How can anything come from nothing

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
In summary: I don't think it's contradictory, because it's just a lack of something. It's like saying "there's no air in a room". There's a lack of something that we can see and touch. Originally posted by Wolram In summary, the best explanation for creation I've heard is that there was something (possibly nothing) that created the universe, and that everything in it comes from something else. There was a force that existed before BB that caused things to happen, and our existence proves that absolute nothing is impossible.
  • #141
Wolram,

Perhaps some 'thing' has always existed. For as long as there has been time anyway.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
"no thing", in my argument is "pure" vacuum to have an
alternative to that is to have some "thing", which has
to come from some "where", even the "where" is supposed
to have come from the BB, so the BB is posited to be
the start of everything, so what existed befor the BB?
 
  • #143
MUMEISHI, thankyou, you must be one of the few that understands
pure logic.:wink:
 
  • #144
A pure vacuum is what I just described. If you got rid of the virtual particles, you'd be describing something which probably does not exist, and even so, it would still be a space-time of 4 extended dimensions. As I said, that is not nothing.

According to the theory, not-a-thing existed before the big bang, bacause there was no time before the big bang. 'Before' did not exist until then. At the 'beginning' space-time curves around to meet itself like the pole of the Earth - if you go back in time far enough you will find that you are moving forward in time.

Time is not an absolute entity within which the universe exists. Time is a property of the universe, just as space is and both of them are distorted by local events in the universe. Haven't you heard of Albert Einstein? :wink: The universe is all. There is no outside. There is no before and there is no after - just reality itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #145
Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.

I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist. That existence comes in the form of a field - not a particle. That a particle is nothing more than localized foci of fields.

I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.




What is your definition of a particle? Let me try this analogy as to what I think you think a particle is. There is this ten foot diameter steel ball that when you hit it with a hammer - It goes cling clang.

If I'm wrong...please explain.
 
  • #146
cling clang

When did I mention particles ? In what way does my argument depend on a conception of particles as like steel balls that go 'cling clang'? Straw man.

I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist.

What do you mean? Can you be more precise?

I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.

Of course you don't think of particles as 'full' (whatever that means), given that you don't believe in particles.
 
  • #147
It would save us all a lot of trouble, if you would rename your fundamental unit.

A fundamental unit would have no parts. It has to be made of nothing, but if it will make you happy...I'll call it a loogetite.


A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence. Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.

I have a question for you.

How many loogetites can you fit into a voltswagon?
 
  • #148
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
A fundamental unit would have no parts.

True

It has to be made of nothing,

Perhaps this is the semantic source of your confusion. If something has no constituent parts you could arguable say that it is 'made of no thing', but that doesn't mean that it IS nothing. If it was nothing it could never be able to be form the constituent parts of anything else. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence. Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.

Have you been eating those funny little cakes again?

How many loogetites can you fit into a voltswagon?

An infinite number - nothing occupies no space. Unlike the fundamental particles in the real world, which is why there is a finite (but high) number of those that would fit in a VW.
 
  • #149
When did I mention particles ? In what way does my argument depend on a conception of particles as like steel balls that go 'cling clang'? Straw man.

Just trying to figure out where you stand. So do they go cling clang?
Of course you don't think of particles as 'full' (whatever that means), given that you don't believe in particles.
On the contrary - A localized foci of a field is particle like in the clasical sense, but they don't go cling clang. I.E. There is no such thing as a collision. A particle is like a Christmas present (a bunch of fields wrapped up). Unwrap the present and out comes the fields in the form of free ranging photons.
What do you mean? Can you be more precise?
I find myself asking - Why bother. I can't get anyone past nothing as a thing in the form of a field. How then could you accept a foci of a field that gets localized (orbits) where half the field eminates inward to a point as a particle, and the other half generates outward as a gravitational field?
 
  • #150
Perhaps this is the semantic source of your confusion. If something has no constituent parts you could arguable say that it is 'made of no thing', but that doesn't mean that it IS nothing. If it was nothing it could never be able to be form the constituent parts of anything else. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
This is the nitty gritty of it all - to reduce to pure simplicity. We can take the reductionist approach down to absolute nothing in the clasical sense of not anything. At which time we must turn around and make something from nothing. I can't think of any other way to do this other than to part out nothing (geometry at work). In this approach there is an infinity of nothings in nothing. It begins with one nothing, then two, then three, and four, and so on. In this situation - infinity/389577577759 is the same as infinity/949994999. Any number of nothings would be equal to any other number of nothings up against an infinity of nothing.

You might ask - how can you tell one nothing from another? This is somewhat of a sticking point with me, and it requires more thought for sure. I will say that if I consider nothing as a thing - It must have form...absolutely. At the moment...that form is a field.


One might argue that a particle is something as opposed to the space (nothing) that surrounds it. There are few knowledgeable people that would make that claim - me included. If this is not true...there are few choices for a replacement. I say that there are only things made of nothing. We differentiate one nothing from another through motion (time). I.E A field acts upon you, then a time passes before another field acts on you. When a field acts upon you ...it is a one - When they don't...it's a zero. This is absolute logic verses it's total absense, and it's quite telling.
 
  • #151
But, as has been said many times now, a field is not nothing. Its description is quite different to a vacuum is quite different. If you are pointing out that a particle isn't a solid billiard ball of indivisible matter, then I'm afraid to reveal that that conception went out a long time ago.
 
  • #152
i think our picture of everything is to abstract, this
all originates from the BB theory and GR, i know they
are the best theories we have and are testable in part.
but i find them totaly nonintuitive, we are told that
befor the BB there was no space, time, matter, energy
outside the, "singularity or whatever one wants to call it",
and when this thing went bang or phut out popped our
neat universe in its embryonic state, complete with
this thing that is called gravity, but unless the
graviton is found gravity is not a thing, according
to AE it is distorted SPACETIME, time is considered
to be a "dimention", this is far to abstract for me, if time
is a true dimention i should be able to travel back
as well as forwards in it.
if one considers all the above "generally correct", then
all our thoughts are tied to theories that are incomplete
and may be shown to be totally wrong.
 
  • #153
But, as has been said many times now, a field is not nothing. Its description is quite different to a vacuum is quite different. If you are pointing out that a particle isn't a solid billiard ball of indivisible matter, then I'm afraid to reveal that that conception went out a long time ago.

It would seem we agree that a particle is not like a billiard ball of indivisible matter. So what other options are there? If matter is not like the cling clang analogy given earlier, then we must accept that matter and space are composed of the same things. If this is so, then the difference between matter and space is minimal at best.

What is a thing? I propose that all things on all scales are understood through the same process. A baseball, a stop sign, a fundamental unit, a planet, a monitor, are all understood to be things under the same premise. You see a thing..like your monitor and the procedure is - nothing inside it, and infinitely nothing outside it. This is the geometric reality of the monitor (The conceptual understanding of one).

In regards to saying the field is not nothing. I say to you that the field is not a thing either. The field is entirely conceptual. The field contains the information about a thing. In the case of the monitor - it is fields that contain information about the monitors field of information (the geometric embodiment of one monitor).

The fundamental unit - Take a blank sheet of paper - Call that blank sheet of paper nothing. Now...grab a pencil and draw a circle on it. This is the conceptual undertanding of a fundamental unit. Nothing inside the circle, and infinitely nothing outside the circle. You need but make a plethora of these circles, and imagine them moving around at C, where one unit acts upon you, and then another does not. This is the equivalent of ones and zeros for your brain.

This is yer brain on zeros.
This is yer brain on ones.
This is yer brain on zeros and ones.:wink:
 
  • #154
Wolram,

A theory failing to coincide with what humans happen to find intuitive is not evidence against it. You cannot move back to a previous time, but then you cannot move back to a previous space either, since, as far as i understand, by the time you get there it is already 'a different space'. Space and time are aspects of the same fabric, but time has a different sort of symmetry to spatial dimensions.

Arcs,

The nature of fundamental particles is an ongoing investigation. They seem to be quantised waves. They certainly have a different energy state from a vacuum (which is apparently very close to, but not quite zero - this is the proposed 'dark energy').

EDITED to make sense
 
Last edited:
  • #155
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist.

Here is where you start to go wrong. Think about it, Arc: How can something be the embodiment of something else that doesn't even really exist? Embodiment, by it's very definition and meaning, requires something being embodied.

That existence comes in the form of a field - not a particle. That a particle is nothing more than localized foci of fields.

Fine, it could be nothing but fields, but the fields would be something.

I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.

I don't understand this comment.

What is your definition of a particle? Let me try this analogy as to what I think you think a particle is. There is this ten foot diameter steel ball that when you hit it with a hammer - It goes cling clang.

If I'm wrong...please explain.

I think a particle/wave (since no "particle" is just a particle, but also a wave) is a tiny superstring. Does that help?
 
  • #156
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
A fundamental unit would have no parts. It has to be made of nothing, but if it will make you happy...I'll call it a loogetite.

It makes no difference what you call it, if there is no "it", in the first place.

Besides, a fundamental unit is made of nothing, but that sentence just means (as per E.i.N.S.) "a fundamental unit isn't made of anything".

A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence.

You might as well say that it isn't a geometric representation at all, since a representation, by it's very definition and meaning, must have something to represent.

Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.

Which, of course, is a logical and semantic contradiction.
 
  • #157
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
It would seem we agree that a particle is not like a billiard ball of indivisible matter. So what other options are there? If matter is not like the cling clang analogy given earlier, then we must accept that matter and space are composed of the same things. If this is so, then the difference between matter and space is minimal at best.

Yes, that may very well be very true. But here's the most important point that you constantly seem to be either missing or ignoring: Space is something!.
 
  • #158
Mumeishi

Particles
They seem to be quantised waves.{/quote]
This is pretty much what I am trying to get across. I am saying that they are individual entities of nothing. The field (wave) is it's form. I'm saying that all fields (waves) move at an average speed of C. I say average because when a field moves - a section of it will be moving slightly faster than C, while another section is moving slightly slower than C. In the next instant the section of the field that was moving slightly faster than C will be moving slightly slower than C. So if you were to pick a point on a field - You would see acceleration and then deceleration of that point at whatever frequency that field happens to be. This is the wave aspect of a field.
The form of each individual unit is based on variations of speed within each unit, and forms vary depending on the direction of any given field. An EM wave verses a gravitational field have little difference other than there course of travel.

The difference between the void of space, and that of particles is locations of the foci of fields. In the particle sense - The foci of fields are localized (orbiting). In the dead of space - Those localized fields are recognized as gravitational fields. In essense it's same same ..all the same with a twist. :-)
 
  • #159
Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.
Which, of course, is a logical and semantic contradiction.
The entire universe is a semantic contradiction. If this were not so - How could I tell one thing from another?

I read this somewhere - This introduces a principle of "Difference Congruency" (meaning: two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door). Zero ... (nothing, a quality)
cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).
Space is something!.
Never said it wasn't.
Besides, a fundamental unit is made of nothing, but that sentence just means (as per E.i.N.S.) "a fundamental unit isn't made of anything".
Correct!
 
  • #160
I think a particle/wave (since no "particle" is just a particle, but also a wave) is a tiny superstring. Does that help?
String theory - Hmmmmm
I can't help but think of an Italian as the originator of this idea. A plate of spaghetti comes to mind when I see the words string theory. At any rate people are eating it up. I would caution not to look to closely at yer food. You may not want to eat it. I would not however rule out this feed for consumption - If I could only learn to twirl my fork with the aid of a spoon...I might reach the point of placing some noodles between my palate and tongue. Therein lies the problem - Few if any are masters of this artform. Eating spaghetti is a sloppy business best left to people likes of Joey or Antonio. When or if they ever master the art - I shall arrive pronto with my spoon and fork to eventually pass it on to my ancestry.

I visited a site recently where the layout of strings looked like a cross section of a womans reproductive system. It was so real ... I thought I was going to go into labor.

Read this before - The dude says ... Nobody knows what string theory is - Yet there are multitudes that are perfectly happy to hand you a plate of spaghetti saying - Figure it out for yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #161
One key point to be made here is that if we take a reductionist approach toward the removal of everything. We eventually come to the conclusion that nothing cannot be removed. We must accept that all things are made of nothing, and I must say that means everything to me.
 
  • #162
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
The entire universe is a semantic contradiction. If this were not so - How could I tell one thing from another?

What?! Are you even trying to make sense? If everything were a semantic contradiction then we would not be able to tell one thing from another.

Never said it wasn't.

Yes you did. You constantly refer to empty space using the word "nothing".

Perhaps this is what you've been missing: There is either something, or there isn't. To say that there is something there, completely precludes saying that there is nothing there. To say that there isn't anything there at all, is exactly equal to saying "there is nothing there".

Correct!

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it is a "field of non-existence", or any other such ridiculous notion. No offense, but as I asked before, are you even trying to make sense, or are you just trying to see how much more of this nonsense we can all take?
 
  • #163
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
One key point to be made here is that if we take a reductionist approach toward the removal of everything. We eventually come to the conclusion that nothing cannot be removed. We must accept that all things are made of nothing, and I must say that means everything to me.

Alright, I'm done with this thread. Before I go, I will leave you with one more little glimpse into the world of logic and rational thinking: If you take the reductionist approach and remove everything, then you don't have anything left there. There is no entity left over called "nothing", because if there were an entity there at all (a "field" counts as an "entity") you would not have removed everything. When you say "nothing cannot be removed", you are trying to say something else (I hope), since "nothing cannot be removed" = "there isn't anything that cannot be removed" which would contradict your own hypothesis.

Oh, and when you say "all things are made of nothing", you are saying "no entities are made of anything" and this is not true. Macroscopic, and even microscopic, non-fundamental entities are made of something. And the furthest you can go is to the fundamental entities, since...well, they are "fundamental", and that's what fundamental means: You can't reduce any further.

I'm sorry, but I have no more patience for this thread, since I have covered it logically, rationally, and scientifically, and I feel everything I say is going in through one ear, and flying right out the other when I talk to you anyway.
 
  • #164
That is sad, Mentat. We all count on getting a visit from you merely by whispering sweet little nothings. But, we will see you around the yard.

------

Nothing is made out of nothium.

By the way, just where is 'nowhere', MI and does it really have a middle?
 
  • #165
Couldn't resist (I'm just too proud of my gem from long ago, of which, the afore-referenced post is not the whole version)...

Originally posted by quartodeciman
Nothing is made out of nothium.

Translation, as per E.i.N.S. = There isn't anything made out of nothium. Really useful new word, quart . Keep this in mind before posting such nonsensical statements in the future, please.
 
  • #166
Keep this in mind before posting such nonsensical statements in the future, please.

I guess I can comply with that. I shall henceforth post them only in the past.
 
  • #167
Just to let you know. It looks like I've been banned from these boards.
I don't know why.

I am formally known as Arc_Central, Arcs_Central, Arc_Centralz.

I'd like to talk more about nothing :-), but it is likely this post will be deleted along with this latest user name.

Again - I don't know why I'm not allowed to post. Emails are not getting replies. I will post under this name as long as they let me.
 
  • #168
Mentat

I had a nice little post written up for you under the name Arc_Centralz, but it didn't post.
They is quick!
At any rate

Oh, and when you say "all things are made of nothing", you are saying "no entities are made of anything" and this is not true. Macroscopic, and even microscopic, non-fundamental entities are made of something. And the furthest you can go is to the fundamental entities, since...well, they are "fundamental", and that's what fundamental means: You can't reduce any further.

Yer missing the point - All things are fundamental regardless of their parts. You can only take on one thing at a time. A car is fundamental from it's conceptual standpoint. It is noted by it's form and not by it's parts. A steering wheel is not a car...just as a car is not a steering wheel.
All things have this in common - Nothing inside it..Nothing outside it, and the oneness of its geometric form. Everything you see uses this process. It is the conceptual understanding of one. A duck is a fundamental unit in regards to it being a duck. One duck ...one geometric form. I could reduce a duck to a feather, but then it's not really a duck anymore ...is it? The feather is fundamental to what it is (a feather).

We could take this reductionist meathod of fundamentality to what we would actually call fundamental as opposed to say a duck with parts. The process is still the same for it's indentification. - Nothing inside it...nothing outside it, and the oneness of it's geometric form.

All things arrive at your doorstep one thing at a time. In the case of the unit called fundamental (no parts). It can act upon you (register as a one) or not act upon you (pass you like a ghost and not register at all (a zero)). This is how one unit can be differentiated from another - ( The time between receiving units). Time being - the passsing of a ghost (nothing unregistered). Yer brain reads these zeros and ones as something that could very well quack like a duck.

I hope you stick around, because I can't say I've run across anybody so in tuned to nothing. I can say I've been doing nothing for quite some time myself. It really doesn't get any better than this. To leave now - You might as well say all yer time was fer nuttin. But if you do decide to leave - just remember (one thing) ...(nothing).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
Alright, bandonrun, I'll stick around for a while. I just hope you aren't going to close off your mind, like certain other members here, and instead actually listen to what I'm saying to you.

You have made a gross error in your previous post. You said that each entity is fundamental in it's own right, and has "nothing inside; nothing outside". This is obviously not the case, for the following two reasons:

1) A duck does indeed have something inside...where did you think his guts were? :wink:

2) The use of the word "fundamental" is based on a reductionist mind-set, which requires that we take anything that has parts which make it up as not fundamental. Only that which isn't composed of anything, but only composes other things is truly fundamental.

Now, as to the use of the word "nothing": I just don't think you people are getting what I'm saying, and, alas, I don't have the full original version of the E.i.N.S. on PF3. However, I think that Eh has covered most of the points therein quite well in recent threads, and I don't think people are paying enough attention to what he and I have been saying.

If you refer to something - and it can be anything, fundamental or otherwise - you are not supposed to use the word "nothing". The word "nothing" has it's own meaning, and that is "not a thing" or "not anything". Therefore, for someone to say that there is a "field of nothing" is precisely equal to saying that there isn't a field at all; or that there is a field, but it isn't a field of anything at all, in which case it's really not a field anyway...

When you said "nothing inside; nothing outside", you used a sentence that should be translated as "there isn't anything inside, nor is there anything outside". However, people like Arc-Central (and, believe me, he's not the only one) use the word "nothing", even in this type of context, to mean that there is something fundamental there, which is called "nothing".

Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying, I'll paraphrase: The word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything, at all. It's proper use is in a non-literal sense, where it could be replaced by "not a thing" or "not anything" and still make sense. To use the word "nothing" otherwise is semantically, and logically, incorrect, and creates debates that needn't exist at all.
 
  • #170
You have made a gross error in your previous post. You said that each entity is fundamental in it's own right, and has "nothing inside; nothing outside". This is obviously not the case, for the following two reasons:

1) A duck does indeed have something inside...where did you think his guts were?

2) The use of the word "fundamental" is based on a reductionist mind-set, which requires that we take anything that has parts which make it up as not fundamental. Only that which isn't composed of anything, but only composes other things is truly fundamental.
There is no error here. You are misunderstanding the whole idea of what a concept is. What is basic to what a duck is - is it's form. When you read the word box ... a form comes to mind - Your understanding of a box is nothing in and nothing out in the form of a box. Never mind what the box is made out of. There is no mind to what's in it, or out of it. It's form is all there is at the moment you read the word box. A box is conceptually fundamental to what it is. At the next moment you may think...duck. The moment you think duck ... the box does not exist. The next moment you may think box. Now the duck don't exist.

When you read the word box - Did you think at the same time about an apple outside the box, or in it? Of course you didn't..thats because to understand box the requirement is nothing in it and nothing outside it. The apple cannot exist to you at the exact same time. In this respect... all things are fundamental unto themselves in their own time frame. If you were to put two boxes in the same time frame - The two boxes together would equal one thing. The Earth is one thing in a sense that all the things that the Earth is made of are all in the same time frame conceptually.

In reality - There are only ones...One at a time.
Only that which isn't composed of anything, but only composes other things is truly fundamental.
A duck isn't compose of anything - It is the thing. I.E. A singular entity without parts. Should you choose to part it out - It aint a duck anymore. It's parts are fundamental to what they are - A duck bill, wing, leg, liver, neck are all fundamental unto themselves.I.E different things. If you change the form of a duck - It may just as well be your'e next meal. Which is an entirely different thing.

I'm having a hard time understanding how it is you can't understand nothing in the form of something. Perhaps it is the attempt to attach physicality to the form...rather than conceptuality of the form.
Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying, I'll paraphrase: The word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything, at all.
Just to make sure you understand - That when I point you to the inside of the fundamental unit...I am not referring to anything at all, but should you choose to go there for the purposes of parting it out for inspection - You would in effect...create the very things that are fundamental to your existence, and you would exclaim ... I am one with the universe, and there's (not a damn thing) I can do about it.

I will make a convert out of you yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
Originally posted by bandonrun
There is no error here. You are misunderstanding the whole idea of what a concept is. What is basic to what a duck is - is it's form. When you read the word box ... a form comes to mind - Your understanding of a box is nothing in and nothing out in the form of a box. Never mind what the box is made out of. There is no mind to what's in it, or out of it. It's form is all there is at the moment you read the word box. A box is conceptually fundamental to what it is. At the next moment you may think...duck. The moment you think duck ... the box does not exist. The next moment you may think box. Now the duck don't exist.

I understand conceptual fundamentality, but it has not bearing on physical fundamentality. To take a reductionist approach one must assume that the term "box" would have no meaning if there weren't space between each side, and space is something in it's own right.

In reality - There are only ones...One at a time.

That may be how we think about things, but each thing is composed of something smaller, until you get to the fundamental units. There is, in fact, something that is smaller than a duck that is called "part of a duck".

A duck isn't compose of anything - It is the thing.

Wrong. A duck is composed of a different entity called a leg, and another entity called a feather, and another entity called a beak, etc. That none of these parts are "ducks" is just a result of backwards synergy.

I.E. A singular entity without parts. Should you choose to part it out - It aint a duck anymore. It's parts are fundamental to what they are - A duck bill, wing, leg, liver, neck are all fundamental unto themselves.I.E different things. If you change the form of a duck - It may just as well be your'e next meal. Which is an entirely different thing.

Not if I'm eating duck. Besides, if I take a duck's leg off (and fry it ), the rest of the duck would still be called a "duck", would it not?

I'm having a hard time understanding how it is you can't understand nothing in the form of something. Perhaps it is the attempt to attach physicality to the form...rather than conceptuality of the form.

Wait a minute, it is not I that is without comprehension, it is I that am trying to explain to you the proper use of the word "nothing". For example, when you say that there is "nothing composing the duck" that doesn't mean that the duck is composed of something that is called "nothing", it means that there isn't anything composing it. If the word "nothing" were used to refer to something, then what word would we have for those occassions when we don't wish to address anything?

Just to make sure you understand - That when I point you to the inside of the fundamental unit...I am not referring to anything at all, but should you choose to go there for the purposes of parting it out for inspection - You would in effect...create the very things that are fundamental to your existence, and you would exclaim ... I am one with the universe, and there's (not a damn thing) I can do about it.

I will make a convert out of you yet.

What BS are you spouting now? No offense, but perhaps you should reconsider the level of arrogance you use in your posts.

I know that I am the fundamental form that can be referred to as Mentat, and that none of my parts serve that purpose, but that doesn't mean that this one entity isn't composed of many smaller entities.
 
  • #172
To take a reductionist approach one must assume that the term "box" would have no meaning if there weren't space between each side, and space is something in it's own right.
In your mind the space between each side is not considered. The space must be a non-entity for purposes of understanding. Doesn't matter if the box is filled with rag dolls. The box must be taken to fundamentality in your mind to be understood as (one box). (One box) is fundamental in that it can't be broken down further and still remain the same box. If it's form is changed - So is it's identity.




In reality - There are only ones...One at a time.

That may be how we think about things, but each thing is composed of something smaller, until you get to the fundamental units. There is, in fact, something that is smaller than a duck that is called "part of a duck".
I agree with you here ...but the thing you called (part of a duck) is an entirely different (thing) from the duck.
Not if I'm eating duck. Besides, if I take a duck's leg off (and fry it ), the rest of the duck would still be called a "duck", would it not?
No it would not - You would have (duck without leg) as opposed to (duck). I.E. The duck with two legs (assumed) does not exist anymore. In fact ... if you did nothing to the duck but look at it - Then turn away to look at something else...then looked back at the duck. You would be seeing a new duck (Different thing). The old duck does not exist anymore accept for what you placed in yer brains memory for the old duck, and should you bring up that memory..that new duck becomes an old duck, and the old duck becomes the new duck. Better stop here before I get lost. The point here is that reality is now, and that reality comes in the (form) of one.
As I have said before - In reality ... There are only ones...One at a time. Time being a form (one) that fails to act upon you (passes you like a ghost), and this is the equivalent of the zero (nothing) that one is composed of.

Two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door).Zero ... (nothing, a quality) cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).
Wait a minute, it is not I that is without comprehension, it is I that am trying to explain to you the proper use of the word "nothing". For example, when you say that there is "nothing composing the duck" that doesn't mean that the duck is composed of something that is called "nothing", it means that there isn't anything composing it. If the word "nothing" were used to refer to something, then what word would we have for those occassions when we don't wish to address anything?
(((You said - If the word "nothing" were used to refer to something.))) Well - here is the problem that you are having, because I am not referring you to something when I refer you to within something.
Perhaps this analogy will help - It is in regards to matter and antimatter...the cookie cutter anology. You have this cookie cutter in the shape of an elephant, and you remove that shape from some cookie dough. The dough that is in the cutter is the matter, and the shape that is left behind is the antimatter. Zero and one are similar in this respect.

What BS are you spouting now? No offense, but perhaps you should reconsider the level of arrogance you use in your posts.
You are confusing arrogance with the level of fun I have in discussing this subject.

I know that I am the fundamental form that can be referred to as Mentat, and that none of my parts serve that purpose, but that doesn't mean that this one entity isn't composed of many smaller entities.
From the standpoint of you Mentat .. there is no other way to refer to you - other than in a fundamental way, for if I reference your parts..you don't exist anymore. The (one)that you represent - is in another time frame should I choose to part you out, and each time frame can handle only one thing. Should that thing not be you - It must be something else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
bandonrun,
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...

As I have said before - In reality ... There are only ones...One at a time. Time being a form (one) that fails to act upon you (passes you like a ghost), and this is the equivalent of the zero (nothing) that one is composed of.

Two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door).Zero ... (nothing, a quality) cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).

And that doesn't even make sense. Seriously, I'll break it down for you:

and this is the equivalent of the zero (nothing) that one is composed of.

How did you come to this? Why must "one" be composed of "zero"? You said that there are only "one"s, therefore they should not be composed of anything (which is equal to saying that they are not composed at all, they are fundamental - conceptually).

Two concepts which cannot be separated by any logical mechanism whatsoever but which are nevertheless different -----like the front and back of a door).Zero ... (nothing, a quality) cannot be divorced from One ... (something, a quantity).

But "zero" is not a quality. You gave me no reason, in your post, to believe otherwise.


As to your illustration (the cookie-cutter), all I have to say is that there was something left behind: space which happens to have less matter in it.
 
  • #174
Deleted to be resumed

To comprehend the simplicity of my own existence...I must abruptly exclaim to myself - How could I have been so stupid?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #175
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":smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
450
Replies
17
Views
887
Replies
5
Views
841
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
766
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Back
Top