What Does Nothing Really Mean in the Context of the Universe?

[mosassam]

Heusdens claims do not qualify as 'facts', only educated guesses based on the amount of relevant information available. As has happened many times in the past (too many times to ignore) these 'facts' may turn out as wildly in error.

 

[sd01g]

Ok, suppose i live inside a machine. A virtual world, wherein i came into being this morning and which is around when i wake up and gone when i go to sleep (reboot).

In this virtual world there exists a planet and people. The people claim that the planet is 4.5 billion years old, and they're probably correct as it matches the current state of the universe and how the universe operates.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that the universe was created earlier this morning in such a state as to have a planet that's 4.5 million years old, so the fact that the planet is 4.5 million years old doesn't eliminate the possibility that the universe was created today.

I'm not proposing that it's a likely possibility, although to be honest it's as plausible as any other, I'm only declaring it as a possibility to refute Heusdens claim that the fact that we can show the planet and the universe to be X years old proves that the universe is around when I'm not.
And this is not a wild assumption, it's a logical proposition.

Score: Hyperspeculation 1--Evidence 0

 

[-Job-]

Score: Hyperspeculation 1--Evidence 0

I don't believe you're even up to speed as to what the discussion is about. Why don't you get with the context before entering the context.
The particulars of this "hyperspeculation" aren't relevant.
If somebody has to provide evidence it's you or Heusdens, who are claiming that my unlikely scenario is in fact impossible. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[mosassam]

I have never encountered anyone who could present any empirical, rational, or even imaginary evidence for such a statement.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim or do you expect us to simply accept it?
As you say "Arranging words is easy".

 

[baywax]

Right. And even better stated, the question already assumes some negative, namely that there is only something and not nothing. For if there is only something, it is saying that there is just being, which then is in fact the same as that there is just non-being. There is being and there is non-being only because there is becoming.

I like the idea of becoming. Is this a form of Gradient theory?
I am becoming nothing and I am becoming something.
Is it simultanieous?
Is there a way to distinquish between the two?
Certainly not by the standards of quantum theory.

 

[out of whack]

I don't see the merit of considering what isn't. Considering what is means considering what applies to something or other. But what is the point of considering what doesn't apply?

 

[tree]

If someone was able to make an infinite computer that could accurately simulate some sort of big bang, the universe produced would be simply made of the information or calculations of the program.

Assuming the program takes into account all known physical laws one would be able to view that information in the form of pixels represented in a virtual 3d space. You could even find a planet with life and the people would think they are real but are just a mathematical representation.

Of course the computer would have to calculate faster than time (maybe by using a program to simulate binary switches inside strings?)

Or you might beable to only calculate the slice of information you wish to "view" like when viewing a fractal.

If you could tap into a fractal pattern that represents the state of physical matter in the universe (maybe dna?), and using that as a reference point, the program could simulate an estimation of what is beyond the furthest telescope or smaller than an atom. (But no one can grasp infinity)

Maybe the only thing that exists is information.

 

[heusdens]

As far as i know the universe might have been created earlier today when i woke up, purposedly setup to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Yeah, right.

But then you have a different understanding of what and how the world is.

If you really think that, there is no point in discussing anything with you, nobody can proof you wrong.
But that doesn't mean the idea itself has any use or significance.

All you are saying is that the world is unknowable.

If you like to think that, it is your choice.

 

[heusdens]

I like the idea of becoming. Is this a form of Gradient theory?
I am becoming nothing and I am becoming something.
Is it simultanieous?
Is there a way to distinquish between the two?
Certainly not by the standards of quantum theory.

No, this is dialectics.

Being and non-being are opposing terms which only exist in their unity (that is: they don't have separate meaning), which is becoming.

Being and non-being must be understood as separate moments of becoming.

Take for example water which has two (well in fact three) distinct phase: liquid and gas. When we heat the water it's liquidness vanishes into gas.
There you see that being and non-being in fact belong to each other.
The liquidness ceases to be, but at the same time the gasness comes into being.

 

[heusdens]

If someone was able to make an infinite computer that could accurately simulate some sort of big bang, the universe produced would be simply made of the information or calculations of the program.

Assuming the program takes into account all known physical laws one would be able to view that information in the form of pixels represented in a virtual 3d space. You could even find a planet with life and the people would think they are real but are just a mathematical representation.

Of course the computer would have to calculate faster than time (maybe by using a program to simulate binary switches inside strings?)

Or you might beable to only calculate the slice of information you wish to "view" like when viewing a fractal.

If you could tap into a fractal pattern that represents the state of physical matter in the universe (maybe dna?), and using that as a reference point, the program could simulate an estimation of what is beyond the furthest telescope or smaller than an atom. (But no one can grasp infinity)

Maybe the only thing that exists is information.

How do you have information without material substances??

 

[-Job-]

All you are saying is that the world is unknowable.

If you like to think that, it is your choice.

My choice is that the world is possibly unknowable. Not that it is unknowable.
Apparently your choice is that the world is knowable, and that the idea that it might be unknowable is completely impossible.

 

[heusdens]

My choice is that the world is possibly unknowable. Not that it is unknowable.
Apparently your choice is that the world is knowable, and that the idea that it might be unknowable is completely impossible.

I just stated that your reasoning - possibly the world emerged yesterday, and such - are complete nonsensical. If you allow such nonsensical ideas in your thinking in the world, there is nothing one can be certain of (not even of the existence of the world, it could be all a dilusion taking place in your mind).

It would make all knowledge about the world uncertain.

I do not claim that it must be the case that everything can be known, since there can be potentially many things we do not know, but at least something can be known.

 

[-Job-]

I do not claim that it must be the case that everything can be known, since there can be potentially many things we do not know, but at least something can be known.

But getting back to what you said previously:

Without (human) consciousness, there would still be objective relations, like planets orbiting stars, etc., only that those relations are nor verified in a consciouss mind.

How can you know that, without consciousness, there would still be planets and stars, etc? If you agree that there are many things that we potentially don't know, then you must agree that it's possible that without consciousness there may not be stars and planets around, which is what I've been trying to get at, and that's why i called it an "assumption", and that though plausible and even likely, it's still just an assumption and thus likely at best.
I don't think this is something that controversial, and i wouldn't be nitpicking on it if you hadn't come back to disagree with it by saying:

Well as far as science is concerned, that must be the case, and is not an assumption.

How else can we determine the fact that the Earth is 4,5 billions of years old, and the universe 13,7 billion years old?

After which i proceeded to describe the scenario of a universe created early this morning purposedly set to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe. And i offered it only as a possibility, not as something believe in, just to refute that claim of yours.

 

[mosassam]

How do you have information without material substances??

Are you familiar with the 'reality' of non-locality?

 

[heusdens]

How can you know that, without consciousness, there would still be planets and stars, etc? If you agree that there are many things that we potentially don't know, then you must agree that it's possible that without consciousness there may not be stars and planets around, which is what I've been trying to get at, and that's why i called it an "assumption", and that though plausible and even likely, it's still just an assumption and thus likely at best.
I don't think this is something that controversial, and i wouldn't be nitpicking on it if you hadn't come back to disagree with it by saying:


After which i proceeded to describe the scenario of a universe created early this morning purposedly set to look like a 13.7 billion year old universe. And i offered it only as a possibility, not as something believe in, just to refute that claim of yours.

We "know" that, because that is how we know the universe works.

Cosmology looks at the universe how it was billions of years old. Those stars and galaxies were there before there was humanity around.

Or is that all an illusion?

 

[tree]

How do you have information without material substances??

With two infinite computers, each one 'imagining' each other's existence. The information is convinced that it is material substance because there is nothing to relate it to.

 

[heusdens]

With two infinite computers, each one 'imagining' each other's existence. The information is convinced that it is material substance because there is nothing to relate it to.

Hahahaha

Nice invention.

SO, you take one infinite computer (what is it made of?) to have it run a software program in which the other computer is virtually emulated, and within that second (virtual) computer you emulate the first?

And then you think, you can ignore the hardware of the first?

hahahahahahhahah

hahahhahahahahahahah

You are very amuzing!

This is like how Baron von Münchhausen pulls himself off the ground just by pulling his own hair!

hahahaha

 

[heusdens]

Are you familiar with the 'reality' of non-locality?

How does that relate to information without material reality?

 

[-Job-]

We "know" that, because that is how we know the universe works.

Cosmology looks at the universe how it was billions of years old. Those stars and galaxies were there before there was humanity around.

Or is that all an illusion?

Are you 100% sure that it isn't an illusion?

 

[heusdens]

Are you 100% sure that it isn't an illusion?

What do you mean?

You imply that it could be just an illusion, but then what is the reality behind the illusion? And for that reality too,how do you know it's not also an illusion, and what is the reality behind that? And so on.

So if we have to take the remark seriously, then it is like stating that nothing can be known about reality.

 

[-Job-]

What do you mean?

You imply that it could be just an illusion, but then what is the reality behind the illusion? And for that reality too,how do you know it's not also an illusion, and what is the reality behind that? And so on.

So if we have to take the remark seriously, then it is like stating that nothing can be known about reality.

I'm not denying that a reality wouldn't need to be behind the illusion, only that it's plausible that whatever reality that turns out to be, it might not include planets and stars.
So again, when you say that without human consciousness stars and planets would still exist, that's an assumption, not a fact.

 

[mosassam]

How does that relate to information without material reality?[/

QUOTE]

The information involved in non-local effects,as recorded in many EPR-Bell experiments,transcends causality. It "travels" instantaneouly, and, apparently, without the medium of material substances. Freaky stuff

 

[mosassam]

I'm not denying that a reality wouldn't need to be behind the illusion, only that it's plausible that whatever reality that turns out to be, it might not include planets and stars.
So again, when you say that without human consciousness stars and planets would still exist, that's an assumption, not a fact

.

Reality can be viewed as a unified whole, indeed many QM experiments demonstrate this to be the case. When we (humans) label things - planet, star, chair, whatever - we artificially fragment that unified whole. The rational mind separates, classifies and categorises reality, but in reality this separation does not exist. Without human consciousness this separation (or labelling) would not occur, so it can be stated that without human consciousness stars and planets would cease to exist. To insist they would exist once again shatters the unified whole of reality. On a more basic level, it cannot be proved that stars and planets will exist without human consciousness. It can only be assumed. An educated guess still qualifies as a guess. We do not 'know' how the universe works, we guess how it does. Some people cannot seem to grasp that science does not describe reality, it guesses about it.
Just as everything written above is a guess!

 

[-Job-]

Reality can be viewed as a unified whole, indeed many QM experiments demonstrate this to be the case. When we (humans) label things - planet, star, chair, whatever - we artificially fragment that unified whole. The rational mind separates, classifies and categorises reality, but in reality this separation does not exist. Without human consciousness this separation (or labelling) would not occur, so it can be stated that without human consciousness stars and planets would cease to exist. To insist they would exist once again shatters the unified whole of reality. On a more basic level, it cannot be proved that stars and planets will exist without human consciousness. It can only be assumed. An educated guess still qualifies as a guess. We do not 'know' how the universe works, we guess how it does. Some people cannot seem to grasp that science does not describe reality, it guesses about it.
Just as everything written above is a guess!

Exactly, thank you.

 

[heusdens]

QUOTE]

The information involved in non-local effects,as recorded in many EPR-Bell experiments,transcends causality. It "travels" instantaneouly, and, apparently, without the medium of material substances. Freaky stuff

But you are wrong. There is no spooky action at a distance, since there is no exchange of information or energy instantaniously.

You are erroneous on that.

 

[heusdens]

I'm not denying that a reality wouldn't need to be behind the illusion, only that it's plausible that whatever reality that turns out to be, it might not include planets and stars.
So again, when you say that without human consciousness stars and planets would still exist, that's an assumption, not a fact.

But you are right.If one defines 'existence' as that what is known to the mind, then for sure,planets and stars didn't exist before there was a human mind.
Then the stars and planets were -so to say- created by the human mind.
You can have it your way,if you want that.

Just that for the material sciences, this makes no sense at all.

 

[heusdens]

That is perhaps the biggest 2 question for the whole of existence.
Without it, there would be no sciences, no human, no anything...at all.
Can the laws come into being without matter/universe? Can the universe come into being without the laws? (It is said that universe might come out of a quantum vaccum, but that( quantum vaccum) itself is a laws, a generalization within the universe. Can we apply the laws of nature outside the universe? Is there such a thing as "nothing"? By "nothing", i mean the non-existence of everything.

If by "nothing" you mean non-existence, and by non-existence you mean absence of objective relations, then the universe (all of existence) equals nothing.

There is no outside and apart of the universe, which means there are no objective relations in which there is a separate reality for the universe,and the universe is a separate reality to something else.

 

[mosassam]

But you are wrong. There is no spooky action at a distance, since there is no exchange of information or energy instantaniously.

You are erroneous on that

.

Please enlighten me.

 

[heusdens]

Please enlighten me.

Well it seems to be that two independent measurements on entangled quantum entities influence each other, yet there is no possible way to exchange information in that fashion, because you need both measurements to conclude that there is a correlation.

Perhaps look up some specific threads on this board in Quantum Mechanics that explains this further.

 

[mosassam]

Well it seems to be that two independent measurements on entangled quantum entities influence each other

In what way?

 

[heusdens]

In what way?

Perhaps read this Wikipedia article on EPR paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

 

[mosassam]

Perhaps read this Wikipedia article on EPR paradox

I stand corrected. Many thanks.

 

[moving finger]

But how can there be just being? Being would be just as changeless and featureless as non-being.

I disagree. “Being” does not necessarily imply “changeless being”. Being and becoming are both necessary properties of a cognisant universe. We should not confuse “nothing” with “change”. Being and becoming are two empirical facts of our universe (= “something”); but a universe of “nothing” has no sensible meaning.

The whole issue which makes the question unanswerable is that the question presupposes that being and non-being are only separate notions.

The question is not unanswerable – I’ve provided an answer.

The absolute seperatedness of being and non-being presupposed makes the notion of becoming impossible. To become means things come into being, in which both being and non-being are moments of becoming.

A boy “becomes” a man, but there is no requirement for any change in the constituent elements of the universe to do this – only a reconfiguration of those constituents. There is no creation of any new elements in such a case – at an elemental level the universe simply continues in a state of being, but at a configurational level different configurations come into being, and disappear. But this has nothing to do with the question of whether a universe of “nothing” has any meaning.

The laws of motion can not be separated with matter and motion itself, to the extend that the question then reads: where does matter come from?

That of course has no answer.

There is no "of course" about it. We perhaps do not know the answer at the moment, but it does not follow from our present-day lack of knowledge that the question has no answer.

MF

 

[kant]

If by "nothing" you mean non-existence, and by non-existence you mean absence of objective relations, then the universe (all of existence) equals nothing.

There is no outside and apart of the universe, which means there are no objective relations in which there is a separate reality for the universe,and the universe is a separate reality to something else.

I don t think you understand what i mean by the universe. My "universe" is the continuos space-time physical universe that had it ` s begainning 13 billion years ago.