The philosophy of zero?

Quantum QuackThere is no moment, really.
None that is accessible to human consciousness, at least.
All there is, is past and future.

+1 or -1.

0 is that hypothetical starting point; that “I think therefore…”, the transcending lost in the infinite.

But why would I be surprised with you agreeing with me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and zero or nothing is the origin of consciousness and awareness. "From a vantage point of nothingness I see something"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only thing we are conscious of is in fact an event of zero duration.....thus the moment is nothing yet we percieve it as something. Thus the universe exists totally in a moment of nothingness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack
That is why Self can never be truly known but only known as self.

The great ‘I’ that hides the secret of free-will and which makes humanity so absurd.

The event of zero duration can only be perceived in hindsight or in foresight, as a positive or negative and so nothingness is given a value in relation to it.

Consciousness is the perception of zero after the fact or before the fact. An endless speculation/expectation or retrospection/ reminiscence.

 

thus existence is an effect and not a cause

 

Quantum Quack

Yes.

But does an effect become a cause once it perceives itself?
Does zero gain value once it is deciphered?

 

in the context of my last post there is no cause.....just effects effecting effects.
For example:
Gravity is an effect IMO and not caused. As nothingness [higgs] is the non-cause of gravity. IN someways it is every-thing that causes gravity by the fact of being a "thing".... thus nothing ness is a default outcome of everything else. BY default, meaning that it....hmmmmmm......has non-existence except by the existence of every-thing.

The reason it is soooo difficult to describe some thing as a non-something is due to our preoccupation with "things' as you would expect given that we are essentially nothing looking at something.

 

However in answer to your last questions, yes ....IMO if one can truely percieve themselves then they can become the non-cause of everything else.

In Buddhism it is the quest to percieve the absolute nothingness of who we are that is the quest for godhood or nirvana....to break down the illusion of suffering [existence which is suffering] To find the truth of our origins which is nothing.....[Nirvana]

 

Okay, I have to step in to this river of nothing. Hmm....a river...of nothing....Let us refer to the physicist David Bohm's concept of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate Order is that into which everything is "enfolded." It has no form. Things emerge into the Explicate Order, giving us form. Yet there is this constant flow between the two that Bohm called the holomovement. And this is the basic substance. In his view. Now, this "substance" has no form; it is just movement. So since it is without form, it is like "nothing." Yet it is everything.

Similarly, the concept of the Tao. The Tao is also completely empty, yet everything is made of it. It is like the substance is the very "vesselness" that permits flow, which gives rise to form, yet within the form, there is only 'vesselness," which is emptiness. But not just emptiness; emptiness that permits emptiness to flow. And emptiness-in-motion gives us form. And voila, matter. Something from nothing.

So the cosmos, by extension, is absolutely full. And absolutely empty. Thing and NoThing. At the same time. We live with one foot in each mode of perception, and cannot shift into one of the other - for we are the observers of form, and thus we are the creators of form, and thus we are the bridge. The holomovement personified.

Just another perspective...

 

Onefinity, can I ask if you personally agree with what you have posted. possibly you hold it as a hypothetical or abstraction that requires neither agreement of disagreement?
BTW I found your post facinating

 

*bitesm iddle finger off* see now there is zero ** swallwos finger* opps....

 

I've had an interest with the term "nothing" for quite some time. Normally, when people think of the term 'nothing' they think of some kind of vast emptiness, or nonexistence. If we consider the term itself, at least in english, it is actually a combination of two words, "no" and "thing." What has struck me about the term is that it doesn't really necessarily speak of non-existence, at least not in the classical sense. What is really meant by the term "no-thing?"

When we consider what a thing is, we are led to the notion that things are constructs of other things. What happens, though, when we break down a thing to its most basic material of which it is constructed? Is that material what we would call a thing, or nothing? If things are constructs, what is the most basic material? Is there a most basic material? If there is a most basic material, then it can't be "made" of any thing.

These are difficult questions to answer. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the post of Onefinity. Implicate and Explicate Orders is a fascinating conjecture. It is fascinating because it is reminiscent of other similar dualities; Spiritual/Physical (theology), Form/Matter (metaphysics), Energy/Matter (physics).

In theology, there are two realms, the spiritual and the physical. In the spiritual realm, there are two major categorizations, the immortal spirit, and the mortal spirit. The immortal spirit is rational, while the mortal spirit is irrational. The mortal spirit can only exist as an integral part of irrational living physical creatures (plants/animals/microrganisms/etc...). Once the physical entity dies, so does its spirit. The immortal and rational spirit may either be connected to the physical, or independant of the physical. Those that are connected to the physical are rational animals, such as humans. Those that are independant of the physical are angels and demons. Furthermore, if an immortal rational spirit is connected to the physical, it will always be connected to the physical, for that is its nature. Likewise, if a spirit is independant of the physical, it will always be so.

In metaphysics, there is the duality of matter and form. Form is an abstract entity that is the definition of the nature of a thing. There are many kinds of forms. There is individual form and there is form of the specie. Each individual material entity is always identical to its individual form. However, no individual material entity is identical to the form of the specie. This is because of the phenomenon of imperfection. All form is perfect, but the material is imperfect and does not conform indentically to the form of the specie. For example: as a human, I have two forms, Human Form (form of the specie) and I have beyondtimeandspace Form (individual form). I am perfectly beyondtimeandspace, but I am not perfectly human.

Then of course there is physics and matter and energy. I don't feel the need, nor the desire to delve into this system, both because it is probably better known by the readers of this post, and because it can turn into a difficult discussion.

Suffice it to say, each of these dualities have certain characteristics in common. For example, Implicate Order (I believe), the Spiritual, Form, and Energy (I believe), are all unextended realms. Whereas, Explicate Order, the Physical, and Matter are all extended realms. In fact, it is definitely true that the Explicate Order, the Physical and Matter are all identical realms. I do not propose definitively that Implicate Order, the Spiritual, Form and Energy are identical realms, however there seems to be a close relationship between them.

For example, the term spirit, or soul, are derived from the Greek term for breath. Likewise, the term for animal derives from the Latin term, Animus, which I believe also refers to the spirit, and/or breath. The point I'm driving is that our words for the spiritual realm are based in the principle of the living, and living things live because of energy transfer.

Further example, Energy and Implicate Order are similar in that matter/explicate order come out of them on account of movement. Explicate Order becomes from flow out of Implicate Order, while Matter becomes out of the slowing of Energy.

Further example, Pure Spirits are identical with Form. This is because pure spirits are unchanging, just as is form, and so have no capacity to differ from their form. Spirits attached to matter are not identical to form because they are one with that which is under constant change, matter.

As I said, I do not propose that these are identical realms, but they certainly have similarities. They also certainly have differences. What I'm driving at is that there seems to be impossible to say that the physical realm is the only realm. Perhaps these other realms exist, perhaps there are multiple dimensions which we do not perceive (String Theory), perhaps each of these realms is simply one of several dimensions we aren't yet fully aware of.

The reason I'm driving this point is that perhaps the most basic material isn't MATTERial at all. Rather, perhaps the most basic element which comes together to construct things is part of one of the unextended dimensions, or was. Perhaps it is part of the Implicate Order, or perhaps the most basic dimension. If so, then this dimension isn't constucted of things, isn't constructed at all, but is simply is. We would refer to such a dimension as containing no-thing, but the possibility for every-thing.

We know that movement is an integral part of existing things. Without movement, no thing could be discerned. Would there really be any thing if no thing moved? If no thing moved, and as a consequence there wasn't any thing, then movement is part of the definition of things. Hence, it would be the relative motion between the basest element that produces constructs, things.

Therefore, nothingness wouldn't be an all-pervasive non-existence. Nothingness would be motionlessness between the basest, unextended elements. Motion produces extension, construct, matter, things. Lack of motion means lack of extension, construct, matter, things.

Zero is correspondent to this dimension. Mathematics is a way of describing the world about us. It is no surprise that we should find a correspondence between zero and nothing, even though zero can correspond to any crux of a scale. The reason that zero corresponds to nothing is that zero represents the point of non-movement. Whenever you speak of a number, or a point on a scale, what you're speaking of is a movement either toward or away from a specific point on the scale. + if it's away from that point, - if it's toward that point. You cannot subtract from a point of non-movement, you can only move away from it, which means addition. Subtraction from movement will only move you toward that point of non-movement. The number line in mathematics is a fallacy when talking about the real wolrd. You cannot move in a negative direction from a point of zero-value in reality.

Suffice it to say, zero can, and does, correspond to no-thing, even though zero can also correspond to other things. *sigh* I think I've said enough on the subject.

 

Interesting post BTAS....
as an example in relevance to your post if we take a tennis ball an throw it upwards at som epoint it will cease moving upwards and at this point it is neither moving upwards or downwards it is teetering with zero momentum but heaps of potential.

At that very point it has nothing but potential.

That zero duration moment like an infinitely sharp knife edge is a moment of transition from it's propelled state to it's freefall state.

Thus all movement has potential from nothing to something.
so the object always exists in a zero moment yet it moves......

hmmmm...sorry ...a bit abstract....

 

Two cents

I don’t know if this is a Deleuzian perspective but there seems to be some truth to the idea of the non-existence of a present but only a ceaseless relation between the past and future.

There is no Being but only a Becoming that relates to itself through memory of a past event or in expectation of a future one.
There is no self but only a long string of selves connected through memory, which we call consciousness.
We cannot define a present nor can we define a self but only determine its borders, its starting and ending points, while it, itself, - also from a Kantian perspective – remains forever unknowable.

From this we could assume that there is no Zero or that it isn’t accessible to us, but only an infinite progression of values into the positive and negative with no definite starting point and no end.
Zero is defined as being encapsulated between -1 and +1 but its precise definition is inaccessible since it would acquire a numerical value if it were accessible. The event horizon would shift and 0 would be redefined

This linear movement backwards and forwards is what causes perception and creates the possibility for consciousness. A consciousness that is forever recreating itself and unable to comprehend or to imagine its real essence of nothingness or Zero or inertia because, even though this is its underlying essence, it, itself, is only possible due to change/time, movement.
Time is the definitive character of life or reality, as Heidegger stated.
It is both our foe and the thing that makes us possible; the concept which both condemns us and blesses us.

Now here’s the contradiction: If all of the above is true then Zero [the concept of inertia or non-being/non-becoming] or nothingness is all that there really is, even if it might be indefinable and unapproachable to a mind in constant reinvention. This thin veneer of Something, of Reality, of Becoming is what springs from the nothingness, due to time/change and looks at itself….but cannot see it.

Something is Nothingness moving - given Time - or repeating itself and in this repetition reinventing its essence.

..............................................................................

The Christian conception of a paradise is really the idea of Nothingness, of Zero. What is not, desires not and as a result needs not and suffers not.
Death is the return to Nothingness or to a state of unconsciousness in relation to change/time.

Here we can see God as representative of Nothingness and Satan or Evil becomes an aspect of time, perhaps time itself, which causes life and strife and struggle and suffering and consciousness.

Of course Christians try to salvage consciousness by making God a consciousness existing outside time, something quit inconceivable and illogical to the human mind, and He becomes the root Self to which we all return but retain our consciousness through participating in a greater one.

Hindus represent this same thing through the idea of reincarnation.
The individual finds the original Self through meditation, through non-thinking, through aom, through the denial of all desire and need, through extreme asceticism. This purifies the spirit and makes it more aware of its true Self - Nirvana.
It puts it in contact with the underlying river from where the drop of individuality emerges.
Those incapable of this enlightenment are condemned to continue existing within Time, within eternal need and suffering, coming to be again and again with every repetition of our current universe and forever reliving multiple lives and the same life, if we are to believe Nietzsche and his eternal recurrence.

Time here, also becomes both the thing that gives that animates and in giving the one that condemns the individual, the animated, to suffering.
Birth can be seen here as more of a tragedy than a blessing, in imitation of E. Cioran’s melancholic thinking, and life better left inexperienced with the next best thing being to die as soon as possible, as Silenus told the Greeks and they took to heart and expressed through their tragedy/comedy and through their representations of Dionysus/Apollo.

My two cents.

 

There's nothing at absolute rest for everything is in motion in the universe. Earth is going over 1 million miles per hour through space therefor a tennis ball never is at 0 speed for it is traveling at 1 million miles per hour (In this orbit, we (and the rest of the Solar System) are traveling at a velocity of about 155 miles/sec (250 km/sec).) So therfore we can never say anything is ever at 0 mpk/kph in reality.

 

Thanks cosmict, what I was trying to show was that moment when direction changes is an infinitely small moment of nothing or neither direction [up or down]
But I admit my post was vague.....very vague....hmmmm...