- #61
sol2
- 908
- 2
Erck said:
Sort of like telling us what a black hole looks like inside?
What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?
- Thread starter Erck
- Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical and scientific interpretations of "nothing" and "absolutely nothing." It emphasizes that "nothing" is defined as the absence of anything, while "absolutely nothing" suggests a deeper state devoid of any implications or properties. The conversation critiques the common conflation of nothingness with the physical vacuum state, which still contains potential for existence. Participants explore the relationship between matter and space, arguing that both concepts are interdependent and cannot exist in isolation. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects on the complexities of defining nothingness and its implications in both philosophy and physics.
Sort of like telling us what a black hole looks like inside?
- #62
Erck
- 178
- 0
Interesting reaction.sol2 said:
A black hole is a microcosmic representation of the big bang.
These two conditions are as close as relativity can get, to becoming absolute.
- #63
paglren
- 28
- 1
Nothing, or Nothingness, is an antinomy
Nothing, or Nothingness, is an antinomy: it negate itself as a thing though it's representation IS evidently something.
The interesting fact is that this antinomy is really outside of any language contest, so we could affirm that it is the "seed of antinomy" or, as I called it, the "Originary Antinomy".
The most interesting consequence is that "Nothingness" can be imagined as infinite oscillations between "not expression" (actually I couldn't write anything) and "expression" of itself.
The subtle difference can be noted by this formula
Since this infinite series of oscillations should be repeated infinite times, we could affirm that in this originary condition neither time nor space exist.
We could yet say that "space" is representative of "manifesting nothing", while "time" is representative of "number of occurrencies of this happening".
Since each occurrence of this "space" must happen at least "one time", it is natural that space and time must be strictly related between them.
Indeed, if we suppose that there is mathematical limit to which the ratio of the two series (Space/Time) converge, this limit would lead to a non breakable limit of speed in a Universe based on this ratio (say the light speed of that Universe?).
Nothing, or Nothingness, is an antinomy: it negate itself as a thing though it's representation IS evidently something.
The interesting fact is that this antinomy is really outside of any language contest, so we could affirm that it is the "seed of antinomy" or, as I called it, the "Originary Antinomy".
The most interesting consequence is that "Nothingness" can be imagined as infinite oscillations between "not expression" (actually I couldn't write anything) and "expression" of itself.
The subtle difference can be noted by this formula
\rightarrow \emptyset
in which the lacking term on the left side of implication sign is the real, unwritable, unthinkable, nothingness. Whatever you think about that lacking is not nothingness though.Since this infinite series of oscillations should be repeated infinite times, we could affirm that in this originary condition neither time nor space exist.
We could yet say that "space" is representative of "manifesting nothing", while "time" is representative of "number of occurrencies of this happening".
Since each occurrence of this "space" must happen at least "one time", it is natural that space and time must be strictly related between them.
Indeed, if we suppose that there is mathematical limit to which the ratio of the two series (Space/Time) converge, this limit would lead to a non breakable limit of speed in a Universe based on this ratio (say the light speed of that Universe?).
- #64
sol2
- 908
- 2
Let's assume Sound in Analogy?
I am responding to Palgren's post using yours.
If the basis then is "oscillations," then the distinction between the balckhole expanding and contracting raise the potential of extremes of energy gatherings, and its collapse?
Matter distinctions are raised in the ideas of such singularties, not as a infintie density, but where all is "ONE."
So in the early universe, dualism is taken out of the picture, for http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@139.mutQbxfLPVq.0@.1dde779c ?
Just thinking out loud
See http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/smaria/ms/aaas03_ms.pdf
Erck said:
I am responding to Palgren's post using yours.
If the basis then is "oscillations," then the distinction between the balckhole expanding and contracting raise the potential of extremes of energy gatherings, and its collapse?
Matter distinctions are raised in the ideas of such singularties, not as a infintie density, but where all is "ONE."
So in the early universe, dualism is taken out of the picture, for http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@139.mutQbxfLPVq.0@.1dde779c ?
Just thinking out loud
See http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/smaria/ms/aaas03_ms.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
- #65
John
- 133
- 0
Trying to describe nothingness, I realized the least thing that can exist is existence itself. Even if nothingness could exist on its own, nothingness would be a state of existence. Therefore the idea of creation is not creation out of nothingness but changing what exists into something else.
When we talk about Space/Time, we believe empty space plus time is the fundamental state from which everything starts. But I realized space is a more complex thing. It can’t be fundamental because there is no natural state of emptiness. The natural state of things is existence.
The next thing, creation, is to modify existence into something else. Force is applied to modify it, but because of inertia the change doesn't occur simultaneous to the force being applied. It occurs later, and that way, we have time. So a more accurate description of Space/Time is Matter/Time. Which suggests space is made of matter. (You can move backwads in space but you can't move backwards in matter. Everything is action, then reaction.)
The Higgs Field is like a space made of matter, like "molasses". He concluded the drag of particles and things through that space is what we see as their mass.
That’s very neat, but I say mass, momentum, etc exists as a natural state of matter, but there is also the drag that comes from a space made of matter when complex systems, molecules, objects move through that space. The vibrant molecule has to power itself through a space that has some drag to it.
If space is defined by particles of matter, then we have a particle of matter separated by nothingness and another particle of matter. When basic particles move, they move from particle to particle. These are physical points of matter, which possesses inertia, that define space. They are exactly like our concept of non-dimensional points, but they are real things and they are not infinite. Take any box and put a certain number of points in it, like fifteen points. If you are a point, to move from point to point, you can only move in a limited number of directions. But if you are not a point, but a complex system, you move through the sea of points that have mass. There is a drag, like the Higgs Field, but the drag is not the whole reason the system seems to have mass. It is only part of the reason. The way that molecules overcome this drag is the same way gravity works.
So the condition of emptiness that we imagine all physics to operate in is wrong. It is more accurate to say we operate in a space made of matter, because matter or fullness is the most basic form of existence, not emptiness.
When we talk about Space/Time, we believe empty space plus time is the fundamental state from which everything starts. But I realized space is a more complex thing. It can’t be fundamental because there is no natural state of emptiness. The natural state of things is existence.
The next thing, creation, is to modify existence into something else. Force is applied to modify it, but because of inertia the change doesn't occur simultaneous to the force being applied. It occurs later, and that way, we have time. So a more accurate description of Space/Time is Matter/Time. Which suggests space is made of matter. (You can move backwads in space but you can't move backwards in matter. Everything is action, then reaction.)
The Higgs Field is like a space made of matter, like "molasses". He concluded the drag of particles and things through that space is what we see as their mass.
That’s very neat, but I say mass, momentum, etc exists as a natural state of matter, but there is also the drag that comes from a space made of matter when complex systems, molecules, objects move through that space. The vibrant molecule has to power itself through a space that has some drag to it.
If space is defined by particles of matter, then we have a particle of matter separated by nothingness and another particle of matter. When basic particles move, they move from particle to particle. These are physical points of matter, which possesses inertia, that define space. They are exactly like our concept of non-dimensional points, but they are real things and they are not infinite. Take any box and put a certain number of points in it, like fifteen points. If you are a point, to move from point to point, you can only move in a limited number of directions. But if you are not a point, but a complex system, you move through the sea of points that have mass. There is a drag, like the Higgs Field, but the drag is not the whole reason the system seems to have mass. It is only part of the reason. The way that molecules overcome this drag is the same way gravity works.
So the condition of emptiness that we imagine all physics to operate in is wrong. It is more accurate to say we operate in a space made of matter, because matter or fullness is the most basic form of existence, not emptiness.
- #66
anandshanbhag2003
- 2
- 0
how vast our universe ,is it limitless?
- #67
p-brane
JesseBonin said:
Kill yourself and send postcards from your place in the anti-life explaining how all existence has become non-existent and how you are the only one existing. Rather self-centered approach, no?
There's no way to prove something does not exist when you're not observing it because you're not observing the lack of existence because you're not observing it and its not there. Its a vicious psycho, and I'm putting it to rest (lol).
Have a nice life.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #68
Erck
- 178
- 0
Good stuff John.John said:
Especially the first paragraph.
In the last paragraph the implication seems to be that we would end up with a representaion of the universe as one solid piece of matter, so to speak.
- #69
Erck
- 178
- 0
This won't clarify your question completely, but the universe does have a set of limits, but they are not absolute.anandshanbhag2003 said:
- #70
pelastration
- 165
- 0
"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?Erck said:
- #71
JesseBonin
- 66
- 0
nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?
- #72
ranyart
- 368
- 0
Erck said:
Relatively speaking one can ask this
ow 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom? 
- #73
Erck
- 178
- 0
>Relatively speaking one can ask thisow 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?
I'd say the unvierse has no size and the atom is a lot smaller than that.
>nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?
Yes, that's the whole idea of no-thing. Absolutely nothing is different.
>"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?
"Outside" information. :-)
ow 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom? I'd say the unvierse has no size and the atom is a lot smaller than that.
>nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?
Yes, that's the whole idea of no-thing. Absolutely nothing is different.
>"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?
"Outside" information. :-)
- #74
ranyart
- 368
- 0
Erck said:>Relatively speaking one can ask this
I'd say the unvierse has no size and the atom is a lot smaller than that.
>nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?
Yes, that's the whole idea of no-thing. Absolutely nothing is different.
>"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?
"Outside" information. :-)
Agreed, where one asks the question is important for the formulation of a Relative answer.
One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero)
- #75
Erck
- 178
- 0
Intersting way of stating it.ranyart said:One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero)
Although, I think it's a conclusion that leads us beyond ambiguity.
- #76
pelastration
- 165
- 0
Nice.ranyart said:Agreed, where one asks the question is important for the formulation of a Relative answer.
One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero)
Here the WU CHI becomes Yin and Yang.
Wu Chi
- #77
Dlanorrenrag
- 32
- 0
On The Art Of Making Something Out Of Nothing
At its limits, I am not sure that science is completely separate from faith or art. At some limits, thinking something so sometimes seems to help make it become so. Someday, might scientific pharaohs be able to say, "So let it be written, so let it be done"? Or, as Shakespeare said, "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Is this possibly part of the gist of the idea:
For there to exist a concept of “no matter,” it would seem that there must exist a conceptualizer as well as a potential for some matter, as if the present lack of matter were merely attributable to an equally symmetrical offsetting of matter and anti-matter. But, might a potential for matter exist even without a conception of matter if a potential for matter were itself endowed with a property or capacity for somehow, over time, consistently recording information regarding a pattern of interactional influences---such as if space could be induced to crack a potential for matter into actual parts of matter, thereby breaking any perfect, symmetrically annihilating effect of anti-matter? Perhaps only if there were both no potential for a conscious concept of matter and no potential for inanimate matter with a capacity for preserving interactional information over an arrow of time could there be a “true or perfect” state of “nothingness.”
At its limits, I am not sure that science is completely separate from faith or art. At some limits, thinking something so sometimes seems to help make it become so. Someday, might scientific pharaohs be able to say, "So let it be written, so let it be done"? Or, as Shakespeare said, "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Is this possibly part of the gist of the idea:
For there to exist a concept of “no matter,” it would seem that there must exist a conceptualizer as well as a potential for some matter, as if the present lack of matter were merely attributable to an equally symmetrical offsetting of matter and anti-matter. But, might a potential for matter exist even without a conception of matter if a potential for matter were itself endowed with a property or capacity for somehow, over time, consistently recording information regarding a pattern of interactional influences---such as if space could be induced to crack a potential for matter into actual parts of matter, thereby breaking any perfect, symmetrically annihilating effect of anti-matter? Perhaps only if there were both no potential for a conscious concept of matter and no potential for inanimate matter with a capacity for preserving interactional information over an arrow of time could there be a “true or perfect” state of “nothingness.”
Last edited:
- #78
John
- 133
- 0
Since we can agree nothing can’t be absolute, possibly we can agree the opposite of nothing can be absolute. I think the whole universe started as one big solid piece of matter, surrounded by nothingness. The first big question was, How strong was the rock the universe was made of? I finally realized it didn't need to have any tensile strength; it just needed to be nearly impossible to compress. What is nearly impossible to compress and has no tensile strength? Water. The entirety of the original universe was like a huge ocean of water. Then I remembered the Bible, where it says: The Earth (or the universe) was formless and void and the spirit of God flew above the waves of the abyss. This describes liquid raw matter.
The most interesting feature was the waves. God, who flew above the surface of the liquid matter created a universe that was made mostly of waves. The waves on the surface of the matter happened because nothingness outside the matter had no space. When a wave rose up, it pushed into nothingness, which pushed back because there was no space. This was the same concept as gravity, and gravity causes the waves of water in the ocean to function. The idea for gravity may have came from the original condition between matter and nothingness. Nothingness is always pushing into matter. We say the whole universe can be understood by understanding gravity, but the real quest may be to understand the universal force that pushes in only one direction, inward.
The Koran has some interesting things to say about creation. It says the original Gods had bodies of smokeless fire. In other words, they were heat. It also says the original Gods broke up the matter to create the universe. So this solid matter, that once did make up the entire universe was broken up into many small pieces by the original Gods, who had bodies of smokeless fire. I am not Muslim. I read this to my amazement after I realized for myself what happened. There was a big heat explosion and all the matter was broken up and thrown out into nothingness, which does not contain space.
Imagine a dust devil. You step on it, and it makes a cloud of smoke made of tiny particles. All the tiny particles define the cloud, just as all the tiny particles from the original matter now define space. They are no longer one solid piece but they are broken up.
If I put periods like this……………it would represent a line. If I wanted to put fifteen periods with no distance between them, it would look
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.
The most interesting feature was the waves. God, who flew above the surface of the liquid matter created a universe that was made mostly of waves. The waves on the surface of the matter happened because nothingness outside the matter had no space. When a wave rose up, it pushed into nothingness, which pushed back because there was no space. This was the same concept as gravity, and gravity causes the waves of water in the ocean to function. The idea for gravity may have came from the original condition between matter and nothingness. Nothingness is always pushing into matter. We say the whole universe can be understood by understanding gravity, but the real quest may be to understand the universal force that pushes in only one direction, inward.
The Koran has some interesting things to say about creation. It says the original Gods had bodies of smokeless fire. In other words, they were heat. It also says the original Gods broke up the matter to create the universe. So this solid matter, that once did make up the entire universe was broken up into many small pieces by the original Gods, who had bodies of smokeless fire. I am not Muslim. I read this to my amazement after I realized for myself what happened. There was a big heat explosion and all the matter was broken up and thrown out into nothingness, which does not contain space.
Imagine a dust devil. You step on it, and it makes a cloud of smoke made of tiny particles. All the tiny particles define the cloud, just as all the tiny particles from the original matter now define space. They are no longer one solid piece but they are broken up.
If I put periods like this……………it would represent a line. If I wanted to put fifteen periods with no distance between them, it would look
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.
- #79
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
If I put periods like this……………it would represent a line. If I wanted to put fifteen periods with no distance between them, it would look
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.
This paragraph is wrong. The bit with the periods is a musunderstanding of continuity, which is not built from a finite number of points like that. And string theory does NOT say there is a distance betrween points. It is a radically "smooth and continuous" theory before quantisation, and quantization brings discrete string states but not discrete points in what they call the target space.
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.
This paragraph is wrong. The bit with the periods is a musunderstanding of continuity, which is not built from a finite number of points like that. And string theory does NOT say there is a distance betrween points. It is a radically "smooth and continuous" theory before quantisation, and quantization brings discrete string states but not discrete points in what they call the target space.
- #80
Erck
- 178
- 0
Is there any semblance of "empty space" in string theory?selfAdjoint said:
- #81
Erck
- 178
- 0
Also... whatever shape a "discrete state" might take and however "target space" might differ from empty space... is this really fundamentally different from the idea of a "thing" and a "no-thing" interchanging with each other... so to speak?selfAdjoint said:
- #82
John
- 133
- 0
String theory says a point in a line is a string, like this
---------------
That is fifteen strings. Or type them connected like this
_______________
That is made with fifteen undelines that connect, each have a length.
Since a string is a point, it is accurate to say fifteen points with distance between them is the same as fifteen strings. It is also accurate to say that when you line up fifteen points that have no length, they make one point. Try this 0+0+0=0
If a string has a length of .012, then three strings gives a line that is .036.
So .012 would be the distance between the points on the line.
What is most interesting is it is more accurate to say a string is two points that have distance between them. You can even more accurately say that a point is a sphere with distance all around it. When you line up fifteen spheres you have a line that looks like this
000000000000000
If you stack those efficiently in a 2D space you create triangles, and in a 3D space you create tetrahedrons. If you stack tetrahedrons you have straight lines going in only six directions. So if space is made out of strings, or points with distance between them, or spheres with distance all around them, you have the unsual fact of only being able to travel in six directions in primary space. To travel in any direction, a point particle has to zigzag through six "dimensions". String theory, the idea that a point on a line is really a small string predicts six extra dimensions. The correlation between my underlying six directions when stacking spheres that have distance all aroud them, and the six extra dimensions is too extraordinary to be ignored.
If points are spheres with distance all around them, then points could be matter fragments of the original state of the universe if it was ever made of solid matter. When you break up the solid matter and separate the pieces, you can only travel from point to point in six underlying directions. Think of the real universe, the points themselves, as solid matter not empty space.
We have concluded that you can't have nothing, total emptiness; so the space in the universe has to be made of matter. There is no empty space, really. There is something, and there is nothing. Nothing does not contain the concept of empty space. So the concept of space has to be made with little fragments of matter that have distance all around them. And that space will have six underlying directions; or six underlying dimensions.
---------------
That is fifteen strings. Or type them connected like this
_______________
That is made with fifteen undelines that connect, each have a length.
Since a string is a point, it is accurate to say fifteen points with distance between them is the same as fifteen strings. It is also accurate to say that when you line up fifteen points that have no length, they make one point. Try this 0+0+0=0
If a string has a length of .012, then three strings gives a line that is .036.
So .012 would be the distance between the points on the line.
What is most interesting is it is more accurate to say a string is two points that have distance between them. You can even more accurately say that a point is a sphere with distance all around it. When you line up fifteen spheres you have a line that looks like this
000000000000000
If you stack those efficiently in a 2D space you create triangles, and in a 3D space you create tetrahedrons. If you stack tetrahedrons you have straight lines going in only six directions. So if space is made out of strings, or points with distance between them, or spheres with distance all around them, you have the unsual fact of only being able to travel in six directions in primary space. To travel in any direction, a point particle has to zigzag through six "dimensions". String theory, the idea that a point on a line is really a small string predicts six extra dimensions. The correlation between my underlying six directions when stacking spheres that have distance all aroud them, and the six extra dimensions is too extraordinary to be ignored.
If points are spheres with distance all around them, then points could be matter fragments of the original state of the universe if it was ever made of solid matter. When you break up the solid matter and separate the pieces, you can only travel from point to point in six underlying directions. Think of the real universe, the points themselves, as solid matter not empty space.
We have concluded that you can't have nothing, total emptiness; so the space in the universe has to be made of matter. There is no empty space, really. There is something, and there is nothing. Nothing does not contain the concept of empty space. So the concept of space has to be made with little fragments of matter that have distance all around them. And that space will have six underlying directions; or six underlying dimensions.
- #83
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
String theory says a point in a line is a string
No it doesn't. You keep saying string theory says this, string theory says that, and you keep getting it wrong.
No it doesn't. You keep saying string theory says this, string theory says that, and you keep getting it wrong.
- #84
John
- 133
- 0
String theory says two point particles can only approach each other so close. To believe it does not say that is to make what is simple too complicated. It says there will always be some distance between point patricles. That simple fact leads to six extra dimensions. I have extended that idea to all points in space and came up with space that has only six underlying directions, which can be called dimensions.
- #85
Erck
- 178
- 0
SelfAdjoint... does string theory presuppose this "space" between strings?
John... I can see your idea that if things broke up and went in all directions that would make it 6... but dimensions? How does one make the leap from direction to dimension?
And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?
John... I can see your idea that if things broke up and went in all directions that would make it 6... but dimensions? How does one make the leap from direction to dimension?
And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?
- #86
paglren
- 28
- 1
Erck said:
It is simpler to think of nothing as the only ... thing that has not to be explained by nobody: it explains by itself... and this make all to exist.
If we speak about space we are immerged in time. If we speak of time we are in some place of space.
Fortunately nothingness can always express itself: with or without us.
Let's think of any computer program (or likely of any card play): were they anything when in mind of some guy?
It is hard to think but "nothing" is always "something else" and my point is that this is the first brick of any knowable Universe.
- #87
Erck
- 178
- 0
I'm with you, I think. Could you rephrase this?paglren said:
- #88
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
Erck said:
Strings exist in the target space no different than we exist in our 3+1 space. The space is continuous, with no gaps in its points. John doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just got his own private theory and is calling it string theory. Don't be fooled.
The dimension of the string target space is fixed by a requirement that makes string theory (the real one) self-consistent. For simple bosonic strings the number is 26 (25 space and 1 time), for superstrings it is 10 (9 space and 1 time) and M-theory, which is a little different, has 11 (10 space and 1 time, but one of the space ones is a little odd).
This is all well understood; there is no room in it for John's personal theories.
- #89
John
- 133
- 0
String Theory is proved by math and experience that does not completely describe existence. We are all immersed in math because it gives us answers, but we can't answer "What is an electron?"
I played with a personal theory starting in 1984 that suggested maybe space is made of individual points.
I found a lot of correlation between my ideas and what we have observed in String Theory.
paglren has the first principle right, except he didn't phrase it right. He said, "think of nothing as the only ... thing that has not to be explained by nobody: it explains by itself... and this makes all to exist"
Rephrasing it right: the thing that has not to be explained by anybody: it explains itself, is existence. We can't start with nothing, we have to start with existence!
What exists is limited. To make it bigger, we break it up and send it out in all directions.
Now we have an array of points that look a lot like an array of stars.
In Flatland, if we have an array of stars (draw 24 randon dots on a piece of paper) try to find three or more of the dots that nearly line up and draw lines through the dots that nearly line up. Look at your lines and group the lines that go in similar directions. Separately draw those groups as parallel lines. You will end up with sets of parallel lines and individual lines. When I did that just now, I ended up with two sets of parallel lines and two lines going in two random directions. One of the single lines was 60 degrees from the two groups, one line was at 30 degrees.
Now look at a snowflake. All the lines in the snowflake are either at 30 degrees or 60 degrees. Even a random array of points produces most of the parallel lines at 60 degrees and some lines at 30 degrees, just like a snowflake. I say a snowflake is fornmed on the stucture of space which is made of points.
If the points are all that exist, in this flatland of points you have only three major lines of dimension and three other minor lines of dimension. You can only go from point to point. The points are all that exist. The points aren't random places picked out of nothing. You can't do that because nothing doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is existence. So therefore, at the most basic level in this plane made of points, which look like stars, there are three primary dimensions and three secondary dimensions, which sounds a lot like 25 space dimensions and 9 space dimensions.
So String Theory seems to agree with my ideas. I have described a flatland that actually has six dimensions or three dimensions, starting with the idea: what exists is what exists; nothing does not exist.
Math starts with a blank sheet of paper and you can put points or numbers anywhere. But we can't start with a blank sheet of paper, or a "target space". We start with the array of dots. The dots are all that exist. The blank paper does not exist.
I played with a personal theory starting in 1984 that suggested maybe space is made of individual points.
I found a lot of correlation between my ideas and what we have observed in String Theory.
paglren has the first principle right, except he didn't phrase it right. He said, "think of nothing as the only ... thing that has not to be explained by nobody: it explains by itself... and this makes all to exist"
Rephrasing it right: the thing that has not to be explained by anybody: it explains itself, is existence. We can't start with nothing, we have to start with existence!
What exists is limited. To make it bigger, we break it up and send it out in all directions.
Now we have an array of points that look a lot like an array of stars.
In Flatland, if we have an array of stars (draw 24 randon dots on a piece of paper) try to find three or more of the dots that nearly line up and draw lines through the dots that nearly line up. Look at your lines and group the lines that go in similar directions. Separately draw those groups as parallel lines. You will end up with sets of parallel lines and individual lines. When I did that just now, I ended up with two sets of parallel lines and two lines going in two random directions. One of the single lines was 60 degrees from the two groups, one line was at 30 degrees.
Now look at a snowflake. All the lines in the snowflake are either at 30 degrees or 60 degrees. Even a random array of points produces most of the parallel lines at 60 degrees and some lines at 30 degrees, just like a snowflake. I say a snowflake is fornmed on the stucture of space which is made of points.
If the points are all that exist, in this flatland of points you have only three major lines of dimension and three other minor lines of dimension. You can only go from point to point. The points are all that exist. The points aren't random places picked out of nothing. You can't do that because nothing doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is existence. So therefore, at the most basic level in this plane made of points, which look like stars, there are three primary dimensions and three secondary dimensions, which sounds a lot like 25 space dimensions and 9 space dimensions.
So String Theory seems to agree with my ideas. I have described a flatland that actually has six dimensions or three dimensions, starting with the idea: what exists is what exists; nothing does not exist.
Math starts with a blank sheet of paper and you can put points or numbers anywhere. But we can't start with a blank sheet of paper, or a "target space". We start with the array of dots. The dots are all that exist. The blank paper does not exist.
Last edited:
- #90
Erck
- 178
- 0
I certainly agree that we have to start with existence... that's what the whole search is all about.John said:
Saying "what exists is limited" though... doesn't answer the "what," or the how or why or when.
Breaking it up and sending it out in all directions, if that is the case... might have more to do with making it more diverse than bigger?