Jump to content

what is nothing


dmaiski
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nothing, like symmetry, has no distinctions. if you can make a distinction the distinguishable part must be different (inequality) from the rest or there would be no reason to segment the part.

I understand what you are saying. You don't need to elaborate it again. Moth wings are symmetrical... but what does it matter? And of course there are fine distinctions in symmetry, just as -69 is different from 69. If you don't even comprehend thoroughly enough to include the component of these numbers (the sign) which denotes symmetry, then you're speaking of coincidence. Now lets jump for that! Behold, coincidence is nothing! ... Oh damn, that's a great idea.

 

You're confining yourself within a hazy intellectual construct which only idealizes your silly ideas.

 

In your effort to construct a strawman you introduced equality.

Definitely.

 

Do you think nothing can be asymmetric?

It does not matter what I think... whether nothing can be asymmetric, if I think nothing can be ugly, or if I believe in the chances that nothing will molest moths in very uncomfortable ways.

 

Maybe you could give some examples of the difference between nothing and symmetry.

This is completely flawed. Can you give some examples which denote the differences between pirates and earthquakes? Otherwise, I'm all for believing in whatever arbitrary truth they imply. Tip: PLEASE read my previous response. You can find it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69384-what-is-nothing/page__st__20__p__705194#entry705194

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dmaiski,

 

The Columbus egg is an interesting idea but its unfortunately not relevant to this topic, "something" can't have always been here, because to get here it had to come from there, and this is asking where was there.

There would seem to be just two possibilities. Either the universe has always existed, or it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning and is finite concerning times past, then time can be defined by change. The first change in the beginning entity/universe would accordingly have been the beginning of time, period. To ask what existed before that, is like asking what happened before the beginning, or what change came before the first change? Such questions are logically invalid .

 

If you believe there must have been something before that then you are either talking about an earlier beginning point in time and beginning entity which would beg the same question: where did that come from? what existed before that? or you're talking about an infinite universe model of some kind. There are seemingly no other logical choices or possibilities.

 

Either the universe is finite concerning times past, or it's infinite concerning times past; either the universe* had a beginning or it didn't.

 

 

* where the word universe means everything that exists

//

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we finally agree on something

It does not matter what I think...

 

 

Moth wings can have bi-lateral symmetry about 1 axis, that's not what I'm talking about and another strawman.

 

pirates are human beings, earthquakes are a movement of earth's crust. Surely you can find one difference between symmetry and nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how the field of philosophy is being abused by naive and radical thinkers who only thought they couldn't fit their ideas into the mainstream fields... which is not true. It's a common and fundamental problem with the way these "philosophers" try to approach theory. They believe it makes sense to dance in their own theory without any valid or coherent basis. A lot of people don't know how to appropriately establish new ideas, and this leads them to wondering why their brilliant light-bulbs can't screw in anywhere but philosophy; the only field which appears to accept their desperation.

 

You mean this I guess since the rest is not relevant. I proposed no theory, not even a hypothesis, I made a statement and expected it to be shot down.

 

thanks anyway, but I'm tired of your hostility.

 

later

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean this I guess since the rest is not relevant.

What's not relevant? This is the least relevant remark I made. Please look at the other things I said. The core of my argument:

 

If 'nothing' is symmetry, then what kind of symmetry is 'nothing' ? Does this idea apply to my analogy? Let's try. 1 = 1.

 

Is that 'nothing' ? How so?

I only spend my time afterwards hazarding the nature of your speculative behavior.

 

thanks anyway, but I'm tired of your hostility.

To philosophers? I never said "you," though your behavior strikes me as being quite similar to faulted philosophers'.

 

later

Hmm... Do I win? Well, thank you Mr. moth. It has been my pleasure!

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, 1=1 is symmetrical in that the value on the left side is the same value as on the right side. They are indistinguishable.

 

Moth wings are (approximately) the same: if you move some distance to the left (of the line of bilateral symmetry) and do some test to detect some property of the wing, then move an equal distance to the right on the same line, perpendicular to the line of symmetry, and do the same test you will get a similar result. if the moth was symmetric the results would be equal.

 

Imagine the same symmetry front and back,top and bottom, forward in time and backward, and in all ways. this is what I'm talking about. Absolute symmetry in every way, mirror, translation, scale etc.. AND every test imaginable to generate results to compare.

 

 

If you can detect no difference what do you have? I propose it's indistinguishable from nothing.

 

 

It's been a long day so now I'll just say goodnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are indistinguishable symbols until you consider the very fact of such symmetry: the equality. Otherwise, you're actually talking of a coincidence. The same applies to moth wings: they have an axis. That axis distinguishes the two half-spaces.

 

Absolute symmetry in every way, mirror, translation, scale etc..

Now this is different (a statement composed with symmetry; not merely the property of symmetry itself), but can't you see what this reduces to? Is there any reason to name symmetry in particular? Homogeneity. It's also like trying to represent anything meaningful in a closed serial quantification using only a single symbol. You're still asserting an unnecessarily arbitrary correlation to 'nothing.'

 

If you want to seriously address these questions, then you should know that they are a matter of indexicality, as I said before.

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, 1=1 is symmetrical in that the value on the left side is the same value as on the right side. They are indistinguishable.

 

Moth wings are (approximately) the same: if you move some distance to the left (of the line of bilateral symmetry) and do some test to detect some property of the wing, then move an equal distance to the right on the same line, perpendicular to the line of symmetry, and do the same test you will get a similar result. if the moth was symmetric the results would be equal.

 

Imagine the same symmetry front and back,top and bottom, forward in time and backward, and in all ways. this is what I'm talking about. Absolute symmetry in every way, mirror, translation, scale etc.. AND every test imaginable to generate results to compare.

 

 

If you can detect no difference what do you have? I propose it's indistinguishable from nothing.

 

 

It's been a long day so now I'll just say goodnight.

no.

I'd say its indistinguishable from a singularity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say its indistinguishable from a singularity

Well I guess it can either be a singularity of coincidence or an infinite homogeneity. That's a problem with: "Absolute symmetry in every way, mirror, translation, scale etc.."

We get the idea, but technically it really doesn't make any concrete sense at all, unless you already assume these transformations don't even exist meaningfully. Again, that's only because you can't really apply his definition to anything... but apparently 'nothing' sure works. :lol:

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are indistinguishable symbols until you consider the very fact of such symmetry: the equality. Otherwise, you're actually talking of a coincidence.

 

That's why I referred to the values represented by the symbols and not the symbols themselves. 5-4=1 is true and the symbols are not symmetric at all, but the value of the symbols "1" and "5-4" are.

 

The same applies to moth wings: they have an axis. That axis distinguishes the two half-spaces.

Are you saying you can partition a volume with a single line?

 

 

Now this is different (a statement composed with symmetry; not merely the property of symmetry itself), but can't you see what this reduces to? Is there any reason to name symmetry in particular? Homogeneity.

 

Homogeneity does not imply scalar symmetry milk can be homogeneous but zoom in a bit and it appears different.

 

 

If you want to seriously address these questions, then you should know that they are a matter of indexicality, as I said before.

 

 

I understand the word "nothing" refers to two "things" in the statement "nothing works" the empty set and nothingness. I thought it was clear enough (bad jokes aside) i was referring to nothingness when I wrote nothing.

Maybe i could restate this idea as "symmetry is an intrinsic property of nothingness".that is nothingness requires symmetry and if nothingness lacks some symmetry it's something.

 

 

no.

I'd say its indistinguishable from a singularity

 

 

I'm not familiar enough with singularity to to know if it's different but i suspect an asymmetry of potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

symbols

... I'm not talking about characters. Symbol, as in symbolic or representation. In other words, yes, I mean an expression.

 

Are you saying you can partition a volume with a single line?

... you would partition a volume with plane anyway, not a line (lines partition planes). I don't see why you're asking this.

 

Homogeneity does not imply scalar symmetry milk can be homogeneous but zoom in a bit and it appears different.

Let's throw in another term, shall we? Pure homogeneity, absolute homogeneity, total homogeneity, banana homogeneity... heck, whatever makes you happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Bump (cannot edit):

 

I understand the word "nothing" refers to two "things" in the statement "nothing works" the empty set and nothingness. I thought it was clear enough (bad jokes aside) i was referring to nothingness when I wrote nothing.

 

... Whatever. I meant indexicality in the context of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relations

 

EDIT: You are quite close: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_relation

 

I recommend you expand your idea across this horizon (i.e. beyond symmetric relations) to ensure its natural essence.

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

wikipedia definition of nothing for the linguistically impaired

 

I have been thinking (yes, I know its not a good idea)

and I came up with this

 

1. currently there is a universe

2. it started at the big bang (or something along the lines)

3. it had to start from something

4. that something had to come from something

5. that something had to come from something

6. that something had to come from something

7. that something had to come from something

8. (infinite regression)

9. that something had to come from nothing

 

so the million dollar question is what is nothing

 

*I just thought this was a valid thing to post here since no one has asked this simple question

**I know it is by no means a simple question to answer, prior apologies to anyone who has their mind bent into a pretzel due to this

***yes, I know this is a current question in physics that has yet to be properly answered

 

>>> "Nothing" a term and topic that has led to more circle-like conversations, often leading to name calling and belittling that needs to be banned from our language. So, from now on I vote no nothing. No not nothing. No nothing not, no no no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bump (cannot edit):

 

 

 

... Whatever. I meant indexicality in the context of https://en.wikipedia...ry_of_relations

 

EDIT: You are quite close: e.g. https://en.wikipedia...metric_relation

 

I recommend you expand your idea across this horizon (i.e. beyond symmetric relations) to ensure its natural essence.

 

Thank you for the links Ben Bowen. I had a chance to take a quick look and I'll get back to it soon.

 

I should probably admit, this wasn't really the argument I thought "nothing is symmetric" would bring. I thought you might say: "nothing can't be symmetric. Nothing cannot be anything, it is a non-entity" which would imply "nothing" can't be understood, which is the definition of "incomprehensible", my definition of "nothing", which is what I thought we were arguing about.

 

I suspect the rabbit hole of Nothingness goes wider than I care to investigate too thoroughly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Nothing is just the absence of anything. It is an infinite void.

 

Could the universe have originated from nothing?

 

The answer to that would have to be no, for the reasons I stated below.

 

According to my definition of nothing it is impossible for anything to originate from it.

 

My definition of nothing is:

 

1) It must be timeless.


2) It must have always existed and could not have been created.


3) It is unchanging.


4) Nothing else can exist. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists according to my definition then it would HAVE to be infinite.

 

5) It is unable to create anything.

 

I hope I have made this point absolutely clear, this is what having nothing would mean, absolutely nothing anywhere. The only conclusion I can draw from that is nothing cannot exist, because we do.

 

Could nothing have existed in the past? No. If it existed in the past, then some event must have taken place to end it. And an event would be impossible in nothing, so nothing could never have existed because we do, and as our universe now exists, nothing can never exist in the future either.

 

Why could an event not happen in nothing? Because apart from the obvious that there is nothing to happen, an event would create and require a moment in time. There can be no time in nothing as relativity describes time as just another dimension.

 

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

Edited by seriously disabled
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One might think that nothing can come from

nothing, if the law of conservation of energy is

overturned then that will be proven false, maybe that's

the secret to the miracle of our existence something

from nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My quacked theory; Nothing is a quantum particle. Within extreme subquantum circumstances nothing can be converted through a process I call gravitational fission, where by gravatons smash into nothingatrons and transform them into dark matter particles.
Nothing particles in the universe are like air bubbles in water always moveing in the path of least resistance. The universe is a body of time wherefore the nothing particles gather in the valleys of low time dialation activity, far away from the dark matter scaffolding that holds matter in place. Dark energy is probably the decompression of nothing particles escaping large intersections of dark matter.

The hypo goes on and on. Perfect nothingness can and probably does exest as a plane of infinite expansion, but that does not mean that it exists, or that it ever existed as the only plane of infinite expansion. In fact I see no reason to think that this plane couldn't have evolved from the anihilation of the EM positive plane intersecting the EM negative plane in some subquantum, realm of relativity.

The post quantum universe is made of four dimensions and four known forces. Things which move at the speed of light can exist perfectly fine both inside and outside of a/the body of time that I think of as the universe.

If any of this makes sense to you then you consult a non-quack immediatly to preserve whatever is left of your sanity evil.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out time dilation within my paradigm. To me, it is an innate capacity of ours to conflate time and make it accessible at different points in space. This is called memory. So what is time? The best answer I have is that it is simply all the knowledge we have accumulated. That hypothesis seems to hold for our ability to recollect. Well what is time in the present? The best answer I have is that it is the conceptualization process. That is, the process of giving knowledge it's shape. Well how about the future? The future is irrelevant because it hasn't hit our senses yet. But there is a theory called linguistic intemporality that acknowledges the fact that the future can, in fact, affect the present. How does that happen? It's unclear, but it seems that alot of thought (or some at least) may actually be coming from the future. I think that the prerequisite for this interaction is exact, equal experience. That goes to say that you may share the same exact concept with someone else, and hence can communicate with that person across space and time as long as the communication is within the proximity of the concept and hence changing it's shape.

 

I do accept most of your argument here, it doesnt conflict with my observations much, but I cannot accept the premise of infinity and there are good reasons to reject it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

"

The electromagnetic spectrum extends from below the low frequencies used for modern radio communication to gamma radiation at the short-wavelength (high-frequency) end, thereby covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction of the size of an atom. The limit for long wavelengths is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length,[2] although in principle the spectrum is infinite and continuous. "

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out time dilation within my paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is almost all word salad to me.

 

Thanks for providing all the links. I'll look at them asap

 

Well folks, the conclusion I'm at after reading aol the links is this. Space and time are different, space is like its being printed, time is the collection of all prints, and you can, for all intensive purposes, say that these prints are two dimensional.

 

In regard to the fraction link, it says that all parts are equal, and I think that it also implies that they are literally equal parts of the same substance, and to further the speculation, they are indeed equal no matter which 2d surface they are printed on regardless of their position in time.

 

Maybe the solidified, recognizable substances are actually penetrations in the 2d surface of these prints, while the tension of impacting the surface causes them to take an efficient shape.

 

I can't help but ask where the bubbles started, and the answer, as I speculate, is that some force acted upon an equal substance causing it to take shape.

 

Even if the substance has no length

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this effect is like the effect you see when you put a flame to the middle of a piece of paper and just let it burn a circle into it. The burn hole will start small and then expand outward.



Space must have an enormouse amplitude and time is probably the extremely high frequency of space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.