- #151
Stevo
- 114
- 1
Erck said:
No need to apologise.
What are you putting together, an essay? What's it about?
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.
No need to apologise.
What are you putting together, an essay? What's it about?
- #152
Erck
- 178
- 0
Thanks for understanding. This whole back and forth with you tonight has been nice.
I'm putting together book that has a TOE/GUT as one third of it.
The other two sections are about if "reality" works in a certain way... what does it tell us about how we could function as individuals and as a global society.
I'm putting together book that has a TOE/GUT as one third of it.
The other two sections are about if "reality" works in a certain way... what does it tell us about how we could function as individuals and as a global society.
Last edited:
- #153
Stevo
- 114
- 1
Erck said:
What is GUT?
- #154
Erck
- 178
- 0
Grand Unified Theory.. there's also Unified Field Theory... let's see... or my made up version... Grand Unifed Field Theory of Everything.
- #155
Stevo
- 114
- 1
Erck said:
Thanks.
And how do you see the concept of "nothing" involved in your book?
- #156
Erck
- 178
- 0
There are two nothings.
One of them is no-thing and it is part of a relative pair... so it seems to exist, but being relative it doesn't actaully get there.
One of them is no-thing and it is part of a relative pair... so it seems to exist, but being relative it doesn't actaully get there.
Last edited:
- #157
Stevo
- 114
- 1
What is the other element of the pair? In what way does it seem to exist?
- #158
Erck
- 178
- 0
I'd have to say at this point to give it some thought.
The reason any of it seems to exist, is for the most part, because we occur at the same level of "reality" as it does.
The reason any of it seems to exist, is for the most part, because we occur at the same level of "reality" as it does.
Last edited:
- #159
pelastration
- 165
- 0
Erck said:
Indeed. We only can observe and measure with what we or our sensoring and measuring tools resonate with. Form that we make conclusions. That's one part of the game.
The other part is how we experience that reality. The individual emotions or awe for a sunset, a piece of art, a landmark, a religious experience, ... the sensation of just drinking wine ... can never be measured or caught by math or science. Still those feelings exist. Also here resonance is happening but on other (individual) value levels.
Last edited:
- #160
Stevo
- 114
- 1
Erck said:
Which is why I believe that the universe forms our epistemological boundary.
- #161
sol2
- 908
- 2
Beyond Einstein
Friedmann equation, Omega and the ideas of critical density speak to the dynamical nature happening in the universe. As a whole( can we conceptualize this) and given these equations do we accept nothing as a foundatin or shall we give it a flat space discription?
So zero is given a calibration point, and this move to dynamcal situations explained to us, by those like Saccheri, Gauss and Reinmann.
To see this dynamical nature, such leading points of consideration and the length meaure has become a issue in how we might see the early univese and in this energy considration suprsymmetical points as a dynamical in relation to these flows Supegravity.
One has to make an assumption then, as to how you define these changes, whose basis is, and must become a geometrical defintion?
Mad_Gouki said:
Friedmann equation, Omega and the ideas of critical density speak to the dynamical nature happening in the universe. As a whole( can we conceptualize this) and given these equations do we accept nothing as a foundatin or shall we give it a flat space discription?
So zero is given a calibration point, and this move to dynamcal situations explained to us, by those like Saccheri, Gauss and Reinmann.
To see this dynamical nature, such leading points of consideration and the length meaure has become a issue in how we might see the early univese and in this energy considration suprsymmetical points as a dynamical in relation to these flows Supegravity.
One has to make an assumption then, as to how you define these changes, whose basis is, and must become a geometrical defintion?
Last edited:
- #162
John
- 133
- 0
What Sol said is actually what physicists think. They make up their own calibration point then make everyhing fit their definition. It works it label something then define it according to the labels you have given it. It tells you how it works. You can predict what it will do; but that doesn't tell us what we really want to know at this point in physics discovery.
What we really want to know is, what does it actually look like?
Since physicists start with nothing, then add their own reference points, it's good to ask this.
The "nothing" concept is made of two ideas: No Thing. To have No Thing, you must have Thing. So Thing is what can exist on its own, not Nothing. We start off assuming nothing can exist on its own; then give Nothing reference points, and call that math or geometry.
What if we start out with Matter, not with empty space?
- #163
PRyckman
- 134
- 0
nothing is the absence of Energy distance and time
If you have nothing, you have zero energy if energy equals zero then
D=0(t)
Distance is zero and time is non existant
That is hard to imagine, but in nothing, you couldn't even have a ruler to measure anything, not only because the ruler couldn't exist but also because the distance to measure doesn't exist. Because SOMETHING(energy) is all that makes measuring anything possible.
Distance itself is what we live in. This could be akin to the so called ether physicists long ago imagined.
If you have nothing, you have zero energy if energy equals zero then
D=0(t)
Distance is zero and time is non existant
That is hard to imagine, but in nothing, you couldn't even have a ruler to measure anything, not only because the ruler couldn't exist but also because the distance to measure doesn't exist. Because SOMETHING(energy) is all that makes measuring anything possible.
Distance itself is what we live in. This could be akin to the so called ether physicists long ago imagined.
- #164
John
- 133
- 0
That is right!
What are the qualities of a non-dimensional point? A basic quality is, if another point occupies the same place, it is the same point. Therefore, there must be some distance between all non-dimensional points.
What is a basic quality of matter? Two pieces of matter can't occupy the same place. And two points can't occupy the same place. Matter and points are very similar.
If we think of matter and points as the same thing, then we have a space made of points. The distance between points is space itself, but the distance is created by separating a nearly infinite number of non-dimensional points that once occupied the same place (and thus were one point), separating them by first creating two points.
When you separate two points into into something that does no exist (since points are all that exist) there must be a resistance that pushes the two points back together. This resistance from separating two points into nothing is where all energy comes from.
If we have a universe made of a myriad of points separated across a distance and under tension we have the perfect medium for a wave, that is, we have the ether.
- #165
PRyckman
- 134
- 0
I'm having difficulty understanding you, however if your agreeing with the validity of that equation I'm happy to talk about it, because I only came up with it last week and I'm still trying to comprehend some of it's meanings.
If your saying space gets energy from the space between the points, I'm going to have to disagree , we just defined nothing, so by default there is nothing between no distance, no energy.
However I believe the initial energy came from a parent universe, our universe is just a black hole in another. To support the point theory however, each point of space with enough energy to cause a black hole would be E=D=T All equaling one. Those points together makes a three dimensional universe.
The reason a black hole is black is because T=1 . Therefor time stands still. When time stands still energy does not move, Therefor we do not see things coming from the black hole.
Before anyone tells me about black body radiation, I know, and can explain that too
If your saying space gets energy from the space between the points, I'm going to have to disagree , we just defined nothing, so by default there is nothing between no distance, no energy.
However I believe the initial energy came from a parent universe, our universe is just a black hole in another. To support the point theory however, each point of space with enough energy to cause a black hole would be E=D=T All equaling one. Those points together makes a three dimensional universe.
The reason a black hole is black is because T=1 . Therefor time stands still. When time stands still energy does not move, Therefor we do not see things coming from the black hole.
Before anyone tells me about black body radiation, I know, and can explain that too
Last edited:
- #166
Moonrat
- 170
- 0
nothing is mystery, just as mystery is no-thing
- #167
PRyckman
- 134
- 0
a mystery isn't nothing, it is something, something which we don't understand. Maybe nothing is a mystery to you, but not to me
- #168
Moonrat
- 170
- 0
PRyckman said:
we are on the same page, nothing too is a mystery ( a something) that niether I nor you understand.
We cannot find 'nothing' other than in the realm of idea or concept. There is no way to even register 'nothing' other than as a concept or idea.
as as a concept or idea, nothing and mystery are inseperable. Mystery is the place that cannot be defined, and any interpretation is a thing, yes, but a false thing, the mystery is, objectivly, no-thing until the mind is applied to it and can distinguish between true and false, and even when this occurs, mystery still remains.
- #169
John
- 133
- 0
P-man is saying another universe provided the background for this universe to work in, like, we are standing on the other universe. But what if you have to provide your own background from one concept? That concept is "what exists". We try to start with nothing, but nothing is two concepts. What exists is one concept. Outside of what exists is nothing, so nothing requires existence. Existence doesn't require nothing.
The idea "it is" defines inertia. It is, therefore it takes energy to become something else; or, it can't become something else. It has inertia. Existence has inertia. Inertia is what caused repelling forces. A particle of matter hits something and knocks it away because of inertia. It takes time for the particle to reach the thing, and then it knocks it away. But a particle cannot take time to reach something, then draw it to it. Gravity doesn’t take time but acts instantaneously all over the universe. So maybe all attractive forces are different. It is not a repulsive force caused by inertia or existence. It is an attractive force, caused by what?
If the repulsive force comes from inertia, and inertia comes from the definition of existence, the best candidate for the attractive force is the opposite of existence: nothing.
We can't agree that particles make up and define all of space, as I think, but we can agree that particles make up and define all molecules and atoms. We have the idea that the strong force is some attractive force inherent to particles, like a charge. But charges get weaker with distance. I believe the strong force is really a particle trying to separate into nothing, like pushing against the walls of something that doesn't have any more space. That analogy makes sense when you know the further they try to separate, the harder it becomes, like they are trying to get out of an inner tube.
And strings, which have attractive tension are defined as tubes. A string is two particles trying to separate. Particles are existence. When they separate within the world of an atom, they are separating into nothingness, and the fact that nothingness has no space to separate into is the strong force.
There is no such thing as empty space. Having the concept of empty space would mean that something else, another universe had to create the empty space, as you said. Since it didn't, we have a space made of point particles, which has six underlying spatial dimensions since you can't arrange real points in any 3D pattern that has more than 12 directions total, six directions back and forth, six dimensions. This idea that space is made of strings under tension allows attractive forces to happen. Magnetism is a complex set of spatial strings that form in loops, creating an attractive force. Snowflakes form on the strings of space itself.
If you take literal strings or short sticks, like toothpicks, and glue them together to create a real 3D space, the toothpicks line up in six directions, with every angle 60 degrees. Every angle in a snowflake is 60 degrees.
The idea "it is" defines inertia. It is, therefore it takes energy to become something else; or, it can't become something else. It has inertia. Existence has inertia. Inertia is what caused repelling forces. A particle of matter hits something and knocks it away because of inertia. It takes time for the particle to reach the thing, and then it knocks it away. But a particle cannot take time to reach something, then draw it to it. Gravity doesn’t take time but acts instantaneously all over the universe. So maybe all attractive forces are different. It is not a repulsive force caused by inertia or existence. It is an attractive force, caused by what?
If the repulsive force comes from inertia, and inertia comes from the definition of existence, the best candidate for the attractive force is the opposite of existence: nothing.
We can't agree that particles make up and define all of space, as I think, but we can agree that particles make up and define all molecules and atoms. We have the idea that the strong force is some attractive force inherent to particles, like a charge. But charges get weaker with distance. I believe the strong force is really a particle trying to separate into nothing, like pushing against the walls of something that doesn't have any more space. That analogy makes sense when you know the further they try to separate, the harder it becomes, like they are trying to get out of an inner tube.
And strings, which have attractive tension are defined as tubes. A string is two particles trying to separate. Particles are existence. When they separate within the world of an atom, they are separating into nothingness, and the fact that nothingness has no space to separate into is the strong force.
There is no such thing as empty space. Having the concept of empty space would mean that something else, another universe had to create the empty space, as you said. Since it didn't, we have a space made of point particles, which has six underlying spatial dimensions since you can't arrange real points in any 3D pattern that has more than 12 directions total, six directions back and forth, six dimensions. This idea that space is made of strings under tension allows attractive forces to happen. Magnetism is a complex set of spatial strings that form in loops, creating an attractive force. Snowflakes form on the strings of space itself.
If you take literal strings or short sticks, like toothpicks, and glue them together to create a real 3D space, the toothpicks line up in six directions, with every angle 60 degrees. Every angle in a snowflake is 60 degrees.
- #170
sol2
- 908
- 2
Moonrat said:
Lets for the sake of kick starting the openess to what contitutes ideas from nothing:) As soon as you entertain this notion you are nothing:) So from this point forward?
Lets pretent the "nothing" is a cloudchamber? Or dark energy? Does this change the situation from zeropoint consideration? Is this not logical?
- #171
sol2
- 908
- 2
John said:
- #172
John
- 133
- 0
The idea of a string explains the fact that rules don't work when the particles approach 0 distance from each other. But an accurate definition of a point doesn't allow two points to be 0 distance from each other. If they are, they are the same point! So, all points must have distance between them.
If points are little strings, then this line
___________
and this line
____
have a different number of points. They don't both have an infinite number of points.
It is impossible for empty, totally open and free space to exist. Space must be made of real points that must have distance between them, even logically. Points must have distance between them; and if logical points must have distance between them, then space has nine actual spatial dimensions, just like string theory predicts!
If points are little strings, then this line
___________
and this line
____
have a different number of points. They don't both have an infinite number of points.
It is impossible for empty, totally open and free space to exist. Space must be made of real points that must have distance between them, even logically. Points must have distance between them; and if logical points must have distance between them, then space has nine actual spatial dimensions, just like string theory predicts!
Last edited:
- #173
sol2
- 908
- 2
John said:
John it is a energy determination?
We have supplanted particle discription for something else? That's part of accepting the paradigmal change of strings/M-theory. We know at the basis of these explanation there are metric points to consider, and becomes much more dynamcial when it hits supergravity( think of plasmatic consideration here and the early universe in a ever supersymmetrical state of recogntion).
Hhaving reached Planck length, there is a problem. :)
again I am defintiely open to corrections
Last edited:
- #174
Moonrat
- 170
- 0
John said:
yes, but only as a concept, right?
If I say only mystery existed before the big bang, that can include nothingness or another universe, either way , it's mystery until a better understanding of infinity can be approached.
Look, forgive me too, for I am the layman writer, and do not have some of the saavy that many of you possess, but to say that one can understand mystery or nothingness seems to be a bit of a stretch, because if it was understood, it would no longer be mystery, and mystery seems more appropiate to the circumstance than mere 'nothingness'
I'm also tired! Yikes, maybe say different thing in morning!
- #175
Moonrat
- 170
- 0
sol2 said:
Ideas from nothing or ideas from mystery? Different perspective, same co-ordinate.
Ideas come from mystery in the form of true ideas or false ideas.
We don't know what they mystery is, every new law of physics reveals only more mystery underneath.
IF nothing is a cloud chamber than it is no longer nothing but a cloud chamber, distinguished by all that which is not cloud chamber.
See, the 'concept' stays mystery, mystery is always here, so perhaps it should be more included in models and presentations of universe. after all, if a model can not contain mystery (nothingness) then it does not completely represent universe...
?
mystery may be the working constant! The thing that is nothing...To me this seems logical
Moonrat
- #176
Moonrat
- 170
- 0
John said:
I like that
- #177
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
It's wrong. John's "accurate definition of a point" is contradicted by self-consistent measure theory. Actual spacetime may be continuous or discrete, but not because either state is logically inconsistent. It's an empirical question.
- #178
sol2
- 908
- 2
selfAdjoint said:
Ah thank you.
It's not always clear what I want to say, but from such a stanpoint then you have to assume a position. In the case of the universe there is something that underlies its existence. Here i might say the spacetime is flat and use zeropoint to demonstrate the vitality of this universe in its movement?
In this case we might say superstringtheory/M theory and the dynamics of the universe arise from these interpretations. Would this be correct?
Last edited:
- #179
PRyckman
- 134
- 0
Moonrat said:
I'm saying I understand what nothing is. So it is not a mystery to me.
Correct, but that is not the nothing I'm talking about.John said:
John said:
I'm pretty sure E=mc^2 proves that gravity only propegates at roughly light speed.
selfAdjoint said:
Though your vocabulary exceeds mine, I believe you are saying, that if there is no distance, then there's no distance, plain and simple. Which I agree with
Cmon guys what all with these crazy theories about nothing. NOTHING IS NOTHING. There is no theory better than that sentence. Theres no quarks there's no time, there's no points or dimension, there's no energy there's no superstrings, there's no gravity light or anything at all. Nothing is nonexistant. To put any type of thought into it is a waste of time.
If you guys don't believe I understand the concept of nothing then look at this equation.
Lets say Energy equals zero, nevermind anything else
D=E(t)
if energy equals zero then so does distance. Time can be whatever the hell you want because it doesn't matter. But it must be either infinite or zero.
- #180
Moonrat
- 170
- 0
PRycman, nothing is no-thing..yes
No-thing is mystery, for only no-thing can describe it..
you define nothing as 'nothingness'
you know that it cannot be defined any other way or be quantified or understood by any other thing other than 'nothing'
it is not distinquisable inside of itself
you know this, but you can't see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?
we are debating semantics, for if you understand nothing to be nothing, that does not mean you disregard it...nothing 'is' it is not 'absense' but the thing that is nothingness itself...
you cannot show me a 'nothing' I cannot show you a 'nothing' for 'nothing' cannot be represented...
No-thing is mystery, for only no-thing can describe it..
you define nothing as 'nothingness'
you know that it cannot be defined any other way or be quantified or understood by any other thing other than 'nothing'
it is not distinquisable inside of itself
you know this, but you can't see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?
we are debating semantics, for if you understand nothing to be nothing, that does not mean you disregard it...nothing 'is' it is not 'absense' but the thing that is nothingness itself...
you cannot show me a 'nothing' I cannot show you a 'nothing' for 'nothing' cannot be represented...