What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[shrumeo]

Nothing

you know, this drunken meandering means nothing...

 

[n0n]

your absolutely right. I came across these documents on-line, its for a class or something like that but pretty much, I just looked at the universalness of what is being said. It works so why not this:
http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/micro/Uncertainty%20Reduction%20Theory.doc/
http://tip.psychology.org/hull.html
http://www.fluidairinc.com/Products_files/Size_Reduction_Files/sr_theory.htm

inf. n=1->

N = inf. distance & inf. closeness
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number
N = (0*10^n) (0/10^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (fractals)

maybe ? I don't know. <- and that is nothing, that is why intellegance is something. For one concept is the whole of nothing and something is the whole of all consepts. haha looks like I killed another forum, I seem to be pretty good at that, must be doing something right cause no one wants to really argue it? Or maybe its just too lucid?

 

[Rahmuss]

Nothing is what most discussions are about.
Absolutely nothing is what this discussion is about.

I couldn't resist.

 

[Doctordick]

What you miss is a very important issue. There exists only one thing which can produce knowledge from nothing. That is the comprehension of symmetry. Symmetry is essentially a statement that some piece of knowledge is unavailable: spherical symmetry is a statement that no information exists which can differentiate between directions. That constraint imposes some very fundamental relationships which must be true. If you want to understand the issue, ask me. I will do my best to explain it to you.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[n0n]

wow, Can you not see the symmetry involved in such a consept? Its the only place in mathmatics, that has the ability to create something like matter. We have super computers trying to figure out how large pi is and that's nothing, this could explain the universe and no one wants to look other then me. now why is that?

The concept is so simple and insignificat how could it be such a thing, I don't know, maybe it has to do with going from simple to complex in some weird "mathmatical truth" fractal. Which is what this concept creates eventually, in the early stage the outcome is infinitly complex, but I have taken single divisional numbers and they create squares, inverted squares ( four smaller squares, 1 of each attached to the courner of a larger center square, well that's what it looks like, not how its drawn), and lines. The only thing I changed when I observed such things were what A equals, and what B equals, in a division of (A/B=C).

here's a pretty good visuall of what I'm trying to get across. Take a seed from a tree, say it was on the ground, now if their is the right amounts of sun, water, dirt, and even right time of the year, that tree would grow. now their are seriouse odds against the seeds because what that seed gets seems to be pretty random and lots of seeds means a greater chance of survival, or continue some process it cannot help but to continue.

another adventure, take the whole of nothing, and imagine that symmetrical sphere of nothing (you being outside of it), now if you see the whole of the sphere as an opposed reaction to something (doesnt matter what it is jus that something is) it becomes infinitely small. now say this is an accelleration at ininity ( I use this because mathematics is infinite), and the universe is so infinite that their is another point of opposed reaction to something, what would that create if they collided? N0N is just another concept of becoming infinitly small. and 0 is the random process of creathing something, it don't matter what its is, just as long as it is.

If their is no symmetry within this then I haven't a clue what you mean, and please explain it.

 

[Messiah]

Symmetry = for every value there is an opposite equivalent

 

[bettysfetish]

-

I love this topic However it's quite problematic
The closest you'll get to "nothing" would be the eternal moment that was just before the creation of the energys that E=mc2'd into matter.
On one other point I read about 18 pages back; If a Big Bang explodes in the place with no time and no one is there to see or hear it, - - Did it happen?
I'd bet the entire exsistance of the universe on it.
What do you suppose happens to this medium of virtual activity? "Nothing" (theres that darn word again) needs to be displaced. This place might, or should, be goverened by virtual forces that would be opposite ours; this place being of matter and "that" place being of "no matter, or "nothing." It seems the two states of being should be "mutually attractive."
These two events would easily add to an expotential expansion rate. But at this point we're discussing matter again. It seems nothing has to move out of the way yet what isn't there might be attractive to the matter being converted.
It should still be there surrounding us, and the deeper we look into space the sooner we will see only the nothing that exsisted before there was matter. That very void may still be excerting an underterminable pull on the matter in the intire universe contributing to our accelerated expansion. "Could solve this "dark matter" quandry we seem to be in." Mabey there's no repulsive forces between particles; perhaps an external gravity or anti-gravity, if you will.
Oh Well - - -
----"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."-----

 

[connect]

Science is the arbitary division of the whole to study the wonder of its movement...nothing only ever appears before or after something.

Once nothing is understood, it is still nothing.

Once something is understood, it is always something.

 

[PhalanxGun]

Replies, Blah, Blah, Blah :)

Being that I'm not 5-dimensional-at least to the point of interacting with all 5 dimensions :)- I cannot fathom "nothing-ness". How can you people even conceptualize the actual "nothing". For me, nothing implies an endless region with nothing in it; and since there is nothing there how would we know it exists? :)

-Just Your Regular Neighborhood Computer Programmer/Wierdo

-PhalanxGun

(U.S. 20mm Phalanx CIWS (Close In Weapon System) Vulcan Cannon)

:)

 

[RAD4921]

The Book of Nothing

The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe
by John D. Barrow


Search inside this book
List Price: $15.00
Price: $10.50 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details.
You Save: $4.50 (30%)
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours


22 used & new

 

[UltraPi1]

I cannot fathom "nothing-ness". How can you people even conceptualize the actual "nothing". For me, nothing implies an endless region with nothing in it; and since there is nothing there how would we know it exists?

I consider the universe to be the concepualization of nothing. In short - We are the reality of non-existence. There are no physical realities - Only conceptual ones. In our universe there are only ones - One at a time, where time is the nothing that ones are composed of.

 

[n0n]

toe, or Theory of Everything, is a blend of all things conceptual, and what are all things conceptual? nothing/something, and they must blend, and blend they will, who deside's this, the multiple minds in the society of science. only one can blend them, for their is only one way to blend them (still as of yet to be found). only 1 can define 0 for within a 1 is the ability to be both 0 and 1 and so is a choice or a process of equalization (you cannot have 1 dimension without 2 infinitely small points as infinite in distance).

hence logic becomes physical reality, morality lays physically as a process that cannot be helped due to some misinterpretation in reduction to realization. "yes, I agree", "no, I disagree" when really any answer may also exist "correct" in null (how can nothing choose yes or no, unless you give a shifted statement/question like," if you want to go then you come with us now, if not were leaving" nothing cannot go and so the shifted statement would be you stay).

UltraPi1 , that's a good way to look at it, time is 0 and whatever is involved in time is 1. brings up the question of, does the moment right before I typed this still existing, or is it 0. I say it still exist as a scar to some shape of a fractal.

what i don't get is why hasn't science looked at the mind as a form of black hole? I wonder about it all the time, it makes a lot of sense, just absorbing everything (well light any ways, energy too, but information just gets sucked in, like a substance created black hole taking all logic in and releasing that single geyser of light or consciousness.

see, someone could say here it is, the answer to the universe as some huge equasion, And i would pick up every book I could just to teach my self to understand it. but as that has yet to happen. I will still think its going to be the most obvious answer, why? cause if it seems just blunt and to the point isn't it usually correct?

 

[connect]

1's and 0's, 0's and 1's.

I believe its like 'feet' that are 'walking' down the street.

Look to the left, look to right.

We are really in a plight that is stalling our flight.



The mind - an absolute point by which all relative measurements are taken.
How does it work...tick, tock, tick, tock...where does time come from...tick, tock, tick, tock.

My heart 'beats' and blood runs 'through' my viens.

Do people want 'knowledge' or 'understanding'?

 

[UltraPi1]

does the moment right before I typed this still existing, or is it 0. I say it still exist as a scar to some shape of a fractal.

I would say it is the concept of nothing that still exist. Any closer examination of this fundamental concept will yield nothing. I.E Examination beyond ONE nothing will leave you conceptually bankrupt. The universe is a conceptual geometric construct of nothing, and we can expect an infinity of these geometric entities to be possible.

 

[bettysfetish]

Well, we'll never "really" know the answer here; perhaps in a few generations. PhalanxGun - - it seems you've answered your own question a while back. You questioned how we could possibly invision "nothing", "It's like such & such - - -..." Well, you've done it. It's an intirely conceptual thing.
And to all;
Using numbers to try and pin this down will not work, "Unless" we can come up with some "Conceptual Numbers" to use. One must remember to never include anything that is, or is made of, particles when trying to invision this place.
We can all agree that all matter came from one singular, infinitly small point. And before that is infered speculation, conjecture and theoritical conceptualization. The infinity problems?; I don't have that problem anymore, not since giving String Theory a chance. I see there are some of you that frown upon, or have not accepted it for one reason or another, some alternitive theorys. This is certainly not the T.O.E., but we must keep building a foundation for it. Unless some one has found something completely absurd or intirely unfounded by current theories in some new theory then it should at least be investigated.
"Nothing was there" and "nothing" is an unstable system. "Any" quantum fluxuation would have tipped the balance our way.
L8R

 

[pelastration]

Using numbers to try and pin this down will not work, "Unless" we can come up with some "Conceptual Numbers" to use.

We can all agree that all matter came from one singular, infinitly small point.

In Pascal's triangle all starts for one.
Catalan numbers give all possible combinations (of also geometric 'shapes').
Conceptual Numbers? Maybe take a look at http://www.mu6.com/numbers.html. It all starts from one. That one is the total set, and by dynamic restructuring it creates sub-sets. That's conceptual. Since one stays one the math is surely correct.

 

[n0n]

here is the answer, what is nothing, nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself. Thats what I'm getting at.

 

[Fallout]

ok, i appologise for any nievity caus I am only 18 and not massively smart, but this is a subject I've thought about too. unless I've completely missed the point, the answer seems quite simple to me. if you really do have "nothing" as in the absence of everything, then you must by definition have the absence of time, as well as everything else of course. the absence of time means that there are no rules, therefore any activity can occur. this means at one instance, you will have nothing, and yet at the same instance everything. this i found is a hard concept for people to bend their heads arround, and quite hard to describe in a way that makes sense, simply because it doesn't - we can't really comprehend "no time" because of the way we are. the only way i can describe it is to imagine not a time period, but a time point - a single value of time. now, imagine that every event happens at that very point, because of there being no rules (bearing in mind that this is occurring because of absence of time, and so could never actuly happen at a time-point) this includes the event that there is nothing, everything, and every possible value inbetween, all at the same point in time (which again i point out is only a way of thinking of it, as there would be no time)

if this makes sense to ne1, does it help answer the question or do i need to try to explain more?

 

[Fallout]

may i also add the fact that humans share one very important attribute with the universe. Bill Clinton summed it up recently by saying - "..I did it because I could.." and that's exactly how the universe behaves - it does things because it can. that's y we exist - because we can. In the beginning, there were no rules so the universe could do what it liked, so it did, and here we are.

 

[UltraPi1]

if you really do have "nothing" as in the absence of everything, then you must by definition have the absence of time

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

 

[bozo the clown]

What is nothing ?
nothing is what lies between Jessica Simpson's ears

 

[pelastration]

one simple physical parameter T=0K =-273,160C.
The origin of Existence begins with this temperature.

Ever considered that this may be a local parameter following from local conditions? A relative factor.

 

[force5]

fundamental answer.

nothing = force

 

[connect]

distance from me to nothing = 0 meters

 

[connect]

measurements from ME to NO-THING = 0 degrees = 0 miles = 0 days = NO-degrees = NO-distance = NO-time.

NO:
1 - particle used to express negative reply to question, request, etc.
2 - not any, not one.
3 - not, by no amount, not at all.

THING:
any possible object of thought including persons, material objects, events, qualitys, ideas, utterances and acts.

The dictionary is a great non-linear history of language.

 

[n0n]

I get what your saying connect, I think. and as such anything that will or does appear is random at first, and order becomes the unfolding.

 

[Erck]

Randomness from order contains hope.

Order out of randomness is depressing.

 

[n0n]

Only you make hope and only you make depressing, what is depressing to one, could be joy to another. say I have a toy and I brake it in some random place but still could do its toy job, put it in the trash and some one maybe some were, which means a point that is completely random, picks it up. Get what I'm saying? their is also, per say: a man and his wife, and one cheats on the other, then the other finds out the other is cheating, the partner that is doing the cheating took in a random person, within an order of marriage.

so really its both, but both can eather be good or bad it becomes choice, and what we confuse is all things must eather be yes or no, one or the other, but that's not correct. For their is a point of null, within each yes/no and that is the "question". and the "question" is a first step within finding the "answer", but their can be multipul questions to an answer or their can be multipul answers to a question.

And that which is random is of a complexness a human mind cannot understand, right? unless it (the human mind) can observe the entirety of all events within, including all steps, all changes, all uhmm.. everything. Beautifull things can come from randomness, clouds for one, placement of stars, music is a huge one (thier is such realization within sound), and we are aware randomness. I know none like myself, I look like some people but not exactly at all, even twins experience completely different things (unless one can tell the other absolutely everything within existence during the experiance).

and so,
What is nothing? Nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself. their for,

inf. n=1->

N = inf. distance & inf. closeness (or Time and Nothing)
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number
N = (0*10^n) (0/10^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
something within time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (multi - fractals).

what is order to ever changeing complexity? is it a single fractal? but fractals cannot explain the universe within a whole, but it does explain our individual minds. the idea of multi-fractal can. but do not doubt the size of infinity, for as our universe will die it will become like eather a seed or like the randomness that causes the seed to grow. it will take an almost infinite amount of time but it will happen and existence will all occur again in some other way. for the infinitness of a multi-fractal would be so huge that our universe is at that point of infinite closenes, at this time.
ok so what do you think of this version of Divisional continuum? close? even at all? good? bad? anything? please?

 

[Erck]

Beautifull things can come from randomness, clouds for one, placement of stars, music is a huge one (thier is such realization within sound), and we are aware randomness.

This is a good example of randomness coming from order.

There is an underlying order to the randomness and diversity of life.

That "order" is what we're looking for.

We get a good feeling from randomness... but only if it's on the surface.

If we think that randomness underlies all things... well, welcome to chaos.

To some chaos is the preferred reality... or is it really?

Imagine that at the core of reality there is nothing.

Then imagine that at the core of reality there is something.

Which gives you hope and which doesn't?

 

[n0n]

I still think you deside, or we deside. me I found music to be my holy of all things, My music is my out for everything, good and bad, happyness and sadness it covers it all . its not that their is hope or their isn't hope its just "is", and then live your life to be happy, find a girl friend if that makes you happy, write a dream as a book if that makes you happy, just be at peace with everything and everything will be at peace with you. At least that's what I've found.

If you look down on things of course there won't be hope, because hope isn't a thing given, its a way of thinking, just like luck. And their is only one way to get there and that is by accepting only what you think is correct, if it don't seem logical it isnt, but if you reach a realization of its correctness later then it is. point is question everything how else could E=mc2 come into our existence (wish I could have met that guy).

why? because we start as a blank page when were born, and everything we learn from school is from people just like you, just like me, passed down year after year to some other person. But if you find greatness in something (the whole "yea that's what I want to do for the rest of my life") grab onto it. I can garentee that you will suck at it at first, cause with me and music I so just sucked at it, I didnt learn it from anyone else I just wrote music all by my self and it gives me such respect for it. and every song I wrote I thought was cool at the time even if it did suck cause that made me write even more. why, cause if people can write good music, or be good at anything, so can you if you truelly want it, but you truelly have to want it.

I like what you said Erck, and is a great point in your words "Imagine that at the core of reality there is nothing. Then imagine that at the core of reality there is something." what better to describe such a thing then Pi, or E, or whatever else number is chaotic. sorry I shouldn't use "random" for that is an action without a cause, and all things have a cause because life is "be-cause", not reaction without a reason.

Everything that we experience is remembered, all of it is, including the things we would rather forget. Do not forget because " its so much more an insane event to remember something then it is to forget it" - Waking life, tward the end of the movie. why, because time is the greatest distance from everything else, and as such the point of were some object was can be detumined by observing were it is now. hmm.. could that be taken as religious?

 

[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].