The Value of nothing is everything

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

ok i just picked a random quote which i saw to be interesting and i will put what i have discovered... the universe in itself, and whatever the universe is in and whatever that is in is one being... it is here because it knows its here... now open ur minds to what i am about to say... when i say "it knows its here" i mean that because if it didnt know it was here it wouldnt be here... you could use a rock as the same thing... it does not have the characteristics of life that we have given life... but that is because that is how we have interpreted life... we have based life on us and other things that have the same characteristics... this is not what life is... we cant explain it because the only way we can explain it is with languages that we have created to our views... when we are talking about a topic such as this one our definitions are on a bigger scale... life is being... not being "alive"... now with that being said, i saw a post early asking how a fly could have an effect on a star millions of miles away, indirectly it does yes if you break it down... but that is the humas biggest flaw... we see the need to break everything down and not go to the final answer... here is the answer... a fly dies... the universe is now the universe without that fly... it changed drastically... that is the connection... no matter what happens anywhere any time everything changes... now that we understand this... we go to nothing... now quantum the one factor you were missing in your nothing = everything is this... everything is right now... everytime the universe changes that everything that was is a new everything... everything that has happened before this new everything is now nothing...

 

Discovered? Invented you mean.

Evidence?

Self-supporting specious claptrap. Anything other than your mysticism to support this?

So what is life?

No it doesn't.

How do you "quantum a factor"?

Incoherent drivel.

Have you tried writing in sentences by the way?

 

I know exactly what you mean, except I don't think time exists. I believe everything that has happened and everything the will happen has already happened in a single moment. The reason why we perceive time is because our brains cannot process that amount of information that quickly. So we have this perception of slow change. This goes together with your "everything is now". I realized this when I thought about the probability of today given the Big Bang billions of years ago. The probability of today, being the way it is, from the point of view of the "beginning" is 0.

 

Mod Note:

Thanks but no thanks Kronified. Thread necromancy is a non-no.
Next time, start a new thread.
I'd also add, do try and organize your post according to recognizable grammatical structure.