What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[John]

Regardless of how big all the matter in the universe is, there can be something bigger. If all the matter is in one place it is a singularity, like two drops of water that become one drop when they touch. Matter has a tensile strength which is the weak force, just like water has a weak electromagentic attraction to itself (ultimate matter and water are very similar). The whole universe was once a great sea of matter, as described in the Bible. There was no up or down or sideways and no measure of time. Matter combined with the nothingness around it to form a more interesting and diverse world. This forming with nothingness was a kind of fuzzy logic. How can you combine with something that does not exist? But in fact, nothingness existed as the opposite of matter. And life also existed in the form of heat.

Three things, three dimensions combined to form what we know. It always takes a mininum of three dimensions to make something.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Simon and Garfunkel

Might there be aspects of being and concepts such as “nothing” that simply defy consistent, unambiguous, or perfectly mathematical analysis, even though still being helpful for conveying aspects of meaning subject to limited perspectives? How much changing and ambiguous oscillation is there at the points of theories that attempt to relate order to chaos, pattern to flux, *something to nothing*, meaning to non-meaning, belief to doubt?

Is even Physics subject to being ruled by limitations in language, as manifested in failures to communicate that necessarily oscillate with changing identities, points of view, contexts, and emotions?

***If not for “nothing,” then for what fundamental concept can meaning be communicated, independent of point of view, context, and emotion?*** Is it only well outside areas of oscillation that differences can temporarily collapse to become of kind rather than of degree?

Admittedly, I have little background in physics. And, as Simon and Garfunkel once said, "after all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." So, my wonder is, HOW IS IT THAT WE SEEM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AT ALL?

 

[John]

There is meaning (nothing is nothing).

There is relative meaning (nothing is no-thing, nothing is only a subset of thing, thing is absolute).

There is degree (the more thing encroaches on nothing, the more force is needed).

Math people are very comfortable thinking only in degree, but that can't answer a lot of the questions. It can give us very accurate indications. If our logical ideas don't agree with what math tells us, our logical ideas are wrong. But Einstein said imagination is the most important part of discovery.

 

[paglren]

I'm with you, I think. Could you rephrase this?

As many of participants to this thread have already said: "nothing" is nothing.
But this frase is an Antinomy (i.e. it declares its own falseness as true).
I think that this particular antinomy, being by definition outside any language contest (there's no language yet defined), can be considered a primary vibrating status from which anything could be derived.
In other terms any thing we consider, ourselves included, can be described by interacting rules among void points. There is no need of anything else (like mass or energy). The only real things are the rules of the Universe and these rules come out from the rule-generator that we call "nothing".
Think of space-time as a frame due to some "3d symmetry" manifesting n times.
The symmetry rules lead to "space" and the occurrencies lead to "time".
This approach leaves all unchanged and doesn't conflict with any phisics law, but could re-define almost all known concepts:

• Mass is the limit of pulsating contraction of 3d space towards a point (at c speed)
• Energy is the change of space curvature (due to contraction)
• Light is still (i.e. it does not travel through space: rather it is the pulling of space that brings information to mass)
• Any explosion is accompanied by light emission when some parts of mass stop contracting (i.e. become still points)
• Light acts as an anti-inertial screen (i.e. the real mass of stars is partially "masked" by the still points of light that surround them)

And so on.

A last observation: Space is 3dimensional due to 3d symmetry of contraction. This contraction has to happen in a 4th (3+1) orthogonal dimension to work as we see (i.e. it's projection in 3d space concides with the center of contraction and it is not perceived as "space").

 

[Erck]

As many of participants to this thread have already said: "nothing" is nothing.

But as I asked at the beginning of this thread... "is there a difference between nothing (no-thing) and absolutely nothing?"

If the answer is no... then so be it.

But if it isn't... then?

 

[Messiah]

Logic requires definition

Logic requires definition. The concept of infinity is not contrary to logic - it violates none of its precepts - yet it is beyond the realm of logic because it is UNdefined.

The Universe occupies volume; hence it HAS size. It's size is; however, undefined. Between every two points in the Universe there is a finite distance, but there is no furthest point. . . that is the RELATIVE concept of infinity.

By the same token if you define 'nothing' as that which does not exist, well - "that which does not exist" does not exist - it is a fiction. In the relative context, nothing is the relative value of zero or the empty set.

 

[Erck]

By the same token if you define 'nothing' as that which does not exist, well - "that which does not exist" does not exist - it is a fiction.

To accurately define something that doesn't exist, as "not existing"... doesn't necessarily make it fiction.

Doesn't it simply mean, that we've arrived at understanding and using language and logic, more completely.

Could understanding something "not existing"... help us better understand the "something" that might exist?

 

[John]

paglren,

What you said was exactly wrong. You started with nothing, and went to vibrations, and then went to laws.

The problem is that all of math and physics is incorrectly starting with nothing. The very concept of nothing presupposes a thing. To have no thing you must have a thing, therefore nothing cannot exist on its on, therefore the universe can't grow out of nothing, starting itself with vibrations and laws.

Instead, we start with something. All the matter in the universe existed as one giant blob. It had to be finite because anything that exists is finite. But more importantly, it could exist on it own, without needing anything outside of itself for its state of existence. It just existed. But this thing was finite, and outside this "thing" was nothing. Now we have contradictions. We have nothing, which is zero, and nothing is infinite. It exsits because the "thing", which is all there is, is finite. All there is, is finite, wow, contradictions. This fuzzy logic almost operates like people themselves operate.

For example, let's define matter. Matter is what is, therefore it can't be something else, therefore it has inertia, therefore it can't change. Yet the slightest force can change it. I tried to show in another post that only if something doesn't have mass can it have infinite inertia, and really can't be changed. Here is the 0, Infinity correlation over and over. Logic breaks down.

In this fuzzy logic universe, we don't have empty space; we have a universe made of individual points of matter. The only thing that is real is the points themselves, but because of how they must be arranged, we have six extra physical dimensions. When consdering we start from something, we realize we have a solid matter universe made of points of matter that have distance between them, not an empty universe. The solid matter unvierse (the one that exists) has at least 10 dimensions and has secondary dimensions because of how the points can line up, and how you can go between them. Going between points is why particle fragements spiral wildly, sometimes. Their paths are not pure spirals. They have little angular changes in them, which indicate they are passing by real points in space. You only see this when you realize you must start with something and something is all you can have. You can never have nothing. But nothing has a radical effect, which is the strong force. The strong force; all force, is the result of fuzzy logic, which says things such as, 0 is infinite; and it's true, there really is an infinite amount of nothing. We can't build a universe there, though.

 

[pelastration]

Instead, we start with something. All the matter in the universe existed as one giant blob. ...
...
In this fuzzy logic universe, we don't have empty space; we have a universe made of individual points of matter.

John, Why many individual points of matter?
Start with one.
Apply
Razor.[/URL]
What is the most logic and simple ... (1) start with one point (First Point) or (2) postulate billions of points from the start?
Do you need to destroy (with Universal Scissors) this point ( or boundary) to make billions of subsets (micro-points). No.
How can we come for one point to billions of points? The billions of points are on another level (dimension).
I explain:
One point (The First Point being All) has boundary. Yes?
Can we say that the First Point is just it's boundary? Yes.
The boundary has the properties to reshape.

In the PRIOR-GEOMETRY there is in our language no-THING (thus no-matter, no-energy like we know it in dimension), but this does not mean zero. There is always prior-geometry dynamics (Chaos). Yes, the boundary is a pre-geometrical some-THING, but that's not the geometric some-things.

The dynamic boundary can now restructure to (appearent) independent GEOMETRICAL sub-sets. So on a geometrical sub-level we see a lot of some-THING's : sub-sets that we call Energy and Matter : restructured boundary.
Between these sub-sets is an never-broken linkage: the boundary. Tear on one spot and the total system will be effected. That's the interconnectness (called attraction or gravity) of this universe(s). That's the real fundament of All.

 

[whitelighter]

A few years ago I put this little abstraction together as a way to stimulate debate on "Nothing" and just how important this thing that "doesn't" exist by default is.


Time in continuum.

A while ago I posted a question at a forum about the nature of the Time continuum and how Science comprehended it’s nature.
The response I got was simply stating that the words “time continuum” meant very little to the reader. May be this was because of the terminology used or simply the idea of a time continuum is foreign, I am not sure. Thus the reason for this post.

When looking at the nature of time and understanding the variations in dilations and compressions one can still see that everything moves through time in continuum and together.

The philosophers will argue that what I am referring to is the “Now” and that is as simple as it gets.

The time continuum is just a uniform universal existence in the “Now” even with curved space and time dilations etc. are considered.

The question is: How does it all stick together and move through time as one?

Keeping in mind that the word “move” is not really correct in that the “Now “ goes no where as such.

The notions that I have of it is that the true “Now” is a time event horizon, the “now being right in the middle between the past and the future. Essentially the “Now “ is nothing and could be considered the centre of time.

Because the past is always “starting to exist” it can be inferred that everything we are cognizant of is actually a memory. Therefore the event horizon of the “Now” is actually only able to be comprehended as “nothing”. The “Now” is actually nothing , being ahead of cognition.

So to the original question about the physical nature of the time continuum.
I would suggest that the universe shares the same centre of time ( Nothing ) and all stems from this nothing to become the past that we can recognise as the present.
The present being a collection of past and future aspirations.

Because the past determines the future there is nothing separating the past and the future thus the “Now” is only an event horizon that in itself is not time or nothing- time. The actual moment of the event horizon could be considered as a moment of anticipation, the anticipation that movement is about to happen. As we know movement and time are essentially the same thing.

Another reason for considering this notion is that in the centre of all matter and space ( if centre is the right word to use) is this event horizon, as matter “Moves” in continuum with every thing else, so therefore it can be suggested that in the centre of matter is nothing, thus nothing exists only because it doesn’t.

An earlier post tried to put forward the notion that “Nothing” is in fact the most important source of energy “inversely applied”, in the universe.

If one thinks of time as a physical entity in gravitational and spatial terms then what creates a continuum of universal movements is the existence of nothing by is absolute nature “pulling” it all together. If one thinks of “Nothing” as being an absolute vacuum then in pressure terms it is extremely powerful in attracting pressure to it. So “Nothing” is what holds the universe together not only regards time but everything else as well.

The time continuum being essentially supported by the inverse energy of Absolute Vacuum.
As Vacuum is omni attractive, it is attractive to itself thus all matter has an attraction to all matter. This attraction I would suggest is the action of Absolute vacuum (Nothing) and is currently referred to as gravity.

Further to this

A photon is suggested to travel at a constant speed. It is even suggested that to travel faster than 'c' is to travel back in time. This would suggest that the photon travels at a speed that is right on the middle of time neither past or future therefore "nothing"

Light can only be seen in reflection where it achieves a state of "something" ( over time.) The reflection having a past and a future but not the photon itself as it exists only in the "now" thus it is "nothing"

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Creative Freedom

It sometimes seems that immunity from final solutions by mortals results in conflict and rage, but it seems also to be a source for oscillating ranges of both practical and creative freedom---in mathematics, technology, and art.

Can there *be* time or existence *when* there is NO EXISTENCE and no *potential* for existence? Even though time is relative, is time also an absolute, as a continuous *now* within a continuum of existence?

Are both of the foregoing questions, or are they just noise? Can either be answered with anything more than noise? Are they antimonies, ineffabilities, paradoxes, unsolvable ambiguities, or are they issues that might be solvable only to “God”?

My hunch is that considering such questions leads to continuous progress in perspectives, but not to a complete answer or final solution.

 

[sol2]

Round and Round

It sometimes seems that immunity from final solutions by mortals results in conflict and rage, but it seems also to be a source for oscillating ranges of both practical and creative freedom---in mathematics, technology, and art.

Can there *be* time or existence *when* there is NO EXISTENCE and no *potential* for existence? Even though time is relative, is time also an absolute, as a continuous *now* within a continuum of existence?

Are both of the foregoing questions, or are they just noise? Can either be answered with anything more than noise? Are they antimonies, ineffabilities, paradoxes, unsolvable ambiguities, or are they issues that might be solvable only to “God”?

My hunch is that considering such questions leads to continuous progress in perspectives, but not to a complete answer or final solution.

It's a dimensional perspective:)

Some can see better then others

 

[Messiah]

To accurately define something that doesn't exist, as "not existing"... doesn't necessarily make it fiction.

Doesn't it simply mean, that we've arrived at understanding and using language and logic, more completely.

Could understanding something "not existing"... help us better understand the "something" that might exist?

Nothing in the context of that which doesn't exist is not defined. Logic requires definition.

Nothing in the context of the value zero is the only logical definition

 

[selfAdjoint]

I can't resist quoting the Greek philosopher Parmenides: "That which exists, is. That which does not exist, is not." In other words existence is all there is, non existence simply doesn't exist (as it says), and therefore change, a transition from an existing state to a not existing one, does not exist either.

 

[whitelighter]

Another absolutism
"Nothing is dependent on absolutely everything being dependent on absolutely everything"

and

"Once I realized I was nothing I became something for to realize I am nothing is to be something. Like realising you are asleep and there upon this realisation causes you to awaken from your slumber."

 

[Erck]

I can't resist quoting the Greek philosopher Parmenides: "That which exists, is. That which does not exist, is not." In other words existence is all there is, non existence simply doesn't exist (as it says), and therefore change, a transition from an existing state to a not existing one, does not exist either.

Truer words were never said.

 

[paglren]

But as I asked at the beginning of this thread... "is there a difference between nothing (no-thing) and absolutely nothing?"

If the answer is no... then so be it.

But if it isn't... then?

Why don't you admit that an antinomy can be stated but cannot be stated it's trueness or falseness?
The answer to your question is a series of infinite: Yes-No-Yes-No-... to be affirmed in zero time.
And this is a very interesting start point for intuition of what is inside matter and anything else.
In fact, what are quarks? Only words (that explain some effect of something that we cannot really grasp)

 

[Erck]

A paradox (antinomy) can be stated.

A paradox doesn't always represent something that is ultimately unsolvable.

 

[freemind]

Ramblings of a Drunkard

But the very act of trying to define nothing makes it something. Nothing is nothing. I may just as well define nothing as a linear combination of linearly dependent vectors. Is this the only definition of nothing? No it is not. There is an infinity of definitions of nothing. So there is no definition. (Zero and Infinity are two sides of the same coin) There cannot be a definition.

 

[MythioS]

What theories that will arise if you can't define anything ;P

 

[John]

Like realizing you are asleep and there upon this realization causes you to awaken from your slumber

That's exactly the kind of logic that created the universe. It's the way God talks. It's the way people think.

Matter has inertia, absolute resistance to movement, therefore movement and change is possible.

Nothing has no concept of space, but can be encroached upon, creating a concept of space that to our surprise has many dimensions. Nothing becomes something when you invade it with matter.

Our mistake in math and science is that we start from 0, empty space, when we need to start from a solid matter universe. And it is still a solid matter universe, but the pieces are more spread out.

In this space where the R's are the only thing that is real... from the bold R, you can only go in a limited number of directions, because you can only go from that R, to any other R without going through an R. I count twelve possible places you can go, which equates to six dimensions, since a dimension goes in two opposite directions.

RxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxR
xxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRx
xRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxx
xxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRx
RxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxR
xRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxx
xxRxxRxxRxxRxxRxxRx

In a cubic space, you have about 25 total dimensions.

To get from one bold R to the other bold R, you must go though two dimensions, since the Rs are all that exist, you have to follow the path of the Rs, fragments of the original solid universe. There is no open empty space. At the most basic level, you can't go directly from one bold R to the other bold R.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Have we been connected by "nothing"?

Does string theory posit our universe as occupying one universal membrane? If so, does string theory rule out, explain, measure, quantify, or qualify how a present, unbounded, perpetually continuous vibrating is connected, directly, potentially, or at all, by either SOMETHING OR *NOTHING* within the one membrane?

 

[Messiah]

I can't resist quoting the Greek philosopher Parmenides: "That which exists, is. That which does not exist, is not." In other words existence is all there is, non existence simply doesn't exist (as it says), and therefore change, a transition from an existing state to a not existing one, does not exist either.

Applause ! !

Existence is not a state of being it is being, itself. Before something can change it must exist - hence "change is a function of being" and NOT "being is a function of change".

 

[Erck]

Applause ! ! Existence is not a state of being it is being, itself. Before something can change it must exist - hence "change is a function of being" and NOT "being is a function of change".

More applause!

 

[sol2]

Does string theory posit our universe as occupying one universal membrane? If so, does string theory rule out, explain, measure, quantify, or qualify how a present, unbounded, perpetually continuous vibrating is connected, directly, potentially, or at all, by either SOMETHING OR *NOTHING* within the one membrane?

A brane is a two dimensional with time, configuration of a 5d space?

Remember our computer monitor?

When we are a part of time in this universe, it is a very dynamcial flow of events. "Being" assumes existence always. There is no separation

 

[John]

Since you mentioned the computer montor, do you realize it is made of pixels that define its space? Those round pixels are arranged in triangles. Lines that go in certain directions are squiggley because the directions the pixels lay in cannot reproduce lines in certain directions. The same is true for any monitor even modern HD monitors, because they are made of physical structures that have to line up in specific ways. If our universe is made of things that exist rather than being full of nothing or empty space, then those physical things must have a structure.

To say a computer screen has 5 dimensions is perfectly accurate. The pixels line up in three directions. They can't produce perfect lines in other directions, the lines are squiggley. The way they line up is three dimensions, but when you move back far enough so all the lines look perfect, you can say the lines exist on a 2-dimensional screen. That's five dimensions, a 5d monitor screen. (Forget time.)

If the screen were made of nothing there could be no picture. But if it is made of something that exists, those pixels have to be arranged in a specific structure that limits the perfect representation of lines in directions other than the three directions the pixels line up in. Most of the lines have to squiggle through two "dimensions" to appear straight.

We have a universe that is made of matter, in which things have to squiggle through multiple dimensions, or we have a universe that is made of empty space and made of nothing. We have argued that nothing can't exist, so it must be made of points of matter arranged in a pattern which happen to line up is six directions in 3D space, giving us 9 spatial dimensions.

 

[Erck]

We have a universe that is made of matter, or we have a universe that is made of empty space and made of nothing.

Or... nothing doesn't exist... no-thing does... sortof.

The pixels or points or wavicles, or strings, co-"exist" with the no-thing.

A relatvie pair making up a universe, but not making up an absolute.

 

[n0n]

i don't know if nothing exists, if something can exist apon nothing, what then becomes?
If A singularity exists as nothing then a point exists, so why not nothing be the inverse of something, and exist between the two. 0 = chaos combined to equal a universe. What then becomes the most obsured question? what is 0 / chaos?

I have a weird idea, relating nothing to a divisional continuum. I just wrote it this year, kind of a ruff draft. but its at http://n0n.madtracker.net/idea.htm if your interested.

 

[Stevo]

Applause ! !

Existence is not a state of being it is being, itself. Before something can change it must exist - hence "change is a function of being" and NOT "being is a function of change".

You might want to read Parson's theory of nonexistent objects, which carries on the philosophy of Meinong.

The basic idea is that existence is a property. So something like Pegasus, which doesn't exist, still "is" in a different sense.

So existence is in fact a state of being, not being itself.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's worth reading. It's also worth reading Meinong, and Russell's replies to Meinong. Russell himself, despite disagreeing with Meinong, claimed there was value to be found in the work of Meinong. I think the same holds true for Parsons.

 

[Erck]

Does existence come from nothing changing into something... or was something always there and it somehow created change?