How can anything come from nothing

[Mentat]

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

( 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?

 

[Mentat]

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.

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.

 

[Jimmy]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Jimmy]

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]

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 that's 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Messiah
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.

 

[Sikz]

'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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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?

 

[Mentat]

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).

 

[Mentat]

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]

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]

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 you got to 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.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al you got to 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]

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]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al you got to 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]

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]

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]

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 until you reach a photon? Is that a hypothesis or can you prove it or prove against it?