What is the Origin of Everything?

[wuliheron]

Hence the term used for this property of the material world: historic.
A randomly moving material world, would not be historical, cause there would not be a difference between paste and future.

The bottom line is that both views are useful, and for the last century what has proven the most useful is the random view. What you are calling "historical" is more commonly called "causal". As useful as Relativity and other causal views have proven to be, QM randomness is by far the most useful yet discovered.

Whether or not everything is ultimately random or causal may be a moot point and, in the final analysis, unprovable. In the name of order, beauty, and dignity Plato burned all of Democritus' books, but he had the last laugh anyway.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The bottom line is that both views are useful, and for the last century what has proven the most useful is the random view. What you are calling "historical" is more commonly called "causal". As useful as Relativity and other causal views have proven to be, QM randomness is by far the most useful yet discovered.

Whether or not everything is ultimately random or causal may be a moot point and, in the final analysis, unprovable. In the name of order, beauty, and dignity Plato burned all of Democritus' books, but he had the last laugh anyway.

I do not agree on this. Of course, QM shows us that at the lowest level of matter, the material world seems totally random.
On the large scale however, we can see that the world is evolving progressively, and that even when there is randomness on lower levels, distinguished patterns can be found.

If the material world was truly random, we could have never discovered the law of gravity, and other laws of nature. Even worse, the world would not provide for any progressive evolution, and a universe like we see now that provides for life forms to emerge, would be far too hostile to produce any large scale structure.

No matter where you look and what you investigate, everywhere in nature you find development, and certain laws governing this development. This is true for the formation of stars, star systems, planets, living organisism, human society, and the universe as a whole.

In a truly random material world, this kind of progress would not be found for certain.

 

[wuliheron]

No matter where you look and what you investigate, everywhere in nature you find development, and certain laws governing this development. This is true for the formation of stars, star systems, planets, living organisism, human society, and the universe as a whole.

Is it live, or is it memorex? Do we exist or not? Is everything ultimately random or ordered? Is randomness just an indication of our perceptual limitations, or does order arise from randomness?

Such questions are just so much silliness from my point of view. You might as well ask how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They are the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical. That is the bottom line.

From this bottom line we can either build meaningful lives or run in circles screaming and shouting. :0)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Is it live, or is it memorex? Do we exist or not? Is everything ultimately random or ordered? Is randomness just an indication of our perceptual limitations, or does order arise from randomness?

Such questions are just so much silliness from my point of view. You might as well ask how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They are the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical. That is the bottom line.

From this bottom line we can either build meaningful lives or run in circles screaming and shouting. :0)

I don't think they are silly, cause on macroscopic (time/space) scales and microscopic (time/space) scales we see this overall progress and ordering.

Don't you think they are usefull concepts?

If you would imagine the evolution of the Earth from the begin to now, wouldn't you agree on that there occurred some progressive development?

Or take the human history from the last 100 years, wouldn't you agree there wasn't progress?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Random thoughts...

Randomness and order are not mutually exclusive. To compare them, however, is like comparing apples and oranges, because one it a "tool" while the other is a "product".

I speculate that randomness is BUILT INTO the system of the Universe as the lynch-pin from potentiality to reality. What triggers the lynch-pin (and we're talking about an infinite number of lynch-pins) might be INTENTION...the INTENTION to bring things into functional coherent chuncks.

As a simple example: flying squirrels. There was probably a time when they didn't have those flaps of skin that kept them in the air a little longer. Now some would say that randomness of genes produced those flaps of skin on some, and these squirrels were more "fit" to survice and you know the rest...

I say that evolutionists might be missing an essential ingredient, which is the SQUIRRELS OWN INTENTION to grow some skin. I think INTENTION acts on randomness within the "sea of infinite possibilities" in which we -- and everything else - swims.

Another example has to do with synchronicity -- meaningful coincidences, that many shrug off ...like swine stepping on pearls.

An example: for three weeks I visited Yahoos "Physics" chat rooms...and a more vacuus collection of cretins you will never find. Then, last Sunday I think it was, I followed a book review to a site that referenced three other sites, one of which was this one.

I say it was my INTENTION to find such a forum that led me here via what seemed at the time a random meandering.

And that is why I speculate that RANDOMNESS in the Universe is a natural component of the System which is ACTED UPON by INTENTION which leads to ORDER.

 

[Messiah]

Nothing Rules

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, itself, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

For every left there exists a right. For every to, there is a fro. For every up, there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. Sir Isaac Newton captured this essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. As it applies to physics from simple inertia to the relativity between mass and energy, the law of natural balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey. It is no coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Without that symmetry, logic, itself, would not exist. Natural balance is demonstrably the most fundamental attribute of the phenomenon of existence.

Could Newton’s law be a reflection of a deeper, more fundamental truth? If we apply his template to the underlying phenomenon of existence, it would suggest that for everything in the Universe there must exist an opposite equivalent. It would imply that for every value in the Universe there must exist a reciprocal such that for every value in the Universe there exists a countervalent reciprocal.

In short, the logical equivalent of NOTHING exists, and such must have always been and will continue to be the case.

Existence was not conjured by a mystical process. It is based upon a fundamental principle.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think they are silly, cause on macroscopic (time/space) scales and microscopic (time/space) scales we see this overall progress and ordering.

Don't you think they are usefull concepts?

If you would imagine the evolution of the Earth from the begin to now, wouldn't you agree on that there occurred some progressive development?

Or take the human history from the last 100 years, wouldn't you agree there wasn't progress?

Of course they are useful concepts. Wuhileron's explanation for everything that he doesn't understand is that :it's a paradox.
Though the existence of existence is paradoxical, the nature of
existence (i.e. its characteristics), is quite comprehensible,
I don't think wuhileron is making a distinction between the two.

It may not be of much practical use to question the existence of existence but it is of utmost importance to understand the nature (i.e. characteristics) of existence. That's what all of science is about and look how much we have progressed in such a short period of time. I definitely don't think the universe is just a mindless mechanical system whose parts are acting in total randomness. If so, probability would predict that the origin of life can never happen. Or if by some miracle it did, more miracles would be needed for every time one species mutated to give rise to another.

There are some "hidden variables". Else, probability math is garbage.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, itself, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

For every left there exists a right. For every to, there is a fro. For every up, there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. Sir Isaac Newton captured this essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. As it applies to physics from simple inertia to the relativity between mass and energy, the law of natural balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey. It is no coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Without that symmetry, logic, itself, would not exist. Natural balance is demonstrably the most fundamental attribute of the phenomenon of existence.

Could Newton’s law be a reflection of a deeper, more fundamental truth? If we apply his template to the underlying phenomenon of existence, it would suggest that for everything in the Universe there must exist an opposite equivalent. It would imply that for every value in the Universe there must exist a reciprocal such that for every value in the Universe there exists a countervalent reciprocal.

In short, the logical equivalent of NOTHING exists, and such must have always been and will continue to be the case.

Existence was not conjured by a mystical process. It is based upon a fundamental principle.

Yes, good one. But I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

Sorry, but the idea the universe came from nothing is no more complete or rational than the idea it all originated from dill pickles, infinity, or whatever. Bottom line, they are all patently irrational explantions and semantics is just one of many issues.

You don't need wildly abstract theories, hard scientific evidence, or anything like that to appreciate the situation. All you need is an open mind and, for that, all that is required is acceptance. If you need someone to debate the semantics of acceptance, then you need serious help.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of nothing...

From here on, your argument is flawed, because it refers to "nothing" as though it were something that exists.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Yes, good one. But I'm sure the semantics experts would start popping out now and bug you about the definition of "nothing". So, even though something from nothing is the most complete answer to the question of existence, this type of debate can never be resolved because the other side can't count to infinity and they, without exception, reduce the debate on our position to one on semantics.

That which does not exist...well...uhhhh...well...it doesn't exist. It HAS no definition for by its very nature it is undefined. Mathematically, it is not the 'empty set' - it is not a set at all. To understand nothing is NOT to understand.

If you want to discuss the LOGICAL definition of nothing, I can tell you that the ONLY logical definition of nothing is the empty set - or Ø (keystroke ALT+216) or Zero.

If you want to discuss the ABSTRACT definition of nothing, all I can say is " ".

Understand??

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, but the idea the universe came from nothing is no more complete or rational than the idea it all originated from dill pickles, infinity, or whatever. Bottom line, they are all patently irrational explantions and semantics is just one of many issues.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the phenomenon of existence arose from a process. It didn't. It is based on a physical principle - natural balance. Processes are governed by principles - laws of nature. Cause and effect is a process. Existence is NOT a process. It is a principle of nature. And that principle seems to indicate that Sum v(u)=Ø or the sum of all value in the Universe = Ø (keystroke ALT+216). It is Newton's principle (3rd law) taken to a more basic level.

Compared to infinity, any finite element has a size of Ø. From a given point one may extend infinite lines to infinity in all the XYZ coordinates. This inscribes a sphere. The sphere encompasses the Universe. By definition the center of the sphere is the center of the Universe. The same can be done for all points in the Universe; hence there is no (Ø)relative differential compared to infintiy.

If for every quality in the Universe there is a reciprocal, the point that Sum V(U)=Ø is complete. Matter and anti-matter is too simplistic. There is a more logical approach -

Theory of Reciprocity

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
From here on, your argument is flawed, because it refers to "nothing" as though it were something that exists.

Ok...ok...

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

 

[wuliheron]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the phenomenon of existence arose from a process.

No, I'm not stuck on the idea of existence as a process. I'm stuck on the idea that words have specific meanings. The universe may be eternal, without beginning or end, for all I know. However the concept of eternity is illogical, irrational, and paradoxical.

Zeno of Elias was the first famous western philosopher to point this out. He asserted existence is in actuality indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. Talk about a view of existence that doesn't require process! What it does require is paradox as all explanations do.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Messiah...

Although current evidence suggests that the Universe will expand forever, might there still be an as-yet undiscovered/un-though-of countervaling force that may pull it in?

I want to put my hat in the ring and say that -- although I have no evidence -- I think that the Universe will eventually collapse into a singularity which, in turn, will burst forth into ANOTHER so-called "Big Bang".

For the sake of discussion, let us dispense with an "outside Creator" "who" needed to be CREATED itself before it could "create the Universe." Let's just say that the Universe ITSELF is an eternal entity of energy that expands and contracts through infinate incarnations.

Thus, the Universe didn't pop out of a void, but popped out of ITSELF...from it's last collapsed singularity from its last incarnation.

The portion of one of your posting regarding using Newton's law as a template suggests that the expansion of the Universe might eventually be reversed.

Meanwhile, will someone please tell me how to capture quotes?

 

[Netme]

The universe will continue to expand until the universal disaster which will destroy not only the universe but all of existence occurs.
which we must stop.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Netme

What should we do?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, I'm not stuck on the idea of existence as a process. I'm stuck on the idea that words have specific meanings. The universe may be eternal, without beginning or end, for all I know. However the concept of eternity is illogical, irrational, and paradoxical.

Zeno of Elias was the first famous western philosopher to point this out. He asserted existence is in actuality indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. Talk about a view of existence that doesn't require process! What it does require is paradox as all explanations do.

The existence of 'nothing' is the only natural phenomenon which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If 'nothing' existed, it would need no justification. My contention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of 'nothing' as it pertains to logic. Logically, it is NOT "that which does not exist" because 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It has no properties. It is not defined and logic requires definition. The logical definition of 'nothing' is the empty set or Ø.

When you juxtapose the finite and infinity, suddenly the size and position of any finite element assume a ratio of Ø. If you throw in reciprocal qualities, then the LOGICAL equivalent of Ø actually exists. If (Logical) 'nothing' exists, it intrinsically complies with the precepts of reason. It is the principle of natural balance which explains existence, not a process.

 

[Netme]

Logically 0 cannot be defined as nothing since that is what all things are created from. I see 0 as the medium in which god uses to create existence.

 

[Netme]

Netme
What should we do?


__________________
You are what you DO.

Do something.

We should understand what our universe is actually doing and from what If we can figure this out then our role in existence will be known

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
Ok...ok...

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

What about the summation of all natural numbers, would that be 0?

Like:

(+1 + -1) + (+2 + -2) + ... = 0

but equally well it could be defined as:

+1 + (+2 + -1) + (+3 + -2) + ... = ? (infinite)

or

-1 + (-2 + +1) + (-3 + +2) + ... = ? (-infinity)

or any number between.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Netme (and they may)

If the Universe were an "eternal entity of energy" that explodes from a singularity that was made up of "Everything that Is"...

...then EXPANDS for a long while, still being "Everything that Is"...

...then, at a certain point, begins to contact due to natural forces until "Everything that Is" once more condenses into a singularity...

THEN...this pulsaing Eternal Entity of Energy would, in effect, be "giving birth" to ITSELF...through infinite incarnations...

THEREBY eliminating the need for "nothing" in favor of the eternal existence of "Everything that Is".


And "our role" -- I believe -- might be to HAVE AN INTERESTING EXPERIENCE ...a small part of the EXPERIENCE OF THE UNIVERSE...which I believe might be ITS Primary Intent:

In other words, it might be that the Primary Intent of the Universe is ...TO HAVE ANOTHER EXPERIENCE...via the experiences of us and everything else that It has given rise to.

I believe that there is NO "outside" force named "God" who "created the Universe." The Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity out to see what It can create THIS time...in this incarnation.



And this is why they may "net me" too!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Ok...ok...

May I assume the mathematical value of +1 exists?
May I assume the mathematical value of -1 exists?

if (+1)+(-1) does not equal zero (nothing), I stand corrected.

How do you define "nothing"?
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is UNdefined.

Actually you are partially correct, nothing - in the form of a non-existent physical element - does not exist, only its LOGICAL equivalent has a physical manifestation in the Universe.

There is no "that which does not exist". How much sense does it make to say that there is something that doesn't exist? If it's something, it exists. If it's not something, then there is no "it" to speak of.

Your flaw is rather evident in a post where you said that an abstract definition of "nothing" is " ". This is incorrect, as there is a defined place for something to exist (between the two quotation marks (thus it can be measured)), and you are referring to "it", thus showing that there is something to refer to.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The existence of 'nothing' is the only natural phenomenon which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If 'nothing' existed, it would need no justification. My contention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of 'nothing' as it pertains to logic. Logically, it is NOT "that which does not exist" because 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It has no properties. It is not defined and logic requires definition. The logical definition of 'nothing' is the empty set or Ø.

When you juxtapose the finite and infinity, suddenly the size and position of any finite element assume a ratio of Ø. If you throw in reciprocal qualities, then the LOGICAL equivalent of Ø actually exists. If (Logical) 'nothing' exists, it intrinsically complies with the precepts of reason. It is the principle of natural balance which explains existence, not a process.

Run your post through the "exercise in "nothing" semantics", and you get:

Revised Version of Messiah's Post:
The lack of any existence is the only natural phenomena which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If there wasn't anything that existed, it (what?) whould need no justification. My conention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of that which isn't anything, as it pertains to logic. Logically it is NOT "that which does not exist", because "that which doesn't exist" doesn't exist...

That last sentence strikes at the heart of that matter, because that is exactly what the concept of "nothing" is ("that which doesn't exist"). And that is why the "exercise in nothing semantics" works. There is no thing called "nothing", because that would be something, and by definition "nothing" isn't anything. If it's not anything, than there is no "it" to speak of, and the logic of something's coming from "it" has no meaning.

P.S. Did you notice how well your logic worked against the ability of "nothing" to exist, once run through the "exercise"?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Revised Version of Messiah's Post:
The lack of any existence is the only natural phenomena which intrinsically complies with the principles of logic. If there wasn't anything that existed, it (what?) whould need no justification. My conention is that the mass of minds do not understand the nature of that which isn't anything, as it pertains to logic. Logically it is NOT "that which does not exist", because "that which doesn't exist" doesn't exist...

The lack of any existence is not 'nothing'. That is JUST my point.
The logical definition of nothing is that which is equivalent to Zero.

Math has a mechanism which describes this. It is called an equation. It requires the elements of every argument to be equivalent on opposite sides of the equation. The difference between the left and right side of an equation is always Ø. It is the foundation of logic.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
There is no "that which does not exist". How much sense does it make to say that there is something that doesn't exist? If it's something, it exists. If it's not something, then there is no "it" to speak of.

Your flaw is rather evident in a post where you said that an abstract definition of "nothing" is " ". This is incorrect, as there is a defined place for something to exist (between the two quotation marks ...

Yes, I was using absurdity to illustrate the point. :)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The lack of any existence is not 'nothing'. That is JUST my point.
The logical definition of nothing is that which is equivalent to Zero.

Math has a mechanism which describes this. It is called an equation. It requires the elements of every argument to be equivalent on opposite sides of the equation. The difference between the left and right side of an equation is always Ø. It is the foundation of logic.

How many things fit in the set of "nothing"? Take the word apart, it means no...thing. There are no things in the set of "nothing". Thus, nothing does mean the lack of any existence, because if anything exists, then it is the set of something, not nothing.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Netme
Logically 0 cannot be defined as nothing since that is what all things are created from. I see 0 as the medium in which god uses to create existence.

Please allow us your definition of 'nothing'.

Is is empty space??

If something has a physical presence in the Universe, then it EXISTS. Though it is quite different in nature from the physical phenomenon we call matter, space is not a non-existence. And the fact that the only property of space we can discern is its inertness is not remarkable. The existence of an infinite expanse of space devoid of matter would require no less justification than an infinite expanse of matter devoid of space.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
How many things fit in the set of "nothing"? Take the word apart, it means no...thing. There are no things in the set of "nothing". Thus, nothing does mean the lack of any existence, because if anything exists, then it is the set of something, not nothing.

We are becomming bogged down in semantics.
The definition of 'nothing' as it applies to logic is Ø, Zero, the empty set.
If you try to define 'Nothing' as that which is not defined (does not exist), your premise is self-defeating.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
We are becomming bogged down in semantics.
The definition of 'nothing' as it applies to logic is Ø, Zero, the empty set.
If you try to define 'Nothing' as that which is not defined (does not exist), your premise is self-defeating.

I didn't say it was not defined. I said that it was the set of all things that are not things (how can this be wrong?). Since there are no things that are not things, nothing is a set of things that don't exist.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say it was not defined. I said that it was the set of all things that are not things (how can this be wrong?). Since there are no things that are not things, nothing is a set of things that don't exist.

That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes. It is not what mathematicians call the 'empty set'. It is not a set at all. The easiest way to depict 'Nothing' in its abstract form would be to imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same inert, infinitesimal point NOT in space.

Logic is the interpretation of reality. By observing, defining and comparing the nature of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables. Logic requires definition, so in its abstract or undefined connotation, to perceive 'Nothing' is not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' is not to understand.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is that which does not exist. It is undefined and cannot be perceived.

'Nothing' - in logical terms - is defined as 'the empty set' or 'that which has a logical value of Ø'.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes.

Suppose a group a architects talk about a new bridge to be built. The bridge obviously does not exist. Their plans for building the bridge, attribute properties to the bridge to be realized. Even something that does not exist, can have properties (like height, weight, strength, materials, colour, etc).

 

[wuliheron]

Suppose a group a architects talk about a new bridge to be built. The bridge obviously does not exist. Their plans for building the bridge, attribute properties to the bridge to be realized. Even something that does not exist, can have properties (like height, weight, strength, materials, colour, etc).

Those are the properties of the concept, the plan.

The confusion here is over General Semantics. Nothing and something are like up and down, left and right, front and back. Attempting to define one term independent of the other leads to infinite regress and meaningless mumbo jumbo. Infinite nothingness. Division by zero. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
That which does not exist cannot be defined, for by its very nature it is undefined. It is fictitious. It would neither have - nor would it lack - properties or attributes. It is not what mathematicians call the 'empty set'. It is not a set at all. The easiest way to depict 'Nothing' in its abstract form would be to imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same inert, infinitesimal point NOT in space.

Logic is the interpretation of reality. By observing, defining and comparing the nature of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables. Logic requires definition, so in its abstract or undefined connotation, to perceive 'Nothing' is not to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' is not to understand.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is that which does not exist. It is undefined and cannot be perceived.

'Nothing' - in logical terms - is defined as 'the empty set' or 'that which has a logical value of Ø'.

Saying that "nothing" is undefinable is just obviously wrong. Yes you can refer to "it" in terms of what "it" lacks. "It" lacks everything. That means everything, from matter to conceptual potential.

There is, in point of fact, no "it" to refer to. If you can refer to an "it" you are referring to something. The "it" that you are trying to refer to is your concept of what the word, "nothing", means. In truth, there is no "nothing". "Nothing" by definition and logic, is not a thing, and is in fact not anything at all.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Saying that "nothing" is undefinable is just obviously wrong. Yes you can refer to "it" in terms of what "it" lacks. "It" lacks everything. That means everything, from matter to conceptual potential.

If something lacks 'Everything', it must lack a definition.

Thank you for proving the point.

JMc