What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[connect]

Time is so misunderstood, time is compounded of 2 aspects.

A linear and circular/pendulum effect.

Linear - 1, 2, 3, 4
Cyclic - odd, even, odd, even.

Consider a tree, it lives in a world of day and nights (circular), but it grows upwards (linear).

The compounded effect is growth (expodential).

Start by drawing a small circle at the bottom of a page, continue growing the size of the circle and moving upwards.

The effect this gives is tree/mushroom shaped.

 

[Fallout]

I would disagree here - Rather ...Thats all you would have is time. There just wouldn't be a tic or tock to time.

but that's my point, if u have time, that is something, therefore is not nothing.

 

[Chronos]

Much adieu about nothing here [I couldn't resist]. It is more useful and scientific to discuss 'nothing' in mathematical, rather than philosophical terms. In science, 'nothing' is easily defined. It's the number zero. There are an unlimited number of ways to arrive at an answer of zero in science. But, it has no stand alone meaning, only relational [which is true of any number]. If you properly construct the reference frame of a problem in heuristic terms, you will have experiment which has three possible outcomes: either it will result in achieving state A, state B, or neither [zero]. e.g., if you mix the proper proportions of base and acidic solutions, the ph of the resulting mix will be zero.

 

[n0n]

I agree Chronos, but that's why its a philosophy, because it covers a grater area then state a or state b or 0. that's what the whole concept of N0N is about, were both N's are a single point and 0 represents an n amount of N.

on a side note. Time couldn't be a tick or tock or a - then + for or even both for one tick tock is a gear (effect of gravity) and - or + is a (photon emition), its a clock which cannot measure time correctly but only for its body, and no other body in motion. thierfor time is a frame of a % in the relation to 299792458m/s or c. c is 1 frame of time within all the distance of the universe if c is mantained. and still proof time = infinite distance

c = 299792458 m/s
time units to travel distance @ speed = ((Distance / (Speed / c)) / Distance)
Time = Distance / Speed , or 0 time dilation ie, speed = c, distance = 299792458 will result in the correct reading of just Time = distance / speed
offset of time bassed on gravity and photon emition = Time - time units to travel distance @ speed

and this works hehe, no graphs, just an uncompiled program testing it, cause microsoft won't give out any free stuff cause they got 6,billion$ in random stocks. gready lamors

 

[Messiah]

Relativity

From a vantage of finite logic - relativity - if you had the same quantity of +mass and -mass located a trillion light years distant from each other, then you would have the equivalent of 'Nothing' in two locations a trillion light years apart.

From a vantage of the undefined reality of infinity the picture is a little different.

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, every point in the cosmos is its center.

Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/99^999,999,999,999,999 . As the denominator of a fraction increases, its value decreases. Though infinity is undefined and cannot be represented by a value, it is obvious that if the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator may be, the ratio approaches Zero as the denominator grows to ‘approach infinity’. Any finite distance compared to infinity yields a ratio of Zero.

From an infinite vantage, the equal quantities of +mass and -mass occupy the same point (the center) and the distance between them is Ø (in fact their size is also Ø).

So long as qualitatively the two subjects are opposite equivalents, then relative to infinity "NOTHING' exists - has no size and no positional differential.

 

[n0n]

*Applauds* TOE includes nothing and so is answered as such. :D

Did you read post #329.. they only thing I don't have included is why pi = 0, its just something I happened to find in my pi days (snicker's, like a year, if that, ago).

Date: 10/17/97 at 11:29:15
Equasion From: John K. Koehler

e^(2*i*pi) = 1
e^(-2*pi) = 1 (raised both sides to i and 1^n is 1)
-2*pi = 0 (took the ln of both sides and ln(1) = 0)
pi = 0 !

and their is another possable proof, is pi big enough to collapse in on itself at a finite distance of instant? Ie. pi is infinite right, well at some point could it reconnet to itself causeing a division. oh and I don't know if the opposite wouldn't be an exact equivalent for that would just equal 1/1=1 so a slite offset must be. it doesn't even have to be pi could be e or i or that weird cursive L thing.

puts a weird face on god thou, I still think god exists, thou not the christian god. I like my version of god a lot better, not cause of morals, the interpetation of morals for the christian population seems to be pretty good. but christ didnt walk on water, nor do I think healed the sick or rase the dead or even rasie from the dead himself. I look at it more like santa clause, he was a real person, and now he visits every good little boys, and girls homes once a year and never misses a date. Even if he's been dead for who knows how long.

hehe I remember hearing a story about why reighndeer could fly. something like it being an irish tradition to drink reigndeer urin or something (maybe it wasnt irish, I cannot remember, could have been american :P j/k) and the reighdeer would eat shrooms (the drug kind), and they'd start trippen or something.

 

[Chronos]

I agree Chronos, but that's why its a philosophy

And that is my objection. Philosophy is not science. Langauge is inexact and inefficient as a description of reality. Mathematics is the preferred language of science. It is not complete, but, it is a much better descriptive model than logic. Since the time of Aristotle, math has scored more TKO's than logic ever dreamt of.

Philosophy and intuition may point us in the right direction, but, they will not validate or result in useful theories.

Scientist: I am standing up.
Philosopher: On what?
Scientist: My own two feet.
Philosopher: How do you know that?
Scientist: Because I can feel it.
Philosopher: Now what do you feel?
Scientist: You standing upon my own two feet.
Philosopher: You and I must be the same person.

 

[connect]

Modern (imperical) science is a method for accummulating data to find patterns in what appears to be the unknown behaviour of a subject object within a particular context over time.

The intentions of the methods are too discover general rules (patterns) for the apprent behavior.

Philosophy is the root of science, it is in philosophy that you learn how to ask questions. Questions can then have their answers revealed (the discovery of patterns/expressions) by using a method (imperical science).

What is the point of asking if time exists or not?

The question is flawed from the start, time is something that we define to express a concept or notion. Philosophy is the discussion of notions using abstract variables where the variables can be numbers or expressions (numbers are actually expressions of the relationships between aspects in a binary framework).

Nothing (0) is the 'intial' state of something, before it has been related to the 'next' state (1).
Once the 'next' state comes along (1) you can explore the relationships between the first state (0) and the second state (1).

 

[Erck]

What is the point of asking if time exists or not? Nothing (0) is the 'intial' state of something, before it has been related to the 'next' state (1). Once the 'next' state comes along (1) you can explore the relationships between the first state (0) and the second state (1).

In terms of an "initial" state... the nature of nothing doesn't contain time... therefore that implies at least one reason why nothing can't change to something. It would have to do it at a certain time. Not to mention that there wouldn't be any space for it to happen.

After something exists is a different story.

 

[n0n]

hmm.. so philosophy contains no answers? I think their for I am. is that not a philosophic answer. whatever, science and philosophy must blend for they are both correct and are incorrect without the other. for one an answer in philosophy is deduced with the same means as science, It must make Sence. and that should be enough.

what is that fake mask of life, but that core from which you place everything on? for if you cannot understand that then how do you know what you understand as science isn't flawed, or is better stated, how do you think outside the "box"? or should we think every action taken is a random effect of things we eat, breath, preseive, dream, and think (and if you know what random is then you have found yourself to know nothing, pun intended) If you can find philosophical trueth within the science of reaction then you have found a mathmatical proof of such. and hence you get " every action has an equal and opposite reaction". which is again philosophy of trueth, especially within a world whos only trueth is based apon every other persons version of their own, like a handed down story (remember santa clause, he did exist now he's dead for who knows how long and he makes yearly visits to all the good little boys and girls).

I made up my own from the ground up, and said screw society because if I cannot figure it out on my own then it is not for me to be knowen. find your own way, which means if it makes sense then let it make sense but do not stop thinking about it. I question my ideas nearly every day in every way I can possably think of. I had to drop like 3 other TOE's that I had developed because I found flaws in every one of them, but not this one not yet, so far the only thing I get is "dont think about incomprehensable numbers" and all I can say is, " are you crazy, cause if i did think just about incomprehensable numbers I would be". if you don't want to see what it means then dont, I could really care less, I am free beyond anything anyone has defined as free for as me to know what "I" really means is beyond a definition for its is a respect of understanding, that knows whatever it learns.

 

[n0n]

in reply to erck, I say a 0 is a state of time their for so are random or chaotic events of logic.

 

[connect]

What is the distance between 2 and 7?

 

[Erck]

in reply to erck, I say a 0 is a state of time their for so are random or chaotic events of logic.

Which kind of "zero" are you referring to?

The zero that comes after something... meaning a lack of something?

Or the zero that preceeds the something?

 

[Manly Smite]

Zero has a value of X time base, it is not a number! please quit using zero as a value of nothing.

10 = 1 times base
11 = 1 times base pluse 1
22 = 2 times base pluse 2
A5 = A times base pluse 5

the Zero is a place holder for the times base value.

Nothing = Nothing = no movement, no time, no space, it is a place not yet made.
Get Over it! you can't go there. It is out of your reach...

 

[Philocrat]

Our conception of Reality is the problem by design, or should I say by 'Original Design'. It is perfectly possible to claim that there is no such thing as Nothing. To make such a claim as 'this room is empty' or 'the universe is empty', or whatever, is almost pointlless. However, I am not saying that we should stop relating the concept of a thing to the concept of Nothing or Nothingness. It's currently a matter of representational convenience, at least by the standards of the original design of the human mind. The mind by its original design is constantly relating things as we find our ways around the world. This is not going to end overnight, not unless we are ready to go back to the drawing board.

The biggest problem is this:

Qauntitatively, we return to the problem of description and explanation of things; especially when any attempt to mathematically or logically destroy a universal set always returns us back to some spatiotemporal relation, therefore disposing of the possibility of there being Nothing. How can there Nothing when everything seems to be eternally enslaved in its own being? Infact, both mathematics and logic owe their existence entirely to this possibility.

 

[Philocrat]

A more disturbing part of this problem is the persistent claim that 'Something can manifest or come from Nothing'. Well, I don't thinkl so...not unless we are prepared to counter-claim that 'Nothing is Something'. Why? Because I have always thought of this to be a design error transmuted from the 'subject of perception to the object of perception', and not the reverse. I will expand on this later...

 

[Chronos]

Quantum physics routinely permit something from nothing, albeit for a very short time.

 

[connect]

Has anyone read Liebnez?

The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9 (Loemker 1969: 308). It states that no two distinct substances exactly resemble each other. This is often referred to as ‘Leibniz's Law’ and is typically understood to mean that no two objects have exactly the same properties. The Identity of Indiscernibles is of interest because it raises questions about the factors which individuate qualitatively identical objects. Recent work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the principle fails in the quantum domain.

An example of this is a controlled experiment, although we are only meant to change one property, two will actually always change. What is meant by this is that it is:

- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen in the same space at the same time. This by defintion makes it the same event.

- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen at the same time in the same space This by defintion makes it the same event.

To summarise, things that happen in the same place and the same time are the same thing. So if we do experiments in the same test tube one after the other they will have occurred at different times. If we do experiments in different test tubes but at the same time...think about it.

 

[Philocrat]

Quantum physics routinely permit something from nothing, albeit for a very short time.

Well, mathematical physics proposes thus, but multivalent apparatus of logic professes otherwise. The failure to reduce mathematics to pure logic does not undermine this fact. If any, the relation between Something and Nothing is fictional. It remains a representational convenience that has no foundation in reality. And until the human mind is redesigned, man will always tie a fictional relationship from Nothing to Something.

The BIG question is this:

If there has never been any REAL relation between Nothing and Something, how then is it possible for there to be any change from one to the other. Going in and out of existence in real terms is not only quantitativey absurd but also logicaly filthy.

My own belief is that something always changes from something to something, and never to nothing, let alone from nothing back to something.

 

[Chronos]

Then we are in agreement Philocrat, as odd as that may seem. Absolute nothing is a philosophical concept. Philosophical 'nothing' is utterly undefinable in terms of any known measurable properties, such as position, mass, velocity, charge, etc. And it is incapable of affecting the properties of 'things' we can measure. Therefore, philosophical nothing does not exist in the physical universe.

The term 'nothing' only has meaning when used in the mathematical sense [zero], which is a relational concept. How many apples are in a barrel of pickles? None, zero. However, the pickles would disagree if you concluded the barrel held 'nothing'.

Quantum phyics predicts 'virtual' particles continuously pop in and out of existence everywhere and all the time. This has been confirmed by observation and is widely accepted by the scientific community. However, virtual particles do not arise from 'nothing'. They are manifestations of fluctuations in the quantum field which fills all of spacetime. You cannot directly observe the quantum field itself. It has no inherent properties that can be observed or measured [at least at present]. So it looks like absolutely 'nothing' is there, until a virtual particle pops in. That is how we know 'something' was there all along [the quantum field].

 

[connect]

I believe I have described the quantum field as a matrix (that create space) with a set of atomic operations (that create time). This is a mathematical model that can account for any the effects of any theory.

All numbers stem from binary activity, i.e. one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other.

The distance between whole numbers is the same, numbers have a circular (regular intervals) nature.

Modern physics is about studying fluctuations in the relationships of component parts in an enclosed observation moving through space.

(Note I said the observation was moving as well, what I mean is - if we observe something, our 'point of focus' [the observation] moves with it.).

 

[pelastration]

All numbers stem from binary activity, i.e. one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other, one after the other.

The distance between whole numbers is the same, numbers have a circular (regular intervals) nature.

Also numbers are relative from your framework, point of view or goal. For example numbers can refer to steps (cfr. in Catalan numbers) or can refer to identical units (distance like you call it).

 

[n0n]

connect: 1- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen in the same space at the same time. This by defintion makes it the same event.

2- Its impossible to have 2 different events happen at the same time in the same space This by defintion makes it the same event.

the first one I agree with, but the second Is not true. for I can have a rock, say its green, and it weighs, has momentum, and is a tempeture. so I can have now 5 different events happen at the same time, and the are linked to one event but they themselfs are 5 different events each independent. we can call the rock a pet plane, and art lumes, or even humor.

 

[connect]

the first one I agree with, but the second Is not true. for I can have a rock, say its green, and it weighs, has momentum, and is a tempeture. so I can have now 5 different events happen at the same time, and the are linked to one event but they themselfs are 5 different events each independent. we can call the rock a pet plane, and art lumes, or even humor.

The examples given are logical equivelants, i.e. 2 ways of saying the same thing!

The 'five events' you refer to are actually properties or aspects of that event, i.e. the sum of the observers properties = the total of the observers subject object.

Everything is fluxuation so cannot really have a 'fixed' weight in motion, only in a single point of time. A point has no distance it is just a perceptial horizon, i.e. is part of the observers reality.

 

[n0n]

but time is an event too, for it exists, and their is no single point of time unless your going the speed of light. you replace frame rate, with the term event. for time is fluid with the speed one is traveling, and one is always traveling at veriable speeds, and temp., ect., say for instance the center of our Earth is ageing differently then us on the serface, and is a linked event of speed.

hmm.. what if I then spray the green rock black heat it up till it fractures, cool half the fracture with liquid nitrogen, and heat the other half back up to melting, squish them together, dance around sining labamba with on foot straped into a snowbaord, trying to make the rain god bring bearded frogs to over take the world, I through the rock as a sacrafice to the rain god, but to my dismay he didnt reach far enough and it knocked myself out to stop the event from even happening.

is that considered one event too? think this kind of falls under the whole, is god real thing, were god = all. but see if all = all , then all can only explain all and cannot explain the inner workings of the linked events to cause a car to run, or for life to breath.

thier for if any said event is said, it then exists within the physical.. so I just saved the world :D on accident, you all better be grate full hehe .

see connect under that principle a stream of events could be called one event, but its not one event for every aspect is an event separet from the other, when I heat up a rock it expands as it gets hotter, that is a linked event or one event. but to call a green rock the same event as a rock that is say in my front yard going around the planet the same event. in general they are effecting the same object, but I could paint the rock red set it back down, and the event of rotation wouldn't be effected at all. their for the connection between the events is not of the same linked point.

see what I'm getting at?

 

[Erck]

All "things" are events, of course.

Time itself however, is not an event. Nor is space.

All events happen in space, separated by distance, because of time.

Space and time are contained within something else.

 

[connect]

Space and time are contained within something else.

Why?

Contained in what exactly?

It appears to me that space and time are a bit more consistent than we are.

It also appears to me that we actually live in and are defined by space and time?

 

[Erck]

I agree we live in space and time... but it doesn't mean they aren't contained in something else.

If I told you, I'd have to shoot you. :)

 

[connect]

Im just trying to find the basis for 'space that exists outside of other space'.

If you think about that, it just means that 'on the outside of one space there is other space'.

Ill put it to you again that 'it is only possible to have space'.

Or a bit more refined 'it is only possible to have different types of space configurations relative to other space configurations'.

These space configurations are in constant flux, changing, from one to the next, hence time.

I think its one of those things that is so obvious it is taken for granted and forgotten.

Im bullet proof (to a certain extent...)

;)

 

[Chronos]

If space and time are 'contained' inside of something else, what contains the 'container'? Kind of defeats the whole notion of a 'universe' when you rely upon external entities to explain it. For the most part, that just neatly avoids the question.