Have you ever considered that Absolutely Nothing actually exists?

[jamesj]

It existed before time started, along with absolutely everything. The awareness of this basic paradoxical duality, (Absolutely Everything & Absolutely Nothing coexisting simultaneously, together, intricately intertwined), caused the start of real-time.

I would like to debate this and issue the following challange;
"Prove that the ideas expressed in the slide show listed below are false using the scientific method."

[ericsp23]

I don't know what that site was, but it crashed my computer. Be very careful.

[Sean]

Yes, it crashed my browser as well, so I removed the links. Please just tell us or quote what from your site what you wanted to show us from it. I do hope you meant to post those to add to the discussion, and not turn it into an advertisement thread. You can advertise your site, but we have a forum for that (flame-fest)

[Starboy]

Quote by: jamesj I would like to debate this and issue the following challange; "Prove that the ideas expressed in the slide show listed below are false using the scientific method."

Jamesj, science doesn't "prove" anything. It is a process for preferring one explanation over others.

As for existence, that is an aspect of reality. We don't exactly know what reality is. That is what we are trying to figure out. And to claim that something existed forever sounds like an out and out lie. How do you know that something has existed forever when you seem to question if the existence of anything at all can be “proven”? And don't you have your wires crossed when you challenge science to "prove" anything when you haven't "proven" one of your claims?

Starboy

[jamesj]

I apologize for the crashing.

I tested the site with IE6sp1/Windows xp SP2 & SP1, Windows 2000 sp4 and Firefox 1.0/Fedora Core 3. The site is running PHPnuke 7.6 and Nuke Sentinel 2.1.3. I would be interested in the browser/OS versions that crashed.

I will also be happy to discuss this in detail, see next post

[jamesj]

Jamesj, science doesn't "prove" anything. It is a process for preferring one explanation over others. As for existence, that is an aspect of reality. We don't exactly know what reality is. That is what we are trying to figure out. And to claim that something existed forever sounds like an out and out lie. How do you know that something has existed forever when you seem to question if the existence of anything at all can be “proven”? And don't you have your wires crossed when you challenge science to "prove" anything when you haven't "proven" one of your claims?

The Judeao-Christian culture of Western civilization tends to deny the existence of Absolutely Nothing. This causes words, (reference points), that adequately describe the phenomena of absolutely nothing, not to be a part of the common vernacular. I will approach the idea of Nothing, in particular an Absolute Nothing being in existence; i.e. Absolutely Nothing existing as an entity. The Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary definition of the word nothing does not adequately describe this idea.

“Nagarjuna, the Buddhist teacher believed to have lived in India sometime around the late second century and the early third century, expounded the teaching of sunyata (Jpn ku), which is variously translated as non-substantiality, void or emptiness. He developed the concept of non-substantiality from Shakyamuni’s principle of dependent origination (Skt pratityasamutpada; Jpn engi). Nagarjuna asserted that since everything arises and continues to exist by virtue of its relationship with other phenomena (i.e., dependent origination), it has absolutely no fixed or independent substance of its own (i.e., non-substantiality). Viewed from this perspective, there is nothing that cannot be changed. Nothing exists entirely on its own, and no form is absolute and immutable. The universe, then, is full of new situations at every moment.”

From URL:http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismtoday/bc006.htm

‘What is the origin of numbers? In what way do numbers exist? Have they always been present as 'Platonic' abstractions, or do they require a mind to bring them into existence? Can numbers exist in the absence of matter or things to count?” “The Kadampa school of Buddhist philosophy claims that all phenomena are ultimately empty of inherent existence and do not exist as things in themselves. All phenomena exist solely in dependence on other phenomena, which are themselves empty and dependently related to other phenomena and so on. No matter how deeply or far back we search, no phenomenon can ever be found which is fundamental or a 'thing-in-itself'. Neither the observer nor any observed phenomenon exist independently, but are inextricably intertwined. This viewpoint is known as dependent relationship.” “Buddhist philosophy claims that all things arise out of emptiness (Sanskrit sunyata or shunyata)” “Von Neumann [VON NEUMANN 1923] proposed that all numbers could be bootstrapped out of the empty set by the operations of the mind.”

From URL:http://home.btclick.com/scimah/emptyset.htm

I hope this helps clarify what I mean by absolutely nothing.

The following information can be either proved or disproved with the scientific methood. It is in reference to M theory, (strings).

Comparison of the Typical Viewpoint and the Viewpoint Where Absolutely Nothing Exists There are four Families (rather than 3 families), 22 constants (rather than 20), & 8 views of the 8 basic energies not 5 views of the 11 basic energies; etc., etc… The Basic Paradox’s existence & interactions create the 4 forces and 8 Energies. The 4 Forces, (realms of existence), each consist of a paradoxical duality. These forces combine with the duality to produce the 8 factors of life. These 4 forces & 8 factors create 8 fundamental vibrations, (8 Energies); 7 are easily perceived & 1 is not. The 8 factors combine with the 8 Energies to produce 16,777,216 dimensions (8 to the eighth power), (these dimensions exist simultaneously in the same space & time). We usually perceive a maximum of 4,096 of them; but, because of our human perspective we think there are approximately 3,000, (i.e. ichinen sanzen).

see Slide # 18 on URL:
http://7777777s.com/ppframe_files/frame.htm

[PatrickHenry]

This is a philosophy issue, not science. Wrong forum, IMO...

In the beginning there was chaos nothing can form in chaos therefor in the beginning there was subsequentially ... nothing this place still exists its were we came from i think there are many places like this

[Red_Emma]

The 8 factors combine with the 8 Energies to produce
16,777,216 dimensions (8 to the eighth power),
If these do all exist at the same place and same time simultaneously, then I suppose It isnt that illogical.

[jamesj]

Quote by: PatrickHenry This is a philosophy issue, not science. Wrong forum, IMO...

General Relativity started as a thought experiment. Quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, and string theory have successfully blurred the line between philosophy and science. Some of the ideas proposed by Hawkins (Black Holes), Whitten (M theory), & especially Brian Greene (author of The Elegant Universe) have crossed over.

See next post for a detailed dicussion on why this theory is science.

[jamesj]

Ideas based in religion and philosophy have been used to advance science by some of the brightest minds in the last century; an excellent example is Dr. von Neumann.
For further information on Dr. von Neumann:

As an enormous contributor to pure and applied mathematics, Dr. von Neumann gained notoriety early in his life for his work in set theory, algebra, and quantum mechanics. At the age of 20, he published the definition of ordinal numbers that is still used today. He also developed the "theory of automata," which compared the computing abilities of a machine with that of a human brain.

See URL:

http://www.thirteen.org/bigideas/neumann.html

His proposal that all numbers could be bootstrapped out of the empty set by the operations of the mind is a mathamatical use of a religious concept, (non-substantiality, void or emptiness; one of the foundations of Mahayana Buddhist thought).

The idea of Absolutely Nothing combines this Buddhist concept of Sunyata and Plato's ideas on Absolutes to produce a functional, scientific, theory of everything; called "Your Basic Crackpot Theory of Everything". This theory is founded on the basic paradoxical duality, (Absolutely Everything & Absolutely Nothing coexisting simultaneously, together, intricately intertwined).

Attempts to describe Absolutely Nothing usually include the fact that it doesn't and cannot exist, yet it exists. The failure to recognize that Absolutely Nothing exists, as a viable entity, causes many flawed viewpoints and the inability to truly finalize a T.o.E, (Theory of Everything).

The idea of Absolutely Nothing existing as an entity is science.

[MerlinsByte]

General Relativity started as a thought experiment. Quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, and string theory have successfully blurred the line between philosophy and science. Some of the ideas proposed by Hawkins (Black Holes), Whitten (M theory), & especially Brian Greene (author of The Elegant Universe) have crossed over.

Yes Einstein used the often scorned (in this forum especially), magical thinking. When I say magical thinking, think Unicorn believing children, A Childs wondrous mind, but with adult intellectual parameters. The sum that results ,will equal a way of thinking ,that transcends hard pure science and will give us flowers of intelligence unbound by western rigidity. Flowers bloom in the light. Only mushrooms and minor Fungus grows in darkness.

Western thought is subdued (beat down by the entrenched science community may be a better explanation) by captive thinking . This is thinking inside the box ,rather than outside the box where the universe lies.
Inside the box there is darkness and cormfiminty, outside the coffin…. er’ box…. there is the light, and free thought. Are you a fungus or a flower?…ahhhh‘… forgive me for my po’ poetry like deviation

This topic does blur the line between science and religious thought. As I’ve posted earlier, Science and religious thought will soon become one. I am of western religious belief with eastern principles. Yes ,this sounds like a paradox and a contradiction. I have yet to incorporate (at age 50) both systems into one fixed personal religious paradigm.

I need to stop prematurely …got to take bogie the basset hound and Katie the mutt out to pee…brb

mb

[Starboy]

Quote by: jamesj I will approach the idea of Nothing, in particular an Absolute Nothing being in existence; i.e. Absolutely Nothing existing as an entity.

I would like to see you do this.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

Quote by: jamesj
I will approach the idea of Nothing, in particular an Absolute Nothing being in existence; i.e. Absolutely Nothing existing as an entity.

Quote by: Starboy I would like to see you do this. Starboy

Nothingness can be compared to infinity as both are inestimable. Just as "nature abhors a vacuum"(1), the logical western mind abhors infinities or the concept of nothingness.!

However, western science is accepting metaphysical like events, such as nano particle duality. I suspect macro duality will soon be proved as fact. jamesj, I would like a precise definiation of nothingness, if possible. for example :

Within this universe with its natural laws "nothing" can only exist as a concept.

Outside this universe there are forces that are not confined to natural law.So, nothing doesnt exist "there" either.

So does, nothingness express total nothingness?


(1) Descartes


Its time to (re)abuse a relational product, and i think i will do nothing while i think about nothingness!


mb

[jamesj]

If the best way to convince a fool that it is wrong, is to give it exactly what it desires. The best way to handle a fool that’s right is: A.Kill it quick before it multiplies. B.Encourage it, follow it, and worship it in the hope of corrupting it. C.Get out of the way and let it be. D.Give it exactly what it desires in the hope of convincing it it’s wrong. http://7777777s.com/modules.php?name...=viewtopic&t=1

I will approach the idea of Nothing, in particular an Absolute Nothing being in existence; i.e. Absolutely Nothing existing as an entity.

Quote by: Starboy I would like to see you do this. Starboy

Now that the definition of basic terms is established, I would like to start the serious discussion.

From Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Arnold J. Pomerans, trans. (New York: Harper, 1971), p. 63. Heisenberg: "We cannot observe electron orbits inside the atom...Now, since a good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more fitting to restrict myself to these, treating them, as it were, as representatives of the electron orbits." "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in some surprise... "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same....In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."

See URL:http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07c.htm

Another very popular quote from Heisenberg
"In the beginning was the symmetry"

I maintain that the symmetry he was referring to is the basic paradox of the two absolutes everything and nothing coexisting etc...

My point is that in order to complete a functional Theory of Everything this symmetry / basic paradox needs to taken into account

[MerlinsByte]

When in intense meditation I feel nothingness and it seems to be related to oneness (with god). You may be on to something. However proving it will be difficult.

You mentioned duality. I feel that the superposition state will have a major impact explaining metaphysical events.

Some theorists minimize the implications this state (SP) by claiming that its “just a math expression”. I suppose they would feel the same way when sitting atop a thermo nuclear device while it works its fission majack by energy equals mass squared by c! The result would be vaporitous dumbness. Pun intended.

I feel time flows (1) both forward and backwards, in our present universe. Quantum probability principles provides a way out of the free will vs the pre ordained universe paradox. But I’m getting somewhat off topic….


mb

[jamesj]

Quote by: MerlinsByte When in intense meditation I feel nothingness and it seems to be related to oneness (with god). You may be on to something. However proving it will be difficult. You mentioned duality. I feel that the superposition state will have a major impact explaining metaphysical events. Some theorists minimize the implications this state (SP) by claiming that its “just a math expression”. I suppose they would feel the same way when sitting atop a thermo nuclear device while it works its fission majack by energy equals mass squared by c! The result would be vaporitous dumbness. Pun intended. I feel time flows (1) both forward and backwards, in our present universe. Quantum probability principles provides a way out of the free will vs the pre ordained universe paradox. But I’m getting somewhat off topic…. mb

I agree with your assessment on time and quantum probability, time flows in both directions at once, which helps produce the free will vs. pre ordained universe paradox. This assessment assumes that both free will and time exist, which may be more difficult to prove than my theory.

Realizing that it would be much easier to disprove than prove this theory, “Your Basic Crackpot Theory of Everything", I issued the challenge: “Prove that this theory is wrong using the scientific method”.

I posted my site, (http://7777777s.com), a deliberate parody of current attempts at a Theory of Everything, and started discussions on this theory in an attempt to reduce my level of “vaporitous dumbness”. Currently I call myself a “Crank Physicist” because this theory was derived from extensive meditation on nothing.

I created this picture to represent the eight dimensional interaction perceived when meditating upon the basic paradox of everything and nothing as absolutes etc….

[jamesj]

Quotes from Einstein; "From the latest results of the theory of relativity it is probable that our three dimensional space is also approximately spherical, that is, that the laws of disposition of rigid bodies in it are not given by Euclidean geometry, but approximately by spherical geometry." (Einstein, 1954) "Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton." (Albert Einstein, 1954) By using Albert Einstein's own words it is now possible to show that his ideas need only a slight modification - from his foundation that matter is a spherical spatially extended 'field', to a foundation based upon Space rather than matter, and that matter is caused by Spherical Standing Waves in Space. Albert Einstein is correct in asserting that matter is spherically spatially extended, and thus to reject the concept of the particle; "According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content (matter, objects) does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundament part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high." (Albert Einstein, 1950) From URL:http://answers.google.com/answers/th...24178#comments

What happens to the theory of General Relativity when the idea that Absolutely Everything and Absolutely Nothing coexisting simultaneously in the same place space & time, the Basic Paradox; is taken into account?

[jamesj]

So gravity can focus light so powerfully that it can spontaneously end the existence of observers, destroy the definition of the spacetime itself, or spoil the unique time evolution in a spacetime based on a sensible set of initial data? What is to protect us then from the pathological possibilities of strong gravitation fields? The Cosmic Censorship Conjecture proposes that in the context of the theory of general relativity, in a spacetime where the total energy density is positive, pathologies such as spacetime singularities and breakdowns in causality and predictability are always hidden behind the event horizons of black holes. From URL:http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.html

What happens to the Cosmic Censorship Conjecture when absolutely nothing exists, causing a balance in the total energy density?

[MerlinsByte]

"cut&paste (jamesj)According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content (matter, objects) does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundament part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high." (Albert Einstein, 1950) From URL:http://answers.google.com/answers/t...324178#comments

“According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content (matter, objects) does not exist.” AB

Merlin writes ….This shouldn’t damage the possibility that nothingness may exist. I would be happy to e mail you some diagrams (non math). I am especially in what “happens” while the wave function collapses. If there is no space time interval and the information exchange is indeed instant I will be a sad puppy. I’ve got a blog up but I’ve been too busy to finish it , this blog named Oneuniverse will address paradoxes and quantum events as related to the macro world. With little math and many diagrams.

In Einstein’s universe “nothing” cannot exist. But Einstine (he is on my most admired short list) also didn’t like the implications of quantum theory, especially Spooky action at a distance. (the collapse of the wave function instantly changing another particles incidentals, which suggested that faster than light information exchange was going on). So I tell or ask you to stick with it. Your way of thinking interests me.


Albert writes “Since the theory of general relatively implies the
representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept
of particles or material points cannot play a fundament part, nor can
the concept of motion.” Albert Einstine


Merlin replies...The concept of space time “moving” with the time line and our point on the time line moving as well, is a key part of my hypothesis of how sentient beings (us and maybe more creatures) can display free will in a universe that is paradoxically also preordained. So I am doomed if “the concept of motion” is forbidden to act upon the space time line.

BigAlbert says ...." The particle can only appear as a limited
region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are
particularly high." (Albert Einstein, 1950)

Nano Tiny merlinsbyte replies...."Yes this is true in the classical sense, but the particle can be in two “places” at the same time. I need to chastise my lazyness and work on some supporting math that will at least support this the events (of the particle or the cat) pun intended….., that occur while “space” or “Time” or both are involved in the throes of duality."

mb