Nothingness As An Entity

[scameter]

You know, of course, how light is an entity and that it is one of the great equalizers of existence, and how, in relativity, it is the fastest thing, that it is the thing that the galaxy rests it's perfection upon. but, is nothingness, darkness, and emptiness an entity, as light is? i mean, Einstein said that there is nothing faster than light. well, say if you walk into a dark room and turn on the lights. the room illuminates quickly, very quickly. but, then what if you turn them off again? the room becomes dark as fast as the room becamse light. and, is there not much more emptiness in existence than there is light(not speaking morally)? and, what is the essence of nothingness? is it something, or nothing, and if it is nothing what is the essence of nothingness? as you all most likely know by now, i'm a Taoist, and i like the Taoist description of the Tao as everything, but in that it is also nothing, and so on. so, i thought i would inquire apon science with what the qualities of nothingness are, and what is it's essence. :)

[Owen]

scameter :
i thought i would inquire apon science with what the qualities of nothingness are, and what is it's essence.

Upon science, there is no such thing as nothing.
Nothing does not have any properties, nor essences.

Nothing exists, is contradictory.

Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that: something exists.

[scameter]

then, science is limited to the material.

[ddedhia]

coming to mathematics, it has a different take ..

Discovered by ancient Indian Mathematician .. zero is used to denote nothing or rather absence of something .. what would the world be without the zero .. imagine, comupters running on binary without a zero ..

nothing only signifies absence of something .. death is absence of life .. and darkness is absence of light ..

[scameter]

but, what is it's quality, it's essence? nothingness, zero, death; what are it's characteristics? and, why is there nothingness and death? nature is not wasting, but then why does it allow death to occur? why did nature not just create everything as it should be when existence first began and let it stay that way forever, perfect and unchanging with no waste or destruction or absence of anything or death ever or anywhere; on continuous, unchanging perfection.

[todd]

nothingness is full of value, it has potential

[scameter]

agreed, and it is necessary. but, i mean on an empirical, scientific standpoint, what is the essence, the physical characteristics of nothingness, voiduous?

[the greek]

I'm trying to think outside the anthropical box of the human lookingglass, beyond the semantics of earthly terms such as "something" and "nothing." I would note that without one, there is no other. They share a symbiotic relationship. The paradoxical identity crisis perhaps tricked `nothing' into pondering the question - how do I know I'm nothing without something to compare myself to?

Further, known science tells us there exists matter and anti-matter; energy and dark energy; up and down; east and west; clockwise and counterclockwise; positive and negative charge; and the list goes on and on and on ad infinitum. Which human can firmly claim either something or nothing as fact?

But life is not about black and white. There are many shades of gray. Numerous experiments in quantum mechanics have replicated the sighting of minute particles that simultaneously spin both directions. Similar findings revealed simultaneous positve/negative charges for a single particle. The Tour de Force is that some particles appear to exist in two distinct locations at the same time.

First comes twi-light, then night-fall. And a trillion/infinity minute transitions in between. My how the universe is so omnipotent. The "Big Bang" or whatever sparked life and death and everthing in between or whenever could never be static.

Just as time moves forward (and backward), so does the realm. In all directions and non-existances.

[scameter]

Taoism would greatly agree with you. inbalance of dark and light is evil and destruction, and imbues suffering into existence. 'gray areas' however seemingly untitled with white or dark usually can be placed in one of the two categories.goodness is complete balance of dark and light, which is the somethingness from which the nothingness of evil imbalance sparks and is like a leech apon.

[todd]

http://stardrive.org/math4/Zero%20Point%20...y%20Physics.htm (http://stardrive.org/math4/Zero%20Point%20Energy%20Gravity%20Physics.htm)

[scameter]

i meant from a metaphysical and astronomical-purpose(big view) view, not scientific or superficial.

[todd]

the link above is only a part of a huge work on the mathematical equations of the quantum physics and the new solutions found, open a new horizon in the understanding of the nature of the universe. You find here unpredicted characteristics of the void, mathematical origin of the dark matter, etc.
In simple phrase, universe is multidimensional, gravity is passing the dimensional barriers, light speed is not limited and not constant.

[scameter]

cool. but, here is my main problem with science, the question that follows: so?

[the greek]

Todd writes:

"You find here unpredicted characteristics of the void, mathematical origin of the dark matter, etc. In simple phrase, universe is multidimensional, gravity is passing the dimensional barriers, light speed is not limited and not constant."


By stating the void has any characteristic whatsoever, is to give credence to the notion that the void is an entity in itself. Additionally, if we presume gravity can cross unabated through the multiverse, cannot then something traverse through and/or into nothing in a similar fashion (theoretically speaking)?

Moreover, if certain characteristics are universal across the multiverse, and then employing your "mathematical origin of the dark matter" principle, one could make a case for the void also having a mathematical origin.

Using that line of reasoning, could it then be termed probable that the void itself had a mathematical origin? This would qualify as the equation of nothingness, of course. Which again makes nothing an entity (scientifically speaking).

Granted, this attempt at scientific logic is predicated on the assumption that scientific characteristics are universal in application. But isn't that the scientific process in a nutshell?

[todd]

In my view, there is nothing absolute in this world, and same with the void or the nothingness.
Do not forget the old ether theory that never has been proved wrong. It just could not explain enough at that time so we all switched to the discrete or quantum theory.
They equation from that link are just showing that there is a lot more to add to the quantum model we use today - this doesn't mean they are real, but they are mathematically true and may prove the quantum model wrong if they are found to be physically false.

[todd]

cool. but, here is my main problem with science, the question that follows: so?

You cannot deny science as well as you cannot deny religion.
Science is part of our civilization knowledge, useful or not, right or wrong, is part of what we are.
If you think that cutting a part of your brain will make you think clearer, it's your option to try it.
This is why I mainly do not agree with the eastern philosophies, because there is too much of ":so?"
If science is ":so?", if religion is "so:?", if knowledge is ":so?" why do we bother anymore?

[scameter]

i agree todd, there is no definiacy in anything.

[Quantum Quack]

Just to add something a little contraversial and thought provoking:

Consider these questions:

How long does the moment between future and past exist for?

How long does a light event last for?

What are you looking at when you look around you?

The answer should be:
zero
zero
zero

So what you percieve has zero duration. There fore it doesn't exist. Yet it is all that is......so nothing is everything..........

[Quantum Quack]

Another;
What happens when you turn a two dimesnion plane on it's side and look at it from it's side. What do you see?
Does a 2 dimensional plane still exist when viewed side on?

[scameter]

well, that is where my theory of individual relativity in life comes in, because everything you just named is from our own eyes or feelings, we can never know if light truly exists in nature or not, we just know that we can see it. because a light(i assume you meant a ray of light) could exist forever. it could travel through space forever, never bending around sturctures or passing through nebulas and such, just through space forever. or, a light ray could come from the sun, and then hit one of the sun's plasma bursts and dissipate. it is an odd realization, but a useful one at that.

[venom mama]

the tao is not about nothingness.


the tao says only not to search and in that you will find.


tao hides, no name.
yet tao accomplishes all.

[scameter]

actually, Tao says don't search. have no action, just allow yourself to flow along the river of life, to accept things that come as they come and that don't that they just don't. to be noone going nowhere.

[todd]

Is fatalism better than free will?

[scameter]

no, because fatalism renounces free will essentially.

[the greek]

The great German physicist Werner Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty dictates we humans are but a series of individual receptors, whereas the universe is truth. "Uncertainty" says the mere act of observing an experiment changes its outcome. It is our own human senses that are fleeting. Objects and moments exist. Mostly, it's just our perception of them which changes.

If the aforementioned two-dimensional plane were being observed by two witnesses at a difference of a 90-degree angle, the plane would have two separate truths - one for each human's perspective. Science debunks such a possibility. The object exists in a space and holds truths. Sure, turned sideways so as to obstruct one person's view, it will give the illusion it is non-dimensional (read: non-existent). But to the other observer, who previously viewed a non-dimmensional/non-existent plane (I know, oxymoron), it would now suddenly appear two-dimmensional.

Perhaps Tao has some merit. Like Forest Gump says, "Life is like a box of chocolate. You never know what you're going to get."

Do we manifest destiny? I would imagine it's a little of both free-will and fatalism. If nothing and something can both co-exist, why not these two.

As Tao says (paraphrasing), `goodness is the balance of light and dark.'

[MidnightSun]

actually, Tao says don't search. have no action, just allow yourself to flow along the river of life, to accept things that come as they come and that don't that they just don't. to be noone going nowhere.

thats hinduism accuatly.

[scameter]

that's Taoism and Zen actually, and partially Buddhism. but, all religions and philosophies are at least somewhat related, so Hinduism probably does have some similarity there, and since Buddha used some of Hinduism for his Buddhism then they probably would be similar.

[MidnightSun]

Hinduism is based on flow throw the river of ur life and excpect to reborn somehow better.

[scameter]

right, which is what makes Hinduism a religion. anything that focuses and tries to explain death or the aftermath of death is a religion. but, Taoism and Zen, and partially Buddhism, are philosophies, not religions. and see, Zen and Taoism are also focues on the flowing, naturally, of humanity along the reiver of life peacefully and without effort or thought, but death has no meaning to them. it is just another step on our journey, on our Way as Tao is translated. :)

[MidnightSun]

Zen says to find the harmony, thats what i know...

[scameter]

indeed, natural harmony already within ourselves, desiring to be awakened.

[todd]

Heisenberg uncertainty is about the experimental limits, not about the relativity of the reference. For me it is just a sign of the limits of the quantum theory.

[scameter]

how does that limit quantum theroy?

[todd]

Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that basically you cannot determine exactly at a given moment in time the speed (momentum) and the position of a quantum particle. You only can determine one of them because the interaction between the subject and observer will alter the other. This is explained by our interactive observation nature, but my opinion is that we are missing something and the particle/wave nature of matter is not well enough defined and understood. We should not forget that the quantum theory is just a model that we have chosen to describe matter's behavior, and sooner or later will be proved wrong, like all the previous models we ever used.

[scameter]

probably. but i don't think it will necessarily be proved wrong; it will just evolve with the other theories.

[todd]

All theories are building models to explain the phenomena we perceive.
For millennia, earth as the center of the universe was good enough.
Newtonian mechanics is good enough for the major interactions we observe.
Quantum theory is good enough today to explain the behavior of the matter we can detect.
But the relativism of our senses and observations are inherited in our theories.
Once we evolve, or our power of observation develops, and we start seeing what we once missed.

[scameter]

indeed. and what we missed is this: we know nothing, can know nothing, and never will know anything. life is merely a long string of small happinesses overridden with such unbearable torture until you are so old that you get Alzheimer's and can't even think clearly then you die. beautiful, eh?

[todd]

This pure oriental point of view.
It doesn't matter how much you know or how much knowledge you can accumulate in a life time, but this is the fight that makes the beauty of life. Everyone knows we loose, but it is the beauty of the game that makes it worth.

[scameter]

Oriental? You mean my views are purely and totally Oriental?

How about this: there is no beauty, there is no game, there is no life, there is no happiness, there is no worth, there is no meaning, there is no persistance, there is no success. Just...nothing. But something. Two sides of a coin in everything, balanced, are at least supposed to be balanced, and always ever-present.

[todd]

Two sides of a coin in everything, balanced, are at least supposed to be balanced, and always ever-present.
Interesting; is this why you asked about the depth of the surface? If you only want to see the surface, why do you care about depth?

[scameter]

When did i ever say the surface? Is a coin only it's surface? Does it have no depth, physically or metaphorically? I asked about the surface of the plane because they said that it has no depth, and in real physical existence there is nothing without at least some depth, even if we can't see it. Everything has depth. And the fact that math can use a plane that is depthless shows it's fallibility and it's lifelessness, it's lack of reality.

[todd]

Easy, Scameter, I only referred to your point of view on this specific issue, and I totally disagree with what you say about math; nobody says math is about reality, and if it has the power - that we don't- to build and rule spaces with more or less dimensions than we see, this doesn't make it false, but powerful and useful. Logic and math are tools to help us be precise and accurate.

[scameter]

You're right, nobody does say that math is reality, but everyone believes and thinks it as you do, and as you just said; merely by our utilization of it do we appear to believe in it's reality, which shows our inability to perceive or even try to perceive beyond our own point of view and our own thoughts.

[the greek]

I think we can all agree on this:

We don't want to know all there is to know about every secret of the universe. If we achieved that, there is nowhere else to go. We would have knowlege of every event and every insight from the future, present, and past as well. Such knowlege would be all-encompassing. What a boring existence it would be to have nothing new to learn.

In so far as us knowing nothing is concerned, ignorance is bliss. Yet another paradox similar to the something/nothing dual existence theory.

[WilliamMckeehan]

i will agree with that :D

[scameter]

Well geek, that is why whatever that made us engineered us to not be able to understand everything in existence, only what we can through our own perception, which still leaves much to be desired. Which is good, so that our extremely powerful curiosity will never die. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

i agree with that too :lol: but i was always amazed out how much human life has already figured out

[scameter]

Oh yes, definitely. And our application of such knowledge is equally amazing. But, do not allow arrogance to colour your view of our knowledge, for as i said previously we can never know everything, or even really a miniscule amount of what there is to know. But, also know this, and extremely so even more importantly: without humanity and passion inserted into a person's practice, then it is nothing more than blank facts. Merely emphasized there. Because the human race is filled with passion and, some of us at least, humanity. And without applying our humanity to our practics and our other homosapien aspects then they are merely that, homosapien. Not human. If you catch my meaning. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

yes i think i do :lol:

that has to be one more reason humans are a little diffrent from other animals we try to figure out EVERYTHING WHY, and HOW things works humans are animals but we sure are horrible at it :blink:

[scameter]

No we aren't really horrible at it. As Tennyson said, "That which we are we are." It is in us to be curious of everything and to want to know everything. But it is also in us to be arrogant, self-conceded, and powerhungry. If the latter three can be, well, laughed at as fake, then the former one can take hold and life can be human again for us. :)

[sahyo]

Nothingness As An Entity



entity?

[Smurf]

Yeah scam, What we know is nothing against the infinity that is everything but it is still something, still a drop in the ocean. Also there are only two ways in life, everything and nothing, currently we are on the everything path the endless journey because on the nothing path is... well nothing. the way to the endless oblivion. But i have been thinking and wondering and finding scary similarities between everything and nothing. i'm very confused. one night in bed i was trying to look further into the abyss and nearly fell in. it was not a very nice experience. it felt as if my brain and mind was being pulled out into nothing. it took a lot of will power to come back to the everything. now i live by Friedrich Nietzsche's famous quote: And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. it was bad.

But back onto the topic i believe that we cannot understand nothing and that it is not an entity because it is not anything, it's nothing it is exactly what it says it is.

btw read Bill Bryson's book: a short history of nearly everything it is very imformative.

[WilliamMckeehan]

:think: :thumbsup:

[Smurf]

Yeah i know it would be pretty hard to understand but i was on the "edge of the cliff" so to speak

[WilliamMckeehan]

i see

[sahyo]

>>>>> nearly fell <<<<<<

is ok to as though fall
what's to fear ?

:)

[scameter]

Well Smurf, but the odd thing is is would such a nothingness be so horrible? I've pondered it to, and when i came close to falling in i almost wanted to; i wondered what such a reverse existence would be like, so happy, so free, so oblivious, literally, to everything. Such freedom. But really my point was in it's scientific term; how that, if nothingness truly exists, does it have qualities? Characteristics? Fabricallity? And don't allow words to cloud your actual observation of them; words were made from the particular viewpoint of the one who made them, and the various other contributors; look at existence from your viewpoint. And to me how is nothingness merely as it is titled? Or was such a title made in ignorance of what it actually is, as spacetime was originally called merely space, and it's title may change even more as we advance. I wonder if nothingness, as it does exist in this material existence, is an entity, a thing, an existing object that is plausible. :)

[sahyo]

i came close to falling in i almost wanted to



what stopped ?

[scameter]

Honestly i'm not sure. I believe it was some primal animalistic attachment to this existence and fear of change; but believe me, i did want to deep within myself, and i still long for such freedom and nonexistence. I think such nothingness is similar to that non-being that alot of Eastern traditions such as Buddhism described. Enlightenment. Naturality. :)

[Smurf]

yes nut perhaps not non-being but no human nature influences?
and also nothing exists but doesn't exist in tandem

[scameter]

Well althogh, if nothingness does indeed "exist" in the traditional sense, that will take away from the freedom and odd spirituality of it. Which i certainly don't want to do. Maybe nothingness is the one thing unexplainable by science and the physical power of logic; not to say that logic is bad or anything, which it's not because it exists naturally and thus is of course very important, but that is beyondment of that physical power of logic makes it all the more satisfing and honestly rather human. It is that one thing that can satisfy all of our curiosity, desire, freedom, hunger, depression, sadness, joy, and want to be, well, away. Which seems to be inherent in humanity. I think it is similar to Tolkien's view of evil, even though nothingness is not evil, because he believed that total evil is nothingness, which is mainly based in old myths, lore, and traditional culture, out of fear and honestly ignorance. Not that he was ignorant, which he certainly wasn't and actually was very wise and intelligent, but that his view of "evil" is similar to nothingness, even if it's title is different slightly. :)

[sahyo]

I believe it was some primal animalistic attachment to this existence and fear of change; but believe me, i did want to deep within myself, and i still long for such freedom and nonexistence.

"primal animalistic attachment to this existance" or preserving imagining "I"("myself") ?:)

[scameter]

Right, which is the essential fabric of what i said. :) :P

[sahyo]

"primal animalistic"? :P :)

[scameter]

"...attachment to this existance" That. :)

[sahyo]

"primal animalistic" or imagining will die? :)

[Smurf]

it only exists to us as a noun in the english language, it is just nothing nothing and more nothing even discussing it now is only scratching the surface of even begining to even try to understand it.

[scameter]

lol Umm smurf....What? :o :D

lol Asheera both i think. Maybe. :huh: :D

[Smurf]

well i'm just trying to put into human terms the vast nothingness that is nothing, it is beautiful and perfect and nothing.

[scameter]

lol I see, ok. I understand. Sorry. :P :D

[Wayfarer]

Nothing does not exist; this should be self evident.
The number zero is only nothing if we define it within certain parameters. These parameters are arbitrary and do not refer to an actual state of being.
The number 1 does not exist, it is an abstraction. Reality is always 1 something. 1 cow in a field for example.
You can take the cow out of the field and say that there are 0 cows. But really it only makes sense in the context of being in or out of the field. You cannot turn the cow into nothing. Even if you kill it and eat it, it is still something. The energy and matter still exist.
We can never have the experience of nothingness. Nothingness is antithetical to what experince is.

[sahyo]

i think. Maybe. :huh: :D



:lol:

:D

[sahyo]

You cannot turn the cow into nothing. Even if you kill it and eat it, it is still something.



oop...boat tipped~over

[Smurf]

no just saying that nothing does not exist isn't enough nothing is infinite in its nothingness we can never truly understand nothing or for that matter everything.

[sahyo]

:)


oop...boat tipped~over



wasn't agreeing wayfarer

[todd]

Wayfarer, how would you define space using the same logic?
Is space something or nothing?
Is time something or nothing?
Is mind something or nothing?

Thanks,
todd

[scameter]

True smurf. And Way, is not 1 also an abstraction as 0 is, and is thus too just as fake? Or are both relevent? To me, nothing cannot exist and be truly nothing. It has to be something. And i don't just mean it's representation as 0, i mean it it's self.

[Smurf]

hmmm yes i see what you mean, it has to be an opposing force to everything perhaps? well i might tell you a little secret i have about nothing and everything perhaps

[scameter]

<_< What do you mean?

[Smurf]

well i have been thinking, as you do yeah?, and i have managed to work out that

nothing is everything

[scameter]

Do you mean everything is nothing like in nothing or nothing it's self, or that nothingness is everything and thus there is no everything but it is nothingness, if that makes sense.

[Smurf]

woah i just sped read that and i am really confused now, but i think yes?

um but nothing is perfect right because there is always something better it just keeps going on and on etc the short way is to say nothing. but if nothing is perfect then we can say that for something to be perfect then it has to contain everything hmm yep then we can say that everything as a whole produces nothing ponder on it a while and see what you think i don't care if i'm wrong but i dunno.

[scameter]

:) You're never wrong my friend; they're your thoughts and can't be wrong. And i think that what you said is rather Taoist(good evidence of what you said about you becoming a Taoist) because it would consitute the great opposites, that somethingness makes nothingness, as good makes evil, and clarity enclarity, and so on and so forth. :)

[Smurf]

yeah ... but then it raises the fact that nothing is impossible because everything is possible but then this says that, because nothing is the product of everything then everything cannot exist????
i am very confused :think: <_< <_< :huh:

[scameter]

Well actually the two opposites of nothing and something exist in physics as matter and anti-matter. I don't really see how our material views can see (speaking physically) anti-matter, if we even can, but i think that it does explain the opposite of matter/something to be anti-matter/nothing, thus further proving Taoist views. :)

[Smurf]

yes :D now i know why it is called The Way

but do not fear my friend i will always have an open mind :thumbsup: :)

[scameter]

Good to hear. :) Me too. Or at least i'll try to. :D

[Smurf]

yeah me too it is hard trying to calm one's self in certain situations :D

[scameter]

Sometimes. But we should remain calm either outwardly or inwardly at all times. And the one not calm should be active. :)

[sahyo]

............http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/eo.jpg

[Smurf]

Hello woah, qu'est-ce que c'est?

[deepakgang]

Suppose two snakes are swallowing each other. One starts fron the tail of the other. Simultaneously the second one starts swallowing the first from the tail. So when they finish swallowing each others heads, what will exist?

[sahyo]

Hello woah, qu'est-ce que c'est?

bonjour, est-ce?

[scameter]

Depends on which is fastest deepak. :P

[Smurf]

well deepakgang, each of the snakes will replenish their tails from eating the other one's, it is one of the many symbols for eternity, or infinity.

and Asheera: qu'est-ce que c'etais? (Je crois <_< :D ) l'image?

[scameter]

But could they be replenished in time?

[Smurf]

oh i dunno, but that has been the popular tale that goes with it, it isn't sort of supposed to be scrutinized, you know? like just another of those proverbs, that under close scrutiny don't actually seem to work, but on average they make perfect sense. do you get me?

[the greek]

It seems we're on the subject of nothing, evidence in itself that nothing exists. We are talking about it, after all. It must be real (to humans at least). Or one reality anyway. Granted, nothing is merely a thought - opposed to material objects, which mortals can see and feel and interpret with their familiar five human senses.
But, just maybe, can a thought, in this endless existence of possibilities and probabilities, be materially manifested? If a genie granted you three wishes (ANYTHING and EVERYTHING were yours to choose), that genie in all likely-hood would not deny you NOTHING, if that was indeed your wish. That's all philosophical mumbo-jumbo, of course. Science, however, has already weighed in on the validity of nothing.
Science has begun to attempt to quantify thought in terms of energy expenditure. Most of the work involves measuring blood flow along with hyper-active cranial regions, protein transit through nerve pathways, and other assorted brain-wave patterns. One recent study even went as far as trying to weigh the human soul. This was done by placing a dying person on a scale and taking exact measurements before and immediately following a doctor's official declaration of death. The findings were that the body lost a fraction of a gram post-mortum. Granted, no air-tight empirical findings here.
Still, I can't stop thinking that thoughts must have some minute or scant speck of weight. We've been told that negative thoughts, and stress, can have an internal affect and adversely affect our health. Similarly, positive thoughts can be beneficial. Here, science again chimes in. This time, strong evidence of thought manifesting externally.
An experiment took place not long ago, and was aired in a PBS documentary, where people were told to think various thoughts while standing in front of a tank filled with a certain type of water (escapes me, I'll find the information and post it later). The composition of the water in the tanks was changed DRAMATICALLY from thought to thought. And the evidence was CLEARLY visible to the naked eye. The video was stunning.
Could a mere thought move water? Our bodies are 90-percent liquid. Hydrogen is the most ubiquitous substance in this universe (known to mankind). Who's to say? If a thought can be real (ney, physically tangible), then anything, including nothing, MUST be as well.
Part of the reason we find it so difficult to imagine nothing is because it scares us to the core of our soul, so even thinking too deeply about it unnerves us to no end. But does the detective become the killer? On the trail of a serial killer, while trying to "get into" his mind, the detective does not fall into the abyss. Sure, some can't handle this job day-to-day. But by and large, most detectives somehow manage to detach from the job, go home at the end of the day, hug their children, hold their wives, and live normal, happy existences.
Fear not, the unknown. Having said that, if nothing ever did materially manifest, it truly would no longer be nothing (to humans, anyway).



SMURF: I trust your reference to me as "geek" a while back was a typo. You seem much too erudite for such sophomoric rebuttal.

[Smurf]

oh did i call you a geek? sorry mate. :thumbsup:
but you have raised some interesting points.

my belief is that everything makes up nothing, such an infinite equation would be sufficient to hold together everything. as we are a part of everything we cannot truly comprehend nothing. like a transistor in a computer, we are just another part.

[sahyo]

qu'est-ce que c'etais? (Je crois <_< :D ) l'image?

(:D) l'image est-elle une image?

[Smurf]

Asheera, le post... aw stuff it , some while back you posted an image what was it?

[sahyo]

what was it?

what asking?

[Smurf]

the last post on page six there is an image/picture what is it?

[sahyo]

http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/eo.jpg

[Smurf]

yes that one!! :D

now what is it of?

[sahyo]

:D

not "what"

not "of"

[Smurf]

:blink: arrrgh stop messing with my brain :cry:

ok then what is it? there you go

[sahyo]

hehehehe...not messing with brain

asking for :think: a definition?


;)

[scameter]

Asking for a clear definition from asheera is like trying to make a crooked piece of titanium straight. :P

[Smurf]

oh damn, well i'll try

could the lovely Asheera who is just so awesome, and speaks beautifully, clearly and perfectly. who has a mind like a flower and a supercomputer as one, who probably looks nice? :D and is the best person in the world, please give me a definition on what the afore-mentioned picture contained? pretty please oh great awesome one?

[deepakgang]

:lol: asheera now please

[scameter]

:P Asheera= B) :D

[Smurf]

please put me out of this misery? :cry:

[MidnightSun]

Asking for a clear definition from asheera is like trying to make a crooked piece of titanium straight

:lol:

Dont try to understanmd asheera ,its pointless :P

[Smurf]

well it is not often i find something i can't understand, it intregues me, i love challenges. :D

so come on Asheera pretty please? just tell me what the picture is?

[scameter]

Although, from her seeming Zen point of view, trying to understand the illogical is like trying to use instincts to perform a purely logical task. It's very difficult.

[Smurf]

the illogical? sounds fun :D are you there Asheera? or are you just watching this unfold?

[deepakgang]

she is reading all this smiling and enjoying

[scameter]

:D Knowing her, you're probably right. :P

[sahyo]

smurf
msun
deepak
scam

http://engr.smu.edu/~kaytaz/71.gif

:D

[Smurf]

AHRHAHRHAHRHAHHHAGHRGARHA i think i'll destroy something! fhsakjfklasjakldklald





eh eh ........ please tell me?

[deepakgang]

hey if asheera replied - it meant nothing, would it anyway relate to our topic. Will that answer proves nothingness B)

[Smurf]

oh here he comes, the cool guy :D

but you said it, it means nothing! bam B)

[deepakgang]

cool guy :D :knockout:

[Smurf]

woah man
*cool music plays* yeah
*starts walking down street in suit and sunglasses* awesome :thumbsup: B)

[Smurf]

huh? caught me off guard there. :o

[the greek]

This subject is a popular one, judging by the number of entries. Too bad discourse occasionally gets bogged down by personal issues. It seems to derail thought, and the ensuing enlightenment. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming - Nothingness as an entity...What is more real, the thought or the object? I've heard this line of logic before: No human being can fly, but you can dream of a human flying. In this instance, the thought is more real than the object, which truly does not exist. There has to be a place for nothing in the pantheon of something that calls itself everything.

[the greek]

The actual time of my last post should read "January 10, 10:56 PM (that's night-time), and not AM, and certainly not January 11. Either this system is malfunctioning, or time skips forward into the future when you're contemplating nothing. For the record, this post should read January 10, 11:05 pm when I press ad reply (all times central).

[the greek]

Strange. A computer error. Very rare.

[deepakgang]

It shows the time where the server is located while you are posting. Thats y. aint it Thomas?

[deepakgang]

I thought it cant be changed. Thanks pschye :thumbsup:

[Smurf]

like i said before nothing is everything! jeez :rolleyes: :D

[Smurf]

yes it just sort of works you see? the more i think about it, :think:

[the greek]

Lately, we've seen a lot of pros for nothing as an entity, not too many cons. In fact, the question has recently been changed to "is nothing everything?" Nothing is one small part of everything, I would imagine. Opposed to saying nothing is everything. Whether or not something and nothing are polar opposites, which would indicate equals of some sort, is another matter. One thing is for certain: They paradoxically live in symbiance.

[Smurf]

give me two opposites that "exist". :)

[scameter]

Buddhism would say that life (i.e. everything) is an illusion meant to be erased and thus to plummit into the nothingness that is Nirvana.

[Smurf]

well, Example is that some people would say
Black -- White

but they are shades and are not definate, to a degree, but they are not two polar opposites! :P :D

[scameter]

Even the illusionary or indefinite exists, as well does that of the imagination.

[Smurf]

so there aren't any opposites then?

well that concludes that nothing can equal everything!

[scameter]

No, opposites exist just as much as their fellow opposites, and math and the other conceptual things do exist too, as concepts. Everything in existence both exists and too in singularity, even if it is apart of a wholer collage.

[the greek]

Day turns to night and night to day. At what precise point which is which, no one can tell. Many shades of night. First sunset and twi-light, then pitch dark. But the sun always remains, even as a reflection off the moon. Similary, something perhaps seagues into nothing and vice versa. Just as one day seagues into the next. But is the former day gone forever, thrown into the ether of nothingness? I tend to think not. And I would also hope that when I do depart this life, somehow, someway, my energy and information and what I have created and my thoughts and soul or whatever you want to call it, continue to linger and continue to affect the universe as a whole for all of eternity. What a shame if it all went for naught, as Budhism might purportedly suggest.

[deepakgang]

I believe our life in earth is to learn. To learn by experiences through different births until we can be one with the universe - nirvana or moksha

[scameter]

I think our purpose in life is to live, simply. And, from the Taoist viewpoint greek, no it wouldn't be thrown into the ether of nothingness, because life is circular. If something is gone, such as night, then it returns the next time for night, and same with day. It is linear view that says night would go into the ether of nothingness. And, from the buddhist viewpoint, this life isn't for nothing; actually, it's for somethingness in all respects. "Nothing" is beyond this somethingful world. To them, this illusionary existence is here because it is, simply. :)

[Smurf]

:thumbsup: essentially, but as soon as you understand that there are no opposites,that's cool

[scameter]

If you mean there is no duality I would agree, in the Tao anyways. Not in humanity. But there are most definitely opposites.

[the greek]

Scameter recently wrote:


"Buddhism would say that life (i.e. everything) is an illusion meant to be erased and thus to plummit into the nothingness that is Nirvana. "


Operative words being "Erased" and "Plummit" into "nothingness"...


Then Psyche responds about how the Dalai Lama is reincarnated.


Someone please explain. I think we have another paradox percolating.

[scameter]

I don't understand. How is their being operative words negative or a cause of confusion?

[Smurf]

ok, i think he means that the spiritual head of Buddhism is doing against the principles of his own beliefs? or something like that?

I would say that he is an exception, much like Jesus in a way that he is special, a reincarnation, the buddhisatva of compassion i think he is.

[locomotive]

In meta-physics I believe they have found that particles can suddenly disapear and appear so nothingness is a entity. But I don't agree
If you want something to be created you need something. Therefore it is logical to conclude that there is only something only science hasn't found it.

[scameter]

Maybe we can't?

[locomotive]

We can inderectly but only if there are no arguments left against that something can't come from nothing. Then if it still appearing to do that there might be another dimension or whatever.

[scameter]

Why not something from nothing? Life can from the inanimate, which before such evidence was uncovered it was believed entirely unrealistic. And, looking at the Big Bang theory, everything in current existence came from the nothingness of what we title space. Thus, everything we now know of could've come from nothingness. I think it also could've come from a HUGE black hole implosion, but even then that would be everything from nothing.

[deepakgang]

It has been proved that no particle can be destroyed- it can only be made one form from another. It means that what we see must have always been there- always. Though not in this form.

[Smurf]

Ok Scam give me two opposites that exist, no frills.

[scameter]

Deepak, then thus we are all nothingness because we all came from nothingness during the Big Bang. I'm sorry, but particles may not be destroyed, but they do replicate; that is a proven theory in science.

And smurf, something and nothing, hot and cold, dry and wet, soft and hard, smooth and rough, dark and light...dare I go on? :)

[Smurf]

nope they're not absolute, they can all be wet to a degree, all be smooth to a degree, it can be light to a degree it can be hot to a degree

[deepakgang]

If it is nothingness that we call all this- then yes we came from nothingness.

[sahyo]

"came from"?

[deepakgang]

Deepak, then thus we are all nothingness because we all came from nothingness during the Big Bang.

asheera i was just commenting on that. Wasnt my view.

and wht u think of my previous one on this topic...

[sahyo]

If it is nothingness that we call all this- then yes we came from nothingness.



"came from"?

:)

[deepakgang]

Deepak :twoguns: :silly: Asheera

[sahyo]

:lol:

[locomotive]

we did not come from nothingness because coming from something needs to have a cause that made it come from nothing, since that thing is also something, something is all that there is.
Also you could say that the moving particles etc are the only way for there to be something. So the question why did not something else just existed is out of the question because it still has to have some kind of motion system.

[Smurf]

why couldn't we come from nothingness? if there is an origin of existance we certainly wouldn't be able to understand it? :P
but as a part of everything we constitute perfection thus creating nothingness. such a formula would be perfect to stabilise an existing univrese

[sahyo]

no

[locomotive]

That would be balance but it is still something. I am talking about: NOTHING.

[scameter]

Because a concept is something-encompassing. Nothingness is a negation of something and thus is incomprehensible by our finite and somethingful brains. Which is why the Big Bang is such a difficult theory for people to grasp, even scientists, because we essentially derived from absolute nothingness.

[locomotive]

maybe it is difficult because people can't accept that there is only existence. Maybe they can't accept it because They want a cause for the beginning of the whole whitch you paradoxically can't know, what could this mean <_<

[scameter]

I think it is the opposite, that people cling to logic and science so because they fear the existence of nature's lack of somethingness, that we all originate from something, not nothing. In all religions, this existence derives from another entity or somethingness, not nothing. Fear.

[locomotive]

you mean to say that nature is nothingness? where did you get that idea from?
I read what Thomas wrote about the beliefs on emptyness in buddism. It was emptyness but not nothingness.

[Smurf]

It is very comlicated yes, nothingness, but is it a negation? does it exist?

there are suprising similarities between nothing and everything, they are both infinite no?

I also thinking that perhaps ti a paralell(spelling?) universe our nothing is their everything? :unsure:

[locomotive]

isn't that semantics or something? Anyway the universe might be empty but it is still their. Something that is full of nothing is still something and therefore not nothing.

[locomotive]

a glass full of...

[MidnightSun]

air perhaps?

[scameter]

Well, maybe not with the naked eye but you could see nitrogen, oxygen, and other gas molecules in there. But, I see your point psyche. To me, nothing and something are merely different views, just like perfection. But, from a scientific point of view, we essentially did originate from nothing.

[Venus]

You might not see it. But it exists...

[scameter]

What does?

[Venus]

And there is something else in it- either water or another drink, siliva or soap/y water. Or at least traces of it... lol...

[scameter]

Oh. Sorry.

[Venus]

No, I'm sorry. I was continuing my post. I was just making an addition.

[Smurf]

Thanks Psyche that is helpful! :thumbsup:

[deepakgang]

a Blackhole absorbs everything. It gives out nothing.

[scameter]

It's fine Venus. :)

And, that may be true deepak, but it is nothing it's self. It is the negation of everything, including that seemingly-infinite entity, time. Which is why I think the Big Bang could've been the cause of a HUGE black hole absorbing everything previously here, which would explain the background microwave radiation, and then imploding, sending everything back out, which would also make sense with expansion theory, from the viewpoint of the black hole. :)

[deepakgang]

So something was there before BigBang. Even black hole evolves from a star...

[deepakgang]

There is a concept that Blackholes give off radiation. But what im conused is that if they dont allow light to go out. Then how other radiations. Light never goes out because the horizon of a blackhole expands with a velocity greater than that of light- means velocity of all radiations.

For more info just go through the page

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

the section: How do black holes evaporate? tries to find out an answer for the radiation stuff.

And yes there could be some radiating blackholes. I found this :-

How can a black hole give off radiation. How can anything get out through the event horizon of a black hole. The answer is, the Uncertainty Principle, allows particles to travel faster than light, for a small distance. This enables particles and radiation, to get out through the event horizon, and escape from the black hole. Thus, it is possible for things to get out of a black hole. However, what comes out of a black hole, will be different from what fell in. Only the energy will be the same.
As a black hole gives off particles and radiation, it will lose mass. This will cause the black hole to get smaller, and to send out particles more rapidly. Eventually, it will get down to zero mass, and will disappear completely.




--------------------

[deepakgang]

okay. ill keep up :thumbsup:

[sahyo]

........http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/lehsqa.jpg

[scameter]

No actually I meant that there was everything then that was here now, pre-Big Bang I mean. And that a HUGE black hole then absorbed it and then imploded, sending out all the contents once more. And perhaps even the center of the universe is that black hole. Just an idea. :)

[Venus]

It might have done. But "What comes up, must come down"

[scameter]

Exactly. Which, essentially, would even further prove my theory, because a black hole that absorbed all of existence would then in a sense become full, and then "throw up"/implode, sending out all of it's contents randomly to form a nex existence. The, when the universe was once more complete, which would explain the fact that the mass of the universe has increased since the big bang, the black hole would begin absorbing again, till again it would implode. :)

[deepakgang]

Guys- didnt you see asheera came up with a picof blackhole or what?

[Smurf]

AHHHHH Not again Asheera please! :cry:

well i suppose this ones not so bad actually :D

[Venus]

Lol... Well Newton believed that the universe was like a balloon... I agree with him in a way.

[Venus]

I kind of agree with that.

[scameter]

I agree too; it's kinda related to my universally-central black hole theory. :)

[scameter]

By the way, I have formulated another new possible theory to accompany, yet seperately, the initial topic statement/idea of this topic: I am wondering if light, as was slightly proposed by Einstein, isn't the essential backbone of the spacetime continuum and that shadow/darkness isn't merely it's reflection on the curvature of the subatomic spacetime existence, as light appears to use in reflection on the curves of things in our common material world. This is only a very initial and prototypical theory, but I do find it interesting. :) Oh, and that because there is required a surface for a shadow to be reflected on, that gave me the idea that light reflects shadow onto the curvatures of the subatomic spacetime continuum. :P There you go! :)

[sahyo]

:) deepak

[sahyo]

:P smurf

hehe



;)

[deepakgang]

Smiling wont do. Asheera, you have to tell what was that about?

Seems to me like pic of your scarf folded in front of your tubelight. And did it had a black hole on it?- literally

[sahyo]

..............................................ok deepak




.......http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/mmmh.jpg




................................................:D

[Venus]

Perhaps Scameter, perhaps.

[scameter]

:)

[the greek]

Interesting, Scameter. And indeed the nothingness does show through as evidenced by the wide disparity between known matter and space. Also of note is that the human body is of similarly, or should I saw eerily similar proportion water to dense matter. Water, in other forms, is a gas and mostly hydrogen, which is only one degree away from being space. So in essence, human being are nothingness showing through, in a way. I AM NOTHING!!!

[scameter]

But then again, is nothingness something? :)

[Smurf]

yep! well it is a noun no? then according to the dictionary it is something! woah *insert wacky music here* :o :o

so nothing is something, and therefore something is nothing! :D

[scameter]

Well, is nothing is something, then something is nothing, but nothingness is seperate from nothing, which is essentially it's faculty, but then something must be seperate from it's faculty, somethingness, although, somethingness may not have a faculty and may be mere somethingness; or, perhaps that is true with nothingness in that nothing and nothingness are synonymous and exact in sameness, but that would also return us to the question of the possible somethingness of nothingness; thus, "somethingness" could be applied as an adjective, which would allow us to apply it to anything within the "something" field. But, nothing and nothingness are the same, becuase if something is described as nothing, then it is within nothingness; but, if something is described as something then it is not necessarily in somethingness, because something could be the mere adjective, not within somethingness, which is rather narrow from the field of something as an adjective, which could describe various styles of singularities in both physicallity and conceptuality. Thus, nothing could be something. :)

[abaris]

Nothingness is not an entity by itself. It is the absence of all entities. At least according to the way i understand Socrates.
Darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, evil the absence of good. In a way nothingness is the low extrem in a dual universe. Where duality is defined as something or nothing. We came to confuse duality with polarity and by that we obtain a quantization for the negative. Thus we consider it to be an entity. Nature does not contain any negative entities.

[scameter]

Then is nothingness seperate from nature?

[Smurf]

Yes! :lol:

of course, except perhaps that the nothingness you are talking about would be described by the Tao as the purest form of life? perhaps :unsure:

[deepakgang]

But is evil the absence of good??

[abaris]

Nothingness is not existent. Nowhere in the ubniverse. You may get close to absolute zero but you can not reach it. You may get close to absolute vacuum but you can not reach it.
Nature does not accept emptiness.

[abaris]

And yes evil is the absence of good. For good has a purpose. Evil has no purpose whatsover.

[kurt]

i think the "nothingness" you're talking about is a sort of recycling, just as death is a recycling of life. if you think about space for example where do new nebulas form? in "empty" space, i think it's just the universe's way of tilling the soil, as it were.

[abaris]

You may call it "Recycling". The term is indeed quite accurate. Yes i see Nothingness rather as the lack of form and structure.

Things are born (i,e structure is createt) they die (disolve into shapelessness) and are reborn.
I deem this to be true for all things bacteria, man, stars, galaxies, universes.

[Smurf]

but nothing is nothing? impossible to comprehend let alone brand it "recycling"???

nothing is infinite, as is everything no?

[abaris]

how do you define Nothingness? Is it the absence of all matter and energy?
Such a cobdition does not exist. Vacuum is filled with fluctuating energy quanta. This is not just theory. They produce measurable forces. Like the casimir force for example.

Nothingness can therefore only mean the lack of form, structure, order.

[the greek]

I might go along with that last thought. After all, even if you subscribe to the "degrees" theorem, meaning there are degrees of something/nothing intermingled (the not quite day, not quite night phenomenon), nothing intermingled with something is still something. And yes, absolute nothing is the absence of something, and therefore not an entity.

But ponder this: If there was absulute nothingness prior to the creation of any speck of existence, would not the thought of the potential for something have been needed to spark the "big bang" or whatever gave rise to...something?

And if something came from nothing, would it not then be logical to assume that nothing is something?

To my human insticts and logic, it seems reasonable that nothing would have had to have preceded something? Or perhaps not.

[abaris]

My thinking is founded in my experience and as such limited. I hold degrees in astrophysics and aerospace technology from the university of Munich and studied philosophy at the aristotelian university of Thessaloniki.

I love physics as much as i love philosophy, i'm therefore tempted to reconcile both. I don't know if this is possible. But here is what i think:

What reason do we have to think that the Bing bang ever happend?

There is of course the Hubble constant also known as redshift. But if you look into relativity you will see the contradiction. Astronomers interpret the redshisft of distand objects allways as the result of recess velocity. That is not in sync with relativity. Relativistic redshift can also be the effect of high approach velocity (due to the effect of time dilation ).

And what is the nature of the forces that drive the universe appart?
Relativity, which is the basis of all cosmological theories knows only one resident force. That force is gravity, an attractive force. So what made the big bang go bang?
There is nothing in generall relativity to account for the expansion of the universe. That's why Einstein had to introduce the arbitrary cosmological constant. Which is in effect nothing more then a negative energy density.

Negative energy is an absurd idea. It is only a theoretical construct, a fantasy. It makes as much sense as negative air density.

Now, what if there was no big bang? What if the universe is infinite and eternal? What would pythagoras concept of the monad, dyad, triad mean for such a universe?

[Smurf]

your first paragraph was what I was going to say!

But I stick by my reasoning that Everything = Nothing

[abaris]

then are the following equations true as well:

light=darkness
vacuum=matter
good=evil

[abaris]

if you hold the expression

everything=nothing

to be true, then logicaly you have to accept

light=darkness

to be true as well. If, that is, you accept the definition of darkness as the absence of light.
In other words you'll have to accept than some quantity of any entity equals the zero quantity of the same entity. In other words you are saying:

1=0

Such are the laws of mathematicall deduction. You'll surely agre that the above equation can not be valid.

As for the Big Bang/Big Crunch cyclus. As i explained in my previous post, there is nothing in the theory of relativity to account for the expansion of the universe other then the Cosmological constant. This is an arbitrary mathematical constant that was introduced after Einstein became aware of the Hubble effect. It has no physical meaning whatsover.

According to relativity nothing can escape a Black hole. Not even light. So what should cause the most masive black hole possible. The one which contains all mass and energy in the universe to suddenly explode?

There is no Big Bang, Universe is Infinite and Eternal. It allways was it allways will be.

[abaris]

as for evil beeing the negation of good, i have to disagree with the term "negation".
It is the absence. Negative is a perception that results from the position of the observer beeing at a distance from the theoretical "absolute zero".

Here is the challenge: Gime one example for a negative entity in nature.

[abaris]

easy there psyche! I did not intend to be offensive.

As for your remarks:

Concerning Pythagoras you are absolutely right. He never wrote anything. But the same can be said of Buddha, Lao Tzu or Jesus. We only know of what others attributed to them. But that does not make any of the Individuals mentioned above less real or their teachings less true. And i do not mention the four just by coincidence. If you compare their teachings you will find them to be quite similar.

And yes i have published a few scientific articles about 15 years ago in germany none of them were very original though, basic mathematical stuff on interferometry and aerodynamics. I recently completed a quite extensive article which is concerned with inconsistencies in cosmological theory which result from the incompatibility of relativistic and quantum mechanics. The article is currently in the process of peer review.

[abaris]

Music and phillosophy were both expressions of the cosmic harmony for the Pythagoreans.
And i agree.

I have a version of my article it in html and i will post it soon. Currently i'm recieving feedback from reviewers. Those contain more then enough objections as you can imagine. I'll put the article up as soon as those objections are addressed. That wont be for another 2 weeks.

As for the similarities between Budhism, Tao, Christianity or Pythagoras, it is intresting to see people in different corners of the world come up with similar ideas. For me that proves the universality of thought and the conection of human consciusness to some other dimension of existence. I do not understand the nature of this conection. It goes beyond the physical world.
It is metaphysical if you like.

Most religions ask us to accept the metaphysical by faith. They claim that it can not be grasped.
Well i can not accept that. I was born near Stageira after all, the birth place of Aristotle. And he is the father of "mataphysics" and mathematical logic. So i try to combine both physics and metaphysics by means of logic.

[Smurf]

light=darkness

ahh yes, no .... because Light and Darkness work in different ways to Everything and nothing?

and 1 is not everything lol

[abaris]

ahh yes, no .... because Light and Darkness work in different ways to Everything and nothing

if

everything=nothing

then

something=nothing

then

[quantity]*something = [0]*something

ehich implies

quantity=0

in other words

1=2=3=4...=any number = 0

in my opinion that can not be. Maybe i didn't understand the exact meaning of your statement. In this case the numerical abstraction i'm using would of course be invalid.

[kurt]

[QUOTE]Negative energy is an absurd idea. It is only a theoretical construct, a fantasy. It makes as much sense as negative air density.

why is it so absurd? i feel there has to be a balance: could it be possible that your focus on your degrees that you hold could be keeping you from chilling out for a minute and just feeling the space and energy around you? and please excuse me if that sounded abrasive, it was not my intent. also excuse my ignorance, but would negative air density not be vacuum?

[abaris]

why is it so absurd? i feel there has to be a balance: could it be possible that your focus on your degrees that you hold could be keeping you from chilling out for a minute and just feeling the space and energy around you? and please excuse me if that sounded abrasive, it was not my intent. also excuse my ignorance, but would negative air density not be vacuum?

No negative airdensity would not be vacuum. It would be exactly that: "Negative Air density".
It would produce vacuum if added to the same amount of positive air density:

For example

1ccm [positive air density] + 1ccm [negative air density] = Vacuum

When you run a numeric simulation in aerodynamics. You use Nefative air density as a test for you algorithm. Although a negative air density is mathematicaly posible. Physicaly it is absurd.
If you simulation produces any negative airdensities. Your algorithm is flawed.

You have to be carefull not to confuse negative matter/energy with the concept of antimater.
Those are two completely different topics.

matter + antimatter = energy

but

matter + negative matter = 0
energy + negative energy = 0;
airdensity + negative air density = vacuum

[kurt]

so there is no vacuum?

[abaris]

so there is no vacuum?


in mathematical abstractions (formulas) you can assign the value 0 to an energy density.
And 0 density is what defines a vacuum.

In the physical world though, vacuum does not exist. Even an theoretically empty space can not be shielded againt the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Vaccum does therefore not exist. That's the concept of the Quantum Vacuum ar the Zero Field Energy.

That off course does not address the issue of negative matter (or if you like negative air density). I would like to know on what assumptions you base the notion of its existence.

[kurt]

like i said, i just feel like there has to be a balance. if there is no negative to counterbalance the positive then what does? is there anything in this life that you know to be one sided.

[abaris]

No it is not one sided. I completely agree with yuo on that. And there is the positive on the one site (mass, energy, good) and the lack of it on the other (no mass, no energy no good). But the low extreem Absolutely nothing ie Emptiness i can not see, not in physics and not in ethics.

There is no vacuum as there is no absolute lack of good (evil). Even the fiercest of monsters retain some traces of good in their souls.

[Thomas Knierim]

abaris: Here is the challenge: Gime one example for a negative entity in nature.

How about three of them?

Mechanics: Deceleration, for example, is expressed as negative acceleration.
Electricity: Negative charge.
Quantum theory: Antimatter.

abaris: But the low extreem Absolutely nothing ie Emptiness i can not see, not in physics and not in ethics.

That seems a bit medieval to me. It was once believed that nature abhors a vaccuum. I am not sure who originally coined this phrase. Anyway, most of outer space, in particular intergalactic space, comes pretty close to a perfect vaccuum. Okay, there's still some radiation. Plus there's a peculiar phenomenon called vacuum energy which -if I understand correctly- leads to quantum fluctuation. So, emptiness in nature seems to be different from emptiness in mathematics.

Incidentally, the Indian concept of sunyata (emptiness) comes very close to the physical reality of empty space. Sunyata is not emptiness in the sense of the empty set, but in the sense of potentiality not taking shape. Zero point energy and quantum fluctuation comes to mind. There is an Emptiness article in http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/ which discusses sunyata in more detail.

Cheers, Thomas

[abaris]

Mechanics: Deceleration, for example, is expressed as negative acceleration.
Electricity: Negative charge.
Quantum theory: Antimatter.


Sehr gut Thomas,

but incorrect: Acceleration, negative or positive requieres propulsion which consumes energy.
Kinetic energy can only take values greater then 0. It becomes 0 only if the body is at ablolute rest in a particular frame of reference. On the universall scale a body can not be at rest in each and every frame of reference. Deceleration is therefore not the negation of accelartion.

An electron is not the negation of a proton. You put an electron and a proton together you get a hydrogen atom not ZERO.

Antimatter plus matter produces lots of energy not ZERO.

Physics is very specific with terms. Negative matter is not Antimater. If negative matter is brought together with positive matter it negates it ie the sresult is zero. Antimater does not fullfil this criterion.

As for the Zero point energy, it is far from being almost zero. Attempts to calculate it based on the Black Body spectrum (which is reasonable) yield an incredible energy density.

What i mean is this: The negative is only percieved because we percieve our relative position within the order of things to be The Absolute Position. Whats below our position we call negative
whats above we call positive. That works for physics as well as it does for ethics.

[Thomas Knierim]

abaris: Acceleration, negative or positive requieres propulsion which consumes energy. Kinetic energy can only take values greater then 0.

Okay, but if I remember 8th grade physics classes right, velocity and acceleration are vector magnitudes. The direction of the propulsion -the one leading to deceleration- is opposite to the one leading to acceleration and thus carries a negative sign. Hence, they can be theorised as a positive and negative force. At a certain point they cancel each other out, and the resulting velocity becomes zero. Isn't that the case?

abaris: An electron is not the negation of a proton. You put an electron and a proton together you get a hydrogen atom not ZERO.

But the resulting charge is zero. :unsure: ...at least if the electron behaves properly and the H atom isn't ionised.

abaris: Antimatter plus matter produces lots of energy not ZERO.

Lots of energy, but zero matter. Then again, there is Einstein's mass/energy relation...

abaris: What i mean is this: The negative is only percieved because we percieve our relative position within the order of things to be The Absolute Position.

Ah yes, the famous center of the Universe... which is evidently -all of my observations speak in favour of this- my desk in my house in Chiang Mai. :lol: Your statement raises the question: is there any position (frame of reference) from which magnitudes cannot become negative?

Cheers, Thomas

How deep are you into physics?

[abaris]

Okay, but if I remember 8th grade physics classes right, velocity and acceleration are vector magnitudes. The direction of the propulsion -the one leading to deceleration- is opposite to the one leading to acceleration and thus carries a negative sign. Hence, they can be theorised as a positive and negative force. At a certain point they cancel each other out, and the resulting velocity becomes zero. Isn't that the case?

Thomas you are of course right when considering the mathematical abstraction. In the equations you can have a negative acceleration. Depends on the direction of the Accelerating force. But it only has a meaning as an abstraction.

Consider the Kinetic energy of the body in motion: is the continuous application of a negative acceleration going to produce a negative Kinetic energy?

But the resulting charge is zero. ...at least if the electron behaves properly and the H atom isn't ionised.

Correct the resulting charge is zero if we do a macroscopic measurement at a distance much much larger then the relative distance between the two. If you move realy close you'll see that both the proton and the electron are still there. They did not negate each other

Lots of energy, but zero matter. Then again, there is Einstein's mass/energy relation...

Exactly the total energy prior and after the merger does not change. No negation

Your statement raises the question: is there any position (frame of reference) from which magnitudes cannot become negative?

Ah. Thats the Really Big question. You can say that absolute Zero is the lowest posible temperature. But where in the universe is the absolute low of Energy? Or Where the absolute zero of compasion? (my ex wives soul probably... just joking)

The answer to those question would yield a unified philosophy of Matter and Spirit. If this is obtainable or even desirable is the next question.

[Smurf]

One flaw Abaris....

Something does not equal everything

they have to be extremes for it to work!

everything and nothing are infinite in their extremes ...

light and dark are not opposites as the dictionary states what opposites are... there is no such thing as darkness, then there is a degree of lightness. Is there an infinite light?, if there was you think about this, it would be darkness. It would be so light, it would be dark. ever thought of things like that?

[abaris]

there is no such thing as darkness

That is exactly my point Smurf. There is no such thing like zero or nothingness or absolute darkness.

[kurt]

abaris,
i think i may have mistaken what you were arguing, and may have been arguing the same thing just in different words. in my mind a negative is just a mirror image of a positive, you may describe that differently. i think the definition of emptiness differs from person to person. to some, emptiness is based on whether or not you can physically see something. and then there are those who delve a bit deeper, past what can be seen into what can be measured. when i said in an earlier post that the "emptiness" in space was the universe's way of tilling the soil, there obviously has to be soil to till. i hope the analogy isn't getting too out of hand.

and what about the energy out there that we haven't learned to measure or detect.

[abaris]

when i said in an earlier post that the "emptiness" in space was the universe's way of tilling the soil, there obviously has to be soil to till. i hope the analogy isn't getting too out of hand.

The analogy is actualy quite accurate. And Indeed we are in agreement. There is some elusive primordial substance which takes shape and creates what we call the Physical world. We can only speculate about the nature of that "Primordial Substance" or if you like Prima Causa. But one thing is for sure: it is not nothing.

and what about the energy out there that we haven't learned to measure or detect.

Agreed! there is certainly more to the universe than what we percieve.

[Thomas Knierim]

abaris: Thomas you are of course right when considering the mathematical abstraction. In the equations you can have a negative acceleration. Depends on the direction of the Accelerating force. But it only has a meaning as an abstraction.

I don't deny this. Negativity in the algebraic sense is a convenient abstraction to depict opposing forces, based on on Indo-Arabic methods/symbols. If one prefers using Greek methods instead, the forces could be drawn as geometric lines running against each other. The notion of negative is then replaced by opposite.

abaris: Consider the Kinetic energy of the body in motion: is the continuous application of a negative acceleration going to produce a negative Kinetic energy?

Of course not. I don't even now what negative kinetic energy would look like, since mass is never negative. An interesting concept, nevertheless.

abaris: There is no such thing like zero or nothingness or absolute darkness.

A point that was made already by the Pre-Socratics: If the void exists, this means that something exists, and something cannot be nothing. In other words, existence precludes the void or nothingness. Yet, existence of the void, zero, or empty set is perfectly acceptable in mathematics. What about infinity? Infinity certainly exists in mathematics. Does it exist in (physical) reality? Infinite density at the point of Big Bang, for example?

Cheers, Thomas

[deepakgang]

Is nothingness and zero the same?
My basket contains zero apples. But I cant say it contain nothing.

I have a question. The debate about nothingness should be relative to something no? Like if everything we see around us exist, then where is the question. Is it about whether nothingness ever existed? Or is it like if I take a container, is there any possibility that it contains nothing. Like Thomas pointed out- If the void exists, this means that something exists. In that case if we come just inside the borders of the void container, whether nothingness can exist? In these what actually we are discussing? Or is it something else...silly question. but because im confuse...

[abaris]

The debate about nothingness should be relative to something no? Like if everything we see around us exist, then where is the question. Is it about whether nothingness ever existed? Or is it like if I take a container, is there any possibility that it contains nothing

You may have a basket full of apples. I fyou eat them you may claim the basket is empty. If you look closer you'll see that it still contains air. If you set your system boundaries to include the room with the basket and yourself. You'll see that the apples are still there. In your belly.

If you look at the whole unicerse you'll see that the matter and energy of the apples was always there. At times as Hydrogen in a newly formed star, or as interstelar dust.

You can't get them out or into the universe. That's at least my assumption

[abaris]

Thomas,

The kinetic energy is always positive since it depends on the velocity squared. But that's not so important.

Yet, existence of the void, zero, or empty set is perfectly acceptable in mathematics. What about infinity? Infinity certainly exists in mathematics. Does it exist in (physical) reality? Infinite density at the point of Big Bang, for example

Interesting question! But i would rather deal with the question about the absolute zero frame (a few posts earlier), The universal low of the energy density first. I think this is the key in answering those questions.

Now if such a zero frame exists, it would of course contradict relativity. Einsteins relativity of space and time, as well its predecesor Galileos relativity of motion. The notion of the big bang and relativistic singularities would become mathematical fiction.

But does that "Zero Frame" exist?

[deepakgang]

So there shouldnt be any doubt that nothingness was ever there or not.
Because as energy can never be destroyed, what we now see or have, has always been there.
Even before any BigBang- from infinite time before.

[Smurf]

There is no such thing like zero or nothingness or absolute darkness.

I agree, but is there an infinite light? what would it be then?

you cannot compare something that is a part of everythinto everything

something does not equal everything, which is what you claimed.

1 does not equal nothing

[abaris]

you already posted that in you opinion there never was a big bang...and that einstein's theory of relativity was flawed...so how can you use it to support your argument here...


Correct, i allready presented the hypothesis. The prove of the existence of the zero frame is mentioned as the means by which this hypothesis could be verified. The "Zero Frame" is if you like the holy grail of anti relativity.

[the greek]

Philosophically speaking: "I think, therefore I am." We indeed exist, therefore something must have always existed. Even if something sprang from the mathematical formula of nothing/zero/the void, that "void" nevertheless produced something. Hence, that "nothing" always had the potentiality for something. It was at the very least inherent in its essence. Occam's razor, given these parameters, would indicate that absolute nothing does not and has not ever existed. And most likely, it never will. Philosophically and/or mathematically.

[scameter]

In regards to the original topic.

I have recently been reading the naturalist theories of Anaximander, student of Thales of Ionia, and he deduced that there exists an eternal, sort of chaotic nothingness called apeiron at the center of everything, and that effects the entirety of nature; he made this invention also as a sort of response to Thale's conclusion that water is the center element, but he said that water was too secluded, not being able to encompass the opposites and elements of existence; for instance, water cannot be dry. However, apeiron can be and is dry, wet, full, empty, cold, hot, and so on entirely. It is odd how interesting the scientific theories of ancient Greek philosophers are, even in relevance to current empirical scientific knowledge. Greece was indeed an amazing society, one deserving of eternal reverence and study. :)

[scameter]

:) Me too. And, as a question, how exactly is it that a subatomic space-time existence can be curved without breaking? Isn't the mass and energy that effects the curvature too dense to not break such a thin-sounding thing as a subatomic existence? Or, does mass and energy not curve a subatomic spacetime, but rather something else, and if so, what?