- #141
Mumeishi
- 219
- 0
Wolram,
Perhaps some 'thing' has always existed. For as long as there has been time anyway.
Perhaps some 'thing' has always existed. For as long as there has been time anyway.
Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.
cling clang
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.
I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.
It would save us all a lot of trouble, if you would rename your fundamental unit.
Originally posted by Arcs_Central
A fundamental unit would have no parts.
It has to be made of nothing,
A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence. Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.
How many loogetites can you fit into a voltswagon?
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.
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.Of course you don't think of particles as 'full' (whatever that means), given that you don't believe in particles.
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?What do you mean? Can you be more precise?
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence.
Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.
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.
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. :-)
The entire universe is a semantic contradiction. If this were not so - How could I tell one thing from another?Which, of course, is a logical and semantic contradiction.
Never said it wasn't.Space is something!.
Correct!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".
String theory - HmmmmmI think a particle/wave (since no "particle" is just a particle, but also a wave) is a tiny superstring. Does that help?
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?
Never said it wasn't.
Correct!
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.
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Nothing is made out of nothium.
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.
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.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.
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.Only that which isn't composed of anything, but only composes other things is truly fundamental.
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.Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying, I'll paraphrase: The word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything, at all.
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.
In reality - There are only ones...One at a time.
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 - 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.
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.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.
I agree with you here ...but the thing you called (part of a duck) is an entirely different (thing) from the duck.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".
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.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?
(((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.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 are confusing arrogance with the level of fun I have in discussing this subject.What BS are you spouting now? No offense, but perhaps you should reconsider the level of arrogance you use in your posts.
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.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.
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 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).