What do we define as 'existence' and what kind of existence can we recognize?

Mentat

Originally posted by Messiah
For the sake of clarity, please consider nothing=Ø

For every value (quantitative, qualitative, positional) in the Universe there exists an equal and opposite value.
up vs down
-1 vs +1
*quality vs anti-quality
(*this is somewhat more complicated than just positive/negative or matter/antimatter)

Newton had it right. His 3rd law was a reflection of a deeper principle of nature - he just didn't take it far enough.

http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/evurev.gif [Broken]

Theory of Reciprocity
I will not think of the word "nothing" as meaning something. Every time you use the word "nothing", you use it to refer to an entity of some kind. However, that is the opposite of what the word "nothing" means.

Last edited by a moderator:

Messiah

Originally posted by wuliheron
Good question, I was wondering something along the same lines. Modern quark theory suggests that quarks cannot be subdivided. The harder you try to bust them apart the harder they slam back together and a single quark by itself is an oxymoron. Hence, they may well be that elementary particle Democritus first described as "atoms".

Likewise, QM implies there most definitely is a bottom line as to how small things can get. You may be able to convert matter into energy, but you can only subdivide matter so far. Such finding contradict what is called the "chinese ladder" of infinite subdivision ya'll are talking about.
AND
Originally posted by heusdens
Well it was said that an elementary thing, could consist of negative and positive mass. It is almost identical to the situation of a proton, being made out of quarks which have charge in quantities of 1/3, 2/3, but such units of charge are never seen in the real world, cause we cannot realy split the proton into seperate quarks.
There are no naked particles that contain a charge smaller then 1 unit. Quarks only exist in ensembles of 3 or 2, bound by the gluon force (strong nuclear force carrier).
Same as we don't find negative mass in a seperate particle, we don't find split charges in seperate particles.
APPLAUSE
Great -
Now consider that the atom may actually be an individual identity, comprised only of itself. An electron may be a propagative phenomenon which APPEARS to be a particle (like a photon) but is actually only a chain reaction from one atom to another.

From the human ability to observe, there is nothing in physics which seems to negate this perspective.

Theory of reciprocity

heusdens

Originally posted by Messiah
AND

APPLAUSE
Great -
Now consider that the atom may actually be an individual identity, comprised only of itself. An electron may be a propagative phenomenon which APPEARS to be a particle (like a photon) but is actually only a chain reaction from one atom to another.

From the human ability to observe, there is nothing in physics which seems to negate this perspective.

Theory of reciprocity
Well I can't accept that because we can observe electrons apart from atoms, which means, the exist aa seperate entities.

wuliheron

Now consider that the atom may actually be an individual identity, comprised only of itself. An electron may be a propagative phenomenon which APPEARS to be a particle (like a photon) but is actually only a chain reaction from one atom to another.

From the human ability to observe, there is nothing in physics which seems to negate this perspective.
No, nothing that negates it, it is simply synergy considered backwards. Instead of two or more things exhibiting new properties, new properties exhibit parts. As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.

As Aristotle used the absurd to prove the logical and others have used the logical to prove the absurd, your idea is of course paradoxical: Change is the only constant. The distinction is that logic is at least pragmatic and no simplier or easier to use tools are available.

Mentat

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, nothing that negates it, it is simply synergy considered backwards. Instead of two or more things exhibiting new properties, new properties exhibit parts. As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.

As Aristotle used the absurd to prove the logical and others have used the logical to prove the absurd, your idea is of course paradoxical: Change is the only constant. The distinction is that logic is at least pragmatic and no simplier or easier to use tools are available.

heusdens

Originally posted by wuliheron
As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.
Quarks are a different story, they can be identified as seperate entities, but they do not exist "on their own", but always in duo's (mesons) or triplets (baryons) having always neutral "colour" charge.

Electrons are definately seperate entities, they can exist far from atoms.

wuliheron

Quarks are a different story, they can be identified as seperate entities, but they do not exist "on their own", but always in duo's (mesons) or triplets (baryons) having always neutral "colour" charge.
Very funny, a seperate entities that can't be seperated.

heusdens

Originally posted by wuliheron
Very funny, a seperate entities that can't be seperated.
Yes, sometimes nature is funny, and laughs you in the face.

Come and split those quarks, and every attempt to do so, requires so much energy that on the fly you just create more quarks, instead of seperating them.

Nature can be funny, indeed!

Messiah

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, nothing that negates it, it is simply synergy considered backwards. Instead of two or more things exhibiting new properties, new properties exhibit parts. As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.

As Aristotle used the absurd to prove the logical and others have used the logical to prove the absurd, your idea is of course paradoxical: Change is the only constant. The distinction is that logic is at least pragmatic and no simplier or easier to use tools are available.
How would any observer be able to distinguish between two independent elements (consisting only of themselves) and two PARTS of a single independent element?

It is the opinion of the Theory of Reciprocity that an independent identity/element would be that which has qualities and countervalent properties which total Ø. A single, unique manifestation of Zero. If any part of the element ceased to exist or was separated from the whole, the balance would be violated and a law of nature would be broken.

Have you browsed the theory??

wuliheron

Originally posted by Messiah

It is the opinion of the Theory of Reciprocity that an independent identity/element would be that which has qualities and countervalent properties which total Ø. A single, unique manifestation of Zero. If any part of the element ceased to exist or was separated from the whole, the balance would be violated and a law of nature would be broken.

Have you browsed the theory?? [/B]
Sure, I looked at the theory. Nothing equals something, change is the only constant, etc. It is a Pantheistic view of the paradox of existence which fails to directly address these paradoxes it generates. Unless it can prove more useful than existing physical theories it serves no purpose outside of the personal.

How would any observer be able to distinguish between two independent elements (consisting only of themselves) and two PARTS of a single independent element?

Just as up and down can be distinguished within a single unified dimension we call "height". Parts and wholes are relative aspects where each term implies the existence of the other. No parts, no wholes, no wholes, no parts. Both are aspects of a single unified view again we call "identity".

Mentat

Originally posted by Messiah

Have you browsed the theory??
Well I have, and I think it's utter nonsense, from the moment they postulate the existence of nothing. Existence is something.

Besides, if it exists for a certain amount of time, then time must also exist, and that's something as well.

Oh well, that's a topic for another thread - let's not side-track this one.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving