How can anything come from nothing

[Mumeishi]

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.

 

[wolram]

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]

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.
This is yer brain on ones.
This is yer brain on zeros and ones.

 

[Mumeishi]

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 spatial 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

 

[Mentat]

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?

 

[Mentat]

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.

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.

 

[Mentat]

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![/color].

 

[Arcs_Central]

Mumeishi

Particles

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]

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]

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 going to 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]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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?

 

[Mentat]

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.

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]

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?

 

[Mentat]

Couldn't resist (I'm just too proud of my gem from long ago, 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]

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]

Just to let you 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]

Mentat

I had a nice little post written up for you under the name Arc_Centralz, but it didn't post.
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 their 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 receiving 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 you stick around, because I can't say I've run across anybody so in tuned to nothing. I can say I've been doing 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).

 

[Mentat]

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]

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 what's 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 their 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 there's (not a damn thing) I can do about it.

I will make a convert out of you yet.

 

[Mentat]

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 what's 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 ), 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 there's (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]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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]

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?

 

[wolram]

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"

 

[pace]

Exatcly

 

[bandonrun]

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]

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.

 

[wolram]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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)?

 

[Mentat]

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).

 

[amp]

I'm addressing Zantra's question from page one

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 referred 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]

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 going to 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.

 

[wolram]

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 going to 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 haven't seen this equation before, i
think i will leave it to the mathamaticians to solve.

 

[Mentat]

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[/color]) "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 going to 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 receives 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]

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.

 

[Messiah]

Much Ado About Nothing

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

 

[UltraPi1]

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 receives 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]

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}}}}

 

[Messiah]

'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

 

[wolram]

so is it logical to say "something", has always existed?

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Messiah]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Messiah]

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]

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.

 

[Messiah]

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 truly countervalent existences. Their collision would cause their mutual annihilation, not just a conversion.

 

[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. 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.