- #211
sol2
- 910
- 2
zeta101 said:That is how i have chosen to define nothingness
ok:)
I just gave you a map:)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=20932
Last edited:
zeta101 said:That is how i have chosen to define nothingness
zeta101 said:Hi, i read the post in that thread but i don't really follow and understand the relevance here. Can you summerise and explain please?
zeta101 said:i don't really understand what your trying to say, but you say there cannot be an "outside" of the universe...and i agree, but my post is still valid...my post does not say there is an outside of the universe, it says the opposite! that's there is nothing. That is how i have chosen to define nothingness
... a virtual object?PRyckman said:what's the opposite of having an object?
pelastration said:... a virtual object?
n0n said:Maybe something is chaos? But that something is forever changing, and that cannot produce an order simple enough for something to exist either.
n0n said:Space is directionless inertia right? I think this is a pretty good description of it. But see this makes space chaotic, which fits perfectly in a duality scheme, 0 order and infinite complexity. Say these expanses exist, and expand in a single instant at any point and at any angle in dimensionality, to any other point at any angle in dimensionality. The angle could totally be equivalent to a number, and there is nothing that says a group of expansions at angles couldn’t collide into another group of expansions at angles, or even unto its own group of expansions at angles. And that looks everything like “my numbers”. Yea this is awesome, a complete realization typed, me and my dumb mind. But is this any were close to a good realization though? Are their concepts of nothing I’m missing? Does this unify a fundamental source for something to be? I don’t know, all I know is what I observe and what makes sense to me from that, else I think I’m missing a light switch or something, what?
Yes time is a factor but not at the level I'm talking about. Science say's it cannot make any judgments about pre big bang for time is a measure of movement compared to 'something', not 'nothing'. It’s the moment right before time is a factor, how time flows and unfolds I think could be completely depending on how the instant defines it. Maybe, I don’t know I haven’t gotten that far yet; I’m still working on the expanding of instances.From this, "time is a factor that is allowable in the aspects of rotation, that moves to the nature of the future and past? How would we see this?
These two statements contradict each other... don't they?PRyckman said:nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero...
Erck said:These two statements contradict each other... don't they?
Edwin said:I guess that depends on whether you consider Existance as an operator, or as an element of some set.
If you consider existence as being an element of some set, then consider the following line of reasoning:
Let A be the set of all things that exist.
Let B be the set of all things that do not exist.
"a" exists and thus is an element of the set A.
"b" does not exist, and thus is an element of B.
Thus B exists and is an element of A.
PRyckman said:i still don't see why all the hub bub on this subject nothing is nothing, nothing isn't dark matter, dark matter is dark matter. nothing is nothing, nothing is absence of something, nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero and anything else is non zero.