Does Nothingness exist?

Last night I encountered an old friend I have not seen in a long time. Not a person a problem. I started to post a new thread and will soon called "Size Matters". Its a real shocker to me - its a problem having to do with geometry and its implications for other dimensions. It waxes philosophical. I left off pondering the implications of whether or not it is true the properties of a geometrical form change with size because I have shown the ratio between the physical properties of a geometrical form do change with size. For example, if I have cube A at distance x emitting light with intensity I1 and cube B, a larger cube, at the same distance emitting light with intensity I2 --- an intensity proportionally brighter with respect to the size of the cube ---- If I moved cube B back further giving it the same angular size as cube A - would it then emit light with intensity I1? I need to review things like Gauss's Law and some other things but the physics is not what I am real interested in. It seems just applying mathematical properties to pure numbers (no physics) using the same geometry - the ratio of the properties is not the same! This I have already proven and now I am looking for a physical situation (like the intensity of light in a cube) to explain it/provide better insight as to why that is true.

I hope the above is not too confusing (abstract) but thats why I have not posted a new thread on it yet - because I am trying to make what I am talking about as simple as possible to understand. It is important to me ultimately because it affects the way I understand higher dimensions mathematically and if anyone here is watching from my past discussions on derivatives being the rate of change of a volume and how 3-dimensional objects volumes can be seen as the 'shadows' of 4 dimensional objects - if you integrate a volume of a solid you get the mathematical equivalent of a 4 dimensional object - strangely enough the very same strangeness can be found studying the ratio of the surface area of a 3-dimensional object to its volume aka SA/Vol. In other words studing the ratio of abstract properties produces unexpected results/unexplained results that I need to better understand mathematically. Now that I wrote this I think I will specifically be looking into what the ratio of a derivative divided by its function means mathematically. What physical interpretation can I associate with that? How do pure numbers applied to the properties of a physical object when in ratio change with size?! What meaning do I walk away with here/what physical equivalent interpretation can be said about this? Don't sweat it I am banging out specific examples to show precisely what I mean and why I am so interested in this. MD

See - I just had FC do something wild to my very careful explanation of the above into FC Vaporware - it is because of this I am not going to waste any more attempts at doing this on FC but instead will continue typing up a thread in a much safer environment and then post it when it is done. It is one of the reasons I consider FC airhead land. If you can't think something up and explain it in a single paragraph the FC machinery will magically eat it/this encouruages only people that CAN understand small paragraphs participate. Its not just FC. Have you noticed it is getting harder and harder to find a 'safe' place to put your cursor? The internet has found a million ways to get you to rest your cursor in the wrong place and take you off to 'BUY NOW!!!' land. Or is so bent on anticipating (Stupidly) what you want to do next it takes you to some stupid place you don't want to be and forces you to find out how to go back to where you were and recall what you were trying to say before you were so rudely interrupted. On that very same subject, have you noticed how much harder it is to find simple functions like for instance on FC you now must identify where it is/what tab to put your cursor over to discover how to login. Lucky me I found it...... But you can find in broad daylight so to speak (on other sites) BUY NOW every wrong cursor move away/you have to meticulously navigate around all this CRAP. Google Gmail is one of the worst by far making you hunt down simple things (guess which tab logout is under?/guess which tab sent mail is under etc). They tend to think - well we just changed this a little bit. But 'they' don't seem to recognize that if every scumbag application makes these small changes it ever increases the frustration of the user having to constantly re-figure out their little 'special' (egotistical and sales-oriented) changes.

What exactly is it about the letters on the page of a book that are abstract, MD? Are you incapable of seeing them? Are you blind, is that it? Do you use your mystical training to read the words without looking at them? Do you absorb them into your brain by osmosis? Perhaps you're a comatose psych-ward patient who absorbs the OBJECTS (ie letters) on the screen by mental telepathy... and then responds by psychokinesis. If you never actually read the words that are written, then that would seem to explain a lot.

The rest of us are perfectly capable of understanding that there is a fundamental different between the lettters on screen (or boook) we're reading and the thoughts in our head. The thoughts in our head are abstract. The letters on a page are not. If I write words on a piece of paper and then die, the paper and the words still exist, independ of whether or not anyone else has seen them. If I make up a language that no one else knows, and write words in that language before I die... the letters still exist, even though no one else who looks at them has any idea what the abstract ideas are that were represented by them.

I suspect that even the smallest child understand this very simple FACT. And it speaks volumes about YOU that you are apparently oblivious to the difference between an inanimate object and an idea that the object represents. Even more so that you would attack me for talking about this distinction.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that even you could be this numb to intuitive commonsense.

This is not an amazingly stupendous insight... it's not even much of an insight at all. Nor does it contradict anything that I've said, as it appears that you seem to think. The problem with your comments (unlike mine) is that they doesn't really do anything to explain the actual relationship beteen [something] and [nothing]. It's like saying, [1+1 = 2] because [2] owes its existence to [1+1]. Okay, but what does that mean? It hasn't really told us anything that we didn't already know.

yes and no.

On the one hand, physical things exist. They exist whether or not there is anyone to distinguish them or not. If no living creatures existed, the sun would still move around the earth, and all of the same physical aspects of that process would continue, just as they do now, without any difference.

On the other hand, the abstract idea of a [sunset] woud be meaningless, because that is something that requires the perspective of an observer--as demonstrated by the fact that if I'm on the east coast watching a sunset and you're on the west coast... then you are definitely NOT watching a sunset. The sunset is NOT an inherent part of the physical process of the sun moving around the earth. The sunset only exists because (from our perspective) we can distinguish this one aspect of the whole process from others by certain very distinct characteristics. And we difine this [sunset aspect of the process] from all the other parts of the process that are [not sunset].

by way of analogy, all of reality can be seen as a single physical process with no inherent parts. We distinguish between what is [me] and what is [not] me because only what is [me] has the unique characteristic of being under my direct mental control. And similarly for each distinguishable part of reality--we define it by determining what characteristis it possesses that make it inherently different from the rest of physical reality. But that doesn't make it suddenly devoid of a physical aspect.

Again, yes and no.

In a sense, no one has seen a physical sunset before, because, as I said earlier, the sunset isn't an inherent part of the process of the sun going around the earth. But on the other hand, if it weren't for the [physical process as a whole], we would have no way of knowing (on an abstract, conceptual level) what a [sunset] was.

In much the same way, [1] is indeed an abstract notion. But if it weren't for physical reality, (and our perspective of it) there could be no concept [1]. Simlarly, we have a concept for [apple] that distinguishes certain parts of reality from the whole. Many different parts of reality can be distinguished using this same concept... so there are many apples in the world, even thought there is only one concept [apple]--(at least for any one person at any one specific time). In physical terms, each of these apples are different. But we can conbine the concepts [1] + [apple] to indicate that we are referring to only a limited part of the physical whole. But that part is still physical; and it is still unique. The first [1 apple] we encounter will be physically different from the second [1 apple] we encounter--but conceputally they are the same.

So no, what we see is OBVIOUSLY not the concept [one]. But that doesn't mean that what we are calling [one apple] doesn't have a physical aspect. If it didn't, it wouldn't provide sustenance when we eat it.

I disagree.

First, part of languages is the physical letters that are used to write it. I will refer to these physical objects by placing a word in parentisis. So, 'one' and 'dog' are just two particular strings of symbols. They are not concepts until we attach those letters to the ideas in our mind. If this were not so, then OBVIOUSLY you wouldn't need to understand English to know what these letters mean. The letters would BE the meaning.

Second, I don't disagree that [one] and [dog] are concepts. What I disagree with is your assertion that they are "category in our minds only." I disagree with is your apparent assertion that there isn't such a thing as physical existence.

In a sense, this has nothing to do with philosophical arguments about whether or not reality is immaterial; and all a product of the mind. For example, in a dream, I may see a dog and pet it, so within the framework of that dream the dog is physical, because it has the properties that define it as [being physical]. For instance, in the dream I can't put my hand through the dog.

From outside the dream, we know that the dream isn't physically real. What is 'real' are the electro-chemical processes that are going on in my brain. But within the dream, the dog is 'physically real' because it fits the definition of a [real physical object]. If it weren't physically real, I couldn't pet it. I might be able to see it, but I certainly couldn't pet it.

In the same way, if you believe that reality is all in our mind... that really doesn't invalidate any of my arguments about the interaction between the physical and conceptual aspects. The distinction between the conceputal and physical aspects of a sunset still exist, whether we are seeing that sunset while awake or while asleep.

This passage would seem more appropriate as one of my arguments than one of yours... It seems to contradict everything that you seem to have been trying to say.

As I see it, the key point is that [a given thing] is not the same as the [name of the given thing]. In the same way, the letters 'dog' are a [name]; and that name is not the sum of what the [concept dog] is. Nor are those letters the sum of the [part of the physical whole] that we are referring to as [dog].

This is a silly argument, if you ask me, since it is based on the assumption that Joe is right--and yet, it's very purpose is to show that Joe is wrong. Which means, in the end, that it is nothing more than pseudo-clever nonsense.

Joe might say what you suggest, but that doesn't make his claim technically true.

A typical doctor knows a lot more about how a body works than I do... so in a way, he knows a lot more about me than I do. But each body is also unique, so no matter how much a doctor knows about me, there is still a lot of minutia that he doesn't know about me. By way of counter, Joe may claim that he knows the mental aspects of himself (if not the physical)... but again, most of the mental processes that go on in our brain are entirely subconscious. Which means that (in reality) we do not know ourselves all that well after all. Some of us know ourselves better than others, but even the mystic who has fine control over their body (implying that they have a much greater understanding of the unconscious workings of the brain) do not know it with perfect detail.

The string of letters, [Y-O-U], is just a [name]. Under certin circumstances, this name can refer to the [concept of me that I have about myself]. This concept, however, is not the same as the physical reality of what I really am. Similarly, this name can refer to the [part of all physical reality that I refer to as myself]. This [part of reality], however, is not the same as the concept of what I am.

In a strictly physical sense, you cannot separage [what is me] from [what is not me]. We use concepts to break the individible whole into meaningful parts--or as you say categories. But that doesn't remove the physical aspect from the parts. It just means that the parts are not there, except by virtue of the concepts. But the concepts cannot exist without the physical aspect that is broken into parts.

Yes, there are purely conceputal entities, such as a unicorn. But we know what a unicorn is because we know what it's parts are. We know what a [horn] is because we have seen [physical horns]. We know what a [horse] is because we have seen [physical horses]. A unicorn is defined as a [horse with a horn] so our concept is still firmly based on what is physical. Further, we have physical books and movies and statues, etc. which define what a unicorn is... so again, the concept is based on what is physical. If it weren't for these various types of physical things, we would NOT know what a unicorn was.

Similarly, the concept of a [square circle] is based on actual physical things. We know what a circle is because we've seen physical examples of circles. We know what a square is because we've seen physical examples of a square. The concept is the union of these two things... which isn't physically possible--but it is conceputally possible, because concepts are inherently different from physical objects.

And again, we define words like [between] using physical objects. If we had never seen three physical objects, one of which was between the other two, we would never have learned what the word [between] means.

I disagree... at least in a sense.

My hunger is in fact a part of me. It occurs because certain physical conditions exist in my body which cause chemical reactions, which send electrical impulses, which I interpret as hunger. If my hunger weren't a part of me, I wouldn't feel it. The term 'hunger' is both the name that we give to this physical process... and it is also the name that we give to the concept that we use to identify this process. The concept is not the physical process. The concept focuses more about the way I feel, and the empty pain I feel in my stomache. While the the physical process focuses more on what is happening in the cells, and so forth. And yet they are causally connected. I feel because the physical process occurs.

Your comments are directly analogous to looking at a [red car] and saying, "So red is the car? that doesn't make any sense." [Red] is a quality that [cars] may have; but [cars] is not a quality that [red] may have. but that doesn't mean that [being red] isn't a physical quality. There are certain wavelengths that get reflected, and when this happens, we see red. There is a physical process that makes it happen. Our choice of name is arbitrary, so we could instead refer to it as [scarlet] or [rojo], etc. Similarly, the wavelengths that we include in the [red concept] is also arbitrary, so for instance some might include [what I think is a particular shade of orange] in their [conceptual definition of red]. But it's the same physical wavelenth in both cases... so [red]has a phsycal component, even if we need the concept [red] to separate it from the rest of the light spectrum. The physical component is clearly NOT the same as the [name] or the [concept].

Again, this seems to do a better job of proving my point than yours. If the physical aspect didn't exist, and all there was, was the the conceptual aspect, then the [me with finger] would necessarily be conceptually different from the [me without finger]. This is NOT the case. I can create different concepts for these two me's... for instance, by dividing the whole of my life into the [part before I lost the finger] and the [part after I lost the finger]. But the whole of my phsyical life is what defines me, and so that conceptual division is not necessary. I can do it if I want, but I don't HAVE to do it, not the way I would if there weren't any physical aspect to me.

I agree, I just don't think you understand what this implies.

And it certainly is not that the territory doesn't exist. Nor is it that the name 'Hawiaii' refers only to the map... and NOT to the territory which is actualy [Hawiaii]. The name 'Hawiaii' refers to both the map and the territory. That's why we can look at a map and honestly say, "I'm looking at Hawiaii." But we can also vacation to Hawiaii, and honestly say the same thing while looking at the landscape. The name can be used to refer to either aspect. Otherwise, we'd have to stand on a map our whole vacation to make, "I vacationed on Hawiaii," a true statement.

Again, you seem to be confirming my argument and destroying your own.

F = ma

Is a name that we give to the concept, [force]. But the [name] is not that [concept]; nor is it the actual physical force itself. But the [name] can be used to refer to either aspect: [conceptual or physical]. That's why one person can tell someone else to exert force against a button. At this point, the [name] refers primarily to a concept, because the force hasn't actually been exerted yet. Then, while the [other person] is pressing the button the first person can say that he is exerting force on the button. Now, the [name] refers not only to the abstract idea, but also to the physical event that is occuring.

The point is that (among other things) it is the three-part division (between concept-name-object) that allows us to talk about things in (future-present-past) tense. If it weren't for this structure, tense wouldn't be possible. This is just one of the many casualties that would occur if the world were really devoid of physical objects, as you seem to be arguing for.

You say this as if it were an insight; as if someone were arguing otherwise. But again, it simply proves my point and destroys your own.

If the [name] referred only to the concept... then it couldn't be referring to the actual pain that you feel. [Name or no name]... your idea of that pain would not refer to anything. It would be a meaningless nothing without purpose. You couldn't use the [name] to refer to the [physical things happening in your body], because by your own argument it doesn't refer to that... it only refers to the [concept]. Nor could your concept refer to the [actual physical pain], because there is no [name] with which to refer to it. The only name is what refers to the concept.

It's like trying to make a sound while 'clapping' with only one hand. It's an oxymoron; it can't be done. You need the [name] to refer to both the [concept] AND the [physical] in order to relate them one to the other. Without that, concepts have no meaning or purpose.

Not sure I understand what you're trying to describe here, or what you mean by the 'cube emitts light', or 'woul it then emit light with intensity I1?'
I assume you mean, "would it appear to emmit light with intensity I1, to an observer."

If so, it seems like it would be easier to describle and conduct the experiment if you set it up as two lights shining on the cubes and then measure the intensity of the light hitting the cubes. But if these are not equivalent scenarios, then I'm not sure what you're trying to describe.

I assume angular size is the apparent size that the cube appears to an observer? So as the cube moves further away, it's apparent (or angular) size decreases, even though it's actual size doesn't.

As an ex-photographer, I know that the rate at which the intensity of light diminishes is determined by the inverse square law. A little experimentation shows that objecst seem to get smaller much faster when you are closer to them (and moving away) as well... So, if I understand your little scenario, if this diminishment in size is also governed by the inverse square law, then the ratio you asked about would remain the same. If it is not, then the ratio would be different.

Not sure what this has to do with dimensions, but if there is more to your question than this, then (it seems to me) you did not explain it very well.

You never get it as far as abstract ideas goes Antone. You are too stupid.

I would talk to you about other dimensions but not unless you can as a minimum lead me to believe you are not clueless of what a calculus derivative is. It is hard for me to believe I could make clear what I mean to someone too stupid to understand what abstract means. The only reason I brought it up is because on the subject of being abstract there are levels of abstraction one concerns itself with the universe in the form of physical things. You seem to think with your silly ass understanding of abstraction that their is no difference between the abstract notion of one and and the word one itself. How did you get out of the 3'rd grade? Having removed the physical universe from the pure mathematics, the next level up in abstraction is the numbers themselves minus the units (Newtons, degrees, feet etc) themselves. Do numbers alter geometry? Thats not a question a person such as yourself is in any position to even think about.

Abstract objects like cubes and spheres have properties like surface areas and volume. Given the length of the side of a cube (a number) and plugging it into the formula for the surface area and then the volume of a cube, and getting a ratio (a number) out of it, how is it that the ratio is not proportional given another number? It seems to imply size matters - because they are not proportional. How that fact is related to higher dimensions and derivatives is nothing I am about to go into with the likes of yourself based on your pure junk above. You would have to accept on faith that what I said tells me something about the nature of higher dimensions being unable to make the connection - making it pointless to even try.

Coming from someone with such an amazingly inferior intellect as you demonstrate here, I take that as an immense compliment.

The reason you can't make clear what you're trying to say is because you're so clueless that you can't recognize when someone obviously does understand what abstract means.

Sticking your head in the sand, and pretending that abstraction is everything that exists... doesn't inherently make your definition of abstract better than mine. Apparentely your mind only works in one well worn rut--and you are unable to think outside of that prison. This does not make you wise. Only blind to the other half of what might be.

Once again, you demonstrate you stupendous ignorance and inability to understand the Engish language. Your attempt to restatment my possition is very nearly the exact opposite of what I said.
Is English a second language for you, by chance? Sometimes it sounds like it, when you make such an incredible fool of yourself.

I'm Wondering if you ever did get to the 3rd grade! Seriously, your arguments aren't even of a high enough quality to qualify as being specious--because, as you've just demonstrated, you can't even parrot back to me the most basic point of my arguements without getting them 180 degrees backwards. Your arrogance is only out done by your ignorance, dishonesty and stupidity.

Thank god!
You can't even understand simple stuff... like the fact that letters are not entirely conceptual abstractions... so how could you ever expect to explain something supposedly complex in understandable English? Please do me more favors like this!