What Is Toe

[tangsky420]

how can you get something from nothing pleas answer me this i know it is not answerable but if anybody has insight on this topic please feel free

[sahyo]

when body was babying could feel toe
but trying reaching couldn't touching.... tired tried and tried
.... then happened touching.... felt like wow....
didn't happen feeling like something or nothing though

:D

[jesupocaplypse]

Every-thing. Some-thing. Any-thing. No-Thing.

nothing
add a bump to the n
mothing
then warp that o into an e
mething
slap an s and an o on the front, and you got
something
thus: something from nothing...

What's the point of such dumb?

Well, nothing is a word made of letters. and so is something. they represent absolutes, concepts that we feel it necessary to attach symbolic words to, to try and explain them with one easy word instead of a drawn out explaination. as we are prone to do. What does this create? Stupid chaos. Why? 'Something' like 'everything', is far too grand a concept to be assigned a mere two syllable utterance to symbolise it. ....

A while ago someone explained to me the very basic concept of duality. For a thing to exist, you must be able to experience it. (that being the whole point of existance in the first place, or so i'm told) In order to expereince it, you must experience it's opposite. What would love be without fear? what would up be without down? So put your self in the Universe's big shoes, here you are creating yourself, "what do you wants to be?" you ask yerself. "well, i'm the freakin universe", you says, " I'm gonna be anything i damn well please. Hell, I'm gonna the whole works, I'm gonna be Everything." So how does you do this? Well, since, you are the universe already, your task of being everything, is already complete. you don't have to do anything, just be. Wasn't that easy? But how does one experience something? through percieving that something/ knowing that something, how do you percieve things? with the perception of the things it isn't. an object is one thing, but an absolute is another.... (uh oh, now i've gone and confused meself :think: ::is it? ) how do you experience an absolute? How do you experience everything? by experiencing nothing. but of course, no one ever has experienced either of those because they would need to experience both, and for both to exist, then well, there just arn't words for that sort of popping noise. probably a deafening quiet. or some such soundless sound.

Is anything becoming clearer now? I know i've certainly confused myself. the moral of the story I tried to get something from nothing and just got a headache. If nothing has nothing better to give me than that, well i'd sooner have anything than nothing. anything could be a mechwarrior. It could be a tropical island too. and thats better than a headache. ... but then... it could be headcheese too.... :knockout:

[sahyo]

(uh oh, now i've gone and confused meself :think:* ::is it? )



:lol:

[sahyo]

Is anything becoming clearer now? I know i've certainly confused myself.*the moral of the story I tried to get something from nothing and just got a headache.*If nothing has nothing better to give me than that, well* i'd sooner have anything than nothing.*anything could be a mechwarrior.* It could be a tropical island too.* and thats better than a headache. ... but then... it could be headcheese too.... :knockout:



:goodlaugh:

[todd]

There is nothing in something and something in nothing. There is no nothing without something as well as something without nothing. There is no absolute nothing or absolute something or there is only nothing or only something. Something or nothing is the same, is all up to what you want to see.

[jesupocaplypse]

"Nothing is Impossible"

:peace:

[todd]

Nothing IS impossible?
or
NOTHING is impossible?

[jesupocaplypse]

What's the difference?

Don't ask me, ask yourself.

[todd]

Difference is everything (or nothing)

Nothing IS impossible?

Like everything is possible, including nothing (non-existence)

Or

NOTHING is impossible?

Like non-existence (only) is impossible

[NeverMind]

Everything is possible. Except the impossible. Things which have been proven impossible cannot be possible. And vice-versa.

[jesupocaplypse]

why do you have to only choose one or the other? do not both work?

What is proven? What has been proven impossible? Things, speciifcs to the here and now, but in the any and every?

What has been proven impossible? Unaided human flight? hasn;t been done yet... doesn't mean it won;t be done at some point...

maybe my mind is just drawing a blank,... but what exactly IS impossible....? I can think only of...nothing.

[sahyo]

What is proven?

not possible

hehe

[Pmarty]

Tangsky-how can you something from nothing? No-thing creates every-thing. Look at the Big Bang. The whole universe from nothing. The Big Bang eminated from a point of "infinite singularity" meaning no-thing existed. Not time, not space, nothing.Every one thing has a cause or causes that is ostensibly tracible. One can believe the Big Bang never happened and say this universe was always here, and thus trace this causal chain backwards in time infinitely as well as one could forward in time. But the problem is not temporal but ultimately causal. The question really is what caused the first cause? The answer-nothing (no-thing or no one thing). This is not word play. The nature of our minds is to look for causes, that's its job but it cannot grasp the source of it all.

[jesupocaplypse]

The big bang? If what i 'know' of the universe is true thus far. There have been many big bangs. and big crunches Universe expands, universe contracts. universe expands, universe contracts. this is the breathing of Deus.

[Pmarty]

And each big bang came from and went to -----? It doesn't matter whether were 2, 4, 10, or an infinite number of big bangs - take your pick. One cannot really use the phrase "before the big bang" anyway since we know from Einstein that time "began" with the big bang, so there is no "before".

[NeverMind]

What if its just a cycle?
Step 1) BANG
Step 2) expand
Step 3) stop expanding
step 4) crunch
step 5) implode
then repeat

doesnt that make sense? like its doing the same thing over and over, why couldn't it just be a circle instead of a timeline?

[Pmarty]

I think you're right. It is just a circle. And the circle came from where? Ironically, a circle makes a number symbolizing----nothing!

[NeverMind]

No. It's just a circle. Its a repetition of the creations and destructions of the same realities. Say there are more than one circle, and there are more than one reality and our consciousnesses are just joining each reality for a short while and then getting out and resting or regenerating or something?

[jesupocaplypse]

"short while" being relative. What is time to the eternal? In this dimension of being, the time of a universal expansion/contraction seems almost unfathomable, but in another, it may seem like but a breath of the lungs.

[NeverMind]

dammit you know what i mean

[sahyo]

breath no where in nor out

[jesupocaplypse]

:D

[Pmarty]

NeverMind,
What I meant is that, yes, it's an endless circle of time and events where creation comes out of and returns into that nonthingness that is often referred to as the Tao, the Void, the Field, God, etc. The key is that everything is created out of no*thing*ness and eventually everything makes its way back to nothingness (call it everythingness if you prefer, as it's the source of it all).

[NeverMind]

around and around we all go, weaving in and out but never disappearing as the universes explode and rebuilt over and over for eternity

[sahyo]

:D



:D

[NeverMind]

Going through the toxic, cosmic cycle. <_<

[the greek]

I'm new here, so go easy on me (at least for a bit). It seems to me that if indeed there was at one time a great void (I won't even call it a vacuum), then the following scenario might have occurred:

Without something for nothing to compare itself to, it knew not that it was nothing. If it could never verify it was nothing, then it stands to reason (human logic applied) that nothing then instantaneously morphed into something due to this tremendous identity crisis.

Foremost, I do believe in a circular time scale, no end and no beginning. A never ending and never beginning series of bangs and crunches, with perhaps a theistic creator at the center of infinity's figure eight loop, throwing out some magic potions and letting chaos rule its destiny.

Nevertheless, it could very well have been that a statistical anamoly ocurred in the nano-second prior to any (and all) big bang phenomai. An anamaly sparked by the confusion of nothing attempting to define itself, or maintain its non-existent identity.

Similar to how quantum particles spin in oppositve directions simultaneously, and hold opposite charges simultaneously, and have also appeared to exist in two separate areas of space simultaneously, NOTHING AND SOMETHING MAY VERY WELL LIVE (OR DON'T LIVE) IN SYMBIANCE.

At what exact point does night become day, or day become night? Who's to say they aren't one and the same?

[jesupocaplypse]

If you have a sporadic sleeping pattern/lack of pattern like myself, there is no night and day, just varying degrees of light, relative to the suns position.

[sahyo]

If you have a sporadic sleeping pattern/lack of pattern

yes

there is no night and day

exactly


:D

[jesupocaplypse]

Either, I'm awake. Or I'm asleep. Color of the sky don't matter.

Sometimes I'm both. :D

[NeverMind]

I fall into that deep REM sleep ver infrequently and, as a result, hardly ever dream.

The color of the sky is most spectacular as the sun is bowing down before the horizon of the Olympic mountains across the puget sound.

[Corri]

tangsky420:

TOE stands for the Theory of Everything, and Einstein died working on this theory. Many exist. I believe there are about 5 to 7 accepted TOEs, which you can obviously see as a problem. But recently, an incredibly brilliant physicist, Edward Witten was able to explain why there is more than one TOE, and how it actually makes perfect sense that this would be so. I can proivde a reference if you would like to read more.

As for getting something from nothing:

It is possible to get something out of nothing. The easiest way to understand it is the following (albeit slightly dated) approach, through Planck's formula for electromagnetic energy:

E=(1/2+n)h_bar w

Consider a closed box filled with "n" photons of light of frequency (that is, color) "w". Lets assume that there is NOTHING in the box other than these photons. (In practise you never have light of a single color, so this is really an idealization, but it will simplify things for you). Then, from Quantum mechanics, the total energy "E" of the light in the box works out to be the (above) formula :

E=(1/2+n)h_bar w

Here h_bar is just a very small fixed number called the "reduced Planck's constant".

Now, suppose we somehow eliminate all the photons from the box....till the very last one, so that there is not a single photon left. We already assumed that there was nothing else in the box, so when the photons are gone, you really have NOTHING.

So now if you try to calculate the energy in the box from the above formula, you need to set n=0 right? (n was the number of photons) . Try it yourself before looking at the answer.

You should get,

E=(1/2)h_bar w

In other words the energy of the box does not become zero when you get rid of all the photons, the box still has some energy, given by the above quantity. This energy is called the "zero point energy" or the energy of fluctuations of the vacuum.

Even if you do not have a box (maybe you're considering an arbitrary volume of space ), and did not have any photons to start with, even there the "vacuum" will have a zero-point energy.

The math cannot imply that there is "something" because we obtain the result for the zero point energy with the explicit assumption that there is NOTHING. (And before you say it, nothing can be smaller than photons, because photons are "mass-less" particles). Rather, the math tells us that the "Nothingness" has a certain energy of its own, and this energy, we find, owes itself to quantum fluctuations in the vacuum.

To give credit where credit is due, this was explained to me by a friend who studies cosmology and Quantum Physics.

Pmarty:

The Big Bang eminated from a point of "infinite singularity" meaning no-thing existed.

This is not proven, and the more it is considered, the more unlikely it is NOT true. The Universe and its time of origination has been traced back to within the merest fractions of seconds of 'starting point.' However, all known laws of physics break down to just before this 'point of singularity,' making the single Big Bang Theory highly unlikely. If you would like to read more about it, I'd be happy to provide references.

Corri

[tangsky420]

Originally posted by jesupocaplypse@Dec 8 2004, 01:37 PM
The big bang? If what i 'know' of the universe is true thus far. There have been many big bangs. and big crunches Universe expands, universe contracts. universe expands, universe contracts. this is the breathing of Deus.
i do relly think that is a good theory but setting aside that shit just ask your self from that first nano second of the ball of matter that started the quote "big bang" where did that ball of matter come from cause even if we are in this big cycle or nineth universe what started the first universe and dont say the big bang cause what started that. I think it is something that we cant describe yet cause of the lack of technology but we may get there in a sense of we are starting to look into dark matter, energy that creates large amounts of mass in voids of space that we cant see nor discribe but know it is there so mabey there is a force, element that we simply just dont know about. there fore it could be true that mabey there was something we cant explain but started it all.


just think about it

[the greek]

It's a circular argument. Something started something else, but what started that something? And what is that what? And what created that what? Etcetera ad infinitum. I backtrack a few posts:

At one point, there was nothing. But nothing grew confused because nothing needed something to compare itself to, in order to re-affirm its nothingness. At that point, a statistical anamoly occured and something came into being.

Very simple (Occam's razor, if you will).

However, what created the nothing that was there in the first place? Now there's a better question.

More likely, something and nothing are one and the same. Similarly, the beginning of time and the end of time are one and the same (hence, the figure eight loop, the universal symbol of infinity).

The universe is infinite in its nothingness, and its somethingness. It's infinite in time and size. It is also infinitely small, and time regresses infinitely, and grows outward infinitely, but never reaches the end or zero. It just keep recycling.

Does any of this make sense?

Might be less confusing to just believe in God. Occam's razor.

[Corri]

It is exceedingly difficult for the human brain to fathom that something/nothing never starts nor ends. We are dualistic thinkers, and though dualism does exist in 'nature,' (i.e., positive/negative, up/down), these perceptions are all relative (General relativity, special relativity, etc.) So only in a relative world, or when we are viewing the world in a relative framework, does dualism operate.

One of the things that has occured to me is that the only place 'zero' seems to exist is in a mathematical equation. In essence, zero means 'it all cancels out.' Technically, zero does NOT represent NOTHING, or rather, complete absence, for complete absence does not equal zero.

But where in nature, other than with something man mdae, does zero actually 'exist?' When does that happen? It certainly happens with 'time,' but time is 'relative' as well. It is not constant, so technically, zero doesn't exist in time, either. It only exists, depending upon how it is being measured by humans.

We can trace back to the big bang within fractions of a second of its occurence. What does this prove? Nothing. It means there was a great big explosion. This was not the point of universal creation... for something was there beyond our ability to measure or conceive. The big bang happened 13.x billion years ago, and we can go no further in our physical historical projections of what might have been before that time... for time did not exist, at least in a way our physics can measure.

There are theories of what was there before the big bang, and there are theories of how the big bang(s) occured, and how our known universes were created from that explosion(s)... but man, at least right now, is at a complete and utter standstill in accurately projecting beyond that explosion point. And we cannot project beyond that time, for time did NOT exist. At least not as we know it.

So, it isn't a circular discussion, per se, but one that goes beyond our known knowledge, our means of thinking and mathematics... at least at this point. Similar to when people thought, were convinced, that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. It took hundreds of years to overcome Aristotle's physical rules of the universe. It took another few hundred years for our understanding of Quantum Physics.

It is not that we will never know the answer to this question of 'if the big bang started it all, what was there before?' I think we will eventually reach the point where we realize that we are trying to answer the wrong question. When we get the question right, we will find our answers.

Corri

[sahyo]

dualism does exist in 'nature,'



:thumbsup:

[Thomas Knierim]

Great! I am really enjoying your contributions. By the way, it seems that two years ago empirical data became available, which speaks against the cyclic universe hyopothesis (big bang -> big crunch, breath of Deus, etc.) as suggested by Hawking. Check out this earlier posting (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=15).

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

dualism does exist in 'nature,'



:thumbsup:



hehehe

read as *doesn't*
....often mix letters words

what seems "dualism" nature?

[sahyo]

We are dualistic thinkers, and though dualism does exist in 'nature,' (i.e., positive/negative, up/down), these perceptions are all relative (General relativity, special relativity, etc.) So only in a relative world, or when we are viewing the world in a relative framework, does dualism operate.



seems imagining "relative"-"dualism" as though necessary?

[Corri]

seems imagining "relative"-"dualism" as though necessary?

No

[Corri]

Thomas:

With that article, I would think you might be interested in Edward Witten's M Theory. He pulled all those speculations together, and explained all of them under one theory. It's really out there.

Gravity is actually the one thing that does not act consistently from the macro world to the micro world. Gravity behaves differently at the sub-atomic level. Einstein could not accept that, figuring that it was all part of the same world and should behave in an explainable way. He died trying to figure it out.

The cosmological constant has been taken further since that article, and what is now perplexing physicists is that the cosmological constant (Lambda) is actually not constant. It has quite a few people scratching their heads. I've also noticed for every theory presented, there will be three debunking it.

The cosmological constant is still of interest, as most grand unified theories predict a non-zero cosmological constant from the energy of quantum vacuum fluctuations (the equation I posted a few posts ago explains this -- something emerging from nothing. The fact that this equation does NOT equal zero is a vacuum fluctuation, or quantum 'foam'). In fact, one theoretical problem in these theories is that the vacuum energy they predict is huge, and would have to be countered by a similarly large negative LAMBDA to avoid an extremely rapidly expanding universe. Some physicists such as Steven Weinberg regard the delicate balance observed as being improbable and best explained by appealing to the anthropic principle.

Moreover, observations suggest that the early universe underwent a period of rapid expansion known as inflation, which can be modelled by assuming an extremely large positive cosmological constant existed at that time (although the most popular models of inflation employ a slowly varying scalar field). In contrast, observations made in the late 1990's of distance-redshift relations can be explained very well by assuming a very small positive cosmological constant exists at present. However, there are other possible causes of an accelerating universe. As of 2004, the cosmological constant model remains favoured by the observations relative to alternative models. Among these less favoured alternative models are forms of dark energy that include quintessence, phantom energy, and kinessence.

The value of the cosmological constant that would explain current observations is on the order of 10-35s-2. This value of the cosmological constant disturbs theorists who, for reasons of symmetry, are uncomfortable with an extremely small cosmological constant that is non-zero. Thus the cosmological constant may ironically turn out to be Einstein's greatest prediction (although without the consequence of a stationary universe that had been Einstein's original motivation for inventing it, unless of course the universe turns out to be stationary after all).

Do you know anything of the Anthropic Principle? It's interesting.

Corri

[Corri]

hehehe

read as *doesn't*
....often mix letters words

what seems "dualism" nature?

It is exceedingly difficult for the human brain to fathom that something/nothing never starts nor ends. We are dualistic thinkers, and though dualism DOESN'T exist in 'nature,' (i.e., positive/negative, up/down), these perceptions are all relative (General relativity, special relativity, etc.) So only in a relative world, or when we are viewing the world in a relative framework, does dualism operate.


doesn't. :thumbsup:

Corri

[sahyo]

:thumbsup:

[sahyo]

So only in a relative world, or when we are viewing the world in a relative framework, does dualism operate.



what "relative world"/"dualism" ?

[Corri]

what "relative world"/"dualism" ?

perceptions, separations, differences

[Nick_A]

Corri

One of the things that has occured to me is that the only place 'zero' seems to exist is in a mathematical equation. In essence, zero means 'it all cancels out.' Technically, zero does NOT represent NOTHING, or rather, complete absence, for complete absence does not equal zero.

Zero is, I agree, an interesting idea. It also is a relative concept. I know the relativity of nothing seems contradictory but it really separates the extremes of "no-thing" which contains potential, from "nothing", which is void of potential. Zero is really the completion of a cycle. In math it begins at 1 ending with 9 and now the zero enters again as 10 but containing the quality of 1-9. the cycle begins again at the next level concluding at 19 where it is again completed at zero but at the quality of 2 comprising 20 and on it goes. In this way, wholeness contains the quality of everything unmanifest or in potential.

There are those on my path that understand my path far greater than I ever could. In math and particle physics for example there is Basarab Nicolescu: http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/biobn/bibnen.htm

I've been trying to digest one of his articles that really coincides with the Hologram thread and yet belongs here as well. Including relativity and the "included middle", opens up completely new horizons.

http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c3.htm

[the greek]

We seem to be playing a game of semantics, or apples and oranges. Of course, most of this is philosophical folly. Nevertheless, as was said earlier, we must strive to ask the correct questions before we can get at the correct answer(s).

Perhaps the study Thomas referred to was on to something. There might actually be no cyclical universe. No great crunch, regurgitation, and re-bang. Just a series, or replication of almost identical universes, similar to Brane theory (although Brane predicts only 7 or 11 membranes/universes). And held together by strings, perhaps. There might exist the one universe where I write YES, and the one where I write NO. And vice versa. Infinite universes. Or infiinite realities. The one universe where there is nothing whatsoever. And the many others where there most definitely is something. Each just minutely divergent, but gradually getting to a point of being 180-degrees divergent. The duality theory seems to hold the most water as of now. Nothing and something exist simultaneously, just not in the same place at the same "time" every instant.

Another theory was recently possited - Quantum Loop Theory. It speculates that time folds over onto itself and inverts. Meanwhile, the June 21 issue of New Scientist magazine reports on a physicist who believes strange and undetectable (to humans) forces entagle particles at a speed of up to 10,000 times the speed of light (while we're not looking, so to speak). If it were possible to go faster than light and reach the outer edges of the universe, one would go past the point of no return and, hard to explain here, travel backward in time/invert. The shape of this Quantum Loop universe is similar to a funnel, with the "big bang" at the condensed part, and the outer rim of the universe at the large opening.

Any thoughts? And any better theories than the duality of nothing/something simultaneously existing?