What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[n0n]

Yea, I do to, and it’s funny. That’s the projection I have with this idea of a divisional continuum, I did some more testing and a similar program to take random paths down the reciprocals, and all end, eventually. So the infinitum of math in this form isn’t infinite but so close and complex it could be seen as it, it could be just like this universe maybe. Hell how many theories really define a something out of nothing idea, as so far I’ve seen none, and as of so far blah, blah, blah. It’s right; I’ll finish the program completely one day and prove it. But as of right now I'm to sick to even comprehend it. So I’ll just go and lay on the couch.

 

[Erck]

...the end of everything " that is nothing"!

A complete lack of everything, might look like the end... but does it look like the beginning?

 

[felipefas]

Nothing (we assume) to be the lack of something. For there is no other word to describe it. It is a concept not an entity. It's man-made and therefore it has no cosmic relevance. It's much bigger than us because it also means the lack of something or somebody to question it.

 

[Erck]

How big and how powerful are our imaginations?

 

[young e.]

No borders

Nothing (we assume) to be the lack of something. For there is no other word to describe it. It is a concept not an entity. It's man-made and therefore it has no cosmic relevance. It's much bigger than us because it also means the lack of something or somebody to question it.

What i mean is that the end of everything which is " N O T H I N G " has no borders, it may cosmic, biological and whatsoever under the universe. The end of all things that is the real meaning of nothing...

 

[young e.]

A complete lack of everything, might look like the end... but does it look like the beginning?[/QUOTE=Erck]

Yupz... Because in biblical thoughts God created UNIVERSE out of nothing for HE is the source of Unmeasurable Dynamic Energy which causes the creation of the UNIVERSE and whether HE created this Universe by means of BIG BANG or whatsoever method- we don't know...and since the he created the Universe it means it includes the proton which is the core of Hydrogen atoms which is one of the essential of life and other complex nuclie...and since it has a limited halflife of about 10^32 years then this would also back to nothing. In summary from nothing to nothing...What i am trying to imply is the real essence and complete thoughts of nothing is this...

 

[Erck]

I understand what you'e saying... but at least two questions go unanswered with the logic.

One of course, is where did god come from?

The other, is that if the universe came from nothing and will someday return to nothing, what does that say about "eternal life?"

Is "god's house" outside the universe?

In addition, did god create something from nothing, inside of itself or outside of itself?

 

[n0n]

3 points that will forever, I guess, go unanswered (according to whatever, to me it’s simple). Is nothing, nothing if something exists? Is something chaos if nothing exists (a comparison)? And is their an essence behind logic (we think for our selves and we are logical processes, so why not, and why so)?

How about this, at what point is friction taken out of the explanation of the universe. For as soon as friction becomes frictionless you are dealing with math, even if that means it cannot break the speed of light. Or even if it does, a transfer of kinetic and potential energy is always instantaneous even if something (say falls) at a slow rate, the change is instant transferring, slowly. Or is it? And if it is, what would cause friction to exist in a model universe, one cycle of something against or flowing with another cycle of something, and by cycle I mean a ratio if instant energy transfer, compared to another instant of energy transfer layered on top or within? what?

 

[Erck]

If the energy value of the universe is zero... then ultimately there is no real friction.

There are so many illusions to see through...

 

[young e.]

...so the way to make the thing larger and more complex was to break it up. Breaking it up makes it expand into nothing.

"expand into nothing". We are not sure that if a certian matter would expand and break up it would result to nothing. But one thing for sure if the core of every complex nuclie composing a certain matter would decay, it would result to nothing...Another is we could not break up protons which is the core of almost complex nuclie in the universe. But it has a limited span of life (halflife) that if that time would come all composite things decay and it will result to nothing...

 

[young e.]

1.One of course, is where did god come from?

2.The other, is that if the universe came from nothing and will someday return to nothing, what does that say about "eternal life?"

1." We can't pathom HIS wisdom and so HE'S will be done..."

2. Eternal life would just come after the end of everything. Just read the whole book of REVELATION. There says"...and i see the new heaven and new Earth and the new Jerusalem for all thing from the past are already gone..."

What i mean here is that all things in the universe now is composite and subject for decay and it has an end. We humans being are mortals hence still we are composite and still subjected aforesaid. While GOD HE is immortal and we couldn't pathom he wisdom nor ask where he came from so HES will be done...

 

[selfAdjoint]

So your answer to "where did it come from" is "Don't ask don't tell?"

 

[felipefas]

How big and how powerful are our imaginations?

It will be big and powerful when we can imagine in three dimensions.

 

[Erck]

I can even imagine women in three dimensions... am I missing something here?

 

[pelastration]

I can even imagine women in three dimensions... am I missing something here?

I even saw them 10 minutes ago. Big and powerful. The three dimensions were impressive!

 

[Erck]

Now... back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[n0n]

Hey I had another idea, now a real "M theory" wouldn't exclude anything. Which is to say, how are we ever going to find the answer to something if we cannot understand nothing? Why would mathematics be any different from an all inclusive theory? We have 4 fundamental mathematical processes, subtraction, addition, multiplication, and division. Say if the original big bang occurred, mathematical processes wouldn’t be excluded in any way, now which one has the best chances of producing a multi-verse? Cause that’s were it starts, at the very fundamentals, just were any real 'M theory' should start. Yea, it might be hard to understand gravity, atoms, and everything else under a M theory, but the way science is looking for it, is looking for a near infinitum that can not be explained except by the most natural of means. With so many other ways to find the proof of this, with the limits of something .0(infinite 0's) 1 = infinitely close to 0 and .9(infinite 9's) = infinitely close to 1. Now this is the range from which our universe must take place, for if our universe were 0, 1 couldn’t exist and if our universe is 1 then 0 couldn’t exist, and we are so obviously a hybrid of all things. Now if you look at subtraction, it could = 0 for it is less something. Addition could = 1 for it can sum the .0(infinite 0's) 1 + .9(infinite 9's) = 1 or should, it becomes again, infinitely close to 1 while being separate entities. Multiplication could = 2 for it is a duality of multiple additions. Division could = 3 for it is the sum of all 3 concepts, -, +,*. Now think of it as a base 3 number system (I use base 3 for it is the first of the bases to use the symbiant 10 both 0 and 1 simultaneously), and ask yourself what then would be 10? And I figured it would be duality of multiple divisions, and were It should start for it is the only place were their actually is enough freedom to create a universe, and still mean both 0 and 1 and the whole range in between.

 

[aurora]

why exclude the simple solution?

Whew, just finished reading 18 pages of posts!
Two fundamental questions are posed: 1) how did we come into existence, 2) was there anything before "that"? A third question: are our thoughts based on reality?
The first two can be answered with either God or ether. God, a universally accepted religious theory, existed all the time and there is no such state as “no-God”. It follows that it made everything from the cosmos to life since we came from the cosmos. And we certainly did since we are composed of the same primary elements, and mankind has always had an affinity and urge to return to it.
Ether has the same fundamental qualities as God but is more provable. What are the similar qualities? Both are omnipresent, always existed and the source of all energy/matter. Wouldn’t it be great, if ether really existed as all the great scientist of the last few centuries believed? But what about Michelson-Morley?
M-M were disproved by their student Dayton Miller, who studied the ether a few decades longer than M-M and found a shifting in the interferometer, proving its existence. Aside from his proof, Wilhem Reich, working independently, discovered “orgone”, which is just ether with subjective/objective qualities that can be verified. In a logical manner, evidence “poured out” by itself, and Reich was able to see the formation of sub-DNA life under the microscope, solve the riddle of the formation of hurricanes and galaxies (and thus all cosmos), and to show that what we sense (if we are so “tuned”) has an objective reality.
So matter.., does really evolve out of “energy” every second of time, just as matter disintegrates also. I’m sorry though, I don’t believe in a fatalistic entropy, since living matter is proof of its and gravity’s opposite.
Which brings us to the main point of the “Big-Bang”: it’s not real but wishful thinking. When did anybody see matter or life develop out of a powerful explosion? Quiet the opposite, destruction occurs. Let’s use logic here and not mysticism, because it seems the B-B is just that. Wouldn’t it make more sense, that matter forms out of fusing together as in molecules and the sexual embrace? Any one in love has known the feeling of pulling and merging that precedes sex. And if we are from the cosmos, the same would apply to the heavens. After all, aren’t we looking for a “universal theory”?
More can be found on Reich at:

 

[selfAdjoint]

Out of a lot of questionable assertions, I'll respond to this:
M-M were disproved by their student Dayton Miller, who studied the ether a few decades longer than M-M and found a shifting in the interferometer, proving its existence.

Miller's results have been debunked. They are found to have a systematic error in them, apparently caused by winds shaking the mountaintop lab where he did his measurements. His reasoning was that ether clings to matter and so to get a good experiment the equipment had to be surrounded by as little matter as posible. So he built his lab high and light. Unfortunately that exposed him to the elements, which gave him false results.

 

[n0n]

Ah ha, proof again, logic is "god" or existence, not the human reasoning behind them or it.

 

[felipefas]

I can even imagine women in three dimensions... am I missing something here?

You can imagine a woman's skin at most. Maybe you can imagine them with clothes on. But to imagine a woman in three dimensions, you would have to imagine her as an MRI scan. All the way thru. Seeing every particle of her body at one time. There is another thread on wether we see in two or three dimensions. This because we can only see the reflections of the photons on a two dimensional surface of any object.

 

[Erck]

I had a feeling I was missing something.

I think I see in 3 dimensions... but maybe I'm mistaken.

I see this apple sitting in front of me. It has height, width and depth.

I can see how the surface of the apple, if I consider it to have zero thickness is a two dimensional object... but do I have to be able to see thru the apple to see the apple as a whole and not just it's surface... as having three dimensions?

Is it possible that seeing thru it is not a question of dimension... but of... I don't know what to call it? As I see through it I'm seeing particles of three dimensions... this is an interesting question... again, maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Janitor]

Felipefas has inspired me! I am working up a letter to mail to Penthouse magazine.

 

[Erck]

LOL... see-thru centerfolds!

I'd also like them to have to turn around twice, before I can see all of them.

 

[felipefas]

This was quoted from Eh on the thread "do we see in three dimensions?"

"The gist of it would seem correct. We cannot imagine a 4 dimensional object because we cannot even know what a 3 dimensional object looks like. We never see volumes - only the surfaces of objects. That doesn't prevent us from coming up with mathematical models to describe universes with more dimensions that we directly experience."


And this was posted by Hypnagoge a pf mentor:

The popular view is that we see in 2 1/2 D. The photonic images that strike our retinas are essentially 2D sheets of information, but the brain uses various heuristic tricks and tactics to convert information in those 2D images into some semblence of 3D information. For instance, binocular parralax (the relative displacement between retinal images in the left and right eye, as made apparent by alternately looking at an object with one eye closed and then the other) is used to infer some information about an object's distance. If one object in the visual field occludes another, the brain automatically deduces that the occluding object is closer than the occluded, thereby giving a clue about their relative distances. Objects appear farther in the distance the more they take on the bluish tint of the sky. The necker cube illusion demonstrates that the brain even constructs pseudo 3D models of objects at least partially on the basis of very basic aspects of their geometrical structure as encoded in their 2D projections onto the retina.

You are absolutely correct to say that our difficulties in understanding the 4th dimension arise from the nature of our consciousness. Our brains are basically perceptually hardwired to see and think in 2 1/2D. We can think abstractly of higher dimensional spaces, but it is just fundamentally beyond us to visualize such spaces in the same sense that we can visualize, say, a park as described in a book.
__________________
"The true voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in seeing with new eyes."
- Marcel Proust


Try to think of this: A reflection of an apple in a mirror is two dimensional. Isn't the same thing you are seeing with your eyes? You are not seeing the depth, just the surfaces facing you.

 

[The Iguana]

Nothing is non-existent in Space and Time

And the universe is not expanding into un-chartered nothingness.

The Universe only seems to expand - it is only changing all atomic structures by shrinking to accommodate proportionate distances for an appearance of expansion.

Otherwise it would have to deal with nothing - which it can't - since nothing does NOT exist.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Stick as you will, it doesn't agree with GR or quantum field theory - or string theory where we have Weyl invariance!

 

[wms121]

...ahem..now for the "rest of the story"

..and YES I am the "Subspace Engineer" at www.treknology.org.


Ok, I read all the posts...from thread #1 to thread#19, some of them have very interesting ideas...however:

No-one proclaimed themselves an..ahem "Information Theorist"..and in liu of someone stopping by (like Seth Lloyd)..or Dr. Kaku..let's try this:

1. "0" Ladies and Gentlemen is NOT a number. Ask a number theorist..it is a label for a counting algorithm that a counting machine can not count.

2. Quantum machines...if and when..(or how) they exist may determine what
they think is "zero"..or "emptyness", or "the emptyset"..or "quantum nothingness"...ad infinitum. These labels (or reference states in these machines) can be clearly defined..or loosely defined..depending upon the requirements or processing needs.

3. Some "machine events" that the machine cannot describe can also be labeled as "artifacts" and/or "artifact sets". Colllections of infinite zeroes in infinite sets under quantum conditions could still be labeled..but perhaps not completely processed. IBM machines for instance uses a 5 qubit machine for its experiments because 4 qubit machines do not have stability or suffiencient
error management requirements. It has been speculated that at least 1000 qubits (1024?) may be needed for complete error management of real world created quantum machines. There are speculations in various other approaches that a layer of such machines (or "universes"..hint hint) might decompose one after another when its error correction mechanisms decay..and it no longer can perform "universe tasks". The so-called "Plenum"
the energy density opposite of the vacuum (i.e. 10^95 ergs/cm^3) might contain layers of these older defective universes..or other similar "materials".
That stuff is NOT "zero"..but a newer machine or universe might have to assume its no longer useful..and assign it a 'zero'.

4. Back to the math...UltraPI1 and others were getting close...symbols like
infinity/infinity , zero/zero , empty set x empty set (product spaces) are
to be considered "artifacts" (like NaN.."not a number" on your calculator)by the processing systems..and not useful for data purposes..unless tagged. One might create a "test-zero"...{@} or something that behaves as though it's both a empty set and a zero..for data restructing purposes...there are recent papers on "Negative Information Theory" on this (as me for the paper URL).

5. The topology people also have answers, but they are only good in 2 dimensions{see SO(2)/2D Gravity} at this time. Soliton theory for instance can create "somethings" from nothings..in that during "boundary shift events"...the state of those operator metrics marches past a +/- or even infinite measure...and the sets involved can create functional signatures (usually log/trig related) of the light or dark events that occured.

So what is nothingness? Complexity theory might know...perhaps numbers so huge...that ANY machine..quantum or otherwise (this might include all possible/probable universes)..their products create a "zero inside"...unmeasurable outside..unmeasurable ab initio..but 'certain regions'..
have a 'limited zero number'..i.e. the machine can count its total zeros..but nothing else.

Confused?

Next time you see spilled paint on the sidewalk...look for the center of that spill...if it's clean and smooth..and the edges are fractal..or broken up...you have found a "nothingness". A "readable zero"...surrounded by stuff you can't use.

film at 11:11

ww

 

[Manly Smite]

0 = x time base. it is not a number. 37= ((3 x base) +7)
Now that we have a zero out of the way.

Lets look at what is nothing.

Nothing is a no state. it has a place, that is yet to be filled with something.
Think of it as, the other side of the edge, at the edge of space. Space can fill it, and will, given the time it needs to expend. But till then, it is nothing.

Nothing is hard to think about. It is not part of life. We have a need to think of things, we put names to all we see and feel. We do not feel nothing, we do not see nothing, you can't touch it, taste it, smell it. (it) is not even there. We have no words for nothing. The Mind will place a space to nothing, it is the only way it can handle the concept of nothing. Nothing is a no-state. you can't go there. It is not the center of paint, it is not!

M.

 

[ranyart]

..and YES I am the "Subspace Engineer" at www.treknology.org.


Ok, I read all the posts...from thread #1 to thread#19, some of them have very interesting ideas...however:

No-one proclaimed themselves an..ahem "Information Theorist"..and in liu of someone stopping by (like Seth Lloyd)..or Dr. Kaku..let's try this:

4. Back to the math...UltraPI1 and others were getting close...symbols like
infinity/infinity , zero/zero , empty set x empty set (product spaces) are
to be considered "artifacts" (like NaN.."not a number" on your calculator)by the processing systems..and not useful for data purposes..unless tagged. One might create a "test-zero"...{@} or something that behaves as though it's both a empty set and a zero..for data restructing purposes...there are recent papers on "Negative Information Theory" on this (as me for the paper URL).


ww

Try this, my take on nothing is:Nothing is the smallest approximation of a something.

from the post no 74
Relatively speaking one can ask thisow 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?

One can state below:

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)


Total Zero cannot be defined, but you can get pretty close when one adopts the Zero + = nothing (positive zero=smallest possible something).

 

[Ebolamonk3y]

Nothing is ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________And that's what I have to think about that.

 

[felipefas]

I think this thread has lost is usefulness

 

[Ebolamonk3y]

Perhaps you are seeing nothing in this topic of something.

 

[Moonrat]

Perhaps you are seeing nothing in this topic of something.

hehe, what can one get out of a discussion about nothing other than nothing!

If you have a hard time understanding nothing, then just look at what you don't understand to see what nothing is...

 

[aurora]

one more time for aether

Miller's results have been debunked. They are found to have a systematic error in them, apparently caused by winds shaking the mountaintop lab where he did his measurements. His reasoning was that ether clings to matter and so to get a good experiment the equipment had to be surrounded by as little matter as posible. So he built his lab high and light. Unfortunately that exposed him to the elements, which gave him false results.[/QUOTE]

SelfAdjoint, perhaps you are referring to the well-known paper by Shankland et al, which analyzed Millers’ experiments? [Not having read the above or the actual works by Miller] I base my response on the critical papers of Demeo and Allais (you can see them at http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm), which claim that all interferometer experiments, including the original Michelson-Morley had fringe readings. What one does or does not do with experimental data is strictly a human/scientific dilemma.
While Miller was still alive, he was able to defend against the accusations of his colleagues (including Einstein) about solar and radiant heat contamination of his readings. Actually, his interferometer was specially built for him, making it by far the most sensitive and stable of its kind. To mention again, he took about 200,000 readings compared to M-M who did about 46. According to Demeo’s paper the data was selectively chosen by Shankland to prove his point. Adding to this, the over three hundred pages of data that Miller accumulated were given to (his student) Shankland, but have since disappeared.
If ether theory turns out to be true, Einstein’s GR has some holes in it. Allais found from Miller’s work that the velocity of light is not the same in all directions and that it is possible to determine the motion of the Earth from purely terrestrial experiments.
Aside from the scientific experiments on “energy” what about its philosophy? Can one really say that space is empty, or just composed of numbers? What rotates and moves the planets and also makes life“grow/move”? It seems that people who were closer to nature (and nature is science!) as Galileo and primitives, could feel God/aether in themselves. I’m sure if they were asked the questions that are posed in this forum, they would have no doubts about their answers, since they were not cut of from their objective sensations as we "up-in-the-head" moderns are. And can we argue against personal feelings regarding “the power of the universe” or love? Where do purely abstract numbers divorced from sensation fit in this schema?

 

[PRyckman]

A complete lack of everything, might look like the end... but does it look like the beginning?

It depends what you mean by beginning. Before things started, or when they started. Like wise with the end. The last moment, or after it's over.

 

[PRyckman]

Wow, that was a lot of reading, I had like 7 more quotes but my browser timed out. I like that star trek guys comments it really brought a new perspective into it. I agreed with most of them. As for the quarrel about a given value for zero, I think we will forever be getting closer, but never achieve a measurable zero. That seems obvious to me, because you certainly couldn't witness an infinity.

What if zero was expressed as +1? Because for plus one to equal one there must have been zero to begin with. This would allow for the fact that we can never measure a zero. Note that's what it is defined as in D=E(t)

 

[n0n]

you certainly couldn't witness an infinity. What if zero was expressed as +1?

Yes 0 cannot be observed as a whole (a perspective is something too), but you couldn’t observe any of infinity as a whole either, weather it be .11 INF, or 3.1415926 inf. both order and chaos which means absolutely nothing. We can apply meaning to whatever and we do every day, and that is a +1, but it is also a perspective of observation. Not with a whole of infinity just part, just part of nothing, just part of something, just part of simple order concepts, just part of complex order concepts (chaos). but in a realistic universe surrounded by everything mathematically infinite we have a finite (which is also to say, nothing has a finite of observation from our hybrid minds of something/nothing), so the real idea behind finding a source is finding that finite within the infinite math, and time naturally causes such a finite to occur, in all objects of math. So a concept needs to prelude time, it needs to make time its essential bone to exist. As for nothing, it doesn’t exist, look at the bases of number systems, how is it that in base 3 all concepts of mathematics are harmonious, but in base 10, 1/3 is an illogical when checking errors (1/3 * 3 = .99 when it should = 1), could it be that illogical is a viewing unto nothing(I think so). Base 10 is an all consuming of concepts, and so an illogical must also exist for it to be such a living concept.
Note to all: The idea of a continuum from nothing, is just a concept to fit an idea of oblivion to the best of all compared ideologies of ‘nothing’, so yes I get that nothing does not exist but like any mathematical concept it is infinite some were, and if it is, then it must have created us from within its own ability to be nothing. Naturally, that’s all, and that’s what I try to explain.

 

[PRyckman]

uhhh, huh?

 

[tabloid]

if something is expanding towards 'nothing',then both smthing and nothing are elastic i.e. they both have property of elasticity.its like pressurizing some kind of elastic ball.

 

[Gil Fuller]

nothing

Nothing is simply the opposite of something. Nothing cannot contain anything, do anything, or be anything. If it does any of these things,or anything else at all, then it is something. Nothing is a simple concept.
Why there is "something" is the interesting question.

 

[paglren]

Nothing is a simple concept.
Why there is "something" is the interesting question.

Sorry, but also a simple concept is "something".
The most fascinating answer to the question is that "everything" is coming out from "nothing", or better from the infinite "way" (out of space-time) in which "nothing" represents its own concept.
In other words: since "absolute nothing" (i.e. "the unmentionable"), let's call it "", IS ITSELF, then it ISN'T as well.
This paradox cannot be put into time because it cannot be both true and false, but the same paradox could "generate" an infinite "vibration true-false" that we perceive as space-time due to our "perception rules".
What about a video game that nobody has already imagined? Is it "nothing"? Has it a self-time? Truely it is not yet born... so does have it a "negative" age? Relative to which?

 

[shrumeo]

wow, what a philisophical question to be answered in the physics forum.

my 2 cents about the matter is that if you can imagine "infinity" (which you really can't even if you believe you can) then you can imagine "nothing" (it seems easier to imagine nothing than infinity, but when you do it, you always are thinking 'absence of anything' which is something, not absolutely nothing. ) for you to even imagine "nothing" you would have to not exist, or anything else for that matter.

well, i wonder why this one has 20 PAGES of replies when it has jack to do with physics and everything to do with metaphysics. I think we need to go check out some Jean-Paul Sartre to clear this one up.

 

[killerinstinct]

Nothing is simply the absence of everything.

 

[Messiah]

wow, what a philisophical question to be answered in the physics forum.

my 2 cents about the matter is that if you can imagine "infinity" (which you really can't even if you believe you can) then you can imagine "nothing" (it seems easier to imagine nothing than infinity, but when you do it, you always are thinking 'absence of anything' which is something, not absolutely nothing. ) for you to even imagine "nothing" you would have to not exist, or anything else for that matter.

well, i wonder why this one has 20 PAGES of replies when it has jack to do with physics and everything to do with metaphysics. I think we need to go check out some Jean-Paul Sartre to clear this one up.

It's easy to imagine nothing (in its abstract definition). It takes absolutely no effort - In fact it REQUIRES you not to imagine. Infinity, on the other hand, might keep you busy for a while . . . a L O N G while

If for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction then the value of the outcome of every processes is 'nothing'.

 

[UltraPi1]

I've made a few threads on other forums called the Reality of Non-Existence. The jist of it is that reality is a conceptual entity, and not a physical one. That we are made up of discrete quantities of nothing, and that this Non-Existence is infinitely divisible. We are but parts of a finite whole that is continually increasing in stature toward the infinite possibility.

In our universe there are ony ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing that ones are composed of.

 

[Erck]

wow, what a philisophical question to be answered in the physics forum. Well, i wonder why this one has 20 PAGES of replies when it has jack to do with physics and everything to do with metaphysics. I think we need to go check out some Jean-Paul Sartre to clear this one up.

I suppose the Theory of Everything or any other way we choose to describe the search for the fundaments of existence, is something that might be inacurately described as Physics.

Isn't the root of physics, metaphysics, math, philosophy etc. actually logic?

 

[Gil Fuller]

While it is true the "concept of nothing" is something-an "idea", it is also true that the essence of "nothing" is "non-something."

Something cannot originate from "nothing" ( the essence-not the concept) because "origination" requires something change. If nothing changes, there is no origination. Since the essence of "nothing" is "non-something" and since there is no "something" present in "nothing" to change, something cannot originate from nothing. Conclusion: The Universe has always existed as something. It is impossible to originate from nothing.

 

[sol2]

I suppose the Theory of Everything or any other way we choose to describe the search for the fundaments of existence, is something that might be inacurately described as Physics.

Isn't the root of physics, metaphysics, math, philosophy etc. actually logic?

I think that if you studied Smolin's approach in three roads there is a synthesis that is taking place.

Topos Theory in a Nut Shell

Now the basis of the new math as topos theory, arises out of the logic[?], but it also arises from the philospohical discourse on such approach. The road to the new math recognizes all the maths that currently exist. Having accepted this, and knowing what has taken place, assume here all pathways of Klein's order of geometries also have laid over them all the maths of string theory. If strig theory has a dry spell, then indeed it has lacked the luster of vision and means, to verification. How will ingenuity spark possible scenarios for consideration if no one can see what the heck they are talking about?

String theory needs philosophers[?], as well as their logic, in order to know what new steps could be taken. That's my personal opinion:)This forces all of us to ask the question of origination and how such maths will arise. It defintiely cannot arise from nothng, so we have to make certain assumptions about the nature of the background?

From such paradigmal acceptances, such previews allow new vistas for consideration, as Smolin does in three roads. That is a lesson of consideration for me.

Kip Thorne took the vision to a new level with the interferometer experiments in the construction of LIGO. If you have simultaneous positions, also recording, what similarities would say that such a event exists.

But there is more to it if we really want to delve into the subject of the universe and the ideas behind gravity, especially if we recognize the strength's and weakness, as part of the ends of dimensional significance.

This information then allows us to see what was capable in the events unfolding history. The geometrical dynamics revealed in those gravity waves?

 

[n0n]

Here’s a philosophical comparison of logic, reduction of something to nothing. You all remember reduction of factors to find the least or most common denominator (something like that) right? Well what are the differences in something becoming nothing, and nothing becoming something? A Latin word for something out of nothing exists (and for the life of me I cannot remember), but I'll just call it a free lunch. So what makes a lunch free? The answer is life undoubtedly, but what aspects of life cause a "free lunch", to give all, in one moment, and reduce? Is this not E=mc^2'ish as well?