Exploring the Nature of Nothingness and Existence

[Philosophysics]

Consider the eastern notion that in space we can see the order of the world. psychological states can be induced with certain a understanding and allowing of space. It is in this space that we find thoughts, structures, patterns, energy etc a stream of all information that combines with our human capacity to understand. Physics comes closest to explaining this nothingness- but we must see beyond the chance of its contents and try to stare into the nature of the structure.

There is no string in actual metaphysical (for want of a better word)nothing but it is in nothing that we find everything like theories of string running through everything.

Should we understand the concept of "non-reality/existence" much more thouroughly before we begin to explain what constitutes the unification of actuality?

 

[mceddy2001]

In your thread you have asked no questions. But in my opinion you can say any thing in philosophy and there could be no evidence for or against it. For instance; is our universe a computer simulation (like in the Matrix trilogy) there is no evidence for or against it, i know this is a very De Carte way of thinking, but is this what your trying to get at?

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

I guess once you identify "nothing" as being a state or condition of being/existence, it then becomes something by the necessity of having a word or label attached to it.
My personal belief is that "nothing" or a "vacant vaccum" does not exist. What humans perceive to be "nothing" is merely a state that our nervous systems and senses simply can't interpret. In others words, even a vacuum is "something".

 

[mceddy2001]

Could it be that we only percieve the "font-end" of our universe and that there is a some kind of system woven into the fabric of space time which we don't see?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Could be, could not be. By your definition we could never tell, and so Occam's razor suggests it's not worth worrying about.

 

[Mentat]

selfAdjoint is right about Occam's Razor, but I disagree that we can't really know. In truth, a semantic error was committed in the very first post, and thus yet another debate could be needlessly spawned from nothing.

Nommos, the word nothing means "not anything", it doesn't refer to anything. So, there is no concept to which a word has been attached (as is usually the case), but instead, there is a word that doesn't refer to any concept at all.

Philosophysics, I don't understand the need to understand a state of non-existence, in order to form unified theories. After all, a state of non-existence cannot, by it's very definition, exist at all, and is thus irrelevant anyway isn't it?

Welcome to the PFs, btw, Philosophysics.

 

[Philosophysics]

in reply

OK, I always assume people know my contexts. All I mean by nothing at this point is that which you cannot touch but that that we definitely know exists- I am talking of the symbolic realm of dreams, meditation, contemplative thought, drug induced phenomena- we can say "this reacts with this and it does this"... but I'm talking about the subcurrent of all these things... the place where these things happen. The very structure- take away humanity and the symbolic space of- mind, geometry, all information etc exists even though it is not there- sensory deprevation or enlightenment allows us into this space... take away the presence of the human, the facts still remain. Wipe out humanity and mathes is still there waiting to be discovered in this nothingness.

My question is, what does physics say of this nothing? Wouldn't understanding the structure of this symbolic nothing bring us closer to the truth of something/actuality?

Just because you cannot measure it does not mean it is not physical fact and that it should not be included in physics. We all know we get ideas from nowhere, so why can't physics try to symbolically measure this nowhere and reveal more about somewhere-

My point is, how can we get a TofE when we don't put everything into the equation?

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

A new TofE?

Regarding a TofE.
There is an extremely interesting article in New Scientist this week (No2419). It is written by Leonard Susskind and concerns string theory, pocket universes and reality's true nature. The basic crux of the article is the environmental interpretation of the anthropic principle, which henceforth seems to get rid of the need for a God “to create” the cosmological constants.
Anybody else read it yet? It seems to be relevant to this thread.

 

[kyle_soule]

To me, it seems, that if it is not tangible it doesn't exist outside of your mind, yours meaning YOURS alone.

If you deduce these theories and such from nothing, they are what we call universal laws, they aren't in nothing they are in everything. Two sets of two sticks put together will always equal four. The mathematics are not kept in the 'nothing', it is simply a universal law that when taken out of our universe is not a law of that system (it may be but we cannot predict it to be). The nothing cannot be kept in the universe if it is ULTIMATE truth as you seem to want and imply it to be.

Back to what I said first, if these laws can only be deduced by symbols then it is conceivable that nobody sees these laws the same. Symbolicly, a circle to me could represent a star and to you a donut. The nontangibles you are talking about are just things, such as religion, that are waiting for individual self-revelations, be it through Meditation or dreams. Of course these revelations can only hold sway to your mind. You can try your damndest to convince someone else of the truth you so easily grasp in your mind, but they will never see it.

Physics uses processes only involved with tangible things. All sciences must have real physical data to operate. Or theoretical physical data but they cannot operate on theoretical nonphysical data. There is nothing to be predicted or found in truly empty space. If that space is empty no laws exist in it, two plus two no longers equals four because there is no proof of it.

 

[mikelus]

Where does nothing arrive from?
From are existence or
From a worked out math problem that proves it, but still you never understand why it works. since it's just an answer on a piece of paper
since nothing is as big as something. We learn from our opposites. something is as big as nothing. Is there ever an exact answer when dealing with questions as big as god.Until we begin to relize the two are acually the same but different. Like the sun and the moon. or like any two things were comparing. nothing I believe is the absense space of something and something is the absense space of nothing when the two are mixed naturally you get life. laws and time are what promote differences between the two.