Lately there has been many discussions ongong on the subject of nothingness and somethingness. It occured to me as part of my thinking on our natural tendancy to polarise our thinking that we fail to see something that helps explain how strongly dualistic thought and existence is.

I ask the question:
At what point does nothing become something?

This of course leads to the dichotomy of body and mind.
Where does the body finish and the mind start?

It is I think worth considering that in our discussion we need to keep in mind that whilst we tend to polarise concepts that this does not exclude the fact that it is a lot harder in reality to observe these polarisation and that in fact in reality the line is impossible to draw. But we do so I would contend becasue it suits our purposes to do so. That it si logically convenient to do so.

Any thoughts?

Yes. I wonder how the discussion of something vs. nothing is going to help the world.

Its purpose is not to help the world.

How about some definitions first:

Something: a thing.

Nothing: a nonexistent thing.

Quantum Quack:

As I said in the other thread, something can never become nothing, and nothing can never become something.

Quantum Quack:

As I said in the other thread, something can never become nothing, and nothing can never become something.

Naturally, since they are the same thing.

c7ityi_:

They cannot be, as they are diametrically opposed to one another. To be nothing is to be anti-something, to be something is to be anti-nothing.

c7ityi_:

They cannot be, as they are diametrically opposed to one another. To be nothing is to be anti-something, to be something is to be anti-nothing.

Prince it was not my purpose to contend that nothing become something. I have badly worded my question I must admit, in fact I even used the word "become". This is a terrible error on my part.

Of course nothing can not become something as you have suggested but I was talking about when do we declare nothing as something. At what point do we determine that something is no longer a valid concept.

The best way to describe my point is with the issue of body and mind.

So often in discussions we will determne the mind as being somehow separate to the body. A bit like the arguement of Body and soul etc....
At what point is your body not mind and at what point is your mind not of body?

The reason for these questions is that so often we [especially I ]will polarize two aspects such as body and mind and forget that they are joined in some way. [ just something I realised just recently and wished to share]

I would go on to contend that body and mind are exactly the same thing but only exist as separate because of our desire to polarise the issue.

In support of Princes point:
In mathematics another example that could be used is to ask:
At what point does zero gain value? Obviously this is a question about infinitely small values.

The fact is we can not determine the difference between zero and value, no matter how many decimal increments we reduce it to there is no way a fixed notion of zero becoming something of value....there is no finite point that nothing can achieve value. There is also no definable point that the something can be reduced to zero.

To support my point:
However in the polarisation of mind and body this is not the case. The distinction between imaginary and real is also another example. So the distinction between two "somethings" is not quite the same as the distinction between nothing and something.

At what point does perfection become imperfect.....is the same question I guess......

Quantum Quack:

Prince it was not my purpose to contend that nothing become something. I have badly worded my question I must admit, in fact I even used the word "become". This is a terrible error on my part.

Of course nothing can not become something as you have suggested but I was talking about when do we declare nothing as something. At what point do we determine that something is no longer a valid concept.

OOoohh! I thought this was a -metaphysical- discussion. Okay. Understood now.

Then to answer this question: A thing becomes another thing when it ceases to be what it was before or when speaking of it in relation. For instance, I am James. I am also James the philosopher. We can speak of James as a whole, and then James as only the philosopher. We can speak of the heart, or we can speak of the heart within a body. We can speak of the mind, or we can speak of the mind and its connection to the brain and body.

*lusty thinkers, lusting after thinking*


;)

They cannot be, as they are diametrically opposed to one another. To be nothing is to be anti-something, to be something is to be anti-nothing.

We've already had this "discussion". I said that up and down are also opposites. All opposites are illusional, since they only exist if we have something to relate to.

What is up and down in space? If there is no gravity. You could still say that up is your head and down is your legs. But if you didn't have a body, if there was no mind to observe and create up and down, they wouldn't exist. They're just concepts.

Does the color grey have an opposite? It is the unification of black and white (nothing and everything).

Naturally, since they are the same thing.

You better call Websters and have them change their definitions. :rolleyes:

(Q), I'm talking in terms of absolute. From a dualistic, conscious, personal point of view everything is different from one another.

I'm talking in terms of absolute. From a dualistic, conscious, personal point of view everything is different from one another.

Yes, your personal point of view is different, but it is usually based on your imagination rather than information.

"Nothing" becomes "something" (in our perception) when it becomes identifiable and gains importance.

(Q), you're so defensive. How can you ever learn anything new if you think you already know. Maybe you should be more neutral.

(Q), you're so defensive. How can you ever learn anything new if you think you already know.

If trying to teach you something is considered defensive, its no surprise you never learned anything.

Ask yourself this, has metaphysics provided you with anything? Your computer, internet connection, lightbulbs, television? Anything at all?

Ask yourself this, has metaphysics provided you with anything? Your computer, internet connection, lightbulbs, television? Anything at all?

It's purpose is not to make technical achievements things but to explain reality. Metaphysics is not accepted by today's scientists.

(Q), you're so defensive. How can you ever learn anything new if you think you already know.

If trying to teach you something is considered defensive, its no surprise you never learned anything.

Ask yourself this, has metaphysics provided you with anything? Your computer, internet connection, lightbulbs, television? Anything at all?


The thing is that BECAUSE of the COMFORT that TECHNOLOGY PROVIDES, people have SO MUCH TIME that they don't know what to do with their spare time anymore, so they THINK and MAKE UP all sorts of theories.

If there'd be little or no technology, people wouldn't have the time to make up silly stories about pink unicorns etc.

c7ityi_:

We've already had this "discussion". I said that up and down are also opposites. All opposites are illusional, since they only exist if we have something to relate to.

What is up and down in space? If there is no gravity. You could still say that up is your head and down is your legs. But if you didn't have a body, if there was no mind to observe and create up and down, they wouldn't exist. They're just concepts.

Does the color grey have an opposite? It is the unification of black and white (nothing and everything).

The concept "up and down" only has meaning when there exists an "up" and there exists a "down", but once you have either, you have both. The concept of somethingness or nothingness, however, is inescapable. These are the two primary divisions that cleft reality in twain, and like all opposites, once you have one you simulteneously have the other. However, unlike relative opposites, these opposites are absolute, being rooted in reality and logic, and thus need no mind in order to be so, as mind could not develop lest they were.

There are some things which do not have opposites. Colours do not truly have opposites, although we generally speak of black and white being as such.

It's purpose is not to make technical achievements things but to explain reality. Metaphysics is not accepted by today's scientists.

Well put.

Water:

The thing is that BECAUSE of the COMFORT that TECHNOLOGY PROVIDES, people have SO MUCH TIME that they don't know what to do with their spare time anymore, so they THINK and MAKE UP all sorts of theories.

If there'd be little or no technology, people wouldn't have the time to make up silly stories about pink unicorns etc.

Save all those primitive societies that make up ludicrous faerie tales all the time.

If there'd be little or no technology, people wouldn't have the time to make up silly stories about pink unicorns etc.

Oh, but they did, its called religion.

It's purpose is not to make technical achievements things but to explain reality. Metaphysics is not accepted by today's scientists.

Complete nonsense. How can metaphysics explain reality, its a philosophy?

Only Metaphysics can explain Metaphysics!

(Q):

Complete nonsense. How can metaphysics explain reality, its a philosophy?

Tell me, Q, is not science based on the metaphysical claim of naturalism? That reality is how we perceive it, that natural laws can be used to explain things, that spiritual substances and other claims are to be ignored unless proven to be real through some empirical means?

Physics is "instrumental", it can be used to master effects by developping the technical capacity of matter, but it is anything but explanatory. The explanation of the universe is religated to the "non-scientific", domains of Religions, Philosophy.

Physics proves itself to be unscientific: on the one hand, it recognizes the spiritual nature of phenomena (which implies unity between the observer and the observed), while on the other hand, maintaining, as a definition of what is scientific, the separation between the observer and the observed, in the name of objectivity. Who do they think they are kidding?

Tell me, Q, is not science based on the metaphysical claim of naturalism?

Not that I'm aware. Science is a methodology.

That reality is how we perceive it...

Reality remains reality regardless of our perception.

that natural laws can be used to explain things...

That which is in nature, yes.

that spiritual substances and other claims are to be ignored unless proven to be real through some empirical means?

One would first have to show why they would make such claims in the first place. Observations? Evidence? Imagination?

If the latter, they are ignored. If the former two, they are not.

Physics proves itself to be unscientific: on the one hand, it recognizes the spiritual nature of phenomena

No, it doesn't - that is complete and utter bullshit.

Who do they think they are kidding?

Please stop commenting on that which you haven't an iota of a clue. You insult everyones intelligence while making yourself out a complete idiot.

(Q):

Not that I'm aware. Science is a methodology.

Look up the formation of science as a distinct discipline by such men as Bacon, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, et cetera. It rests on certain metaphysical propositions and truths and heavily rooted in philosophy.

Reality remains reality regardless of our perception.

I agree, but this is an aspect of the metaphysics of naturalism/materialism and empiricism which characterize science.

One would first have to show why they would make such claims in the first place. Observations? Evidence? Imagination?

Yes, exactly.

If the latter, they are ignored. If the former two, they are not.

Agreed. Yet this very method itself is rooted in the metaphysical foundations of science and the methods adopted.

c7ityi_:

Physics proves itself to be unscientific: on the one hand, it recognizes the spiritual nature of phenomena (which implies unity between the observer and the observed), while on the other hand, maintaining, as a definition of what is scientific, the separation between the observer and the observed, in the name of objectivity. Who do they think they are kidding?

In what way does it recognize the "spiritual nature of phenomena"?

Lately there has been many discussions ongong on the subject of nothingness and somethingness. It occured to me as part of my thinking on our natural tendancy to polarise our thinking that we fail to see something that helps explain how strongly dualistic thought and existence is.

I ask the question:
At what point does nothing become something?

This of course leads to the dichotomy of body and mind.
Where does the body finish and the mind start?

It is I think worth considering that in our discussion we need to keep in mind that whilst we tend to polarise concepts that this does not exclude the fact that it is a lot harder in reality to observe these polarisation and that in fact in reality the line is impossible to draw. But we do so I would contend becasue it suits our purposes to do so. That it si logically convenient to do so.

Any thoughts?


I don't think that the opposite of something is nothing. I think that the opposite of something is everything.

Look up the formation of science as a distinct discipline by such men as Bacon, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, et cetera. It rests on certain metaphysical propositions and truths and heavily rooted in philosophy.

Don't know where you got that. They were forming science as a methodology; observation, hypothesis, experimentation, empirical evidence, verification - the physical, the factual and the logical.

I agree, but this is an aspect of the metaphysics of naturalism/materialism and empiricism which characterize science.

Remove the phrase,"the metaphysics of naturalim/materialism" and we both agree.

Yet this very method itself is rooted in the metaphysical foundations of science and the methods adopted.

Sorry, I don't agree there were metaphysical foundations, it is as I described above.

Physics worst enemy: metaphysics.

Quantum physics: from mind to matter
Classical physics: from matter to mind

Sorry, but physics does not concern itself with metaphysics. It's the other way round.

Materialism.

Fantasy.

You call fantasy that which you don't understand. Physicists laugh at occultists, religions and metaphysics because they don't understand them. They only see the surface. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. Different people are laughed at, and yet, many of them turned out to be geniuses.

(Q):

Don't know where you got that. They were forming science as a methodology; observation, hypothesis, experimentation, empirical evidence, verification - the physical, the factual and the logical.

That was the method, but rooted in the notion that logic is right (which we take from Aristotle), that the factual and physical ca be known and are worth while (materialism and empiricism).

Remove the phrase,"the metaphysics of naturalim/materialism" and we both agree.

So you believe that you could have science without the notion that the material world is real and worth studying and that it follows laws and other such things?

c7ityi_:

Quantum physics: from mind to matter
Classical physics: from matter to mind

That is a "pop QM" idea. Really, QM is no different from CP.

You call fantasy that which you don't understand.

I call fantasy that which you've conjured from your imagination that has no basis in reality.

Physicists laugh at occultists, religions and metaphysics because they don't understand them. They only see the surface. But that doesn't mean they're wrong.

They're laughed at because they're idiots.

Different people are laughed at, and yet, many of them turned out to be geniuses.

Who?

So you believe that you could have science without the notion that the material world is real and worth studying and that it follows laws and other such things?

I would doubt that, but I'm not sure if I get your meaning?

That is a "pop QM" idea. Really, QM is no different from CP.

i know, but it doesn't matter, because physics will turn to metaphysics in the future.

physicists don't agree among themselves. heisenberg.

I call fantasy that which you've conjured from your imagination that has no basis in reality.

yeah but the reality is an imagination.

They're laughed at because they're idiots.

is that all you can say.

Who?

many scientists and philosophers in the past.

is that all you can say.

One not need describe them any further than that.

many scientists and philosophers in the past.

Who exactly?

physics will turn to metaphysics in the future.

And the cow jumped over the moon.

(Q):

I would doubt that, but I'm not sure if I get your meaning?

In essence: Without those metaphysical stances being conceived as valid, science could not work. These metaphysical stances are proved by philosophy in arguments rooted in logic and empirical examination first and foremost.

c7ityi_:

i know, but it doesn't matter, because physics will turn to metaphysics in the future.

Do you even know what "metaphysics" means? If so, please define it.

Who exactly?

tesla

prince: QM is no different from CP

except they are in complete contradiction with each other

Without those metaphysical stances being conceived as valid, science could not work.

I thought it would be the casting off of metaphysics in order for science to work. Could you provide an example?

Have you even read anything about Tesla?

prince: QM is no different from CP

except they are in complete contradiction with each other

So, you have a complete understanding of both Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics, which allows you to take the position for making that comment?

Please describe in detail your claims.

Have you even read anything about Tesla?

yes.

Then you would know he was not laughed at, that is, until his later years when he developed obsessive compulsive disorders.

So, are you going to explain why QM and CP are in contradiction with each other?

Can you show the math too?

Evolution and complexification can't occur by chance. There's something which draws the universe towards somewhere (nowhere)

Something exists because nothingness without "being" is impossible. "No light without darkness".

We feel we are evolving towards a greater truth because we believe we are something other than absolute truth.

Evolution is to become oneself. If I were already myself, I would not evolve, I would be at peace. But it's because I refuse myself, my nothingness, that I feel myself 'being' and subsequently am bound to become what I am. This is evolution. Every motion, every movement in the universe is a means towards peace, towards equilibrium, absence of motion.

Consciousness is dualistic ("me" and the "universe"), unity is absence of consciousness: Nothingness.

You think you are an ego (body) because you couldn't feel being without a frontier to defend.

Your mind (the universal mind) is the only mind that exists. Everybody is inside it. Why not love them as yourself?

~ random quote

Evolution and complexification can't occur by chance. There's something which draws the universe towards somewhere (nowhere)



I agree with the above, but I don't agree with your statement that peace is the lack of evolution, stasis, equilibrium. In fact, I think that this definition of peace is unfortunately what dooms us to war.

In contrast, I would suggest that peace means continuous creation and discovery, a symphony of change - but not just change; evolutionary transformation. Negentropy. A symphony that never ends. I think that it is when this STOPS that we find the end of peace; getting caught up in "ends" and the related world of objects that stifle evolution and spiral into devolution, entropy, and death.

I said peace is nothingness, unconsciousness. Devolution is the other side of evolution... they are the same thing.

At what point does nothing become something?

When something is observed. :)


This of course leads to the dichotomy of body and mind.
Where does the body finish and the mind start?

At the brain.

I might say at the intersection of abstract space and space-time, but that's not quite it, as I don't know if a cell in your finger (which most likely has an unrealized abstract component) is part of your mind, whereas those in your brain are part of it.

c7ityi_:

except they are in complete contradiction with each other

Um, since when? QM gives rise to classical physics after reaching a certain level of size and mass.

(Q):

I thought it would be the casting off of metaphysics in order for science to work. Could you provide an example?

Here's an example: Galileo. Imagine if Galileo agreed with the Church's metaphysical claims rooted in Aristolean scholasticism? He'd completely recant that the Heaven's changed at all.

c7ityi_:

Evolution and complexification can't occur by chance. There's something which draws the universe towards somewhere (nowhere)

Substantiate this?

Something exists because nothingness without "being" is impossible. "No light without darkness".

How is nothingness without "being" impossible? Or have you adopted my metaphysical claim that somethingness requires nothingness and vice versa?

We feel we are evolving towards a greater truth because we believe we are something other than absolute truth.

How are we absolute truth?

Evolution is to become oneself. If I were already myself, I would not evolve, I would be at peace. But it's because I refuse myself, my nothingness, that I feel myself 'being' and subsequently am bound to become what I am. This is evolution. Every motion, every movement in the universe is a means towards peace, towards equilibrium, absence of motion.

HOw are you nothing if you are something?

You do also realize that "nothingness" and "unconsciousness" are not one in the same right?

I said peace is nothingness, unconsciousness. Devolution is the other side of evolution... they are the same thing.

You said that peace is nothingness. I am saying that this is a destructive idea.

You do also realize that "nothingness" and "unconsciousness" is not one in the same right?

I think unconsciousness is the same thing as nothingness.

You said that peace is nothingness. I am saying that this is a destructive idea.

I'm not talking about an idea, I'm talking about actual non-existence.

c7ityi_:

How is unconsciousness the same as nothingness?

I think unconsciousness is the same thing as nothingness.

I'm not talking about an idea, I'm talking about actual non-existence.

Your idea, as expressed in words, was that peace can be equated with nothingness (actual non-existence). It is this idea that I am questioning.

How is unconsciousness the same as nothingness?

Consciousness is the reason why something (the illusion) exists. The "something" is an illusion because it is something other than it appears to be: nothingness (in the presence)

so you think the earth, regardless of our name for it, or observation of it - exists because of consciousness? if there were no consciousness, there would be no thing?

c7ityi_:

Consciousness is the reason why something (the illusion) exists. The "something" is an illusion because it is something other than it appears to be: nothingness (in the presence)

How does consciousness accomplish this? And as I have asked many times before: How can something arise from nothing?

How does consciousness accomplish this?

Everything you see exists only because it has been separated from its complementary half. Because of our advanced brain, we separated our body and person from the rest of the world, so we became conscious beings. Without something to reject, something to consider as "not me", it is impossible to say "I am" (to be conscious)

The real self is everything, so it is unconscious. It is only by becoming the center of the infinity-- by rejecting our self, by limiting ourselves to a certain body, a person-- that we can become conscious.

And as I have asked many times before: How can something arise from nothing?

Theoretically, a thing can always be divided into smaller and smaller parts. A grain of sand can divided into atoms, atoms can be divided into protons, protons into quarks and so on.

What is the building block of the world? What is matter made of it there is not indivisible particle? It is made of nothing. It's an illusion.

c7ityi_:

Everything you see exists only because it has been separated from its complementary half. Because of our advanced brain, we separated our body and person from the rest of the world, so we became conscious beings. Without something to reject, something to consider as "not me", it is impossible to say "I am" (to be conscious)

The real self is everything, so it is unconscious. It is only by becoming the center of the infinity-- by rejecting our self, by limiting ourselves to a certain body, a person-- that we can become conscious.

Would you say this is true even with something and nothing? Are they not still mixed? In that something requires nothing, nothing requires something and that both exist? Does it require a brain to really seperate them, as are they not -absolute- opposites?

I shall, however, agree with you that God must necessarily be unconscious.

Theoretically, a thing can always be divided into smaller and smaller parts. A grain of sand can divided into atoms, atoms can be divided into protons, protons into quarks and so on.

What is the building block of the world? What is matter made of it there is not indivisible particle? It is made of nothing. It's an illusion.

Theroetically and factually. Both the infinitely small and infinitely large are real. So to say "nothing" is incorrect, as it never reaches nothing, but reaches only the "infinitely small".

Would you say this is true even with something and nothing? Are they not still mixed? In that something requires nothing, nothing requires something and that both exist? Does it require a brain to really seperate them, as are they not -absolute- opposites?

The words something and nothing and their definitions are one and the same thing. The thing which they are cannot be talked about. It is only vaguely understood by the word "God" or "self".

There are no absolute opposites. They are all aspects of one wholeness. The brain, the personal mind, separates things from the wholeness and categorizes them.

Theroetically and factually. Both the infinitely small and infinitely large are real. So to say "nothing" is incorrect, as it never reaches nothing, but reaches only the "infinitely small".

Nothingness cannot be reached because it already IS. It is the center which creates the spiral. Then the rival of spirit -- matter -- the personal mind evolves and tries to go back to the center by going further and further...

I would say that an illusion is something that is not absolute. Like the world, it consists of many small particles, which are made of nothing, yet the world doesn't look like particles, it does not look like nothingness. That is an illusion.

Only nothingness can be real because it is exactly what it claims to be. The world is an illusion but the illusion itself cannot be an "illusion". Illusion is exactly what it claims to be.

damn
talk about being illogical and contradictory

c7ityi_

please elaborate in greater detail

Only nothingness can be real because it is exactly what it claims to be. The world is an illusion but the illusion itself cannot be an "illusion". Illusion is exactly what it claims to be.

What use does the cosmos have for illusion?

c7ityi_:



And as I have asked many times before: How can something arise from nothing?
i think everything you see is something out of nothing.
if you try to examine the nucleous of an atom it will come in and out of existance, there is nothing really substantiall to an atom, more like a concentrated thought,
there is more space in what we consider matter then there is actually solid matter.
for example if you were to eliminate all the space in all the molocules that make up all the humans in the entire world you would end up with "something" the size of a grain of rice.

in my eyes thats pretty much getting something out of nothing

but that's something out of not much of something.

What use does the cosmos have for illusion?

It allows the "nothingness" (reality) to be. It is a consequence of "the reality", like heat is a consequence of fire.

c7ityi_:

The words something and nothing and their definitions are one and the same thing. The thing which they are cannot be talked about. It is only vaguely understood by the word "God" or "self".

How is this so? Something is composed of energy, takes up space, and exists in time. Nothing is not composed of energy, takes up no space, does not exist in time, nor even "exists" at all (but only non-exists, or noixsts as I say). They are polar opposites.

There are no absolute opposites. They are all aspects of one wholeness. The brain, the personal mind, separates things from the wholeness and categorizes them.

But how does the brain do this if this is not related to some degree real?

Nothingness cannot be reached because it already IS. It is the center which creates the spiral. Then the rival of spirit -- matter -- the personal mind evolves and tries to go back to the center by going further and further...

How is it the centre which creates the spiral, as opposed to the opposite which the spiral is only connected with as being part of existence?

I would say that an illusion is something that is not absolute. Like the world, it consists of many small particles, which are made of nothing, yet the world doesn't look like particles, it does not look like nothingness. That is an illusion.

Yet how is it, again, made of "nothing"? Why not "the infinitely small"?

Only nothingness can be real because it is exactly what it claims to be. The world is an illusion but the illusion itself cannot be an "illusion". Illusion is exactly what it claims to be.

But what about something in a general sense?

gratitude&love:

Before I reply, I just wanted to offer a welcome. You seem to be new here and I look forward to all sorts of lively debate.

i think everything you see is something out of nothing.
if you try to examine the nucleous of an atom it will come in and out of existance, there is nothing really substantiall to an atom, more like a concentrated thought,
there is more space in what we consider matter then there is actually solid matter.
for example if you were to eliminate all the space in all the molocules that make up all the humans in the entire world you would end up with "something" the size of a grain of rice.

in my eyes thats pretty much getting something out of nothing

You do realize this "empty space" is filled to the brim with energy, yes? And moreover, how is an atom like "a concentrated thought"?

Something is composed of energy, takes up space, and exists in time.

you hav to understand what energy space time are so that u understand that they are nothing.

you have to understand!!... that... only the WHOLE exists... it is an absolute princeiple... but... you have to understand What the Whole is.... and... if it is nothing... then nothing is all there is..................

if energy is all there is... you have to explain what energy is....

only nothingness can be eternal... exist forever.... it is the base... on which the energy/matter is.... so... it is also the first cause... the only necessity...

They are polar opposites.

thats why they are the same.... polar extremes means a circle.... two sides of one coin... the two sides only exists because we define... make them exist...

but in reality... only the wholeness exists... only one thing exists...

But how does the brain do this if this is not related to some degree real?

everything is nothing... because it is made of nothing.... and nothing is real... so everything is real...

but... what you see is an illusion... what there really is infront of you is nothingness.... but you cannot see it because you are yet conscious....

Yet how is it, again, made of "nothing"? Why not "the infinitely small"?

that is the same as nothing.

hmmm
can you post your pic?

c7ityi_:

you hav to understand what energy space time are so that u understand that they are nothing.

you have to understand!!... that... only the WHOLE exists... it is an absolute princeiple... but... you have to understand What the Whole is.... and... if it is nothing... then nothing is all there is..................

if energy is all there is... you have to explain what energy is....

only nothingness can be eternal... exist forever.... it is the base... on which the energy/matter is.... so... it is also the first cause... the only necessity...

I made an argument to attempt to prove that nothing and something are both eternal and eternally create one another. I can't remember in which thread, but within the last two weeks. I think you might have even been here.

thats why they are the same.... polar extremes means a circle.... two sides of one coin... the two sides only exists because we define... make them exist...

They may be united, but are not they distinct? The heads and tails side of a coin are united, but both are real and if one were to cease to exist, so would the other. But do we define? Or do they absolutely exist?

everything is nothing... because it is made of nothing.... and nothing is real... so everything is real...

But tell me this: Is not nothing anti-something? How can anti-something produce actual nothing as a generationf rom tiself?

but... what you see is an illusion... what there really is infront of you is nothingness.... but you cannot see it because you are yet conscious....

But how is there -anything- to see if it is truly nothing? Are you saying it is nothing only to the extent that something and nothing would have nothing to distinguish from it if there existed no consciousness?

that is the same as nothing.

How so? Is .000000000000000...1 ever 0? If something is nothing, it is not simply small, it is nothing.
g.

It allows the "nothingness" (reality) to be. It is a consequence of "the reality", like heat is a consequence of fire.

Is "illusion" the best word to use?

The heads and tails side of a coin are united, but both are real and if one were to cease to exist, so would the other.

the sides do not exists, there is only a coin. there is nothing but the wholeness.

just like there is no up and down. they're just illusions. we have a body and the outer world to relate to. and attraction of the earth.

But tell me this: Is not nothing anti-something? How can anti-something produce actual nothing as a generationf rom tiself?

the coin. the sides do not exist.

But how is there -anything- to see if it is truly nothing?

the mind only believes there is something because it don't want to accept something so simple, so it creates its own illusional material world.

Is .000000000000000...1 ever 0?

that is a paradox. nothingness is infinite. why don't you read the things at www.hatem.com, he explains things better than me.

Is "illusion" the best word to use?

Sometimes.

c7ityi_:



How is this so? Something is composed of energy, takes up space, and exists in time. Nothing is not composed of energy, takes up no space, does not exist in time, nor even "exists" at all (but only non-exists, or noixsts as I say). They are polar opposites.



But how does the brain do this if this is not related to some degree real?



How is it the centre which creates the spiral, as opposed to the opposite which the spiral is only connected with as being part of existence?



Yet how is it, again, made of "nothing"? Why not "the infinitely small"?



But what about something in a general sense?

gratitude&love:

Before I reply, I just wanted to offer a welcome. You seem to be new here and I look forward to all sorts of lively debate.



You do realize this "empty space" is filled to the brim with energy, yes? And moreover, how is an atom like "a concentrated thought"?
well thought maybe not, but information. as we are discussing in the other thread, the nucleous pops in and out of existance just readily as the electrons that surround the nucleous, so where do they go? an alternate universe? have you ever heard of the "M" theory? and thanks for the welcome

c7ityi_:

the sides do not exists, there is only a coin. there is nothing but the wholeness.

To look at only wholeness is to betray seperateness. Neither wholeness nor seperateness is more inherent in anything.

just like there is no up and down. they're just illusions. we have a body and the outer world to relate to. and attraction of the earth.

Up and down are based in perspective, but existence and non-existence are indeed opposites.

the coin. the sides do not exist.

Surely they do, although they are united intimately.

the mind only believes there is something because it don't want to accept something so simple, so it creates its own illusional material world.

It would violate the principles which thought is based on to be able to create a world it could not possibly have any idea of. Moreover, why would the mind not want simplicity?

that is a paradox. nothingness is infinite. why don't you read the things at www.hatem.com, he explains things better than me.

Nothing is infinite, but so is somethingness. I shall check out that website, though.

gratitude&love:

well thought maybe not, but information. as we are discussing in the other thread, the nucleous pops in and out of existance just readily as the electrons that surround the nucleous, so where do they go? an alternate universe? have you ever heard of the "M" theory? and thanks for the welcome

Gratitude, can you provide the source for this notion that the atom winks out of existence? As I said on the other thread, this does not seem to be validated.

I have heard of M-theory though, yes, although I am not at all a big proponent of it.

M theory has not yet been developed. It is a speculative potential of a theory.

Surely they do, although they are united intimately.

Of course they exist in our MIND, but not in "reality", without a conscious (dualistic, separated, personal) mind!

What exists in "reality", what exists in the unconscious?

It would violate the principles which thought is based on to be able to create a world it could not possibly have any idea of.

Why would it need to have any idea? It is unconscious, it acts by "instinct", by an unconscious will.

Moreover, why would the mind not want simplicity?

the rival... the spirit of matter... the will... to become greater... to unite... magnetism... conscious mind... made of matter...

c7ityi_:

Of course they exist in our MIND, but not in "reality", without a conscious (dualistic, separated, personal) mind!

A coin, as a flat object, necessarily has two sides no matter if there is consciousness or not. The sides are not united into one side.

What exists in "reality", what exists in the unconscious?

I do not know what exists in the unconscious, aside from the potential to return to consciousness. What exists in reality? Something and nothing.

Why would it need to have any idea? It is unconscious, it acts by "instinct", by an unconscious will.

Then it is not a creator but a natural force. There is also no such thing as an "unconscious will". A will can only be conscious, otherwise it is a natural law and there is no "will" to speak of, merely necessity.

the rival... the spirit of matter... the will... to become greater... to unite... magnetism... conscious mind... made of matter...

Please don't go into ellipse mode on me. Just answer the question plainly, if you might.

A coin, as a flat object, necessarily has two sides no matter if there is consciousness or not. The sides are not united into one side.

I just don't agree. The number 2 exists only because we define... create... make visible... from invisibility...

the blank paper... with nothing.... yet everything could be drawn there... so...

Then it is not a creator but a natural force. There is also no such thing as an "unconscious will". A will can only be conscious, otherwise it is a natural law and there is no "will" to speak of, merely necessity.

"Natural force?" It is because you define so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Magnetism, and what we recognize as will in us, is the same thing, just that we are conscious of it.

If you don't define, there is only one thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

When something is observed. :)
Pardon me for sounding silly, but aren't there "somethings" that are not observed, like imaginary numbers, spirits, and the like? Surely, those are not "things", but they're somethings. It clearly aren't only the material things that we're discussing, since a material thing either exists or does not independently of our perception.

Prince James & c7ityi! Empiricism vs. Monism! Let's see what happens when an immovable object collides with an immovable object.

c7ityi_:

I just don't agree. The number 2 exists only because we define... create... make visible... from invisibility...

It is not a matter of "the number two", but the physical reality that a coin is a flat object in three dimensional space. This indicates that it will have two sides.

the blank paper... with nothing.... yet everything could be drawn there... so...

Yet this is a poor analogy, as the paper is not "nothing", and it requirse the pencil (an exterior source) to draw something upon it. The image is not within the paper ready to come out, but within the artist.

"Natural force?" It is because you define so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Ascribing "will" to an object without reason is foolhardyness.

Magnetism, and what we recognize as will in us, is the same thing, just that we are conscious of it.

Save the two work on -entirely different principles-, and impact -totally different things-.

If you don't define, there is only one thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

Claiming that it is all one thing is, itself, a definition.

whitewolf:

Pardon me for sounding silly, but aren't there "somethings" that are not observed, like imaginary numbers, spirits, and the like? Surely, those are not "things", but they're somethings. It clearly aren't only the material things that we're discussing, since a material thing either exists or does not independently of our perception.

Imaginary numbers are a mathematical device to easily explain certain things, such as magnetic field strength. Spirits could be simply phantasies. Moreover, in what manner do use the term "material"?

Onefinity:

Prince James & c7ityi! Empiricism vs. Monism! Let's see what happens when an immovable object collides with an immovable object.

Hilarious.

It is not a matter of "the number two", but the physical reality that a coin is a flat object in three dimensional space. This indicates that it will have two sides.

not without the experiencer (separation)

Yet this is a poor analogy, as the paper is not "nothing", and it requirse the pencil (an exterior source) to draw something upon it. The image is not within the paper ready to come out, but within the artist.

u dont understand

Ascribing "will" to an object without reason is foolhardyness.

it is to simplify

Save the two work on -entirely different principles-, and impact -totally different things-.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2062/fun29ot.gif

Claiming that it is all one thing is, itself, a definition.

it doesn't matter.

The knowledge and skills you have achieved are meant to be forgotten so you can float comfortably in emptiness, without obstruction.

Bruce Lee

i don't want that that because you have touched it!!!!!!

Prince_James,
Imaginary numbers are a mathematical device to easily explain certain things, such as magnetic field strength. Spirits could be simply phantasies.
Yes, these "somethings" exist only in our imagination. More often than not, we first identify them and then observe them in our minds. For instance, humans first heard "dragon" and then went on and imagined what it would look like and what it would do; that's why, in various cultures, a dragon looks and acts differently.
Moreover, in what manner do use the term "material"?
Well, you know, a doll, a tree; those are items that are actual things in real life. Imagination alone isn't adequate for making these items exist. If we make what we imagine, then it comes into existance. But before we make a thing, we first identify what it is that we're making, then observe, and then construct.
And when we become aware of something in real life, we say: "something is there" and then we observe it.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

c7ityi_:

not without the experiencer (separation)

The physical reality would remain, experiencer or not.

u dont understand

Then elaborate.

it is to simplify

It is to make up theories with no basis.

In reply to the image:

What was that supposed to mean?

it doesn't matter.

It surely does.

The knowledge and skills you have achieved are meant to be forgotten so you can float comfortably in emptiness, without obstruction.

Bruce Lee

This is rooted in the notion that once you you have attained mastery, one no longer has to consciously dwell on such things.

whitewolf:

Yes, these "somethings" exist only in our imagination. More often than not, we first identify them and then observe them in our minds. For instance, humans first heard "dragon" and then went on and imagined what it would look like and what it would do; that's why, in various cultures, a dragon looks and acts differently.

Yes, these things exist in the imagination, although your choice of analogy was a bit poor, due to the fact that dragons share remarkable similarities cross-culture.

Well, you know, a doll, a tree; those are items that are actual things in real life. Imagination alone isn't adequate for making these items exist. If we make what we imagine, then it comes into existance. But before we make a thing, we first identify what it is that we're making, then observe, and then construct.
And when we become aware of something in real life, we say: "something is there" and then we observe it.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, but would you say that if the mind were material, that thoughts would also be material?

The physical reality would remain, experiencer or not.

How do you know? How will you prove that things exist apart from the senses?

Why would "matter" be any different from motion for example? There is no absolute motion, only relative motion. Just like with time. It's all relative, and nothing exists without relation between two things. It would be illogical, there must be a connection.

The world is "nothingness" without the right "decoder", without the right type of body to experience it. Like a TV signal without a TV.

Then elaborate.

I don't want to :)

It is to make up theories with no basis.

yr so funny :)

In reply to the image:

What was that supposed to mean?

that i didn't agree with you. who knows? why would you believe me? why would I mean anything I say? you probably don't mean them either, even if you say you do. nothing can be proven. is this what the picture means? dunno, a picture says more than thousand words.

It surely does.

Yeah :)

Yes, but would you say that if the mind were material, that thoughts would also be material?
This is a scientific question. We don't know enough in this area, so I'd refrain from saying much about it. Our brain certainly is a material item.

Our brain certainly is a material item.
What do you mean by material?

That it's a thing... you know, you can see it, touch it, sniff it....

If you can only be sure of its existence through your senses, it must mean that it is something sensational (mental) rather than "material/physical" ("distinguished" from the mind/consciousness)

If you can only be sure of its existence through your senses, it must mean that it is something sensational (mental) rather than "material/physical" ("distinguished" from the mind/consciousness)
I'm not sure what you mean, sorry, it's a slow morning. Do you mean I can't make sure of the existance of my keyboard through my senses?....

c7ityi_:

How do you know? How will you prove that things exist apart from the senses?

I will present this argument soon.

Why would "matter" be any different from motion for example? There is no absolute motion, only relative motion. Just like with time. It's all relative, and nothing exists without relation between two things. It would be illogical, there must be a connection.

Does a relationship have to be conscious in order to exist? For instance, is not a tree in relationship with the soil?

The world is "nothingness" without the right "decoder", without the right type of body to experience it. Like a TV signal without a TV.

Tell me, when you fall asleep, does the world disappear? Or do not people relate experiences of existence to you during that time of sleep?


I don't want to

Why not?

yr so funny

How so?

that i didn't agree with you. who knows? why would you believe me? why would I mean anything I say? you probably don't mean them either, even if you say you do. nothing can be proven. is this what the picture means? dunno, a picture says more than thousand words.

Nothing can be proven? I scoff at this.

whitewolf:

This is a scientific question. We don't know enough in this area, so I'd refrain from saying much about it. Our brain certainly is a material item.

But is it then proper to speak of thoughts as material or immaterial?

whitewolf:

She's arguing from Kant's theory of Transcendental Idealism, or even from pure Idealism. In essence, if it is in your mind, it is a thought, whether you perceive it or it was a self-created thought.

there is no such thing as nothing
everything is something

ile prove it
try and tell me of something that is nothing

lol....

Why not?
There is no answer, there is only a will.

EmptyForceOfChi:

You are right, nothing does not exist (partake in existence) but "noixsts" as the opposite of something, as well as being demonstrated as noixsting in the absence of something, even if this something is only relative.

c7ityi_:


There is no answer, there is only a will.

Or whim.

agreed

Lately there has been many discussions ongong on the subject of nothingness and somethingness. It occured to me as part of my thinking on our natural tendancy to polarise our thinking that we fail to see something that helps explain how strongly dualistic thought and existence is.

I ask the question:
At what point does nothing become something?

This of course leads to the dichotomy of body and mind.
Where does the body finish and the mind start?

It is I think worth considering that in our discussion we need to keep in mind that whilst we tend to polarise concepts that this does not exclude the fact that it is a lot harder in reality to observe these polarisation and that in fact in reality the line is impossible to draw. But we do so I would contend becasue it suits our purposes to do so. That it si logically convenient to do so.

Any thoughts?There is no nothing. Thus something does not go into nothing.

Here's something I don't understand if the universe wasn't neverending, what is beyond it? Does it really expand into nothingness? Even if in the fourth dimension, the mere idea of nothingness cannot be comprehended by us. Cause there would still be a line drawn from something into nothing, is the line so faded that it doesn't matter anyway, or so faded that it never actually becomes nothing?

BTW a related question, how many particles are there in the "empty" space? If there are - let's say - 10000 particles per millimetre (I'm sure there is much more, but just follow me here), couldn't we then actually measure nothingness? The real empty?

About body/mind, I would suggest that the mind is as big as we ever can conceive it, beyond the conceiving the mind ends, the mind is thus in a way the result of our conceiving. That doesn't answer anything about the line drawn between the body and the mind, it would seem to me that the mind responds to change, it's attention to the change and tact, thus becomes "curious", the mind and the body are in two different worlds, each one interacting with the other, eventually the mind is more important, since we will all die. But as far as my understanding goes, the body is needed as a "training" for the mind, the training can be seen in many ways, we learn things. But as far as the original question border of the mind and the body can be seen in whether there is change or not. The change can be anything, it doesn't really matter that much (allthough it do matters, just not that much as we like to think of it), the change can be made to represent just about anything, but love will still be love, even if it is "made" by other change. What determines it is rather the cause of the change, not the actual change. Other than curiousity may also be what gets our attention. We are the mind, the body would be nothing without us.

There is no nothing. Thus something does not go into nothing.

Here's something I don't understand if the universe wasn't neverending, what is beyond it? Does it really expand into nothingness? Even if in the fourth dimension, the mere idea of nothingness cannot be comprehended by us. Cause there would still be a line drawn from something into nothing, is the line so faded that it doesn't matter anyway, or so faded that it never actually becomes nothing?

BTW a related question, how many particles are there in the "empty" space? If there are - let's say - 10000 particles per millimetre (I'm sure there is much more, but just follow me here), couldn't we then actually measure nothingness? The real empty?

About body/mind, I would suggest that the mind is as big as we ever can conceive it, beyond the conceiving the mind ends, the mind is thus in a way the result of our conceiving. That doesn't answer anything about the line drawn between the body and the mind, it would seem to me that the mind responds to change, it's attention to the change and tact, thus becomes "curious", the mind and the body are in two different worlds, each one interacting with the other, eventually the mind is more important, since we will all die. But as far as my understanding goes, the body is needed as a "training" for the mind, the training can be seen in many ways, we learn things. But as far as the original question border of the mind and the body can be seen in whether there is change or not. The change can be anything, it doesn't really matter that much (allthough it do matters, just not that much as we like to think of it), the change can be made to represent just about anything, but love will still be love, even if it is "made" by other change. What determines it is rather the cause of the change, not the actual change. Other than curiousity may also be what gets our attention. We are the mind, the body would be nothing without us.
Cyperium, nice post.

I guess the main reason for asking this question is to focus on the issue of how our minds seem to tend to always polarise concepts.

The body/ mind example is a classic case of differentiation. Splitting our selves into two entities; one being of mind the other being of body.

I would contend that there is no dividing line between body and mind that the mind is body and the body is mind. It is only upon death that this division seems to have substance [ if one subsrcibes to existance after death]

But really I wanted to promote the point that the line we draw is so often one of convenience and purely arbitary.

The question regarding a universe with a boundary [something to nothing] is a good example of the question of "At what point does the somethng diminish to become nothing?
Even if we had a small speck of dust and it was surrounded by an infinite volume of empty space can that space be considered as empty? As nothing?

Surely that one speck of dust renders the notion of that space nothing as a nul concept.
However we can say that where the speck of dust finishes nothing begins yet that nothing has something in it.
So we have a paradox of reasoning. From the perspective of the dust particle nothing is beyond it's boundaries [ if we discount the particles inherant gravity] yet from the perspective of that nothingness something exists with in it's boundaries, thus "nothing" could never consider itself to be nothing.

The question is a bit like asking at what point does night become day and day become night? Is there a finite solution to the question?
;)

Cyperium:

Particles are not the only thing which measure existence, energy does. Ontop of this, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, affirms that no space can ever be empty, but must have a non-zero energy content, even if that energy content is infinitely small.

Quantum Quack:

Surely that one speck of dust renders the notion of that space nothing as a nul concept.
However we can say that where the speck of dust finishes nothing begins yet that nothing has something in it.
So we have a paradox of reasoning. From the perspective of the dust particle nothing is beyond it's boundaries [ if we discount the particles inherant gravity] yet from the perspective of that nothingness something exists with in it's boundaries, thus "nothing" could never consider itself to be nothing.

"Nothing" begins? No. There is something beyond the dust. You're equating "empty space" (which is not physically posisble) with "nothingness". Absolute nothingness cannot noixst (my term for "existence" but for nothingness) within existence.

Depends on what terms you want to use.
In set theory 'Zero'=def {x;x=~x}
then one would be 'ONE'=def{x;x=x}
Then you get into the mess of types and levels.

So, in one way to look at it - something exists if there is something which can be said to have the property of being similar to it.

Then again, maybe this is a fault in modern math/phil. It seems to be making the same mistake as Anselm and using an impredicative definition. Hmm. Tough one. Math wise, at least, the one may be unsolvable.

Tyler:

In what way do you think existence is using an "impredicative definition"?