The Value of nothing is everything

[Quantum Quack]

If everything is in some kind of relationship with everything only then can nothing- ness not exist.

That nothing ness is a default result of everything being in a relationship with everything.

For example : A fly has a relationship with a star on the other side of the universe.

Every existant "thing" could be stated as being in a relationship with every existant thing. It is only when this is so, nothing- ness no-exists by default.

Thus the value of nothing is everything.

Care to discuss?

[nicholas1M7]

If everything is in some kind of relationship with everything only then can nothing- ness not exist.

That nothing ness is a default result of everything being in a relationship with everything.

For example : A fly has a relationship with a star on the other side of the universe.

Every existant "thing" could be stated as being in a relationship with every existant thing. It is only when this is so, nothing- ness no-exists by default.

Thus the value of nothing is everything.

Care to discuss?


Is value the right word? Or definition?

[TruthSeeker]

If everything is in some kind of relationship with everything only then can nothing- ness not exist.
Maybe nothing-ness by definition is something which has no relationship with anything else? :confused:

How can nothingness has any relationship with something?

That nothing ness is a default result of everything being in a relationship with everything.
How does that follow?

For example : A fly has a relationship with a star on the other side of the universe.

Every existant "thing" could be stated as being in a relationship with every existant thing.
Yes. At least indirectly.

It is only when this is so, nothing- ness no-exists by default.
How does that follow? What do you mean by "no-exists"?

Thus the value of nothing is everything.
What does value has anything to do with this discussion?

[Winner of Discontent]

how can everything have a relationship with everything else? so there is a force in the universe that ties everything together in some form of harmony to counter nothingness? sounds suspiciously like the seven degrees of kevin bacon game.

the way i am reading this is that nothingness is the default of everything being in a relationship with everything else yet only once everything is in a relationship with everything else will nothingness no longer be the default. seems contradictory.

and yes, a definition of nothingness or how you interpret it is somewhat integral to understand this post. to me, nothingness is merely a feeling...not a force. i don't believe i am tied to anything in the universe. when i die, it will go on without me unaware that i was ever here.

not sure i've understood what you mean...i have embraced my nothingness for too long probably. tho i will say, atm the value of nothing is everything to me.

[TruthSeeker]

how can everything have a relationship with everything else? so there is a force in the universe that ties everything together in some form of harmony to counter nothingness? sounds suspiciously like the seven degrees of kevin bacon game.
At least indirectly, yes (besides the nothingness par- that's debatable).

[nicholas1M7]

Maybe nothing-ness by definition is something which has no relationship with anything else? :confused:

How can nothingness has any relationship with something?


How does that follow?


Yes. At least indirectly.


How does that follow? What do you mean by "no-exists"?


What does value has anything to do with this discussion?


TruthSeeker,

what he is saying is that IF everything is related to each and every thing else, then and only then can nothing not exist (i.e. there would be no such thing as nothing, it would be meaningless to speak of such). However, if not each and every thing in existence were related, i.e. if two things in the universe could be said to be truly unrelated, then nothingness is a possibility somewhere, anywhere in the universe. Hence, this everything relationship is what gives meaning to the word nothing.

[RoyLennigan]

the human concept of nothingness is decieving. what we percieve as nothing is really uniformity of a whole. we see complete blackness when really there is a minute difference that our senses are too limited to pick up on. we see a white paper when it is really just a repeating pattern of the same kinds of molecules. therefore i think nothing is just a misconcieved perception of everything as a whole.

everything is related somehow and every tiny event affects every other tiny event in some way. so it could be said that there can be no distinction between anything and that we are all part of one big thing--the universe.

[Quantum Quack]

TruthSeeker,

what he is saying is that IF everything is related to each and every thing else, then and only then can nothing not exist (i.e. there would be no such thing as nothing, it would be meaningless to speak of such). However, if not each and every thing in existence were related, i.e. if two things in the universe could be said to be truly unrelated, then nothingness is a possibility somewhere, anywhere in the universe. Hence, this everything relationship is what gives meaning to the word nothing.
Nicholas1M7 I think has understood the logic I am proposing with this thread.
It is a little difficult to get the 'ole head around I guess.
I'll post more later....gotta run...

[TruthSeeker]

I see what is being said...
I'm not sure if it follows, however... :confused:

[Tnerb]

yeah, hard to get the ol head around alright. i guess you just gotta pay attention! ;) beat your flippin foot up aganist a tree karatie chop!
verrrryyyy interesting QQ

[TruthSeeker]

How about some nicely laid out premises that follow into a conclusion? ;)

[Quantum Quack]

If everything is in some kind of relationship with everything only then can nothing- ness not exist.


Posted by Truthseeker:
Maybe nothing-ness by definition is something which has no relationship with anything else?

How can nothingness has any relationship with something?

I feel it would be prudent to clarify, stating with out any reservation that nothing-ness can not exist.

For if it exists it can no longer be classified as nothingness [ in absolutum ]

To extend it to the threads proposition:

For nothing- ness to not exist [ no-exist ~ a new word...hmmmm] everything else must exist.

And to do so everything must be in an existant relationship in that if one thing exists then another thing does also. That is to say that they share a relationship of existing [ simplified approach]

If one assumes that every thing come to be at some starting point then everything in existance has it's origins at that point. So therefore it could be said that a relationship must exist even if just a point of creation.

For example the matter that comprises my body is the same age and comes from the same soriginal source as yours or any body elses. There fore we share a relationship of origin.

So it could be stated clearly I feel that all exisistant "things" have a relationship with all existant "things"

It is only because of this relationship that nothing-ness can not exist.

if any "thing" has no relationship then nothingness could be said co-exist with somethingness.

And if nothingness exists then it can no longer be considered as nothingness in absolutum, because it now enjoys a relationship of co-existance.

So...nothingness can only not exist if everything has a relationship with everything.

The question I feel is how to prove that nothing-ness does not exist.

I tend to think that is we can prove that every "thing" is in a relationship with every "thing"* then we have proved nothing-ness's non-existance by default.
[* nothingness is not a "thing"]


“ Thus the value of nothing is everything. ”


What does value has anything to do with this discussion?

this is a bit harder to explain........hmmmm.....

a long the lines of "zero = infinity"....but I'll get back to this later..if I can.......

"sorry guys, I posted the thread with out having the time resources to put into the follow up... my mistake"

[RoyLennigan]

I feel it would be prudent to clarify, stating with out any reservation that nothing-ness can not exist.

For if it exists it can no longer be classified as nothingness [ in absolutum ]

To extend it to the threads proposition:

For nothing- ness to not exist [ no-exist ~ a new word...hmmmm] everything else must exist.

And to do so everything must be in an existant relationship in that if one thing exists then another thing does also. That is to say that they share a relationship of existing [ simplified approach]

If one assumes that every thing come to be at some starting point then everything in existance has it's origins at that point. So therefore it could be said that a relationship must exist even if just a point of creation.

For example the matter that comprises my body is the same age and comes from the same soriginal source as yours or any body elses. There fore we share a relationship of origin.

So it could be stated clearly I feel that all exisistant "things" have a relationship with all existant "things"

It is only because of this relationship that nothing-ness can not exist.

if any "thing" has no relationship then nothingness could be said co-exist with somethingness.

And if nothingness exists then it can no longer be considered as nothingness in absolutum, because it now enjoys a relationship of co-existance.

So...nothingness can only not exist if everything has a relationship with everything.

The question I feel is how to prove that nothing-ness does not exist.

I tend to think that is we can prove that every "thing" is in a relationship with every "thing"* then we have proved nothing-ness's non-existance by default.
[* nothingness is not a "thing"]




this is a bit harder to explain........hmmmm.....

a long the lines of "zero = infinity"....but I'll get back to this later..if I can.......

"sorry guys, I posted the thread with out having the time resources to put into the follow up... my mistake"
i say i would have to agree with you. i have come to the exact same conclusion independantly--that if everything exists in a relation to each other, then nothingness cannot exist. nothing includes a lack of relation, by definition, and so it cannot exist in a universe where all things affect each other.

but i would not say that the value of nothing is everthing. i think the misconcieved idea of nothing by humans has the value of everything. we see a blank wall and call it nothing, when in reality it is something that is uniform. but the value of an actual nothing would be undefined, like dividing by 0. the value of everything would be infinite.

[TruthSeeker]

What if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to perceive it. Is that nothingness? :D ;)

You may be interested in this thread as well...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1062192#post1062192

[c7ityi_]

What if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to perceive it. Is that nothingness? :D ;)

there are always some atoms to 'perceive' the trees.

[RoyLennigan]

there are always some atoms to 'perceive' the trees.
exactly

[TruthSeeker]

So atoms have consciousness?

[c7ityi_]

So atoms have consciousness?

teehee... to us it seems like matter is dead because we're so much more alive/conscious. but you know that animals are alive, and even plants, and tiny microbes. why would there be a line between dead and alive somewhere? there is no line, but it's like with light... there are infinite colors... infinite different states of consciousness.

atoms don't have the ability to see things cuz they don't have eyes.. ;P but they still can "feel/experience" something, which is the reason why they are in motion. a magnet attracts metals and other magnets. it's a very primitive kind of love.

i mean... the experiencer and the experienced are not separated. if there is an experiencer, there is something to experience. if there is something to experience, there is an experiencer.

motion is not possible without consciousness.

the reason atoms start building human bodies and things is because there are tiny humans and animals also living in those [to us] microscopic worlds. they strive for the same things as we do. unification. surviving.

the universe is a giant living organism. imagine that this organism would be hurt, and it would damage our earth a little. the life on earth... humans... animals... plants... we would heal it.

that's the reason our wounds heal if we are hurt.

everything is alive. everything is you, in another form. one self, infinite bodies.

[RoyLennigan]

So atoms have consciousness?
no, but atoms are affected by sound.

[TruthSeeker]

We are talking about consciousness, here...

[RoyLennigan]

We are talking about consciousness, here...
i thought we were talking about cause and effect. if a tree falls in the forest, it still hits other things and lays on the ground, leaving evidence of its fall. it still sends shock waves out (vibration, same as sound). it still ultimately affects someone in some way and so somehow it is percieved... maybe not consciously, but it affects someone.

[TruthSeeker]

Not consciously? Then how do you know? ;)

[Wilmet]

If everything is in some kind of relationship with everything only then can nothing- ness not exist.

That nothing ness is a default result of everything being in a relationship with everything.

For example : A fly has a relationship with a star on the other side of the universe.

Every existant "thing" could be stated as being in a relationship with every existant thing. It is only when this is so, nothing- ness no-exists by default.

Thus the value of nothing is everything.

Care to discuss?

Hi Quack,

In the sense that I think everything has always existed in one form or another and will continue to exist in one form or another, I think that there is no true "nothing". The "nothings" that we speak of are just various empty sets (devoid of particular somethings) but the empty sets themselves are something.

[nicholas1M7]

If everything were in relationship, then and only then can nothing no-exist.

But it has been mathematically proven that an empty space can occupy infinity. However, there is still dubeity about matter.

If this is the case, then it supports an infinite universe. If not, then it supports the Big Bang. In a Big Bang all things would be in relation since all things originated from a single point in nothingness. Existence and nothingness would be distinct from each other. Which implies that to exist, we cannot cross the boundary of existence.

[TruthSeeker]

But it has been mathematically proven that an empty space can occupy infinity. However, there is still dubeity about matter.
Show it! ;)

[Crunchy Cat]

...
Thus the value of nothing is everything.

There might exist an asymptotic nothing (consider it for all intents and purposes '0') and because it can never actually be absolute nothing, sometimes it fractures into pieces (near-0 breaks into pieces that repel and interact with each other). Gotta love those false vaccums.

[Absane]

I do not actually understand what you are trying to discuss, but I get the gist of it.

I see the entire universe as a complex system in constant motion; every single thing has some relationship with everything else else, whether minute or on a large scale.

I can sense this complexity and even "see" it... I got to tell you, it drives me crazy. It is like trying to comprehend random nonsense with clarity. It really gets to me when I am driving, as my thoughts are all over the place and have a tendancy to come back to this idea.

[Quantum Quack]

Nicholas1M7:
“Is value the right word? Or definition?”

Truth Seeker:
“Maybe nothing-ness by definition is something which has no relationship with anything else?

How can nothingness have any relationship with something?”

Winner of Discontent:
“How can everything have a relationship with everything else? so there is a force in the universe that ties everything together in some form of harmony to counter nothingness? sounds suspiciously like the seven degrees of Kevin Bacon game.”

Roy Lennigan:
“The human concept of nothingness is deceiving. What we perceive as nothing is really uniformity of a whole. we see complete blackness when really there is a minute difference that our senses are too limited to pick up on. We see a white paper when it is really just a repeating pattern of the same kinds of molecules. There fore I think nothing is just a misconceived perception of everything as a whole.”

and

“….....that if everything exists in a relation to each other, then nothingness cannot exist.
but I would not say that the value of nothing is everything. I think the misconceived idea of nothing by humans has the value of everything. we see a blank wall and call it nothing, when in reality it is something that is uniform. but the value of an actual nothing would be undefined, like dividing by 0. the value of everything would be infinite.”

Wilmet:
“In the sense that I think everything has always existed in one form or another and will continue to exist in one form or another, I think that there is no true "nothing". The "nothings" that we speak of are just various empty sets (devoid of particular some-things) but the empty sets themselves are something.”

Nicholas1M7:
“Existence and nothingness would be distinct from each other. Which implies that to exist, we cannot cross the boundary of existence.”

Crunchy Cat:
“There might exist an asymptotic nothing (consider it for all intents and purposes '0') and because it can never actually be absolute nothing, sometimes it fractures into pieces (near-0 breaks into pieces that repel and interact with each other). Gotta love those false vacuums.”

Absane:
“I see the entire universe as a complex system in constant motion; every single thing has some relationship with everything else, whether minute or on a large scale.”

Ok.....the above shows you guys and others I haven't quoted are great thinkers.

So I'll put it to you regarding the value issue?

"Where did everything originate from?"

The suggestion is that if absolute nothing as described, and defined has the potential to be everything. In fact some would say that absolute nothing has become or is constantly "becoming" absolutely everything. premised on the assumption that the present ongoing moment is a continuation of that creation.

So if everything originates from nothingness, and we hold to this notion for a moment, would it be correct to extend this to defne the value of nothing as being everything?

"....just to stir things a little:"

And if one wishes to add a contraversial thought to this, one could suggest that "God" is this absolute nothingness. That the only thing that is common to everything is this Nothingness or "God"

Ok next question:

"When you are fully unconscious [ not dreaming ], what are you?"

" In science it is often mentioned that a light event which is central in time is of infinitely small duration. In other words a photon has a "rest" duration of an infinitely small or zero amount of time. Thus it can be concluded that the NOW is actually a moment of zero or infinitely small duration.[ disregarding Max Planck theories of Size and duration for the moment]

So would it not be reasonable to extend this to state that the NOW is a constantly evolving moment of creation originating from nothingness that only gains value because of temporal meaning gained by our perceptions? We remember what was before and what we think will be.....with out such memory we would not percieve anything. [ everything therefore is a temporal memory of a zero or infinitely small duration moment of creation. Whether that be a memory of past events or a memory of future anticipations]?"

[TruthSeeker]

"Where did everything originate from?"

The suggestion is that if absolute nothing as described, and defined has the potential to be everything. In fact some would say that absolute nothing has become or is constantly "becoming" absolutely everything. premised on the assumption that the present ongoing moment is a continuation of that creation.

So if everything originates from nothingness, and we hold to this notion for a moment, would it be correct to extend this to defne the value of nothing as being everything?

"....just to stir things a little:"

And if one wishes to add a contraversial thought to this, one could suggest that "God" is this absolute nothingness. That the only thing that is common to everything is this Nothingness or "God"
Do you consider nothingness to be the vaccuum in space or something even more empty? Because if you consider it to be more empty, then it is implied that nothingness, if existing, would exist only outside of the universe. then you cannot really equate nothingness to everything, and we also run into problems deriving the boundaries of the universe. How could you define nothingness "outside" the universe if you cannot perceive nothingness and it is beyond the boundaries of existance. But, yes, I suppose it exists if it is outside the universe, because that implies that there is no existance beyond the boundaries. A paradox? ;)

"When you are fully unconscious [ not dreaming ], what are you?"

" In science it is often mentioned that a light event which is central in time is of infinitely small duration. In other words a photon has a "rest" duration of an infinitely small or zero amount of time. Thus it can be concluded that the NOW is actually a moment of zero or infinitely small duration.[ disregarding Max Planck theories of Size and duration for the moment]

So would it not be reasonable to extend this to state that the NOW is a constantly evolving moment of creation originating from nothingness that only gains value because of temporal meaning gained by our perceptions? We remember what was before and what we think will be.....with out such memory we would not percieve anything. [ everything therefore is a temporal memory of a zero or infinitely small duration moment of creation. Whether that be a memory of past events or a memory of future anticipations]?"
Yes :)

Finity is just the way our brains interpret reality in order to process it. :D

[Crunchy Cat]

"Where did everything originate from?"

The suggestion is that if absolute nothing as described, and defined has the potential to be everything. In fact some would say that absolute nothing has become or is constantly "becoming" absolutely everything. premised on the assumption that the present ongoing moment is a continuation of that creation.

In all honesty, I can't conceive of an absolute nothing as there is no real or even hypothetical evidence that pure absence exists. Asymptotic nothing is a completely different thing. You can have a number 0.00000...00001. It looks like a zero, but it's not. Something is there.

As to where everything originates from, I wish I knew (I am rooting for M-Theory though). Inflationary theory (which is most applicable to this discussion) says that that outside our universe is an near-asymptotic nothing vaccum. I say near-asymptotic because the laws of physics (time included) are still in affect. Anyhow the laws of physics cause fluctuations (energy changes) in the asymptotic nothing vaccum and the most common result is a positive and negative construct popping up into existence for a brief moment (have to have both because of the conservation of energy). What occasionally happens is the creation of a false vaccum, in other words a tiny tiny tiny (billionth the size of a proton) patch of structure that has an outwardly repulsive force. The structure would be composed of gravity (negative energy) and matter (positive energy). The repulsive nature of the false vaccum would rapidly inflate it and generate more positive and negative energy along the way (hence filling the universe up). To simplify the concept, our universe might be flactuation in asymptotic nothingness that divided it into gravity and matter. In other words, matter + gravity = 0 (this is observable in the universe).


So if everything originates from nothingness, and we hold to this notion for a moment, would it be correct to extend this to defne the value of nothing as being everything?

If we're defining nothing as asymptotic nothing then the identity (for our universe specifically) might be:

asymptotic nothing = gravity + matter
something = (asymptotic nothing - matter) UNION (asymptotic nothing - gravity)


"When you are fully unconscious [ not dreaming ], what are you?"


A human whom is unconscious.


" In science it is often mentioned that a light event which is central in time is of infinitely small duration. In other words a photon has a "rest" duration of an infinitely small or zero amount of time. Thus it can be concluded that the NOW is actually a moment of zero or infinitely small duration.[ disregarding Max Planck theories of Size and duration for the moment]

So would it not be reasonable to extend this to state that the NOW is a constantly evolving moment of creation originating from nothingness that only gains value because of temporal meaning gained by our perceptions? We remember what was before and what we think will be.....with out such memory we would not percieve anything. [ everything therefore is a temporal memory of a zero or infinitely small duration moment of creation. Whether that be a memory of past events or a memory of future anticipations]?"

In the inflationary model, definately not. :)

[Tnerb]

Not only can a human "be unconscious"; but humans are known to ... rather unknown, to be unknown...
as I like to say, sometimes "a human being can go down to any level that is possible to go down to";
I assume we're talkin humans here. Sorry, just my input..

[Quantum Quack]

In all honesty, I can't conceive of an absolute nothing as there is no real or even hypothetical evidence that pure absence exists. Asymptotic nothing is a completely different thing. You can have a number 0.00000...00001. It looks like a zero, but it's not. Something is there.

As to where everything originates from, I wish I knew (I am rooting for M-Theory though). Inflationary theory (which is most applicable to this discussion) says that that outside our universe is an near-asymptotic nothing vaccum. I say near-asymptotic because the laws of physics (time included) are still in affect. Anyhow the laws of physics cause fluctuations (energy changes) in the asymptotic nothing vaccum and the most common result is a positive and negative construct popping up into existence for a brief moment (have to have both because of the conservation of energy). What occasionally happens is the creation of a false vaccum, in other words a tiny tiny tiny (billionth the size of a proton) patch of structure that has an outwardly repulsive force. The structure would be composed of gravity (negative energy) and matter (positive energy). The repulsive nature of the false vaccum would rapidly inflate it and generate more positive and negative energy along the way (hence filling the universe up). To simplify the concept, our universe might be flactuation in asymptotic nothingness that divided it into gravity and matter. In other words, matter + gravity = 0 (this is observable in the universe).



If we're defining nothing as asymptotic nothing then the identity (for our universe specifically) might be:

asymptotic nothing = gravity + matter
something = (asymptotic nothing - matter) UNION (asymptotic nothing - gravity)




Interesting thoughts CC!!

Could it be suggested that if absolute nothingness gains time we have "matter"? Therefore time is in itself energy, past and future?
thus matter is the manifestation of time.
[ after-all all matter has a past and all matter has a future yes?]

If matter was not to have a future it would cease to exist.

This leads to the interesting notion that to destroy matter entirely means to destroy time entirely which means that to to destroy one piece of matter is actually equivalent to destroying all matter [ the universe ] due to [ as one sci fi writer has described [ Charles Stross ~ Iron Sunrise. pub. 2005 ]], a casuality violation that would ensue. Meaning that if one part of the universe was to become absolute nothingness [no time] then all the universe would have to do so as well. Keeping in mind that we would have to accept the definition of nothingness being that everything must be in a relationship with everything, to come to this conclusion.

In other words the universe could not tolerate the existance of absolute nothingness .

So in the near final wash we see the distinction between two concepts:
1] Absolute zero and 2] infinitely small.

I would surmise that infiniteley small could co-exist but absolute zero could not.

Any thoughts??

[TruthSeeker]

Time implies that there is energy, which changes. Time is a measure of change- to put it simply. But of course, space does not exist separate to time. So if you take away space with your "nothingness", then it follows that time would also not exist there. But that purely depends on your definition of "nothingness". You are talking about a concrete "nothingness", which is paradoxical in itself...

[Quantum Quack]

Time implies that there is energy, which changes. Time is a measure of change- to put it simply. But of course, space does not exist separate to time. So if you take away space with your "nothingness", then it follows that time would also not exist there. But that purely depends on your definition of "nothingness". You are talking about a concrete "nothingness", which is paradoxical in itself...

I would proably say it the other way round.
Energy or more importantly the differential between negative and positive energy creates what we call change or what we call time.

for example:

If we take the abstraction, that a particle is created with enough differential to last 1 million years. In other words it has enough differential to change for 1million years and after it has exhausted it's differential the energy becomes equal and change ceases. if change ceases then time ceases, therefore nothing exists after the equaling of energy.

So therefore if the universe was created with enough differential this differential would generate time or change until that differential became equal, [ entropy I think it is called.]

So what we have at any given moment is mass that has a future only because of it's diffential in energies. Without it the NOW would cease to have any value and everything would cease to exist. As time would not progress forward because no change would be taking place.

the question comes to mind : Why does the differential generate change? And is change ultimately destined to achieve nothingness [ balance]

And if that is the case then Nothingness is our most powerful force even though it does not exist. A force by default due to the fact that everything is heading towards achieveing that state.

Therefore I would go on to propose that gravity is infact the manifestation of that attraction and mass only exists because it is energy in a state of imbalance [ time ] that inevitabley will find balance.
The famous Higgs bosun doesn't exist....which is why it is so powerful.

The only paradox I see, only presents itself is when we consider the universe to have an absolute beginning.

[c7ityi_]

Therefore I would go on to propose that gravity is infact the manifestation of that attraction and mass only exists because it is energy in a state of imbalance [ time ] that inevitabley will find balance.

but things don't find balance... they only find apparent balance, like when cells stop dividing... but the being is either male or female, so the imbalance continues...

if the universe exists now... it will exist forever...

two bodies can't unite, but maybe it's possible to unite in the consciousness. but even then, it might just start over again. maybe there is no eternal nirvana...

[Crunchy Cat]

Interesting thoughts CC!!

The result of science, speculation, and sugar :).


Could it be suggested that if absolute nothingness gains time we have "matter"? Therefore time is in itself energy, past and future?
thus matter is the manifestation of time.
[ after-all all matter has a past and all matter has a future yes?]

Sorry to be nitpicky, but I honestly can't see an absolute nothing existing. Asymptotic nothing on the other hand... there's at least some mathematical support for it :). I'll speculate that part of the *something* that might exist as the structure of an asymptotic vaccum is non-polarized energy. The laws of physics could polarize it through fluctuation, and time would be part of the function of the laws of physics that gives the entire asymptotic vaccum a unique state at any given moment. It might look something like this:

eNP = Non-Polarized Energy (infinite size)
vT = Time (a state vector able to record at variable rates -r-)
lP = Laws of physics (finite object)

I suspect to get from eNP to a polarized structure this would have to happen:

vT(lP.rate).nextState = lp(eNP)

and nextState[tiny section] would contain an expandable polarization.



If matter was not to have a future it would cease to exist.

This leads to the interesting notion that to destroy matter entirely means to destroy time entirely which means that to to destroy one piece of matter is actually equivalent to destroying all matter [ the universe ] due to [ as one sci fi writer has described [ Charles Stross ~ Iron Sunrise. pub. 2005 ]], a casuality violation that would ensue. Meaning that if one part of the universe was to become absolute nothingness [no time] then all the universe would have to do so as well. Keeping in mind that we would have to accept the definition of nothingness being that everything must be in a relationship with everything, to come to this conclusion.

In other words the universe could not tolerate the existance of absolute nothingness .

So in the near final wash we see the distinction between two concepts:
1] Absolute zero and 2] infinitely small.

I would surmise that infiniteley small could co-exist but absolute zero could not.

Any thoughts??

In our universe specifically, I suspect that if a hunk of positive energy were really destroyed then a corresponding hunk of negative energy would go as well. I don't necessarily think it would destroy the universe. It might just cause it to string by the volume of it's destroyed contents when in actuality those contents may simply be reclaimed by the asymptotic vaccum (non-polarized energy).

Infinities apply to some physical volumes, but they may not apply to physical division (there is likely an end point as to how small something can get for example).

[TruthSeeker]

"Infinities apply to some physical volumes, but they may not apply to physical division (there is likely an end point as to how small something can get for example). "
Why?

[Crunchy Cat]

"Infinities apply to some physical volumes, but they may not apply to physical division (there is likely an end point as to how small something can get for example). "
Why?

I actually misstated what I meant. I meant infinities MIGHT apply to some physical volumns and MIGHT NOT apply to physical division. The reason for the volume assertion is that many 'where did out universe come from' theories, predict an infinite amount of *something* outside our universe. The reason for the division assertion is that we have seen mathematical series like pi and fibonnoci appear in nature; however, those series are mathematiclly infinite and their corresponding appearances in physical nature arent.

[TruthSeeker]

There are biilions of atoms in an apple and yet we only see an apple. Are you sure you want to trust on appearances?

[Quantum Quack]

Sorry to be nitpicky, but I honestly can't see an absolute nothing existing. Asymptotic nothing on the other hand... there's at least some mathematical support for it .
I agree,

In the case of absolute nothingness it is an "all or nothing" proposition.
Logcally absolute nothingness can not co-exist in a universe of "things"

[Wilmet]

I would proably say it the other way round.
Energy or more importantly the differential between negative and positive energy creates what we call change or what we call time.

for example:

If we take the abstraction, that a particle is created with enough differential to last 1 million years. In other words it has enough differential to change for 1million years and after it has exhausted it's differential the energy becomes equal and change ceases. if change ceases then time ceases, therefore nothing exists after the equaling of energy.



However, although that which it has changed to might continue to exist for a time in that state (dormant?)... from what I understand, it will eventually become useful (awaken?) to become part of another form of (active?) energy.

[Crunchy Cat]

There are biilions of atoms in an apple and yet we only see an apple. Are you sure you want to trust on appearances?

It's not a matter of trust. It's self-evident (i.e. it is what it is).

[TruthSeeker]

It's not self-evident. You know that what you see is not what is actually there. You just rather deny and believe that it is actually there. It's easier that way...

[RoyLennigan]

It's not self-evident. You know that what you see is not what is actually there. You just rather deny and believe that it is actually there. It's easier that way...
looking at the computer screen right now, can you make out the individual pixels? what if you look very closely? no how about with a magnifying glass? its no different than looking at an apple and not seeing the individual molecules. we see a composite--the big picture--because of our scale. but what we see is still actually there in reality. how we see it might be a relation in our minds, but that relation is still exactly how it is in reality. it doesn't matter if its green or blue or red, as long as all the other colors are still relative in the exact same way. like when you look at a film negative. all the colors are reversed, but they are still exactly relative to each other as they are in real life.

what we experience is merely relations between things. we do not experience the apple, we experience how the entity described by the word 'apple' is relative to everything around it (as well as our memories).

[TruthSeeker]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55509

[Tnerb]

I should post a freakin thread, truthseeker :P
For example were I to perhaps post "Mental Health and the Existentialists", surely assuming that the thread relates; I'd arrive with you guys seeing a view of a similar matter.

I believe, that intimacy and passionatness with other beings may infact lead to insightful truths, of course the attaning of such falsehoods seems and does infact appear impossible, I can mention remaing that it is obtainable in the fact it is an experience of being....

"The Value of nothing is everything", i'd prefer "The Value of Nothing is Everything", of course, QQ likely had his thought straight anyway.
Back to the matter.
The point is simple: the world is fundamnetally lesbian is an outlook, ITALLICS, on to the issues of so called "nothingness", or related attitudes.

If any of you could possibly be interested, post, or PM.
existabrent,

[Tnerb]

Of course Roys point above also brings up the issue presented eariler, I believe my first or maybe second post to the thread... there are many forms of people: we are here assuming simply that (as always, and everywhere most of the time) people are able to view such a thing in a certain way [the microscope example]. Point being, if you could notice that people see things differently, is also a correlate to the theory presented here.

???
Am I wrong!

[Crunchy Cat]

It's not self-evident. You know that what you see is not what is actually there. You just rather deny and believe that it is actually there. It's easier that way...

That apple would be exactly what is there. I use a word to differentiate it from other matter because I can comprehend the differences. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the apple is made up of billions of atoms. It still has a finite number of them that it's composed of (i.e. it's not infinite).

[c7ityi_]

That apple would be exactly what is there. I use a word to differentiate it from other matter because I can comprehend the differences. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the apple is made up of billions of atoms. It still has a finite number of them that it's composed of (i.e. it's not infinite).

it's infinite becuz an atom is composed of infinite smaller 'particles' or whatever.

[RoyLennigan]

it's infinite becuz an atom is composed of infinite smaller 'particles' or whatever.
but we quantify them by finite measurements. all electrical charges are integer multiples of the quantum electrical measurement. even if it can be broken down into infinitesimal pieces, those pieces still come in 'packets' or groupings of energy that cannot (as we have observed repeatedly) be broken apart in the state of our space.

[TruthSeeker]

it's infinite becuz an atom is composed of infinite smaller 'particles' or whatever.
PRECISELY.

[TruthSeeker]

but we quantify them by finite measurements. all electrical charges are integer multiples of the quantum electrical measurement. even if it can be broken down into infinitesimal pieces, those pieces still come in 'packets' or groupings of energy that cannot (as we have observed repeatedly) be broken apart in the state of our space.
You said it correctly- we quantify them by finite measurements.

[Crunchy Cat]

it's infinite becuz an atom is composed of infinite smaller 'particles' or whatever.

How do you know this?

[TruthSeeker]

It's pretty obvjous, CC. How many numbers are between 0 and 1?

[RoyLennigan]

You said it correctly- we quantify them by finite measurements.
and so does nature, it seems. all matter is quantitatively composed. matter is made up of energy in multiples of a quantum charge--the charge of an electron. that is, the energy that composes any bit of matter can be divided by only whole numbers of a fundamental charge (the quantum called the electron) firgured by the ratio of charge to mass.

[TruthSeeker]

No, nature doesn't "think" like us. The number "1" is just a concept that we use to symbolize something. When you look at an apple, you don't see one apple. You see a collection of equal or similar molecules which, collectively, you call an apple. It has distinctive attributes which separates itself from the world around it.

[Crunchy Cat]

It's pretty obvjous, CC. How many numbers are between 0 and 1?

Depends on the precision of the measurement. In a precision-less mathematical environment the result is infinite. In a precision-based mathematical environment, the result is finite.

c7's assertion of absolute truth was that a finite physical construct has an infinite amount of subdivisions. I asked how he knew, and you responded by saying because mathematical abstractions exist that are infinite. You're claiming a factual 1:1 correlation between abstraction and reality and calling it obvious.

I am ok with any claim so long as you are able to provide evidence for it. Show me any physical construct that is infinite.

[Quantum Quack]

One of the reasons I tend to think of the universe as being both finite and infinite.....or infinitely finite can be described using the following scenario:

You take a two dimensional plane, say a rectangle and you curl it into a cylinder. Now the cylinder wall has no thickness yet the outer dimensions of the cylinder are finite. You then count how many smaller cylinders you can fit inside this cylinder or outside this cylinder with out altering the finite dimensions of that cylinder.
Obviously an infinite number of cylinders can fit inside this cylnder yet the cylinder maintains a finite dimension. [ consider then a 2 dimensional sphere constructed the same way.[a balloon with a two dimesional skin]]

It raises I think, an interesting philosophical question:

Can zero be claimed to be finite when one considers nothing as an absolute zero. In other words is zero a finite measurement of nothingness?

In that it can't have value so therefore it is restrained from being anything else but zero due to everything else being something thus zero could be considered as finite?

[Crunchy Cat]

One of the reasons I tend to think of the universe as being both finite and infinite.....or infinitely finite can be described using the following scenario:

You take a two dimensional plane, say a rectangle and you curl it into a cylinder. Now the cylinder wall has no thickness yet the outer dimensions of the cylinder are finite. You then count how many smaller cylinders you can fit inside this cylinder or outside this cylinder with out altering the finite dimensions of that cylinder.
Obviously an infinite number of cylinders can fit inside this cylnder yet the cylinder maintains a finite dimension. [ consider then a 2 dimensional sphere constructed the same way.[a balloon with a two dimesional skin]]

I have an issue with this thought experiment. In order to place cyliniders inside cylinders, a 3-d space has to encompass the 2-d space. Similarly, to curl a 2-d space in the manner suggested means it has to exist in a 3-d space; otherwise, curling would have nothing more than the effect of diverging two parallel paths of the 2-d space at some point. If we introduce a 2-d structure in 3-d space, I suspect it would have to inherit a 3rd dimension (even if its the smallest possible unit) in order for it to exist. Ever seen any real 2-d constructs in our universe?


It raises I think, an interesting philosophical question:

Can zero be claimed to be finite when one considers nothing as an absolute zero. In other words is zero a finite measurement of nothingness?

In that it can't have value so therefore it is restrained from being anything else but zero due to everything else being something thus zero could be considered as finite?

Zero might be considered a midpoint between the negative and positive. As far as being a measure of nothingness... I wouldn't even know where to begin speculating. There are no known patches of nothingness to even infer from :).

[c7ityi_]

How do you know this?

everything must be composed of something, otherwise it's an illusion, it's infinite, and composed of nothing. but if something is composed of something, what is that something then? if there were some fundamental indestructible particles, how can they exist when they can't be divided? how could they build up? what would they be "made of"? nothing?

the only indestructible is nothingness. but it can seem/be destructible because it's infinite, and our world is an illusion.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/infdiv.htm

[baumgarten]

It's pretty obvjous, CC. How many numbers are between 0 and 1?
Math != Physics

[Quantum Quack]

Ever seen any real 2-d constructs in our universe?
If I am not mistaken it is proposed that a photon is 2 dimesional. And no I have never seen a photon, although I may have seen it's effects.

I guess if we look at an object such as a brick we tend to think of it being a solid 3 dimensional construct yet it could be proposed that it is really a 3 dimensional rendition of what is essentially two dimensional.
This is premised on the notion that energy [ light, EM etc ] are basically 2 dimesnional constructs.

3 dimesnions can now be considered as being length, width and time [ depth is no longer relevant]

As discussed eariler, the photon has no rest frame and that at any moment it's event occurs at an infinitely small duration point in space time thus the 4 th dimension [ time ] is two dimensional and as everything complies with the 4 th dimension , time [ in this universe any way ] it could be extrapolated to mean that what we witness is always 2 dimensional [ or a total of 3 dimesnions including time]. It is just that we look at everything from it's end point and not it's flat side. Like looking at a 2 dimensional plane's end rather than it's flat.

As everyone has a unique perspective or position of perspective it means that no matter which direction you look towards you are always seeing the end point of a two dimensional plane.

This aspect of my thinking on the subject is extremely hard to convey, because the first question that comes up is :

If we are looking at the end point of a two dimensional plane we should see nothing. yes?

However I would suggest that because this end point is constantly changing due to the third dimension time, it is by way of temporal memory that reality is realised into consciousness.

BTW in IMO memory is not just the priviledge of life forms. A brick also retains a memory of it's existance at a fundamental level. It's very construction is dependant on past events and future events. so the constantly changing brick is because of it's interactions with other matter and retains a memory of those interactions, That memory being the sum of what it is now.

In the film AI1 about artificial intelligence it was mentioned towards the end of the film that an alien race had discovered that all is remembered, that by taking a simple objject and analysing it correctly one can unravel it's entire past. I tend to agree with this speculation.

Every single interaction that object had with the universe around it is what makes it the object it is but further more it makes the universe what it is. So if you take your analysis to the absolute maximum resolution the entire universe past is able to be viewed simply by analysing a single object. So in this way infinity and eternity exists in a single point of space time. [ Even if one considers randomness, eternity is still open to inspection.]

To sum up,
Because time has no rest frame reality doesn't either. there fore time can be said to cancel out one of the three dimensions we usually refer to, and in my example scenario I have chosen depth as the dimension I have cancelled.

And in doing so it can be proposed that reality is in fact 2 dimesnional plus time.

Sorry if I have confused. Tricky subject this is.

[Quantum Quack]

BTW this ties in with many Eastern thoughts about:
If one focusses only on the NOW with neither past or future one can see the truth of existance. That existance is in fact nothingess.

If one considers Sci fi writings of hyper space one can see that if matter can be reduced to existing only in the NOW it can exist any where in this universe simultaneously. [ referring to quantum entanglements makes for an interesting collection of thoughts hey?]

Thus you could theoretically drop out of time and then return to it at a very distant and different location with out any time passing. [Quantum tunneling]

[Crunchy Cat]

everything must be composed of something, otherwise it's an illusion, it's infinite, and composed of nothing.

How would you know with absolute certainty that everything MUST be composed of something?


but if something is composed of something, what is that something then? if there were some fundamental indestructible particles, how can they exist when they can't be divided? how could they build up? what would they be "made of"? nothing?

You are asking all the right quesions... the best answer is that right now nobody knows (that includes you as well). We can speculate and must avoid making claims of absolute truth.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/infdiv.htm[/QUOTE]

I found some errors in the article, but overall it makes a great argument that elasticity requires division. Let's speculate a moment on M-Theory... and I mean speculate. A string (if it even exists) is a plank length unit of structure often asserted as the smallest possible thing. I've even used that same assertion in conjecture, but if string theory is true, the assertion might be false. Why? Because a 'string' would be vibrating across multiple dimensions simultaneously (11 of them). Clearly, for 11 dimensons to intersect a string, the string is logically intersected in at least 11 places. Simiarly, for strings to vibrate, there would have to be degrees of freedom to be in any particular vibrational state (multiple peaks and valleys). To make things more interesting, the 'stuff' that a string is made out of is some sort of energy (I'll just call it exotic energy). Dividing it / magnifying it, doesn't reveal any unseen parts (hence there is no further depth). The same thing would be true for dimensions themselves... no more unseen parts when dividing/magnifying them. Therefore a definition of the smallest possible point could be where information exists and has no degrees of freedom (ex. the point on a string where vibration becomes zero if seperated from the string).


the only indestructible is nothingness. but it can seem/be destructible because it's infinite, and our world is an illusion.

I would disagree with that claim. Technically speaking, destruction isn't something that really occurs. Humans tend to use the term to describe extreme state changes of matter/energy, but neither can be destroyed (at least from within the context of reality). Regarding nothingness being indestructable, again we don't even have the slightest hints that 'nothing' exists; hence, to make a claim of absolute truth about the behavior of a speculation is sort of silly.

[Crunchy Cat]

If I am not mistaken it is proposed that a photon is 2 dimesional. And no I have never seen a photon, although I may have seen it's effects.

I guess if we look at an object such as a brick we tend to think of it being a solid 3 dimensional construct yet it could be proposed that it is really a 3 dimensional rendition of what is essentially two dimensional.
This is premised on the notion that energy [ light, EM etc ] are basically 2 dimesnional constructs.

3 dimesnions can now be considered as being length, width and time [ depth is no longer relevant]

I've actually never heard of this before. Very cool but it's absolutely foreign to me. Any ref's I could chew on to understand this better?


As discussed eariler, the photon has no rest frame and that at any moment it's event occurs at an infinitely small duration point in space time thus the 4 th dimension [ time ] is two dimensional and as everything complies with the 4 th dimension , time [ in this universe any way ] it could be extrapolated to mean that what we witness is always 2 dimensional [ or a total of 3 dimesnions including time]. It is just that we look at everything from it's end point and not it's flat side. Like looking at a 2 dimensional plane's end rather than it's flat.

I'm going to throw a wrench in these assertions :). Photons don't travel through time (which makes it odd because we measure it's 'speed' in a pure vaccum at 186,282 mps). So how does that work? Roughly speaking, stick a beam of light out there and it occupies all possible points of space at once (doesn't do jack for time). What happens to us is we are wisked through those points because of time but we are exluded from all the points at once. I know thats really goofy to conceptualize, but nothing about photons and time ever is easy. Technically, that would make photons 3-d (no 4th 'dimension' of time). Take away a spatial dimension and it becomes 2-d).


As everyone has a unique perspective or position of perspective it means that no matter which direction you look towards you are always seeing the end point of a two dimensional plane.

This aspect of my thinking on the subject is extremely hard to convey, because the first question that comes up is :

If we are looking at the end point of a two dimensional plane we should see nothing. yes?

However I would suggest that because this end point is constantly changing due to the third dimension time, it is by way of temporal memory that reality is realised into consciousness.

I think I'll need to understand the 2-d model in more detail before commenting on this puppy.


BTW in IMO memory is not just the priviledge of life forms. A brick also retains a memory of it's existance at a fundamental level. It's very construction is dependant on past events and future events. so the constantly changing brick is because of it's interactions with other matter and retains a memory of those interactions, That memory being the sum of what it is now.

In the film AI1 about artificial intelligence it was mentioned towards the end of the film that an alien race had discovered that all is remembered, that by taking a simple objject and analysing it correctly one can unravel it's entire past. I tend to agree with this speculation.

Every single interaction that object had with the universe around it is what makes it the object it is but further more it makes the universe what it is. So if you take your analysis to the absolute maximum resolution the entire universe past is able to be viewed simply by analysing a single object. So in this way infinity and eternity exists in a single point of space time. [ Even if one considers randomness, eternity is still open to inspection.]

To sum up,
Because time has no rest frame reality doesn't either. there fore time can be said to cancel out one of the three dimensions we usually refer to, and in my example scenario I have chosen depth as the dimension I have cancelled.

And in doing so it can be proposed that reality is in fact 2 dimesnional plus time.

Sorry if I have confused. Tricky subject this is.

I think I understand the jist of it and I'll need a reference for that 2-d energy stuff. I'll be able to better respond then and associate it to the original thought expeirment I took issue with.

[Crunchy Cat]

BTW this ties in with many Eastern thoughts about:
If one focusses only on the NOW with neither past or future one can see the truth of existance. That existance is in fact nothingess.

If one considers Sci fi writings of hyper space one can see that if matter can be reduced to existing only in the NOW it can exist any where in this universe simultaneously. [ referring to quantum entanglements makes for an interesting collection of thoughts hey?]

Thus you could theoretically drop out of time and then return to it at a very distant and different location with out any time passing. [Quantum tunneling]

I have a hunch we would need a better understanding of what exactly time is :).

[baumgarten]

If I am not mistaken it is proposed that a photon is 2 dimesional. And no I have never seen a photon, although I may have seen it's effects.
From what I understand, a photon does not have a volume, per se, but it can move in all three spatial dimensions.

[Absane]

From what I understand, a photon does not have a volume, per se, but it can move in all three spatial dimensions.

Maybe it moves in 2D? If you think about it, put two 3D spaces in 4D and intersect them... what you got is a 2D intersection (assuming they are not parallel.. parallel intersection would just create a sub-3D space, being equal in size or smaller than "smaller" 3D space).

[Absane]

It's pretty obvjous, CC. How many numbers are between 0 and 1?

How "many" numbers there are in (0,1) does not reflex divisibility in the real world. Besides, assume object A, which has a known size and known mass. By your statement, you are saying object B with a size 10 times that amount and 10 times the mass of A has the same number of particles as A? Though possible, I doubt it.

[Quantum Quack]

I'm going to throw a wrench in these assertions . Photons don't travel through time (which makes it odd because we measure it's 'speed' in a pure vaccum at 186,282 mps). So how does that work? Roughly speaking, stick a beam of light out there and it occupies all possible points of space at once (doesn't do jack for time). What happens to us is we are wisked through those points because of time but we are exluded from all the points at once. I know thats really goofy to conceptualize, but nothing about photons and time ever is easy. Technically, that would make photons 3-d (no 4th 'dimension' of time). Take away a spatial dimension and it becomes 2-d).

I tend to agree with this CC in a general sense. The photon is time, just as I have proposed energy is time.
But and this is the main point, because a photons existance in time is infinitely small [ no rest frame ] when intersecting a photon you are drawing a plane that has zero thickness. Or in other words because a photon is two dimensional it has no rest frame. [ a photon has no "bulk" or size that cause it to take time to pass a given point in space time. [ It passes as if it is of no thickness.....sheesh hard to explain sorry]

So when you look around you, you are witnessing in this sense light that has no rest frame thus what you are looking at [ ignoring memory for a moment] is zero in duration, thus time is continuous without pause. how ever because we can remember the movement or change existance has temporal value.

If a photon had 3 spatial dimesnions it would no longer exist with out a rest frame and have volume and mass. [ using the normal interpretation of rest frame] In effect you would be able to witness a photon in transit and of course this can not be done as to do so would place the observer in a state of nothingness. A zero rest frame of no static duration.

Because all mass is traveling in synch with the photon we can not witrness it as it IS what we see and not the CAUSE of what we see....[ maybe... that's easier]

As reflected mass is what we observe it can only be observed as the photon allows it to be which means the mass has a temporal value only and has no rest frame either. I guess I might argue that a rest frame is really only a temporal state and not a reality. [ no absolute rest frame is allowed]
Thus matter is never static enough to be said to exist but more correctly it could be considered as exist-ing. [ "exist" seems to imply in this context a state that has some sort of stasis]

So as you look aroung you the reality of what you see if one discounts memory never exists but is exist-ing.

And as we can not observe a zero duration event with out hindsight or temporal memory we are essentially looking only at a memory and not the actual thing we are looking at as it has moved forward in time at the event horizon of consciousness [ time]
thus reality can be described as two dimensional with time as the third as width, which requires a rest frame doesn't really exist

If you think of a sphere that has an infinite number of spikes extending outwards in all directions simultaneously and consider those spikes as 2 dimensional planes with their ends at the center of the sphere you realise that reality exists only as a temporal state.

It is very difficult to conceptualise. Very difficult. But as you watch an object go by you are really only seeing a continuous slice of time or change that is changing at the rate of 'c'. there is no lingering except as a temporal memory state only.

As an aid to understanding imagine a reality where no memory exists. If you think about it you will realise I feel, that with out temporal considerations reality does not exist as a 3 dimensional plus time but more a two dimensional plus time. And because it is 2 dimensional the Now can not be observed, thus the paradox comes to the fore, where by we see the NOW even though the true Now is unobservable. We only ever see the past side of that two dimensional plane which is really a time event horizon, which the photon is smack in the middle of.

Another way is to draw a line and consider it as a linea representation of the passage of time, slice this line with a two dimensional plane and you can see that the plane has two sides, one side is the past and the other is the future. The duration betweeen past and future is zero [ or infinitely small]

The photon exists at this point between past and future thus the photon must be two dimensional. [ it takes no time for the photon to pass a point in space time, it passes instantaneously [ no thickness ]

so when you consider that we see only the light and light is 2 dimesnional then we can see nothing yet we are see-ing everything.....hmmmmm.

So therefore the glib head line is " The value of nothing is everything"

[c7ityi_]

You are asking all the right quesions... the best answer is that right now nobody knows (that includes you as well). We can speculate and must avoid making claims of absolute truth.

but i want to know everything...

little kids sometimes say: "i am the best". everyone thinks they're god, because in reality, we are, we've just fallen into matter. sometimes it's hard to accept that we don't know everything.

but i also think that if we know nothing... like socrates... maybe we are the most wise...
it could be that nothing is the only thing to know.

Humans tend to use the term to describe extreme state changes of matter/energy, but neither can be destroyed (at least from within the context of reality).

yeah... but that's not really what i meant either... but... if matter can't be destroyed, how is it possible that it exists? if it can be created from nothing, it must be possible to destroy it too.

Regarding nothingness being indestructable, again we don't even have the slightest hints that 'nothing' exists; hence, to make a claim of absolute truth about the behavior of a speculation is sort of silly.

i seriously think everything is made of nothing... that way... it makes sense that nothing can be destroyed... you can only convert energy to another form.

[Crunchy Cat]

but i want to know everything...

little kids sometimes say: "i am the best". everyone thinks they're god, because in reality, we are, we've just fallen into matter. sometimes it's hard to accept that we don't know everything.

Wanting to know is one thing. Knowing why you want to know is even better. Making artificial assertions of truth just so that you have an answer promotes ignorance.


but i also think that if we know nothing... like socrates... maybe we are the most wise...
it could be that nothing is the only thing to know.

I see it wiser from learning things and indirectly inferring how much we don't know based on what we do.



yeah... but that's not really what i meant either... but... if matter can't be destroyed, how is it possible that it exists? if it can be created from nothing, it must be possible to destroy it too.

Nobody knows at this point how it's possible it exists or even if that question is applicable. Prior to the original string theory, physiacists had to deal with something they felt was embarrassing. 0 points (i.e. the reduction of everything into nothing) and it caused alot of problems with their physical models. The original string theory, newer superstring theory, and present m-theory all have a lowest common denominator of 1 (i.e. the reduction of everything into the smallest unit of something). This actually solved quite a bit of problems in one fell swoop.

[/QUOTE]
i seriously think everything is made of nothing... that way... it makes sense that nothing can be destroyed... you can only convert energy to another form.[/QUOTE]

It makes absolutely no sense. One is that there's no evidence to even suggest nothing exists. The other is that nothing by it's very conceptuial definition is pure absence. In other words it's a contradiction / violation for something to have a base of nothing. They are mutually exlusive.

[TruthSeeker]

Depends on the precision of the measurement. In a precision-less mathematical environment the result is infinite. In a precision-based mathematical environment, the result is finite.
Which one is the correct one?

c7's assertion of absolute truth was that a finite physical construct has an infinite amount of subdivisions. I asked how he knew, and you responded by saying because mathematical abstractions exist that are infinite. You're claiming a factual 1:1 correlation between abstraction and reality and calling it obvious.

I am ok with any claim so long as you are able to provide evidence for it. Show me any physical construct that is infinite.
Look in the mirror.

[TruthSeeker]

One of the reasons I tend to think of the universe as being both finite and infinite.....or infinitely finite can be described using the following scenario:

You take a two dimensional plane, say a rectangle and you curl it into a cylinder. Now the cylinder wall has no thickness yet the outer dimensions of the cylinder are finite. You then count how many smaller cylinders you can fit inside this cylinder or outside this cylinder with out altering the finite dimensions of that cylinder.
Obviously an infinite number of cylinders can fit inside this cylnder yet the cylinder maintains a finite dimension. [ consider then a 2 dimensional sphere constructed the same way.[a balloon with a two dimesional skin]]

It raises I think, an interesting philosophical question:

Can zero be claimed to be finite when one considers nothing as an absolute zero. In other words is zero a finite measurement of nothingness?

In that it can't have value so therefore it is restrained from being anything else but zero due to everything else being something thus zero could be considered as finite?
0=infinity

[Absane]

0=infinity

This reminds me of Gabriel's Horn. Essentially, the length of the curve 1/x from one to infinity is infinite, right? However, the area under the FINITE (it is Pi btw). Furthermore, the surface area if you rotate it about the x-axis in INFINITE. Off-topic, but cool.

[Zephyr]

Volume finite, area infinite, but yes...

Re the thread topic: Planck length? :p

[Crunchy Cat]

Which one is the correct one?

Depends on the implementation doesn't it?


Look in the mirror.

I don't see anything infinte in the mirror.

[Absane]

I don't see anything infinte in the mirror.

Set up two perfect mirrors parallel to each other. There you go :)

[Crunchy Cat]

Set up two perfect mirrors parallel to each other. There you go :)

ha!

[TruthSeeker]

Depends on the implementation doesn't it?
Well, it's completely relative- that's the point.

I don't see anything infinte in the mirror.
Everything is infinite. The first question and answer above is the proof.

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm sorry TruthSeeker, but what you are saying is utterly nonsensical:




...an atom is composed of infinite smaller 'particles' or whatever.



How do you know this?


It's pretty obvjous, CC. How many numbers are between 0 and 1?



Depends on the precision of the measurement. In a precision-less mathematical environment the result is infinite. In a precision-based mathematical environment, the result is finite.


Which one is the correct one?



Depends on the implementation doesn't it?


Well, it's completely relative- that's the point... Everything is infinite. The first question and answer above is the proof.



You have presented zero proof (let alone evidence) that infinite structures exist in reality. Again, if you are making a factual claim about physical structure you have to provide real evidence; however, maybe this is simply a problem of not understanding what the requirements for evidence are (i.e. it might be an educational / experiential issue).

Either way, it's clear that you accept it as absolute truth that *everything* is infinite. I'll speculate that infinities might exist in reality and I suspect they might be proto constructs. Either way I certainly don't know for certain (a big difference between us because you explicitly assert that you do).

Just out of curiousity, lets say the Large Hadron Collider goes online in 2007 and experiments with it show that something like string theory is actually very true. That might lead to a real physical discovery of a 'smallest' unit (definitively making divisions in reality precision-based). How would you cope knowing that what you held as absolute truth turned up false and that your assertions of this truth were actually lies?

[Regulus]

The logic of infinite structures is the structure themselves...

Though there is no hard evidence or proof, we keep finding smaller units of matter. Also on the grounds of everything being built upon something else.

I read the first post here,

mind of a join in and converse with the rest of you?

Anyway, the smallest unit of matter seems igsignificant due to the fact that it in itself would need to be consisting of something else.

Lets look at what we have so far.

an object, wood. the element, that atoms that make the element, the electrons that make the atom, the nucleus inside the atom, what makes the neutrons inside the atom, what makes the quarks that make the neutrons, makes the strings that make the quarks.

There's a pattern here.

[Crunchy Cat]

You are quite correct that physical constructs (from our observation level) can be broken down into smaller and smaller constituents.

A question arose through the course of this thread as to whether this heirarchy is infinite or finite. TruthSeeker is stating that it is 100% infinite without a doubt. I am stating that I simply don't know; however, at least one theoretical model of reality hints it's not.

A thought just occured to me and I don't know if it really has any link to reality. The structure of a computer information can be heirarchical (just like reality). It takes time to enumerate the complete heirarchy and each added layer adds to the total enumeration time. If the heirarchy was infinite then to enumerate it would take infinite time. If we live in a reality of infinite division I might wonder why that some problem doesn't exist.

[Regulus]

The one problem here I agree with you on is that we have no hard evidence or proof, however, there is reasonably infered logic.

Due to this pattern of matter being broken up into incrimants, we can at least... assume, it could be infinite, as we keep finding more and more.

Ahem, now on to what you were explaining.

If I am correct, you are saying that there had to be no beginning? Correct? Well, let us turn over to the theory of energy and matter. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

That clues us in on what you have just explained. One thing that can answer that is infinite causality. The Universe exploding and imploding infinitely with no beginning or an end to it to thus give the contiuation of INFINITE causes.

Thus in the very least it would mean that the matter we see today has been around for an infinity.

Which links to what you have just said right there about enumerations.

but the one thing that worries me..... is the idea that this topics very title illustrates.

With matter constantly creating itself infinitely it would mean no end meaning there is nothing there, but yet... at the same time there is something. Paradoxal, or.... something we cannot see with the minds we use to contemplate it.

[Crunchy Cat]

The one problem here I agree with you on is that we have no hard evidence or proof, however, there is reasonably infered logic.

That particular logic led to 0 points in particle physics and all sorts of problems arose. String theory on the other hand boiled down to a basic point of 1 and pretty much resolved those problems. Either way, we don't know the truth; although, after 2007 the LHC will at least let us know if there is truth to string, superstring, m-theory.


Due to this pattern of matter being broken up into incrimants, we can at least... assume, it could be infinite, as we keep finding more and more.

For the purpose of modeling we can make any assumption we want. For the purpose of assertion, we can speculate infinite division. We must avoid; however, making a claim (as TruthSeeker has).



Ahem, now on to what you were explaining.

If I am correct, you are saying that there had to be no beginning? Correct? Well, let us turn over to the theory of energy and matter. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

I have no idea actually. Some inflationary theories predict single inflation/deflation pattern in some kind of pure energy vaccum, some predict cyclic inflation/deflation patterns, steady-state theories show a continuous growth pattern, string-theory shows collision patterns, many-worlds theory shows contianer patters.

But yes, for the physical laws of our reality, matter cannot be created / destroyed (note if other realities exist, they are not necessarily bound by the same physical laws).


That clues us in on what you have just explained. One thing that can answer that is infinite causality. The Universe exploding and imploding infinitely with no beginning or an end to it to thus give the contiuation of INFINITE causes.


This might be right. Either way, I did speculate that some infinities might exist.


Thus in the very least it would mean that the matter we see today has been around for an infinity.


This might be true.


Which links to what you have just said right there about enumerations.


Sort of. My enmeration example was talking about infinte delay between moments of time. This example is about infinite moments of time.


but the one thing that worries me..... is the idea that this topics very title illustrates.

With matter constantly creating itself infinitely it would mean no end meaning there is nothing there, but yet... at the same time there is something. Paradoxal, or.... something we cannot see with the minds we use to contemplate it.

I think you might be toying around with one particular inflation theory. The most popular one predicts our universe will deflate back into a pure non-polarized energy vaccum... where fluctations in other areas have created other universes.

Assuming a constant cyclical inflation/deflation, yes it would mean no end... but that doesn't mean that nothing is there (not sure how you arrived at that thought).

[Regulus]

Well, it was not the cyclical inflation that got me to believen the "nothing", but the idea of infinite structure of atoms, how it never ends in it being built on by something else.

Though I do tend to believen it, becuz I except things paradoxal to the mind, and agree upon the fact that we will never understand everything.

My only reasoning though, for cyclical infation and deflation is the fact that it continues the causality, other than that I don't know how it would effect any other Universe. Any thoughts on this at all? I personally believen the cyclical infation and deflation theory along with the multi universe's theory.

As for other realities existing I agree, it would be different physics, becuz of the different reality in itself, thus a different property and different building block, i.e no size or volume, as it is a 3 dimensional property. Which would also mean that shape and volume is only a 3rd dimension property.

But, for the value of nothing and everything,

the idea that everything is connected, can possibly be reasonably infered, on the grounds that there is infact a center and Omni building block, i.e ever changing building block which can take the form of something like an atom that creates Universes.

Which might also explain the mystery of energy, as it has merely been seen as an action. If EVERYTHING is indeed energy, then maybe the properties of other Universes are. And that energy is ever changing,

thus everything can truely be connected.

I may just be rambling here though,forgive me, I can do that alot, go off on a tangent.

[Parhadron]

Nothingness IS something. However, not every 'something' is everything. :)

[Parhadron]

I mean everything that spins (and essentially everything does) reveals a central "nothing", if not conjoined by such forces as massive fusion and gravitational pull. So rather than nothing, should not the question be, exactly what SHAPE the universe takes over time? With star class clusters reverting to states of singularity (black holes), does not the shape of the universe change somewhat, while the ratio of mass to force i.e., universal mass to first expulsion OUT (fission en masse) simply mean proximity to mass vs. force turns the entire space-time equation into literal swiss cheese (as has already been proposed)? Sure folds seem plausible, but dimensions as exhibited in our universe seem to never need progress beyond the first multiples...otherwise we are simply talking about ghosts in the machine, that is a literal echo in a program. A mirrored 'spin' per se or 'shadow' only seems signify curved space and this is simply a major component of any preliminary math.

Of course 0 is not equal to 1, but prompt 0 can be 1 with absolutely no problem.

[Regulus]

And that is inexoribly where your strength is Parhadron. I am weaker in that area, I am better at solving paradoxes such as the God paradox, (Can God create a rock it cannot carry?)

What your explaining confuses me slightly.

But, I may have an idea.

[Crunchy Cat]

Well, it was not the cyclical inflation that got me to believen the "nothing", but the idea of infinite structure of atoms, how it never ends in it being built on by something else.

Though I do tend to believen it, becuz I except things paradoxal to the mind, and agree upon the fact that we will never understand everything.

Ahh, this is the downfall of belief. It snags you into accepting something as absolute truth and prevents you from further exploration on the topic. If it turns out that there is not infinite division or we figure out everything, you're going to have to reconcile reality contradicting a belief.


My only reasoning though, for cyclical infation and deflation is the fact that it continues the causality, other than that I don't know how it would effect any other Universe. Any thoughts on this at all? I personally believen the cyclical infation and deflation theory along with the multi universe's theory.

I'm not a big fan of the cyclical inflation theory. I am personally rooting for M-theory and speculate that some synthesis of a modern inflation theory and M-theory might lead to an understanding of reality. Between 2007 and 2012 I suspect we'll make some good strides in this area. As far as cyclical inflation affecting other universes is concerned, I suspect that two universes might be able to bump into each other, but what happens then would be anyone's guess.



As for other realities existing I agree, it would be different physics, becuz of the different reality in itself, thus a different property and different building block, i.e no size or volume, as it is a 3 dimensional property. Which would also mean that shape and volume is only a 3rd dimension property.

Many worlds theory predicts some strange shit. It's really cool though.


But, for the value of nothing and everything,

the idea that everything is connected, can possibly be reasonably infered, on the grounds that there is infact a center and Omni building block, i.e ever changing building block which can take the form of something like an atom that creates Universes.

String theory predicts that basic block is a vibrating strand of exotic energy which comes in two varieties. Open and closed. An end of an open one might bind to a cluster of dimension (called a brane) while closed loops might float freely through any dimension and consequently contain quantum gravity within it's loop.


Which might also explain the mystery of energy, as it has merely been seen as an action. If EVERYTHING is indeed energy, then maybe the properties of other Universes are. And that energy is ever changing,

thus everything can truely be connected.

E=MC^2 (as an approximation). That means matter is compressed energy and energy is uncompressed matter. It's all really the same stuff just with compression.

[Crunchy Cat]

I mean everything that spins (and essentially everything does) reveals a central "nothing", if not conjoined by such forces as massive fusion and gravitational pull.

Huh? Did you just say that spinning a top in outer space revels a center of nothing?


So rather than nothing, should not the question be, exactly what SHAPE the universe takes over time?

It might look like an expanding blob of water in zero gravity. The universe's structure however is quite flat.


With star class clusters reverting to states of singularity (black holes), does not the shape of the universe change somewhat, while the ratio of mass to force i.e., universal mass to first expulsion OUT (fission en masse) simply mean proximity to mass vs. force turns the entire space-time equation into literal swiss cheese (as has already been proposed)?

I'll speculate that a singularity would looke like pulling a super thin thread out of a blanket. Yeah, it might make that universal blob look more like a pincushion come to think about it :).


Sure folds seem plausible, but dimensions as exhibited in our universe seem to never need progress beyond the first multiples...otherwise we are simply talking about ghosts in the machine, that is a literal echo in a program. A mirrored 'spin' per se or 'shadow' only seems signify curved space and this is simply a major component of any preliminary math.

Of course 0 is not equal to 1, but prompt 0 can be 1 with absolutely no problem.

I completely lost ya here.

[Parhadron]

I apologize for running ideas together.

But to attempt an answer to your paradox question, I might say that since a rock is matter, and matter is carried by any number of forces (including those which make rocks) while we know that matter exists concomitantly with the force which makes matter it makes sense that matter as a form of energy is indeed 'carried' to its 'present state' extant.

Of course, such would be referring to the first law of thermodynamics: that energy is neither be created or destroyed. The rock form would only be one aspect of energy as seen in one frame of time or everything would simply be composed of rock and this we know is not true. Since chemical hierarchy remains basically the same (according to heat, massive acts of fusion, fission, pressure et al) we are almost always talking about either a product of force or a developing continuum as depends upon proximity to another hierarchy of atomic structure combined/combining en masse.

Yet back to the rock. So a rock is carried at the same time it exists however large or small the accompanying frame (grid upon which said rock is juxtaposed), and we are still talking about a ratio of concurrently existing phenomena. Carriage could be reasoned as mentioned previously to be the very process of matter making, while 'making matter' is always a combination of chemical hierarchy i.e. pressure, heat, generated star stuff. What carries is just part of this process...though the same elements change and in turn the universe remains both in some state of entropy and order according to atomic structure which becomes more or less compact in places (in relation to systems extant, subsequent black hole cominations, forces entailed).

I know this was longwinded. Hopefully, this explanation is a bit less confusing though.

[Regulus]

Well... not belief as in... no logic, but agree upon. I can agree upon this on the premise of the assumption on it never being capable of being destroyed, thus it's truely infinite if it's structurally invulnerably but only seperable. Otherwise there's no other way to really explain matters true invulnerably I suffice.

As for the strings being virbation, what does that vibrating eventuate from? My reason for not favoring the theory completely is that once again all of us with our theories lead back to the same question. This is why I don't favor any real "final" theory on matter completely 100 percent, as it leads to yet another question.

Now, I favor the idea of it though. And can agree with it's concept, but can also infer that the string vibration itself also eventuates from yet another mysterious building block.

What you have explained to me has enlightened me and I have come to favor this theory more than others, though it still leads to what the string itself eventuated from. I happen to think we'll never know. THough I can't prove that.

It is however an interesting theory, as it would explain the eventuality of other building blocks of other dimensions/universes, (one in the same, don't kow why I said both).

as for the inflation and many universes theory, one can also infer that we don't know what the other universe "is". Our universe is of shape and volume, we don't know if the others will need to inflate and deflate, is they are probably made of totally different properies. After all, all we know is the universe before us, a dimension of shape and volume. We can't be sure if it will even hit the others when talking about many universe theory.

The other question is if the other universes aren't made of shape or size or volume, would they simply not touch our universe or come in contact with it?

[Crunchy Cat]

Ahhh the 'God'-rock 'paradox'. Ha.

[Regulus]

it's not litteraly a rock >_>

it's something more powerful then God. Can God create something more powerful then it?

That's the paradox, it's not litteraly a rock. What defeats it is this, if God can do anything, it could create something greater than it and yet be able to be great then it at the same time in that eventuallity becuz it CAN do anything.

and that becuz of it's infinite complexity we will never understand how it can do it, and due to our limited ability to understand it becuz we are once again contemplating it with inferior minds, minds bent on lineral 3 dimensional, size and spacial limit.

[Parhadron]

I like the pincushion idea. Have given some thought to a curved sluice, myself---something like an hourglass or barbell shape, though while easily proved, signifies nothing much better than any other shape proposed with a semblance of curvature.

[Crunchy Cat]

I like the pincushion idea. Have given some thought to a curved sluice, myself---something like an hourglass or barbell shape, though while easily proved, signifies nothing much better than any other shape proposed with a semblance of curvature.

That's spooky. I saw a visual representation of a steady state theory variant and it looked like a continuum of hourglass bulbs.

[Parhadron]

Well, if we are to hold to wave/particle duality, we must posit vibration as a resonant signature of simple interaction. This is what I meant by "ghost". In other words the force which is part of every combination of particle formation, every atomic structure can be easily boiled down to an initial relationship of entropy to order.

I only dislike string theory because I cannot agree on the shape it takes...lol...whether donut (which seems most plausible--as in a closed circuit) or open (as in a loosely constructed potential state). At the atomic level, it does not seem a real reach to see resonance as either "coiled" or "uncoiled", regardless as to reference to potential or as reference to a fixed initial state.

Either way it seems the same thing gets described. I just really want to know what it portends, what it reveals about an ultimate universe (if such can actually be some unified theory) that includes entrophy and order, of course. I look forward to reading more of what you find, know.

[TruthSeeker]

I'm sorry TruthSeeker, but what you are saying is utterly nonsensical
Precisely.The Truth is very illogical. Our brains cannot grasp the Truth. Our brains cannot process the concept of infinity, so it translates it into finity in order to process the information. :cool:

You have presented zero proof (let alone evidence) that infinite structures exist in reality. Again, if you are making a factual claim about physical structure you have to provide real evidence; however, maybe this is simply a problem of not understanding what the requirements for evidence are (i.e. it might be an educational / experiential issue).
As I said above, it is illogical. You cannot prove it- you have to experience it. That's what the ancient Zen-Buddhist and Taoist masters used to say. It all makes sense now. :eek:

Either way, it's clear that you accept it as absolute truth that *everything* is infinite. I'll speculate that infinities might exist in reality and I suspect they might be proto constructs. Either way I certainly don't know for certain (a big difference between us because you explicitly assert that you do).
Once again, I perceive infinity. It's all around me and within me. It cannot be named. It cannot be categorized. It cannot be spoken off. It cannot be proved.

Just out of curiousity, lets say the Large Hadron Collider goes online in 2007 and experiments with it show that something like string theory is actually very true. That might lead to a real physical discovery of a 'smallest' unit (definitively making divisions in reality precision-based). How would you cope knowing that what you held as absolute truth turned up false and that your assertions of this truth were actually lies?
The smallest unit is infinitely small. That's a fact. It may not be a substance. Maybe the smallest unit is a portion of space-time (which is what I see). It's more complex then that, I'm sure. But that's the basics.

[Regulus]

Well, if we are to hold to wave/particle duality, we must posit vibration as a resonant signature of simple interaction. This is what I meant by "ghost". In other words the force which is part of every combination of particle formation, every atomic structure can be easily boiled down to an initial relationship of entropy to order.

I only dislike string theory because I cannot agree on the shape it takes...lol...whether donut (which seems most plausible--as in a closed circuit) or open (as in a loosely constructed potential state). At the atomic level, it does not seem a real reach to see resonance as either "coiled" or "uncoiled", regardless as to reference to potential or as reference to a fixed initial state.

Either way it seems the same thing gets described. I just really want to know what it portends, what it reveals about an ultimate universe (if such can actually be some unified theory) that includes entrophy and order, of course. I look forward to reading more of what you find, know.
Either that or we are surrounded by an ultimate Universe, made of this string energy...

Actually, I'm just rambling now. Maybe I am too tired to contemplate anymore. :D

[TruthSeeker]

The logic of infinite structures is the structure themselves...
Yes, you probably "see" it too... :cool:

Though there is no hard evidence or proof, we keep finding smaller units of matter. Also on the grounds of everything being built upon something else.
...
Anyway, the smallest unit of matter seems igsignificant due to the fact that it in itself would need to be consisting of something else.
Yes. That also brings up another matter (ooops... pun! :D ). The matter of creation. Many atheists claim that a Creator cannot exist because someone needs to create the Creator first. We have the same issue here. But instead, it is something that is made out of something else. There will always be something that must contain something else.

(not that I agree with that atheist argument...)

[TruthSeeker]

A thought just occured to me and I don't know if it really has any link to reality. The structure of a computer information can be heirarchical (just like reality). It takes time to enumerate the complete heirarchy and each added layer adds to the total enumeration time. If the heirarchy was infinite then to enumerate it would take infinite time. If we live in a reality of infinite division I might wonder why that some problem doesn't exist.
That is precisely the problem I always faced when dealing with this issue. The problem was solved when I realized finity is just a concept and infinity is the actual reality. :eek:

[TruthSeeker]

The one problem here I agree with you on is that we have no hard evidence or proof, however, there is reasonably infered logic.

Due to this pattern of matter being broken up into incrimants, we can at least... assume, it could be infinite, as we keep finding more and more.

Ahem, now on to what you were explaining.

If I am correct, you are saying that there had to be no beginning? Correct? Well, let us turn over to the theory of energy and matter. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

That clues us in on what you have just explained. One thing that can answer that is infinite causality. The Universe exploding and imploding infinitely with no beginning or an end to it to thus give the contiuation of INFINITE causes.

Thus in the very least it would mean that the matter we see today has been around for an infinity.

Which links to what you have just said right there about enumerations.
Yes, very good. However, you do not need the universe to be imploding and exploding all the time. Time is just a perception. We perceive it as finite because that is how our brains are able to deal with it.

but the one thing that worries me..... is the idea that this topics very title illustrates.

With matter constantly creating itself infinitely it would mean no end meaning there is nothing there, but yet... at the same time there is something. Paradoxal, or.... something we cannot see with the minds we use to contemplate it.
Everything in the universe is made out of emptiness and probability. Just keep in my how an atom looks like. ;)

[Regulus]

Yes, you probably "see" it too... :cool:


Yes. That also brings up another matter (ooops... pun! :D ). The matter of creation. Many atheists claim that a Creator cannot exist because someone needs to create the Creator first. We have the same issue here. But instead, it is something that is made out of something else. There will always be something that must contain something else.

(not that I agree with that atheist argument...)Yeah same here on the athiesm thing, that can't be what disproves God.

I agree, there will always be something that makes something else, it also connects with the dimensions theory, a dimension building upon another.

As for the cyclicality of the universe, it is needed TS. Otherwise causality has no explanation.

[TruthSeeker]

I mean everything that spins (and essentially everything does) reveals a central "nothing", if not conjoined by such forces as massive fusion and gravitational pull. So rather than nothing, should not the question be, exactly what SHAPE the universe takes over time? With star class clusters reverting to states of singularity (black holes), does not the shape of the universe change somewhat, while the ratio of mass to force i.e., universal mass to first expulsion OUT (fission en masse) simply mean proximity to mass vs. force turns the entire space-time equation into literal swiss cheese (as has already been proposed)? Sure folds seem plausible, but dimensions as exhibited in our universe seem to never need progress beyond the first multiples...otherwise we are simply talking about ghosts in the machine, that is a literal echo in a program. A mirrored 'spin' per se or 'shadow' only seems signify curved space and this is simply a major component of any preliminary math.

Of course 0 is not equal to 1, but prompt 0 can be 1 with absolutely no problem.
Shapes are human perceptions. Why should the universe have a shape? Does your imagination has shape?

[Regulus]

Now that's what I have been TRYING to explain lol.

This is what I meant by other dimensions having no shape or size in my arguements.

[TruthSeeker]

E=MC^2 (as an approximation). That means matter is compressed energy and energy is uncompressed matter. It's all really the same stuff just with compression.
Not quite. The universe is an infinite interconnected super-string. It is vibrating. Parts of the universe vibrate at lower energies, which makes them more condensed. Those parts are what we perceive as matter. Matter is simply a lower form of energy- energy that is vibrating at a lower level comapred to higher levels. Matter is, particularly, the vibration level which our brains can perceive.

:eek:

:m:

[TruthSeeker]

Now that's what I have been TRYING to explain lol.

This is what I meant by other dimensions having no shape or size in my arguements.
You are obviously very wise. ;)

[TruthSeeker]

As for the cyclicality of the universe, it is needed TS. Otherwise causality has no explanation.
What makes it cyclical? Your perception? ;)

Who is observing the universe? How old is the universe when it starts growing? How old it is when it comes back? What about when it starts growing again?

What is the temporal frame of reference which you are using? ;)

[Crunchy Cat]

As for the strings being virbation, what does that vibrating eventuate from? My reason for not favoring the theory completely is that once again all of us with our theories lead back to the same question. This is why I don't favor any real "final" theory on matter completely 100 percent, as it leads to yet another question.

That's a great question and I don't know. I suspect that one of today's leading string theorists may know... might be answerable with a quick email or if you're not afraid of the crazy math then modeling might show the answer. I do however, have a speculated answer. As a string is energy (possibly in the rawest sense), it might just naturally try to bind towards any nearby space that it isn't in and that would result in perpetual oscillation.


Now, I favor the idea of it though. And can agree with it's concept, but can also infer that the string vibration itself also eventuates from yet another mysterious building block.

In string theory, try to reduce the string into smaller constuents doesn't work... it always leads to the same substance/scale; however, the fact that it does vibrate indiacates that it could at least be sliced up along it's length. All strings are exactly 1 plank length and I suspect there is a point where further attempts at slicing fail.

I suspect that if a piece of a string is sliced off where vibration is no longer possible, then that is literally the smallest unit of anything that could exist... which would consequently equal the size of a point on a dimension; however, that doesn't change the model that the string is at the smallest possible scale nonetheless (i.e. the basic building block).


What you have explained to me has enlightened me and I have come to favor this theory more than others, though it still leads to what the string itself eventuated from. I happen to think we'll never know. THough I can't prove that.

I am glad it helped. It's a tough theory to conceptualize. Yes, a natural curiousity as to where strings come from or dimensions come from arises. There might be an answer such it had no starting point... it always was and will be... and it might be that the question is fundamentally flawed (i.e. 'where' doesn't apply).


It is however an interesting theory, as it would explain the eventuality of other building blocks of other dimensions/universes, (one in the same, don't kow why I said both).

One small correction, in string theory, dimensions aren't a result of strings. They just are. Collections of dimensions with strings vibrating across them would result in universes. Our universe in particular is modeled with a whopping 11 dimensions. Stings themselves are considered 1-dimensional but don't occupy any specific dimension by default.


as for the inflation and many universes theory, one can also infer that we don't know what the other universe "is". Our universe is of shape and volume, we don't know if the others will need to inflate and deflate, is they are probably made of totally different properies. After all, all we know is the universe before us, a dimension of shape and volume. We can't be sure if it will even hit the others when talking about many universe theory.

Yep, it's a whole different can of worms. I think we should figure out our reality first. Then we can attack others (assuming they exist of course) :).


The other question is if the other universes aren't made of shape or size or volume, would they simply not touch our universe or come in contact with it?

Our brane would have a finite size and the dimensional constitutents might be inifinte. Another brane sharing any of those dimensions could float right into ours.

[Regulus]

teh! point taken TruthSeeker :rolleyes:

Wise guy lol.

And what of other dimensions TruthSeeker.... I say shape is only something that exists in this dimension. I can except other dimensions that can have no shape or size, that their building block is something without shape or size which led me to conclude that maybe there's an omni building block ever changable.

[Regulus]

ugh, people, I am tired lol. and worn out.

That was very thought provoking though, thank you everyone. I think I shall rest, and maybe play some Sonic The Hedgehog or something.

[Crunchy Cat]

Not quite. The universe is an infinite interconnected super-string. It is vibrating. Parts of the universe vibrate at lower energies, which makes them more condensed. Those parts are what we perceive as matter. Matter is simply a lower form of energy- energy that is vibrating at a lower level comapred to higher levels. Matter is, particularly, the vibration level which our brains can perceive.

:eek:

:m:


How would you even know this? String theory, superstring theory, and m-theory are not proven at all.

[TruthSeeker]

teh! point taken TruthSeeker :rolleyes:

Wise guy lol.

And what of other dimensions TruthSeeker.... I say shape is only something that exists in this dimension. I can except other dimensions that can have no shape or size, that their building block is something without shape or size which led me to conclude that maybe there's an omni building block ever changable.
Shape is only a perception. You are looking at an object and differentiating it from the environment around it. You perceive the object as separate, when in reality, the object and the environment are one thing. You perceive it as a distinct object because you detect differences between the object and its surrounding environment. That's what you brain does. In reality, there is infinite space everywhere and everything is a blend of everything.

Shape is a perception of illusive finity.

:m:

[TruthSeeker]

ugh, people, I am tired lol. and worn out.

That was very thought provoking though, thank you everyone. I think I shall rest, and maybe play some Sonic The Hedgehog or something.
Indeed... I would like to play games as well... :D

Unfortunately I have a big accounting midterm tomorrow... :(

[TruthSeeker]

How would you even know this? String theory, superstring theory, and m-theory are not proven at all.
Ah? Is that string theory? :eek:

LOL! I didn't even study string theory...! :p


... :eek:

[Regulus]

Shape is only a perception. You are looking at an object and differentiating it from the environment around it. You perceive the object as separate, when in reality, the object and the environment are one thing. You perceive it as a distinct object because you detect differences between the object and its surrounding environment. That's what you brain does. In reality, there is infinite space everywhere and everything is a blend of everything.

Shape is a perception of illusive finity.

:m:

one word my friend,

proof?

I don't doubt that but what you are claiming is definite proof.

Shape I think could be an illusion, or just a property of one dimension, and all others are a property that are unknown.

Like I said, I can agree with you on it as a possibility, but not a definite proof. Just like I can't prove that all other dimensions have no size or shade, I am just conjugating it based on a logic of variaty here.

[Crunchy Cat]

Ah? Is that string theory? :eek:

LOL! I didn't even study string theory...! :p


... :eek:

It sounded like a slightly mis-interpreted version and it used the right terminology, but the question still stands.

[TruthSeeker]

one word my friend,

proof?

I don't doubt that but what you are claiming is definite proof.

Shape I think could be an illusion, or just a property of one dimension, and all others are a property that are unknown.

Like I said, I can agree with you on it as a possibility, but not a definite proof. Just like I can't prove that all other dimensions have no size or shade, I am just conjugating it based on a logic of variaty here.
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-44602.html

I improved that hypothesis a little bit and should post it sometime... :m:

[TruthSeeker]

It sounded like a slightly mis-interpreted version and it used the right terminology, but the question still stands.
Is mine mis-interpreted or is it yours? ;)

[Regulus]

I've heard of this before, the theory on our perceptions.

Due to the fact that it is merely our stimuli and perception experiencing the shape, touch, color, size, sound, etc.

My friend also came up with a similiar theory on color. I came up with one on sound and touch, that it is all relative.

The point is though.... why? Why have this perception? And due to your relativity logic, what is the proof?

I understand the logic and agree with it, but I can't simply say it's proof, becuz it's my stimuli.

It's an interesting theory, and I can agree with it, but I can't say it's proof. Becuz it's merely speculation.

[Crunchy Cat]

Is mine mis-interpreted or is it yours? ;)

Of String theory? Definitely not mine (check any public reference).

[Regulus]

String theory is widely known Truthseeker, it's not just something that Crunchy Cat made up. It's a widely known theory.

[TruthSeeker]

Of String theory? Definitely not mine (check any public reference).
Oh wow! Argumentum ad populum. How nice... :p :bugeye:

[TruthSeeker]

String theory is widely known Truthseeker, it's not just something that Crunchy Cat made up. It's a widely known theory.
Yes, yes, I know that... :rolleyes:

Doesn't mean it is correct. Nor that that version is the only version. ;)

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes, yes, I know that... :rolleyes:

Doesn't mean it is correct. Nor that that version is the only version. ;)

Nobody claimed it is correct (in fact I have repeadtly stated there is no proof that it is correct). Consequently, there doesn't exist any variant that contains a single 'super-string'. All variants universally define strings as plank-length vibrating strands of open and closed-loop exotic energy; hence, if your original assertion is indeed an interpretation of a string theory then its incorrect.

[Crunchy Cat]

Oh wow! Argumentum ad populum. How nice... :p :bugeye:

Incorrect. It's argumentum ad read-the-document-um.

[Crunchy Cat]

Consequently, I don't want to let this detract from the claim of truth that you asserted:

The universe is an infinite interconnected super-string. It is vibrating. Parts of the universe vibrate at lower energies, which makes them more condensed. Those parts are what we perceive as matter. Matter is simply a lower form of energy- energy that is vibrating at a lower level comapred to higher levels. Matter is, particularly, the vibration level which our brains can perceive.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

[TruthSeeker]

Please provide evidence to super-string. ;)

Incorrect. It's argumentum ad read-the-document-um.
:eek:

O.... k.....
*slowly stepping back... running away*

[Crunchy Cat]

The universe is an infinite interconnected super-string.



Please provide evidence to super-string. ;)




Um... the responsibility of the claimer (not the audience) is to provide evidence for the claim.

[Regulus]

So now this escalates into an arguement on super string?

[TruthSeeker]

Um... the responsibility of the claimer (not the audience) is to provide evidence for the claim.
Hey, you claimed that superstrings are correct...! ;) :D

[Crunchy Cat]

Hey, you claimed that superstrings are correct...! ;) :D

Where?

[TruthSeeker]

So now this escalates into an arguement on super string?
Not necessarily... :D

[TruthSeeker]

Where?
When you said I was wrong! But you are wrong too! :D

Oooops! I didn't mean that! :D

[Crunchy Cat]

When you said I was wrong! But you are wrong too! :D

Oooops! I didn't mean that! :D

Maybe it was misunderstood what I said was wrong. All variants of string theory universally conceive a string as a plank length chunk-o-energy. Your assertion "universe is an infinite interconnected super-string" implies the universe is one big vibrating string. If you are interpreting string theory then that would be incorrect.

If you are asserting something different then you clearly asserted it as truth; hence, the reques to show me the money.

[Regulus]

String theory is plausible, but also it is generated on the premise of plank unite. Presently it's not been proven it's the smallest unite of matter, only smallest measured.

[Crunchy Cat]

String theory is plausible, but also it is generated on the premise of plank unite. Presently it's not been proven it's the smallest unite of matter, only smallest measured.

Quite correct.

[Regulus]

Indeed... with that, I presently can agree with it, unless something else is found.

You see.... I am not an evangelical Christian CC ;)

I have logic and reason. My believing in God doesn't take that away :D though I do have reason and logic for my believing in the Omnipotence.

[Absane]

I have logic and reason. My believing in God doesn't take that away :D though I do have reason and logic for my believing in the Omnipotence.

Can and does "God" break the laws of physics and logic? Why didn't "God" make 1+1=3 or make it possible to square the circle?

What would stop a person from calling "God" Omnipotent so there is a further reason science or reason cannot explain him? Why would "God" want to be Omnipotent?

[c7ityi_]

Can and does "God" break the laws of physics and logic?

There are no real laws, that's why we can create infinite laws. All laws can be broken, and you don't have to be God to do that.

Why didn't "God" make 1+1=3 or make it possible to square the circle?

Because it's impossible and illogical.

Why would "God" want to be Omnipotent?

God doesn't want anything.

[Crunchy Cat]

Indeed... with that, I presently can agree with it, unless something else is found.

You see.... I am not an evangelical Christian CC ;)

I have logic and reason. My believing in God doesn't take that away :D though I do have reason and logic for my believing in the Omnipotence.

I never said you were an avengelical christian :). In fact I never even used the word christian!

[TruthSeeker]

"1"s and "3" are just symbols, Absane. You could call "1" a "5", a "2" a "^" and voila! You have "5+5=^"!

:bugeye:

:eek:

:D

[TruthSeeker]

Maybe it was misunderstood what I said was wrong. All variants of string theory universally conceive a string as a plank length chunk-o-energy. Your assertion "universe is an infinite interconnected super-string" implies the universe is one big vibrating string. If you are interpreting string theory then that would be incorrect.

If you are asserting something different then you clearly asserted it as truth; hence, the reques to show me the money.
Everything is connected. :cool:

[Absane]

There are no real laws, that's why we can create infinite laws. All laws can be broken, and you don't have to be God to do that.

Because it's impossible and illogical.

God doesn't want anything.


Sorry, but my question was directed towards Regulus.

[Absane]

"1"s and "3" are just symbols, Absane. You could call "1" a "5", a "2" a "^" and voila! You have "5+5=^"!

:bugeye:

:eek:

:D

You misunderstood my question, Truthseeker. Think about in what sense 1 exists and in what sense 3 exists. If "God" is all powerful, he can make the 1+1=3. If he cannot, then he is not all powerful. It's the same logic to prove free-will cannot exist if "God" is all-knowing.

[TruthSeeker]

No no no no...
Numbers are just symbols for concepts. The concepts do not change. The concept of "1" will always be a "1" by definition. That's an axiom. It's an immutable concept.

[Absane]

Truthseeker.. you are still missing the point. The point is, if "God" really is ALL-POWERFUL, he has the ability to make 1+1=3.

Let's go back to first grade.

I got 1 apple. I find another, single apple. I hold them in my hands and I have two. Well, and all-powerful "God" can make it so when I have 1 apple, and another single apple, I have 3. If you go not agree with this, then "God" cannot be all-powerful, can he?

Besides, my reply was directed towards Regulus.

[Absane]

The concept of "1" will always be a "1" by definition. That's an axiom. It's an immutable concept.

"1" is not an axiom. An axiom is a statement of truth, an assumption which one builds from. Tell me how "1" is true and I will buy you a Furby.

[Regulus]

Sorry, but my question was directed towards Regulus.
Who said God didn't make a circle square? Only in our current spectrum is a circle square not present.

As for Omnipotence, as TruthSeeker said, it doesn't want Omnipotence, it simply IS Omnipotent. It can make itself Omnipotent, but it already is. It's like saying it can kill itself, it just can't die. No one ever said it couldn't be Omnipotent.

Same concept with 1+1=3.

How do you know it didn't? With a possibility of infinite spectrums, one can assume that it's possible that 1+1=3 in another Universe. No one ever said it couldn't.

[Absane]

As for Omnipotence, as TruthSeeker said, it doesn't want Omnipotence, it simply IS Omnipotent. It can make itself Omnipotent, but it already is. It's like saying it can kill itself, it just can't die. No one ever said it couldn't be Omnipotent.

I do not recall asking if it WANTED to be omnipotent. I asked that if he IS, then why is our universe the way it is, and not different... What is so special about the system on which this universe runs? Why did he choose 1+1=2 instead of 1+1=3?

I hope I do not read a reply saying "because God cannot be understood." It's a convenient answer, but not good enough.

[Crunchy Cat]

Everything is connected. :cool:

You might be right and I don't think you can definitively say you are with our present knowledge of reality.

[Regulus]

I do not recall asking if it WANTED to be omnipotent. I asked that if he IS, then why is our universe the way it is, and not different... What is so special about the system on which this universe runs? Why did he choose 1+1=2 instead of 1+1=3?

I hope I do not read a reply saying "because God cannot be understood." It's a convenient answer, but not good enough.No no, I wasn't going to say that. But good idea.... ILL SAY IT :D j/k

ahem, to be serious. Why did God the Universe to be the way it is I cannot say, but being Omnipotent doesn't exactly answer the question on a beings motives for why 1+1=3...

[Absane]

Because if he really is "all powerful," then he has unlimited power... thus, he can make 1+1=3. I Just wonder why he didn't make it so. If the answer is because it's impossible, then God isn't all-powerful.. hence, not onmipotent.

[TruthSeeker]

Truthseeker.. you are still missing the point. The point is, if "God" really is ALL-POWERFUL, he has the ability to make 1+1=3.

Let's go back to first grade.

I got 1 apple. I find another, single apple. I hold them in my hands and I have two. Well, and all-powerful "God" can make it so when I have 1 apple, and another single apple, I have 3. If you go not agree with this, then "God" cannot be all-powerful, can he?

Besides, my reply was directed towards Regulus.
You mean make another one appear?

[Regulus]

Maybe because it means making a Universe with infinite possibilities. Thus anything can happen, which would mean we can do anything we want, and that would inexoribly be the dimension known as heaven.

Becuz if 1+1=3 in this Universe, anything might as well exist... Which means, size is no longer a dimension property because other properties such as size occupy it, shape is no longer a property. It's a clutter everything, thus anything is possible and we can do anything. It would mean that I at any moment in time could make 2+2= chicken. I can make myself 1 million dollars by simply saying 1 million dollars. There has to be a limit of laws. A way of limiting a Universe in order to create equilibrium.

Or maybe it's a form of order. Maybe by making such a law creates chaotic results of causality.

I don't know, just an asceration of mine. Debunk any flaws in it if you must. I know there may be some present.

[TruthSeeker]

"1" is not an axiom. An axiom is a statement of truth, an assumption which one builds from. Tell me how "1" is true and I will buy you a Furby.
The number one is just a concept which is expressed in the symbol "1". The concept will never change. The symbol can change. There are many different numeric systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_systems). There are many different symbols to represent the concepts and many different bases. If you say 1+1=3, you are just changing the symbology. The concept is still the same.

Babilonian numerals:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Babylonian_numerals.jpg

Mayan numerals:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Maya.png/180px-Maya.png

D'ni numerals (invented... in a game...):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c6/D%27ni_numerals.svg/300px-D%27ni_numerals.svg.png


PS: And I hope you know it, but the ones that you are using ("1", "3"...) are arabic numerals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals)...

[TruthSeeker]

Where's my Furby? :D

[TruthSeeker]

As for Omnipotence, as TruthSeeker said, it doesn't want Omnipotence, it simply IS Omnipotent. It can make itself Omnipotent, but it already is. It's like saying it can kill itself, it just can't die. No one ever said it couldn't be Omnipotent.
Where did I say that?

[Regulus]

Where did I say that?Didn't you make a comment about Omnipotence, or did you said that it doesn't want anything? Sorry, I forgot.

[Absane]

You mean make another one appear?

No. Ok, let's call an apple a fruit and an orange a fruit. I am holding an apple and an orange. I have three fruits. Why doesn't this happen? Maybe because God isn't all powerful. If he is all powerful, why didn't he choose this system?

Am I the only one that gets this question?

Looking at the post about "1" after this one, it is evident to me you still do not understand what I am talking about. I know "1" is just a symbol and "3" is, too. But you know what one "looks like" and you know what three "looks like" (you got a sense about it). The point I made is that you said "1" is an axiom, which it isn't. It's just a definition, a symbol to respresent "oneness."

Anyway you do not get a Furby because you didn't show me that "1" is true. It's like I walk up to you at random and say: "Arizona, true or false?"

[TruthSeeker]

Forgot too... :confused:

:D

I need a fatty... :m:

[Absane]

Becuz if 1+1=3 in this Universe, anything might as well exist... Which means, size is no longer a dimension property because other properties such as size occupy it, shape is no longer a property. It's a clutter everything, thus anything is possible and we can do anything. It would mean that I at any moment in time could make 2+2= chicken. I can make myself 1 million dollars by simply saying 1 million dollars. There has to be a limit of laws. A way of limiting a Universe in order to create equilibrium.

No, if God is all-powerful, 1+1=3 doesn't imply anything else must imply. Remember, God is all-powerful, he can make 1+1=3, yet everything else in the world functions just as it does now. Remember, he is ALL-POWERFUL. He can make the illogical happen. If you do not agree with this, than it doesn't make sense to believe he is omnipotent.

[Absane]

Forgot too... :confused:

:D

I need a fatty... :m:

You will reply, correct?

[TruthSeeker]

No. Ok, let's call an apple a fruit and an orange a fruit. I am holding an apple and an orange. I have three fruits.
Just like I said above. That's possible (for God, at least).

Why doesn't this happen? Maybe because God isn't all powerful.
If he is all powerful, why didn't he choose this system?
Is that system better?

Am I the only one that gets this question?
I don't think you get it...

Looking at the post about "1" after this one, it is evident to me you still do not understand what I am talking about. I know "1" is just a symbol and "3" is, too. But you know what one "looks like" and you know what three "looks like" (you got a sense about it). The point I made is that you said "1" is an axiom, which it isn't. It's just a definition, a symbol to respresent "oneness."
The concept of 1 is an axiom. I think nobody can dispute this...

[TruthSeeker]

You will reply, correct?
I was talking with Regulus...

[Absane]

I was talking with Regulus...

Oh, my mind is all over tonight.

[Absane]

Just like I said above. That's possible (for God, at least).

Ok, so you believe he is onmipotent, all-powerful.


Is that system better?

Why not? To an all-powerful god, there is no difference between 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. They can all work. I want to know why this is the system the universe is built upon. As I have stated, God, being the all-powerful being that he is, could have made this EXCACT same universe with the fact that 1+1=3 and everything still functions as it does. But WHY did he not?


I don't think you get it...

What do I not get about what?

The concept of 1 is an axiom. I think nobody can dispute this...

According to answers.com:

axiom - A self-evident or universally recognized truth.

How is 1 true? First you told me 1 is an axiom, then you told me 1 just a symbol, and now you tell me 1 is an axiom. Which is it?

[Regulus]

No, if God is all-powerful, 1+1=3 doesn't imply anything else must imply. Remember, God is all-powerful, he can make 1+1=3, yet everything else in the world functions just as it does now. Remember, he is ALL-POWERFUL. He can make the illogical happen. If you do not agree with this, than it doesn't make sense to believe he is omnipotent.Your right. I agree.

Why 1+1=2 instead of 3 I cannot answer, but it still does not limit it, it doesn't mean it can't, it just didn't for this Universe. If it's Omnipotent then it can. There's no doubt that it couldn't.

[Absane]

As long as we all see that point, I still want to know what makes the current system better than the infinite number of other possibilities. It's all the same to an all-powerful being.

[Regulus]

Maybe becuz the other possibilities are just the same. And another Universe occupies this law Absane...

If another Universe did occupy it wouldn't duplicating it prove ignsignificant? Then again if it's the same what's the difference?

Jeeze.... wow.... you really asked a good question Absane.....

Thankyou, it's thought provoking. Plus... NOW ITS GOING TO BOTHER ME FOR THE REST OF THE NIGHT LOL :D

[Absane]

Maybe becuz the other possibilities are just the same. And another Universe occupies this law Absane...

Why must they be the same? They could be, but if God is to create multiple universes, why not make them different? Perhaps it is an experiement? Create multiple universes and perhaps one logical law is different but all else is the same, like a mirror copy. He would do this to see what happens. But why would he want to do this? I suppose if he is all-powerful, he could just make himself all-knowing and know immediately. Maybe he does it this way so their are beings to worship him.

Jeeze.... wow.... you really asked a good question Absane.....

Thankyou, it's thought provoking. Plus... NOW ITS GOING TO BOTHER ME FOR THE REST OF THE NIGHT LOL :D

My brain is getting tired. Funny thing is, I will not be thinking about this when I go to sleep. :p

[Regulus]

Well.... I don't think an Omnipotent being needs to be worshipped, otherwise it seeks approval.

I really don't know Absane.

You've really brought a good question to the table.

I'll think about it and see if I can come up with a good answer. Jeeze, this is going to bother me. Thanx alot Absane lol. Now I just can't get tha tout of my mind :D . and as for you TruthSeeker. Fatty's are bad for you ;)

I for one don't do any drugs, drink, or smoke. Be mindful of your health TS :)

[TruthSeeker]

Why not? To an all-powerful god, there is no difference between 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. They can all work. I want to know why this is the system the universe is built upon. As I have stated, God, being the all-powerful being that he is, could have made this EXCACT same universe with the fact that 1+1=3 and everything still functions as it does. But WHY did he not?
Huuumm... for the same reason He did this one! :)
Maybe He also created other universes where this is the standard! ;)

What do I not get about what?
Symbols are relative, concepts are absolute.

According to answers.com:

axiom - A self-evident or universally recognized truth.
Yes, the meaning of 1 is self-evident and universally recognized...

How is 1 true? First you told me 1 is an axiom, then you told me 1 just a symbol, and now you tell me 1 is an axiom. Which is it?
What? I never told you 1 is just a symbol. I said "1" is just a symbol. The "appearance" of it. The meaning, however, is not a symbol.

You seem confused...

[TruthSeeker]

Well.... I don't think an Omnipotent being needs to be worshipped, otherwise it seeks approval.
yes...

I for one don't do any drugs, drink, or smoke. Be mindful of your health TS :)
I used not to as well. But with enough discipline everything is fine. 1 glass of red wine per week is actually pretty good for your health. I don't smoke. And drugs are not my thing either... ;)

[Absane]

I give up.

[Dr Hannibal Lecter]

Value is subjective. To some people, your value is nothing. To others, - well, to others it might be less than nothing.

[Absane]

Value is subjective. To some people, your value is nothing. To others, - well, to others it might be less than nothing.

Why not create two definitions of "value?" Real value and subjective value? Any perceived overlap of the two is actually just real value.

[TruthSeeker]

All value is perceived. The universe doesn't value anything. We do.

There's no "real value"...

[Absane]

Atoms do not value stability of electrical charge? Earth doesn't value the sun for energy?

You know we can define real value.

[nicholas1M7]

Atoms do not value stability of electrical charge? Earth doesn't value the sun for energy?

You know we can define real value.


That would be the kind of philosophical wishful thinking pushed by that verbose windbag, Plato. Its called a form or standard. An exercise in philosophical futility by which to judge all things such as beauty or justice.

[Absane]

I think "Earth's life forms require the sun for energy" is the same as saying "Earth's life forms value the sun for energy." What is wrong with that?

But it seems to me that real value and subjective value have a common overlap in definitions (though the application of the definitions may turn out to be non-overlapping).

[TruthSeeker]

Atoms do not value stability of electrical charge?
No.

Earth doesn't value the sun for energy?
No.

You know we can define real value.
No we can't.

[TruthSeeker]

Value is a human concept. The uiniverse doesn't care about our values and it has no values, because the universe simply is. Existence is natural and importance has no hierarchy whatsoever.

[Absane]

Truthseeker.. you are missing the point.

I can define asdf to mean something. I can define real value to mean something. You keep thinking in terms of human value, I am thinking in terms of a higher value.

[TruthSeeker]

There's no higher value.

[Absane]

Well what I am trying to get to (as I realized just a minute ago) is that there is human value, which is a subset of something higher.

Please tell me what this "higher" thing is. And it isn't necessarily omniparient or an omniparent.

[c7ityi_]

Value is a human concept. The uiniverse doesn't care about our values and it has no values, because the universe simply is. Existence is natural and importance has no hierarchy whatsoever.

you forget you are a part of the universe, you are the universe, so universe has value, the universe cares about values. even less conscious beings like animals and plants might have some idea of value.

[TruthSeeker]

c7ityi_, that's not what I'm talking about here...

[Absane]

you forget you are a part of the universe, you are the universe, so universe has value, the universe cares about values. even less conscious beings like animals and plants might have some idea of value.

I think you are missing the point, too. And does this have anything with your "law of infinity?" I still want to know what it is.

[Tnerb]

qq always creates the huge threads!

[genep]

If everything is in some kind of relationship with everything only then can nothing- ness not exist.

That nothing ness is a default result of everything being in a relationship with everything.

For example : A fly has a relationship with a star on the other side of the universe.

Every existant "thing" could be stated as being in a relationship with every existant thing. It is only when this is so, nothing- ness no-exists by default.

Thus the value of nothing is everything.

Care to discuss?
NOTHING TO DISCUSS:
It was all figured out over 5000 years ago: back then sages called your "nothing" thoughts; and they called everything "ATMAN", Samadhi that is the infinite BLISS of thoughtless-Silence, dreamless-sleep, which is the word, thought, death.
OR as you say: the value of nothing, thoughts, is Everything, Atman.

[stanleyg]

If everything is in some kind of relationship with everything only then can nothing- ness not exist.

That nothing ness is a default result of everything being in a relationship with everything.

For example : A fly has a relationship with a star on the other side of the universe.

Every existant "thing" could be stated as being in a relationship with every existant thing. It is only when this is so, nothing- ness no-exists by default.

Thus the value of nothing is everything.

Care to discuss?

First, I concur with your statement. The proof resides in numbers. Zero is the only whole number. The relationship of any other number is a fraction of zero.

Permit me to apply math to sustain my logic.

Base Ten has 10 increments to reach the next zero.

0=Terminal Start
1 = 10%
2 = 20%
3 = 30%
4 = 40%
5 = 50%
6 = 60%
7 = 70%
8 = 80%
9 = 90%
10 = 100% Terminal Stop

Base two has only 2 increments to reach the next zero.

0 = Terminal Start
1 = 50%
10 = 100% Terminal Stop

When we count we are actually counting how many increments it takes for us to achieve or reach zero or nothing.

The conceptual connotation of some (thing or one) denotes a fraction.

Conversely, the connotation of no (thing or one) denotes a whole.

In other words, to be all (thing or one) we must surpass being some (thing or one).

This principle of reasoning is known as Alpha & Omega (i.e. first and last).

[Prince_James]

stanleyg:

"First, I concur with your statement. The proof resides in numbers. Zero is the only whole number. The relationship of any other number is a fraction of zero."

If we take zero to mean nothing, then I am afraid your position is critically flawed. For what is nothing divided by anything? Still nothing, is it not? Because nothing cannot be divided. To divide nothing is to not to divide. Therefore, zero cannot have a fraction, as a fraction is a division of the whole.

"0=Terminal Start
1 = 10%
2 = 20%
3 = 30%
4 = 40%
5 = 50%
6 = 60%
7 = 70%
8 = 80%
9 = 90%
10 = 100% Terminal Stop"

What does this prove? That 10 percent of 10 is 1? That 20 percent is 2? That if you count from nothingness to 10, you have ten? WEll that is rather simple, is it not? What is 10 + 0. 10, because you are not adding at all. You are simply stating "10" in a round-about way which violates the Principle of Parsimony.

"0 = Terminal Start
1 = 50%
10 = 100% Terminal Stop"

Would not it be...

0 = "Terminal start" (What does this even mean, really?)
1 = 50 percent
2 = 100 percent terminal start (again, what does this mean really?)

And again, what does this prove?

"When we count we are actually counting how many increments it takes for us to achieve or reach zero or nothing."

How do you figure? When we count, we are figuring out how many numbers it is to a certain number. But yes, all numbers can be spoken of as how far they are from nothingness, but this does not seem to be anything but to say that somethingness is the opposite of nothingness.

"The conceptual connotation of some (thing or one) denotes a fraction.

Conversely, the connotation of no (thing or one) denotes a whole."

Again, I must disagree: Emptiness can be neither whole nor fraction, for if it is either it ceases to be nothingness. In order to be whole, it must be something - in order to be a fraction, it must be something.

1/4th of 1 = .25. Conversely, 4 times .25 = 1. Note that in each case we are dealing with -something-, rather than nothing. Let us deal with nothing.

What is 1/4th of nothing? Well, nothing. What is 4 times 1/4th of nothing? Well, nothing. You cannot get anything out of nothing. Nor does the entire process of fractions nor wholes work when we apply them to nothing.

In essence: Your math is flawed and I think this is due to an a conceptually wrong view of what nothingness entails.

"In other words, to be all (thing or one) we must surpass being some (thing or one). "

Actually, to be all necessitates one must encompass all things that compose oneself. Infinity necessitates the existence of all things beneath it.

[Quantum Quack]

Stanleyg:
I can see where you are heading with your post and reckon you are going to have a hell of time trying to explain it fully.
Princes arguements are quite sound in the context he is working from.
For example any number can be deemed to equal one ie. 1138 units equals 1 unit with the value of 1138, so one plus one can equal 2276. Of course it is all a matter of context.
Prince James:
Welcome back!!

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

Thank you! And talk to you momentarily in PM. Didn't see them till now!

[Quantum Quack]

Is it worth suggesting that with out zero mathematics makes no sense?

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

Actually, zero was absent from Greek mathematics, and they seemed to have gotten along just fine. The notion of zero was a later development and, in many ways, an abuse. It leads us to some absurdities in modern math, such as:

Negative numbers (if zero is to be considered zero, anything less than zero is logically impossible)
That zero can be meaningful used in any computation. For why is it zero for 8 to be multipled by 0? Are not we simply saying here, if we take nothingness and zero to be one, that 8 is to not be mutliplied at all?
That 0^0 = 1.

Et cetera, et cetera.

That math might be better off -without- zero, as math can only speak of -something-, may well be something I'd suggest.

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

In your first post you speak of all things having a relationship with other. This has been something I have considered often in recent months, for it seems to me that in an infinite existence, in infinite time, that everything will have a chance to interact with everything else at least once.

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:

Actually, zero was absent from Greek mathematics, and they seemed to have gotten along just fine. The notion of zero was a later development and, in many ways, an abuse. It leads us to some absurdities in modern math, such as:

Negative numbers (if zero is to be considered zero, anything less than zero is logically impossible)
That zero can be meaningful used in any computation. For why is it zero for 8 to be multipled by 0? Are not we simply saying here, if we take nothingness and zero to be one, that 8 is to not be mutliplied at all?
That 0^0 = 1.

Et cetera, et cetera.

That math might be better off -without- zero, as math can only speak of -something-, may well be something I'd suggest.

It does indeed raise some interesting philosophical questions.

And also probably our main reason for failure to understand the reason why existance exists. We have paradoxed ourselves into a corner that we are going to have a hell of a time digging our selves out of.

When reading some of the very old Greek philo, I see some terrific validity yet as we have evolved scientifically we have discounted some of it or replaced it with scientifically founded philosophies. And of course the question: "What if the science is wrong?" begs for an answer.

The issue of relative time for example and it's cause being the invariant speed of light etc etc....has a direct effect on philosophical understanding.

Any way this is just me waffling.....

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

"And also probably our main reason for failure to understand the reason why existance exists. We have paradoxed ourselves into a corner that we are going to have a hell of a time digging our selves out of."

I am a bit more confidant in our knowledge of why existence exists, by virtue of considering myself to be in possession of this knowledge. But yes, some insidious concepts have leeked into our common consciousness as a result of a lack of philosophica evaluation.

"When reading some of the very old Greek philo, I see some terrific validity yet as we have evolved scientifically we have discounted some of it or replaced it with scientifically founded philosophies. And of course the question: "What if the science is wrong?" begs for an answer."

I think that is really the problem. We have discounted philosophy in favour of science in some crucial areas and not used philosophy enough to discuss scientific findings.

"The issue of relative time for example and it's cause being the invariant speed of light etc etc....has a direct effect on philosophical understanding."

Most definitely.

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:

In your first post you speak of all things having a relationship with other. This has been something I have considered often in recent months, for it seems to me that in an infinite existence, in infinite time, that everything will have a chance to interact with everything else at least once.

My current understanding places a great doubt on the issue of relative time [ Nows ] as suggested by Special relativity. I find the knowledge of particle entanglement and tunneling to be of great value.

If time is absolute whilst allowing relative time rates we have a universe that suddenly makes a lot of sense, why inertia is what it is and how the universal psych can function. It does how ever require the no-existance of nothingness to facilitate these infinite inter relationships as it is this nothingness that is the medium that allows absolute time therefore absolute relationships.

In science fiction it is curreently fashion to talk about half entangled particles that can allow communication across galaxies, distance being irrevlevant. For this to happen the half particles must have a zero distance relationship or alternatively use a zero dimension to facilitate this communication. In other words the particles are not separated at all, but only appear so.

So we have this paradoxical statement:

For nothing to no- exists every possible thing or relationship must exist.

or

everything [ infinity] = zero

which brings me to another concept. That being that physically the universe is a self governing singularity or more clearly a self sustaining duality that has a singularity at it's heart. so nothing- ness, being that singularity, generates a duality.

hmmmm.... So it could be said from this that nothingness actually creates the need for everything, and if God is this nothingness then it seems to all make sense. [ especially why God remains unfound]

so we end up with the creation paradox as I call it, which only exists if we consider time to have a beginning and an end.

Mind you, time may need a beginning but this does not necessarilly mean it must have an end..

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

"If time is absolute whilst allowing relative time rates we have a universe that suddenly makes a lot of sense, why inertia is what it is and how the universal psych can function. It does how ever require the no-existance of nothingness to facilitate these infinite inter relationships as it is this nothingness that is the medium that allows absolute time therefore absolute relationships."

A few questions:

1. How can nothingness be a medium for somethingness? If it is nothingness, how can it be capable of facillitating anything whatsoever?

2. What is "absolute time" and "relative time" as here? And why do you suggest that absolute time exists?

"In science fiction it is curreently fashion to talk about half entangled particles that can allow communication across galaxies, distance being irrevlevant. For this to happen the half particles must have a zero distance relationship or alternatively use a zero dimension to facilitate this communication. In other words the particles are not separated at all, but only appear so."

What would this "zero dimension" entail? Moreover, as far as I understand Quantum Entanglement, no information is actually passed, and ontop of that, it isn't because they share no distance, but that they once were entangled, that they share the quantum entanglement relationship.

"For nothing to no- exists every possible thing or relationship must exist.

or

everything [ infinity] = zero"

I do not think the first statement is truly paradoxical. However, what is your rationale behind it?

The second thing I'd have a problem with, though. Infinity cannot equal zero, for infinity's value is diametrically opposed to zero. If zero is absolute nothingness, than infinity is absolute somethingness. These are as far as one can possible get from the same from one another.

"which brings me to another concept. That being that physically the universe is a self governing singularity or more clearly a self sustaining duality that has a singularity at it's heart. so nothing- ness, being that singularity, generates a duality."

In what way do you propose that it is a singularity?

"hmmmm.... So it could be said from this that nothingness actually creates the need for everything, and if God is this nothingness then it seems to all make sense. [ especially why God remains unfound]"

How can nothingness create the need?

"so we end up with the creation paradox as I call it, which only exists if we consider time to have a beginning and an end.

Mind you, time may need a beginning but this does not necessarilly mean it must have an end.. "

For time to have a beginning and an end would not even allow for its creation, because creation itself must act within time. Similarly, it could not be infinite, for it would not be absolute, and only something which is absolute could have the property of infinity if it is something.

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:

"If time is absolute whilst allowing relative time rates we have a universe that suddenly makes a lot of sense, why inertia is what it is and how the universal psych can function. It does how ever require the no-existance of nothingness to facilitate these infinite inter relationships as it is this nothingness that is the medium that allows absolute time therefore absolute relationships."

A few questions:

1. How can nothingness be a medium for somethingness? If it is nothingness, how can it be capable of facillitating anything whatsoever?

2. What is "absolute time" and "relative time" as here? And why do you suggest that absolute time exists?

"In science fiction it is curreently fashion to talk about half entangled particles that can allow communication across galaxies, distance being irrevlevant. For this to happen the half particles must have a zero distance relationship or alternatively use a zero dimension to facilitate this communication. In other words the particles are not separated at all, but only appear so."

What would this "zero dimension" entail? Moreover, as far as I understand Quantum Entanglement, no information is actually passed, and ontop of that, it isn't because they share no distance, but that they once were entangled, that they share the quantum entanglement relationship.

"For nothing to no- exists every possible thing or relationship must exist.

or

everything [ infinity] = zero"

I do not think the first statement is truly paradoxical. However, what is your rationale behind it?

The second thing I'd have a problem with, though. Infinity cannot equal zero, for infinity's value is diametrically opposed to zero. If zero is absolute nothingness, than infinity is absolute somethingness. These are as far as one can possible get from the same from one another.

"which brings me to another concept. That being that physically the universe is a self governing singularity or more clearly a self sustaining duality that has a singularity at it's heart. so nothing- ness, being that singularity, generates a duality."

In what way do you propose that it is a singularity?

"hmmmm.... So it could be said from this that nothingness actually creates the need for everything, and if God is this nothingness then it seems to all make sense. [ especially why God remains unfound]"

How can nothingness create the need?

"so we end up with the creation paradox as I call it, which only exists if we consider time to have a beginning and an end.

Mind you, time may need a beginning but this does not necessarilly mean it must have an end.. "

For time to have a beginning and an end would not even allow for its creation, because creation itself must act within time. Similarly, it could not be infinite, for it would not be absolute, and only something which is absolute could have the property of infinity if it is something.
NOTE:
has sci forums been offline? I couldn't respond for about 18 hours.

Prince,
I guess what I am asserting with all this is that the universe must by it's very nature be self justfied, self sustained and self contained. That in all aspects it must be the balance or temporal im-balance of every thing.

So therefore for mass or matter to form it will only do so out of necessity and not whim. In other words the universe must exist, not as a favour to us, but as a physical necessity. Or to put it another way there can be no other outcome other than what we have had, what we have and what we will have in the future.

So I ask the question of myself and any one interested enough to read it;
What is the imperitive that creates the physical necessity or need for the universe to exist?

pre-amble:

I tend to believe that gravity or should I say the pull of gravity is due to the no-existance of nothing- ness, that gravity is caused by a governed singularity [ nothingness ] and is the manifestation of the attraction all things have to a center of nothingness. Matter in fact provides that governance. A bit like a plug of compressed space time plugging a hole of nothingness.

In other words it is nothingness that holds everything together as all energy strives for a balance that would generate no movement, thus change thus nothingness.

This is the premise from which I am working from.

1. How can nothingness be a medium for somethingness? If it is nothingness, how can it be capable of facillitating anything whatsoever?

Imagine if you will a "star gate" that allows a shift in location instantaneously from one location to another [ no worm hole ok]

The plane that separates the location is 2 dimensional thus the distance between the two locations is zero or nothing, thus nothingness becomes a no-medium [ ha re: no-existance ]

I asked the question a while ago;
"How do three dimensions with a temporal 4th come to exist from an assumed position of zero dimension?" ~ I am still working on a solution btw. However I tend to think that it is the 4th or time dimension that forces the universe in to spatial 3 dimensions.

2. What is "absolute time" and "relative time" as here? And why do you suggest that absolute time exists?

Absolute time in my view is the co-existance of simultaneity and time dilation.

However this is another arguement for another time. I am looking for a way to prove this idea and so far have failed to do so.

For time to have a beginning and an end would not even allow for its creation, because creation itself must act within time. Similarly, it could not be infinite, for it would not be absolute, and only something which is absolute could have the property of infinity if it is something

and this is in part the point I am making. Thus why the paradox of nothingness.

"There can be no "before" time began nor will there ever be an "after" time ends"

Thus nothingness or no-existance extends to "time" as well.

If you consider, in summation, two important factors to this issue, and consolidate them into the thinking if agreed.
1] Nothingness in a material sense can only no-exist is everything has a relationship with every thing.
2] Nothingness in a temporal sense can be stated similarilly.

Often we forget to include in our thinking about nothingness that time is also part of the picture.

This is a complex subject and there is much difficulty in expressing these concepts thoroughly using this medium.

Ahhh!!! where is that white board with "nothing on it" ha

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

"has sci forums been offline? I couldn't respond for about 18 hours."

Yes.

"I guess what I am asserting with all this is that the universe must by it's very nature be self justfied, self sustained and self contained. That in all aspects it must be the balance or temporal im-balance of every thing."

I agree that it must indeed be self-justified, self-sustained, and self-contained, so I think this is a worthy thing to prove.

"So therefore for mass or matter to form it will only do so out of necessity and not whim."

Agreed fully.

"In other words the universe must exist, not as a favour to us, but as a physical necessity."

Assuredly.

"Or to put it another way there can be no other outcome other than what we have had, what we have and what we will have in the future."

I utterly concur thus far.

"So I ask the question of myself and any one interested enough to read it;
What is the imperitive that creates the physical necessity or need for the universe to exist?"

The founding question of all ontological thought. A worthy start!

"I tend to believe that gravity or should I say the pull of gravity is due to the no-existance of nothing- ness, that gravity is caused by a governed singularity [ nothingness ] and is the manifestation of the attraction all things have to a center of nothingness. Matter in fact provides that governance. A bit like a plug of compressed space time plugging a hole of nothingness.

In other words it is nothingness that holds everything together as all energy strives for a balance that would generate no movement, thus change thus nothingness."

Have you ever heard of Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow? Where Zeno of Elea, the pre-Socratic philosopher, proposes that motion does not exist by virtue of the fact that if you stopped an arrow, midflight, at any moment, there'd be no motion to be found in it? Yet even with him thinking this was, in fact, a truthful view of the world, he never proposed that motion's non-existence would mean nothingness. Indeed, he thought motion was impossible because of a -lack- of nothingness. What do you say to him?

Also: How might nothingness exert a negative influence on anything? For would not nothingness, in order to pull something towards it, necessitate its need for spatial and temporal position, which would furthermore demand that it is not, in fact, nothingness?

In another thread I asked someone to do this experiment I have thought of. Take a moment and tell me the results of this, will you?

Think of nothingness.

Not of a theory of nothingness, but no nothingness itself.

Tell me what you come up with.

"This is the premise from which I am working from."

Thanks for clarifying. It shall prove fruitful in discussing the topic more with you.

"Imagine if you will a "star gate" that allows a shift in location instantaneously from one location to another [ no worm hole ok]"

Certainly. I watch the show sometimes on the SciFi channel, so I hav ea good picture in mind! ;)

"The plane that separates the location is 2 dimensional thus the distance between the two locations is zero or nothing, thus nothingness becomes a no-medium [ ha re: no-existance ]"

So you propose that the gates would be like this? || Where instead of a space betwixt the twain, there would be no distance at all? So in fact it would simply become I? (Edit: I used an I as apparently | won't be bolded.)

Wouldn't it be better to simplys ay that if something were so connected, that they'd simply be connected like regular space is? Note how in my little bold | to represent both |'s that it is utterly unified. For if you have no distance, is not this simply saying it is connected?

When I say "I didn't go anywhere today", what am I saying? That I never went anywhere, yes? What if I say "there is no distance betwixt me and you"? Am I not simply saying "we are united"?

"I asked the question a while ago;
"How do three dimensions with a temporal 4th come to exist from an assumed position of zero dimension?" ~ I am still working on a solution btw. However I tend to think that it is the 4th or time dimension that forces the universe in to spatial 3 dimensions."

Well let me ask you for clarification:

Do you propose that the zeroth dimension would be the lack of dimensions, or a point?

I would also ask you whether or not you allow for independent existences of the three dimensions. I.E. An object that is actually 1 dimensional? And also, why do you propose that there would be a need for a zeroth dimension?

"Absolute time in my view is the co-existance of simultaneity and time dilation.

However this is another arguement for another time. I am looking for a way to prove this idea and so far have failed to do so."

Okay. Though it does seem a worth while thing to pursue, as I propose that time must indeed be viewed as a fundamental, and thus a conception of as having an absolute form may well be useful for presenting another aspect of this truth.

"and this is in part the point I am making. Thus why the paradox of nothingness.

"There can be no "before" time began nor will there ever be an "after" time ends"

Thus nothingness or no-existance extends to "time" as well."

So you propose that the creation of existence would be an act that had no foundation in time? I find this suspect, for reasons entailed in my arguments for actual eternity as presented elsewhere.

"If you consider, in summation, two important factors to this issue, and consolidate them into the thinking if agreed.
1] Nothingness in a material sense can only no-exist is everything has a relationship with every thing.
2] Nothingness in a temporal sense can be stated similarilly."

I am still somewhat confused as to why you assert that nothingness cannot noxist (as I put it, substituting the "no-" with simply a replacement of the 'e' with 'no') without all things being in relationship with other things. Why do you claim this is so?

And would not time in anyway have to always have a relationship with itself? For time, even if strictly linear, has a relationship betwixt past, present, and future, which is indissolvable and ever present.

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

For ease, I thought to write out a few of my arguments quickly here for why I, in opposition to you, claim that time and space are eternal and infinite.

Infinity:

The Argument from Nothingness Being Incapable of Existence:

Ultimately, all things must either bleong to existence (somethingness) or non-existence (nothingness). With this being said, we can take existence as a whole and similarly consider whether or not, should existence have some end point, what would be around it. Now, clearly, anything that must be around it must either be somethingness or nothingness. What would happen if there was somethingness around it? Well, then there'd be no end, and as somethingness may exist, this is not contrardictory. On the other hand, if nothing were around it, nothingness would have to exist (and thus cease to be nothingness) or if it was truly nothing, then somethingness would extend ad infinitum, because nothing cannot be a boundary. In either case, we find that somethingness must be infinite.

The Argument from Nothingness Incapable of Existence II:

Same as above, but as one can never reach nothing, somethingness must extend infinitely, for nothing cannot be reached as it does not exist, but in order to be a boundary, it must be reached.

The Argument from Opposites:

Somethingness and nothingness are clearly polar opposites. Not only that, but they are the ultimate opposites, in that they comprise the highest and most general categories of reality. In being opposites, then, one can ultimately derive the whole extent of the properties of one from the other. Let's then speak of the spatial aspect of nothingness. Now, it would seem to be that in order for nothingness to retain nothingness, it would have to have no space. That is, it would not have space whatsoever. Well then, what is the opposite of this? To have space, and to have space, not only in part - for in part would entail something less than an actual opposite - but to have -infinite- space.

The Argument from Infinite Numbers as a Justification of Infinity:

Not a direct proof of infinity in space, but as numbers are infinite, the concept of infinity is reasonable and not absurd.

Argument for the Infinitely Small:

All things are divisible ad infinitum. 1/2 = 1/2 / 2 = 1/4 / 2 = 1/8 / 2 = 1/16th...and in so doing, we never reach zero. Therefore, the infinitely small must exist, and as the infinitely large, cannot be reached.

The Argument from the Infinitely Big for the Infinitely Small:

If space must be infinitely big, then it must be composed of an infinite amount of parts, which in turn, must be composed of an infinite piece of parts, and so forth, and so forth, until one can rightfully proclaim that each point that comprises space is infinitely small and infinitely numerous.

Eternity:

The Argument from Opposites:

Like the spatial one above, we can speak of nothingness' time as being the absence of time. What then, is the opposite of no time? Time, specifically, infinite time.

The Argument from Opposites Creating one Another:

If you have up, you must also have down. If you have large, you must also have small. Following this, and that somethingness and nothingness are opposites, must also be united so, and if you have one, you must have the other. And unlike when taking a stalk of celery and cutting it in a vain attempt to separate bottom from top (as each piece always has a bottom and top), we are here dealing with somethingness and nothingness, so that one could not even end up with the "no celery" equivalent, as somethingness and nothingness are ultimately the only thing that can have reality. Therefore, somethingness and nothingness create one another, and something so cannot have had a point of time in origin, and thus must have been forever.

The Argument from the Necessity that Both Be There:

Again, you can only have somethingness or nothingness, ultimately. Thus if somethingness were to cease to be, you'd have nothingness, and if nothingness would cease to prevail (it is hard to say "be"), you'd have somethingness. If thus is the case, and we assume that nothingness could prevail, then would not this exchange - as inevitably it would be an exchange if somethingness could ever have come from nothingness, as it is claimed by yourself and some others - than the cycle is eternal.

The Argument from No-Time Being Incapable of Existing:

Just as in the infinity one above, if time were to have an end, something would have to be beyond it, either mroe time, or no time. Yet if no-time can be beyond time, and thus have an existence, would not this demand that it has some existence, and thus would not be no-time?

The Argument from Causality:

If causality holds true in all places and all times, an infinite regress must follow. For in order for there to be an Unmoved MOver, the notion of causality must not, in fact, be absolute. And could nothingness cause anything? For in order to cause, one must have something. So even if we say that nothingness is uncaused (which it is not, but rather caused, I say, by its opposition to existence, and vice-versa) then it still cannot create and thus cannot be an unmoved mover, for it is not a part of causality to begin with. Moroever, as an infinite regress requires infinite time, eternity is proved.

The ARgument from Self-Justification and Validation:

As both you and I agree, existence must be self-justified and valid and not based on some sort of whimsical thing. In order for this to be so, existence must be so that its opposite is absurd. If existence can feasibly not be, then its opposite is not absurd, and thus there is no self-justification and validation for ontological things, and therefore we are met with something that would make existence whimsical.

The Argument from Platonic Conceptions of a Thing not Being Able to have its Opposite:

Existence has its quality of existence. In order for it not to exist, then, it must have the non-existence principle, which is impossible, just as Plato argued the soul, by virtue of b eing the life principle, cannot also have the death principle.

The Argument from Absolute Truths:

There are somethings which are impossible to be other than true. The Law of Non-Contradiction and Identity are two of these things. As they are things, and not nothing, they vindicate that somethingness must be eternal, as they must always have been true, and even if they were the only things that exist, existence would still exist because they are existing things.

The Argument from the Existence of Eternal Things:

Energy, by virtue of the Law of Conservation of Energy, is eternal. Being such, eternity must exist.

[Quantum Quack]

Prince,
You certainly have raised many questions and proferred many ideas in the last two posts. You have obviously done much thinking on the subject.

Years ago in my meanderings I came to a contradictory conclusion that the universe must be finite in size and duration, but for the life of me I can not remember the logic trail I used. Later I realised I had essentially re-invented Plancks view of time and space, using a different set of reasonings.

Prior to this I was in agreement with your position in the main. However the conclusion that the uiniverse was finite struck a blow to the confidence I had in the notion of infinity. So I developed a compromise solution and considered the universe to be infinitely finite. Alas again this was so many years ago and I can not recall directly the logic trail, which is a pity as I would have to re-construct the solution from the start to show the results I had achieved.

Unfortunately I have since clouded the view with the learning of aspects of Special relativity Theory, light cones and relative time rates....ha....so the logic trail is currently lost to me.

However I will take your two posts and have a close look at them and see if I can recall some of what I reasoned in the past.

I would like to ask you though in the mean time to ponder this question:
"Would you consider absolute vacuum to be a "something" in it's own right?"

or does vacuum exist only by default of pressure [something] existing?

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

It is a pity you can't remember the trails of thought that lead you to this belief. Hopefully, however, you shall remember, or remember in part, the arguments that brought you to this conclusion.

" So I developed a compromise solution and considered the universe to be infinitely finite. Alas again this was so many years ago and I can not recall directly the logic trail, which is a pity as I would have to re-construct the solution from the start to show the results I had achieved."

Do you mean infinitely finite in the sense that it is, say, a closed loop? Where the universe essentially loops back on itself but has a finite area? I have read and heard arguments from scientists on the matter, but even then, that mostly addresses the universe, rather than existence. That scientists are now considering the origin of the Big Bang with multi-dimensional branes and the like even shows that they consider there to be something outside this universe worth considering. Really, though, I see the proof of this being in the fact that the universe is finite, whereas existence, and the existence of the universe's component parts (energy being the main thing) imply (or even prove!) eternity.

"However I will take your two posts and have a close look at them and see if I can recall some of what I reasoned in the past."

Wonderful.

"I would like to ask you though in the mean time to ponder this question:
"Would you consider absolute vacuum to be a "something" in it's own right?"

or does vacuum exist only by default of pressure [something] existing? "

An absolute vacuum would likely not have to exist, by virtue of the fact that it'd imply a limitation on the infinite and omnipresent nature of space. This is a problem on two levels, the first being my arguments rooted in ontology noted above, and secondly due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. To elaborate, the HUP (Heisenberg for short) is generally considered to be one of the reasons why both reaching absolute zero and the fact that even "empty" space has intersecting fields, energy, et cetera, by virtue that it prohibits utter nothingness by disallowing the violation of a particle's position and momentum cannot be known at the same time.

But in terms of relative vacuums, such as can be made in one's bath tub with a cup, vacuums do not have independent existence there, but are simply the absence of the equillibrium for the medium.