ø.

When you juxtapose the finite and infinity, suddenly the size and position of any finite element assume a ratio of Ø. If you throw in reciprocal qualities, then the LOGICAL equivalent of Ø actually exists. If (Logical) 'nothing' exists, it intrinsically complies with the precepts of reason. It is the principle of natural balance which explains existence, not a process.

Run your post through the "exercise in "nothing" semantics", and you get:

Revised Version of Messiah's Post:
The lack of any existence is the only natural phenomena which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If there wasn't anything that existed, it (what?) whould need no justification. My conention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of that which isn't anything, as it pertains to logic. Logically it is NOT "that which does not exist", because "that which doesn't exist" doesn't exist...

That last sentence strikes at the heart of that matter, because that is exactly what the concept of "nothing" is ("that which doesn't exist"). And that is why the "exercise in nothing semantics" works. There is no thing called "nothing", because that would be something, and by definition "nothing" isn't anything. If it's not anything, than there is no "it" to speak of, and the logic of something's coming from "it" has no meaning.

P.S. Did you notice how well your logic worked against the ability of "nothing" to exist, once run through the "exercise"?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Revised Version of Messiah's Post:
The lack of any existence is the only natural phenomena which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If there wasn't anything that existed, it (what?) whould need no justification. My conention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of that which isn't anything, as it pertains to logic. Logically it is NOT "that which does not exist", because "that which doesn't exist" doesn't exist...

The lack of any existence is not 'nothing'. That is JUST my point.
The logical definition of nothing is that which is equivalent to Zero.

Math has a mechanism which describes this. It is called an equation. It requires the elements of every argument to be equivalent on opposite sides of the equation. The difference between the left and right side of an equation is always Ø. It is the foundation of logic.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
There is no "that which does not exist". How much sense does it make to say that there is something that doesn't exist? If it's something, it exists. If it's not something, then there is no "it" to speak of.

Your flaw is rather evident in a post where you said that an abstract definition of "nothing" is " ". This is incorrect, as there is a defined place for something to exist (between the two quotation marks ...

Yes, I was using absurdity to illustrate the point. :)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The lack of any existence is not 'nothing'. That is JUST my point.
The logical definition of nothing is that which is equivalent to Zero.

Math has a mechanism which describes this. It is called an equation. It requires the elements of every argument to be equivalent on opposite sides of the equation. The difference between the left and right side of an equation is always Ø. It is the foundation of logic.

How many things fit in the set of "nothing"? Take the word apart, it means no...thing. There are no things in the set of "nothing". Thus, nothing does mean the lack of any existence, because if anything exists, then it is the set of something, not nothing.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Netme
Logically 0 cannot be defined as nothing since that is what all things are created from. I see 0 as the medium in which god uses to create existence.

Please allow us your definition of 'nothing'.

Is is empty space??

If something has a physical presence in the Universe, then it EXISTS. Though it is quite different in nature from the physical phenomenon we call matter, space is not a non-existence. And the fact that the only property of space we can discern is its inertness is not remarkable. The existence of an infinite expanse of space devoid of matter would require no less justification than an infinite expanse of matter devoid of space.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
How many things fit in the set of "nothing"? Take the word apart, it means no...thing. There are no things in the set of "nothing". Thus, nothing does mean the lack of any existence, because if anything exists, then it is the set of something, not nothing.

We are becomming bogged down in semantics.
The definition of 'nothing' as it applies to logic is Ø, Zero, the empty set.
If you try to define 'Nothing' as that which is not defined (does not exist), your premise is self-defeating.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
We are becomming bogged down in semantics.
The definition of 'nothing' as it applies to logic is Ø, Zero, the empty set.
If you try to define 'Nothing' as that which is not defined (does not exist), your premise is self-defeating.

I didn't say it was not defined. I said that it was the set of all things that are not things (how can this be wrong?). Since there are no things that are not things, nothing is a set of things that don't exist.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say it was not defined. I said that it was the set of all things that are not things (how can this be wrong?). Since there are no things that are not things, nothing is a set of things that don't exist.

That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes. It is not what mathematicians call the 'empty set'. It is not a set at all. The easiest way to depict 'Nothing' in its abstract form would be to imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same inert, infinitesimal point NOT in space.

Logic is the interpretation of reality. By observing, defining and comparing the nature of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables. Logic requires definition, so in its abstract or undefined connotation, to perceive 'Nothing' is not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' is not to understand.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is that which does not exist. It is undefined and cannot be perceived.

'Nothing' - in logical terms - is defined as 'the empty set' or 'that which has a logical value of Ø'.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes.

Suppose a group a architects talk about a new bridge to be built. The bridge obviously does not exist. Their plans for building the bridge, attribute properties to the bridge to be realized. Even something that does not exist, can have properties (like height, weight, strength, materials, colour, etc).

 

[wuliheron]

Suppose a group a architects talk about a new bridge to be built. The bridge obviously does not exist. Their plans for building the bridge, attribute properties to the bridge to be realized. Even something that does not exist, can have properties (like height, weight, strength, materials, colour, etc).

Those are the properties of the concept, the plan.

The confusion here is over General Semantics. Nothing and something are like up and down, left and right, front and back. Attempting to define one term independent of the other leads to infinite regress and meaningless mumbo jumbo. Infinite nothingness. Division by zero. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes. It is not what mathematicians call the 'empty set'. It is not a set at all. The easiest way to depict 'Nothing' in its abstract form would be to imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same inert, infinitesimal point NOT in space.

Logic is the interpretation of reality. By observing, defining and comparing the nature of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables. Logic requires definition, so in its abstract or undefined connotation, to perceive 'Nothing' is not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' is not to understand.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is that which does not exist. It is undefined and cannot be perceived.

'Nothing' - in logical terms - is defined as 'the empty set' or 'that which has a logical value of Ø'.

Saying that "nothing" is undefinable is just obviously wrong. Yes you can refer to "it" in terms of what "it" lacks. "It" lacks everything. That means everything, from matter to conceptual potential.

There is, in point of fact, no "it" to refer to. If you can refer to an "it" you are referring to something. The "it" that you are trying to refer to is your concept of what the word, "nothing", means. In truth, there is no "nothing". "Nothing" by definition and logic, is not a thing, and is in fact not anything at all.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Saying that "nothing" is undefinable is just obviously wrong. Yes you can refer to "it" in terms of what "it" lacks. "It" lacks everything. That means everything, from matter to conceptual potential.

If something lacks 'Everything', it must lack a definition.

Thank you for proving the point.

JMc

 

[wuliheron]

It is the ineffable, that which cannot be put into words. That which cannot be said.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
If something lacks 'Everything', it must lack a definition.

Thank you for proving the point.

JMc

That's it's definition, "lacking everything". Thus, since a definition is something, the very concept of "nothing" is paradoxical. I remove the need for talking about such paradoxes, by replacing "nothing" with "not anything" (or a variant thereof).

What do you think it means, when you say "nothing"?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat

What do you think it means, when you say "nothing"?

The only thing which is paridoxical is trying to define the undefined.

Nothing in the abstract is undefined. That which lacks everything would also certainly lack a definition.

The only 'logical' definition (and logic REQUIRES definition) of 'nothing' is Zero or the logical equivalent of Ø.

Have you studied calculus?
When you integrate a differential, there is always an unknown or arbitrary constant in the result.

Logic is a derivative of reality. It loses a bit of definition in the translation of reality to logic.

Yes, the mind has limits. But any question (which does not have a faulty premise) which can be asked, can be answered.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The only thing which is paridoxical is trying to define the undefined.

Nothing in the abstract is undefined. That which lacks everything would also certainly lack a definition.

The only 'logical' definition (and logic REQUIRES definition) of 'nothing' is Zero or the logical equivalent of Ø.

Have you studied calculus?
When you integrate a differential, there is always an unknown or arbitrary constant in the result.

Logic is a derivative of reality. It loses a bit of definition in the translation of reality to logic.

Yes, the mind has limits. But any question (which does not have a faulty premise) which can be asked, can be answered.

This whole time, you are referring to a null set, and naming it "nothing". I could name it "buttocks", and it wouldn't matter, because that's not what the word "buttocks" means, and it's not what the word "nothing" means.

A set is something, that means that the word "nothing" does not refer to a set.

There is no thing that truly "lacks everything". Take the 3rd and 4th words of the previous sentence, put them together, and you get a word that must meant (because of the previous sentence) something that does not exist.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
This whole time, you are referring to a null set, and naming it "nothing". I could name it "buttocks", and it wouldn't matter, because that's not what the word "buttocks" means, and it's not what the word "nothing" means.

A set is something, that means that the word "nothing" does not refer to a set.

There is no thing that truly "lacks everything". Take the 3rd and 4th words of the previous sentence, put them together, and you get a word that must meant (because of the previous sentence) something that does not exist.

APPLAUSE ! ! !
I think you are getting the idea. YES, nothing (in the abstract sense) doesn't exist. It is a fiction.

Mathematics is a QUANtitative analysis. There IS a logical definition of 'nothing' in mathematics. It is Ø. It can be +1+(-1). ANY countervalent values which have the logical value of Ø.

What I am trying to portray is the idea that there is a QUALatative equivalent of 'Ø' or nothing which can be +banana+(-banana). Matter and anti-matter. But the actual countervalent equivalence may be more complicated than a simple positive vs negative.

Have you browsed Theory of Reciprocity. The theory is WAY too long to post here.

Hang in there Mentat.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
It is the ineffable, that which cannot be put into words. That which cannot be said.

YEAH - Semantics is a bit*h. Can you develop a device by which we can transfer ideas in brain language??

(Don't laugh - they are working on it as we speak)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
APPLAUSE ! ! !
I think you are getting the idea. YES, nothing (in the abstract sense) doesn't exist. It is a fiction.

Mathematics is a QUANtitative analysis. There IS a logical definition of 'nothing' in mathematics. It is Ø. It can be +1+(-1). ANY countervalent values which have the logical value of Ø.

What I am trying to portray is the idea that there is a QUALatative equivalent of 'Ø' or nothing which can be +banana+(-banana). Matter and anti-matter. But the actual countervalent equivalence may be more complicated than a simple positive vs negative.

Have you browsed Theory of Reciprocity. The theory is WAY too long to post here.

You are missing the point. "Nothing" (as you refer to it), or the state of non-existence, obviously/logically does not exist. This means that there isn't anything for mathematics to try and quantify/measure/explain, on this topic. The number "0" is something. The empty set is something.

Hang in there Mentat.

Actually, I got to go now .

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
You are missing the point. "Nothing" (as you refer to it), or the state of non-existence, obviously/logically does not exist. This means that there isn't anything for mathematics to try and quantify/measure/explain, on this topic. The number "0" is something. The empty set is something.
Actually, I got to go now .

Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.

See you tomorrow?? (I like the mental exercise)

 

[wuliheron]

Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.

The fact or state of existing; being.
The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.

Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, irrational. Saying existence just IS or, is Being itself is rhetorical nonsense. Saying it is not a condition, state of being, or process denies the very definition of the word.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact or state of existing; being.
The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Life is a condition, something temporary. Existence is not. When you die, the cosmic dust which comprises your body will continue to exist. And so will you - the thing inside which compiled and compells it - you will BE dead...but you will BE.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, irrational. Saying existence just IS or, is Being itself is rhetorical nonsense.

Logic is derived from the laws of nature. The laws of nature are derived from the properties of all which exists. Existence is the very foundation of logic.

Originally posted by wuliheron Saying it is not a condition, state of being, or process denies the very definition of the word.

Ok - then what is YOUR definition