The Theory of Nothing (TON)

That's correct, its a myth as many think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it is superstition, and the important aspect in this thread is to relate 'God' to being precluded by 'nothing' being the basis of all, but I wouldn't want to see to much religion stuff overtaking the main OP, but, yes, I do reference God not being possible there, as a fall out of the theory, and so I would expect some God talk in that regard.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it. it's either an entity or our universe is the equivalent of a snow globe on his desk or a program on his computer. it's either an entity or we're in the matrix right now.

i don't think the bible or anything else taken as a whole backs the matrix theory up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

creation. here it is.

 

it's an entity.

 

Yes, as a distribution of a positive/negative balance. Nothing is quite the opposite of the everything of God as the basis of all. Add to that that a Being cannot be First, for what makes it up must come before. I give you a smart alien who can, via some machinery, terraform a barren planet, but that's not God.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:shrug:

 

Stenger's definition of the unphysical state (i.e., nothing) includes, of course, the absence of relational properties such as time and space. Since this is the case I would argue that the specific probability of such an unphysical state undergoing a phase transition to a physical state is philosophically irrelevant. No matter how infinitesimally small the probability is, nothing will still always be something instead by virtue of the fact that there can be no delay between a timeless state of nothing and the emergence of something.

Aside from all that even Stenger himself stated that all he was trying to do was provide a plausible scientific explanation for why there is something instead of nothing. Although I am certain that he would defend the structure of the mathematical formulation itself, I doubt that he would insist that the specific probability that he calculated is necessarily correct.

 

This was from another thread, but should be added in here for support of the Nothing theory. Zero, as it would be a definite, doesn't seem to go with QM, thus the QM fuzziness.

 

This is useful, too, from another thread.

 

What is nothing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiIaJ0hacwc&feature=related

 

Great little doco. Thanks for posting it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Great videos.

Nature abhors a vacuum and I abhor vacuuming.

Seriously, space may be near empty, but not empty, as there is no void of fields and fluctuations.

An electron is the total opposite of a positron. I say “total” because they can’t be a any more opposite or they would become more of the same. It’s like if you are halfway around the world then any further movement would only take you closer to home.

Yet, while when an electron and a positron annihilate, matter goes away, but radiation energy is produced, what we call light, not nothing. It could still be that photons still somehow sum to nothing, which is why they are more complete than matter particles, with their neutral charge.

In any case, I don’t propose that it is the matter/antimatter opposition that fully nullifies all of existence in the overview, although perhaps it is some part of it, but that the opposite polarity of charge is what does it.

The guy in the video, though, may be trying to also say that energy comes from nothing, as well, forming opposite matter particle pairs and photon energy particles.

In Part 4, it is shown that the vacuum fluctuates with energy, and that they became writ large in the universe of today as galaxies.


THE EVER VICTORIOUS

Over Man came the Triumph of Love
But Chastity gave it quite a shove;

However, Death then all conquered,
But this was not the final word,
For Time happily reigned over all,
Or so it thought—as its thrall,

But, Divinity vanquished its trend;
Yet, still, this was not the end…

For, as ever, the basis was left to sting,
Since Nothing overwhelms everything.

 

As is Zeus, Hercules and the tooth fairy.

 

YOUR CREATIVE GENIUS REMINDS ME OF THAT OF A PAST MEMBER WHO USED TO WRITE HERE FROM 2007-2008 UNTIL HE GOT BANNED. HERE IS SOMETHING HE WROTE, FEEL FREE TO RESPOND: http://www.vintagemediashop.com/showthread.php?t=71431

 

Genius?
CC was a crank.

 

Sciwriter,

As it is logical to assume that all true geniuses such as yourself and CC are aware of their thoughts and whether or not they are geniuses we can assume that fellow geniuses can also recognize each other as it also takes someone with a familiar eye to recognize when a genius is in the midst. See the above link.

 

The Central Nervous System still sends messages that may be thousands of years out of date. The states beneath give rise to our felt states of being, which may be fine, generally, but we must ever temper our introspected 'results' with the information provided by science, or else we may take off on flights of fancy.

One can empty all thoughts, and in doing so note how many just arrive out of the blue. This makes it easier to disregard thoughts, if necessary, rather than thinking they must be true just because we thought of them, for, really, some just arose, from some simpleton areas, and to those we must still apply logic before claiming them as gospel. Sensation doesn't equal revelation.

 

From another place:
The Big Bang Theory (when combinded with String Theory) states that the huge amounts of energy that existed at first eventually 'condensed' into matter. How is this problematic?

If we grant that energy is not just a measurement and that there can be pure energy swirling about, then some might claim that it was energy that was around forever; however, then there would have been nothing to determine its total amount, as well as its location, and, so, this cannot be the case. Thus, we are back to that it comes from the unstable state of a lack of anything.

Saying that energy is infinite doesn’t support its having been around forever, either, for it isn’t, as we are not packed in like sardines, but also because there’s still the problem of where it came from, which can only always be the nothing of nonexistence, for there can be no other source.

As for infinity, meaning that which can never be reached, I have a feeling that it can only be applied to concepts, not to stuff, or to space, which has the quantity of volume, which must go on forever, as it couldn’t just end. Space is physical, but not material, although this vacuum does fluctuate, giving it material in balance, its total energy and material summing to zero.

‘Nothing’ is absolute nonexistence, and it evidently forms our zero-sum existence. Not intuitive, but there’s no other answer. The TOE is so simple that it seems too simple, but simple it has to be, for complexity comes later. Boring? Maybe, but ultimate answers are always exciting. It’s just not what was expected, in some ways, but, in others, it is.

 

I am in for everything except the Marlboros, thanks. Pas des fumar here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not necessarily, sorry.