- #211
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by Messiah
What evidence?
create: To cause to be
creator: That which causes to be
Just don't use the word "create", and you've solved your problem. Pure semantics.
Originally posted by Messiah
What evidence?
create: To cause to be
creator: That which causes to be
Originally posted by Messiah
I certainly agree, that is why I think the term anti-matter is a misnomer.
What science terms 'matter and anti-matter' are not two countervalent qualities any more than nitrogen and tolulene...they are just two substances which go 'boom' when exposed to each other.
Actually I only intended to take this as far as human beings are concerned, to illustrate the possibility, but not necessarily carry it over to the creation of the Universe, because I myself don't know what happened?Originally posted by UltraPi1
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.
Obviously not everyone assumes this. My preference at the moment is that the universe had a beginning, and that there was a creator. That nothing is all that is necessary for the creation of the universe.Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'? Why do you presume the phenomonon of existence is explained by a process i.e. creation?
Originally posted by Mentat
But this is relevant to the discussion of the word "nothing", how?
Originally posted by Messiah
Relative to our finite world, size and position matter.
Relative to the infinite universe, they do not.
In the realm of finite elements, 'the equivalent of nothing' exists within whatever volume a quality and a countervalent quality may occupy.
Relative to the Universe; however, that volume is a point with no relative size - and 'NOTHING' exists at that point.
Equivalence IS relevant to the issue of "nothing"
Originally posted by Mentat
That is not the "equivalent of nothing" (per E.i.N.S. --> That is not "not the equivalent of anything"...or, minusing double-negatives: That is the equivalent of something), it is the equivalent of a quality and a countervalent quality, clearly something since I'm referring to them, right?
Originally posted by Mentat
Not if you realize that canceled out quantities have, in reality, more entities involved than just the original quantities, since you had to add something to reach the new equilibrium.
Originally posted by Messiah
(+1)+(-1) is the equivalent of Ø
?!
Originally posted by Mentat
How'd you make that symbol? Anyway, the empty set is something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define it (please note my use of the word "it" to refer to it).
Originally posted by Mentat
It's quite simple, really (or, it seems simple to me): if I have one particle - say, an electron - then I introduced another particle - say, a positron - then I have a particle and its antiparticle, which equals 2 particles.
If I take the numbers 1 and -1, I have referred to two numbers, even if adding them together produces only one number (zero).
Originally posted by Messiah
Alt 0216 = Ø
Yes - the difference between 'nothing' in the abstract connotation and 'nothing' in the logical connotation is that one is fictitious and the other exists. The problem most people have is in trying to reconcile the two - which cannot be done because only one exists.
Yes, but we are talking QUALitative, not QUANtitative. Positive and negative are qualities '1' is a quantity.
For every positive integer '+x' there exists an equal and opposite integer '-x'
For every positive quality '+apple' there exists an equal and opposite quality '-apple'.
Get the pix??
Originally posted by Mentat
Look, I wouldn't have a problem with what you've been saying if you'd just stop using the word "nothing" wrongly.
Originally posted by Messiah
Ah - but
"The empty set" = 'Nothing' = Ø
"That which does not exist" = ' ' = !
That which does not exist lacks everything, it has no properties or attributes, not even a definition or a name...
Originally posted by Mentat
As to the empty set (I still can't seem to make that symbol...is it: ?), "nothing" doesn't refer to the set (which is clearly something), but refers to that which is within that set...and, of course, there isn't anything within the set. Am I right?
Originally posted by Messiah
Yes - that is one connotation.
My point is that there are at least two connotations...possibly MORE.
So far we have
"Nothing" - the empty set - Ø (hold down the alt key and enter the number 0216 simultaneously) the only logical definition
and
"Nothing" - That which does not exist - A fiction
How 'bout -
"Nothing" - That which neither HAS nor LACKS existence -
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Here is a depiction of nothing as a conceptual thing.
Thing"Nothing" as a conceptual what?
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Thing
Because that's what it is [One thing of nothing].Then why did you call it "no...thing" if it's actually "some...thing"?
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because that's what it is [One thing of nothing].
Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.Find another name for it, the word "nothing" is taken.
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.
I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.there cannot be a thing being referred to if one uses the term "nothing").
Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.
Because that's what it is. I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.Then why did you say "the 'thing of nothing'"?
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because that's what it is. I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.
Back to the circle.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg [Broken]
Your perspective is important here. Outside the sphere, inside the sphere, or the (concept) sphere itself. Which angle are you looking at?
Originally posted by Messiah
(Had 'nothing' to say, but made an error and had to correct it - WEIRD!)
Originally posted by Messiah
Nothing cannot exist - only its equivalent...
It's both. What do you think I've been saying all along?Listen, UltraPi1 - Is it something, or is it nothing?
I still don't see the relevance of this illustration.
Originally posted by Messiah
Sorry - should have read "only an equivalent"
Some 'thing' comprised of countervalent sub-properties