- #176
pace
- 240
- 1
Exatcly
Mentat sticks around because he has an open mind, and in so doing he is actually beginning to understand where I'm coming from. He need but jump a few more hurdles to get there. (Nothing) is a ball buster in that some of these hurdles are hard to get over. You come from the standpoint of there being no hurdles to jump, but if you are right about nothing ... how is it that that you could be so wrong? (You are here!)MENTAT deserves a nobel prize for perseverance above and
beyond the call of duty.
how would one inscribe the medal," he battled with nothing"
well nothing is not much of an enemy, so how about
"he beat nothing into non existence"?
oh bother, it did not exist in first place so how could
he battle with it?
the medal will be inscribed," protector of rationality"
Originally posted by bandonrun
Mentat sticks around because he has an open mind, and in so doing he is actually beginning to understand where I'm coming from. He need but jump a few more hurdles to get there. (Nothing) is a ball buster in that some of these hurdles are hard to get over. You come from the standpoint of there being no hurdles to jump, but if you are right about nothing ... how is it that that you could be so wrong? (You are here!)
Unless of course you envision a universe with no beginning. I am open to anything. Please explain to me how the universe has always been, and will always be. I suppose in this way (nothing) could be understood just as you prescribe, and I would be right there with you.
You must understand - I understand exactly where yer coming from. I am here to tell you ----Yer wrong, and for you to understand where I'm at. You need but take a leap. I'll leave it to you to decide what that means.
Originally posted by bandonrun
I'm short on time here. That means I have a plethora of (ones) coming my way from other sources. That also means that I will be sending lots of (zeros) yer way. I'll be sending you (ones) when I have more (zeros) to play with. For the time being - I don't exist to you, but for the memory of it.
bandonrun, I feel it only right to inform you that words put in parantheses, as per English grammar, are supposed to be regarded as supplementary to the actual information of the sentence (meaning that you can get the sense of the sentence without them).
Nothing .. the word .. by definition ... refers you to a thing (not anything) period. In regards to conceptual fundamentality - I will say that all things are conceptual, and they are as real as a bean ball in baseball.I don't see how any of this discussion of conceptual fundamentality has anything to do with the issue of what "nothing" (the word) refers to, except when you mentioned this...
Originally posted by bandonrun
Back to nothing.
If we can accept (zero) as being time as I have explained it. We can accept that nothing (not anything) has an infinity of time to be defined. Upon the completion of this definition ... a marker (form) is placed. This is the conceptual equivalent of what nothing is (one nothing). The size of this form is irrelevant. There would be an infinity of these forms possible in nothing. In essence - Something doesn't come from nothing. It is nothing, and over the course of an infinity of time - everything is nothing.
Time
In order for time to be sensed - motion must come into play. Without motion ... time would not pass. All fundamental things move at C - When I say things ... I mean each thing of nothing.
When a thing of nothing registers - It constitutes a marker (a one). When a thing of nothing passes you like a ghost - It represents a (zero). This is your sense of time (nothing as a thing) passing you by in the literal sense.
Nothing .. the word .. by definition ... refers you to a thing (not anything) period.
Nothing is a ball buster. Being that nothing is a thing. Ouch!
I cleared a high hurdle about six months ago, and never looked back. There are still plenty left to jump, and many of those are going to hurt. I know in the end I will have (nothing) to look forward to.
I see no problem here in terms of accuracy of what Bandonrun is saying. I think your problem here is the inability to conceptually understand it as Bandonrun expects you to do. That your physicality is only conceptually understood as being so, and by this reference, all things of nothing act in accordance of this understanding.As to nothing being a thing, the sentence "nothing is a thing" (by definitions) means "There isn't anything that is a thing". If you want to check for accuracy, think of being asked "What is there that can be called a thing", if one receives the answer "nothing", then one has been told that there are no things that can be called "things".
To exist {{{{ONE Must be Justified}}}}The existence of nothing is the only natural phenomenon which requires no logical justification
Originally posted by Messiah
'Nothing' has two connotations.
In logical terms - it is the value 'Ø' or the 'Empty Set'.
Originally posted by Fliption
I feel you are very wrong about one thing Mentat. I can't believe no one has seen the flaw. I have to go right now but I'll be back later.
Originally posted by wolram
so is it logical to say "something", has always existed?
Originally posted by Mentat
Man, I wish I could just let this be, but this was already handled in another thread, and somehow Messiah seems to have missed the conclusion. Your second connotation of "nothing" is the only one that the word is supposed to have (ever). It's etymological and epistemological roots require nothing more and nothing less.
As I said in the other thread, and empty set is still a set, and thus it is still [multiple choice...a)something; b)nothing; c)undecided]. The answer we ended up with is that, just as the word "nothing" is something, so the empty set is itself something - while there is no concept that word is referring to and there is nothing inside the empty set - the word and the set are both something.
Originally posted by Messiah
Exactly my point -
Abstract 'Nothing' is UNdefined.
Logical 'Nothing' IS defined.
The value (+1) added to the value (-1) is the logical equivalent of ZERO or 'Nothing'. The existence of 'nothing' requires no logical justification.
If you draw a white line and assign it the definition of 'positive' quality then draw an equal and opposite black line representing 'negative' quality, the qualitative balance is Zero. The Universe is infinite and doesn't care if the line has size or position. Relative to infinity, if the lines are finite, their size has a relative value of ZERO compared to infinity - and every point within the lines - compared to infinity - is the 'center of the Universe' i.e. they have a positional differential of ZERO.
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Assume you have a bundle of matter and a bundle of 'true' anti-matter. When they collide, they are annihilated and an actual and very real manifestation of 'NOTHING' remains.
Those two bundles are the logical equivalent of 'NOTHING'.
You forgot the photons produced.
Continue this charade with humans to germs, and do this ad infinitum with anything else you come up with beyond germs, because that's the choice you came up with. Theres always something. Perhaps when you have taken the universe back a trillion years, times a trillion times a trillion, I'll come runnin to your camp, or maybe I won't, because you have'nt even touched the surface of how long an infinity of time is.So, even though there may have been an appearance of nothing in the beginning, there must have been "something" there.
Because the best evidence we have suggests it did.Originally posted by Messiah
Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'?
Why?But creation would require a creator
Originally posted by Messiah
No -
When conventional matter and 'anti-matter' collide, energy is produced and mass is destroyed.
The matter and anti-matter to which I was referring would be truly countervalent existences. Their collision would cause their mutual annihilation, not just a conversion.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
There are few possiblities regarding the existence of the universe.
1) A beginning and an end.
2) No beginning and no end.
3) A beginning and no end.
4) No beginning but has an end.
We must accept something from nothing, or something in nothing if the universe had a beginning.
Mentat seems to be in the no beginning camp. Meaning the universe has been here forever, and not a day less. We must accept a no beginning scenerio because Mentat says that no thing can come from nothing.
Apparently the choices are narrowed down to two, but really it's just one choice (No beginning and no end), because the universe has been around forever, and yet here we are. Since Mentat is correct with absolute certainty. We must stop this nonsense of discussing the possibility of something from nothing, and anything related to a beginning to the universe.
Thanks Mentat ,,,,,,,,It's all so clear to me now. I wish somebody would tell all the great minds of our time that they could have come to you for all the answers.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Because the best evidence we have suggests it did. Why?
Originally posted by Mentat
There's no such thing as "true annihilation"...First Law of Thermodynamics, right?