FrostCloud Forums

FrostCloud Forums (http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Philosophy (http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Does Nothingness exist? (http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24201)

shot 06-10-2010 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld (Post 451104)
Pretty funny shot. What you say presuposes that you know who it is that 'gets that.' And just who might that be? For there to be a nothing or something requires a perceiver of it. Neither can exist without an entity to classify something as being nothing or something. Its not about nothing or something. It is about the perceiver that does any such classification. What precisely IS this perceiver? In the west it is a common belief that the mind is the perceiver. This is false. All that the mind is is a record/memory of phenomena perceived in a particular way by consciousness which IS the actual perceiver. In other words consciousness is the perceiver of things from the senses and the mind. The mind simply captures conceptions OF any such perceptions in memory and biases such perceptions had by consciousness according to the experiences a person (mind/personality) has had growing up in life. We are no more our mind than you are you toaster or car. The mind is an inanimate object. A collection of memories biased by ego in a particular way.

Regardless whether you believe this or not, it brings home the point that for there to be something or nothing depends on the entity that ascribes any such thing to any such thing. What something is very much depends on the thing doing the classifying of what that something is.

Its about 'even I get that' - its aout the "I" that 'get that'. Not the something or nothing.



In that case, I perceive something that I call nothing, which in turn makes it something.
I am the only entity capable of classify something as being nothing or something.
If I am the consciousness which is the actual perceiver, If mind is secondary or third or to be exact, perhaps the last thing to be aware, since its knowing is dependent on second or third or fourth hand information from many other sources...after consciousness.
Then I am still the consciousness.
The experience that I perceive through mind to be nothingness is in fact something, as I said.

And as I perceive nothingness, I in effect impose my self on nothingness altering that into something I call nothing, which in truth was always something that something, being me.
I have observed something and in doing so altered it, creating what I perceived to be nothing, which then converts back to me, the consciousness the percever, through my mind.
As perceiver I have created every thing in my own likeness.
I see my self as something so every thing I perceive is something and always will be something, in my likeness, nothing, is nothing more, than a word I use to describe another part of my perceved self. Nothing or Nothingness can be nothing but something.

Mike Dubbeld 06-17-2010 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shot (Post 451802)
In that case, I perceive something that I call nothing, which in turn makes it something. I am the only entity capable of classify something as being nothing or something.

And just exactly is this "I" doing any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shot (Post 451802)
If I am the consciousness which is the actual perceiver, If mind is secondary or third or to be exact, perhaps the last thing to be aware, since its knowing is dependent on second or third or fourth hand information from many other sources...after consciousness. Then I am still the consciousness. The experience that I perceive through mind to be nothingness is in fact something, as I said.

That's true. You get it. My point is that 'we' are not what we are aware of. If you experience a tree you are not a tree (duh). But what can you say about nothingness? How do you experience 'nothingness'? My point is nothing whatsoever that exists - either as a physical sensible entity like a tree or a concept in the mind (nothingness) - is required for consciousness/the perceivers existence. We do not need to be conscious OF something to be conscious. External things and conditions are not required for consciousness. This seemingly trivial distinction is important because it makes it clear that the mind itself is an External object just like tables and chairs are external objects. If I am aware/conscious of a tree, I am not the tree. If I am conscious of the thought of a tree, I am not the thought of the tree. Both are external objects to consciousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shot (Post 451802)
And as I perceive nothingness, I in effect impose my self on nothingness altering that into something I call nothing, which in truth was always something that something, being me.

"Nothing" exists as a concept. So do "dogs". There is no such thing as "dogs". "Dogs" can be short and tall, male or female, with lots of types of hair etc. No such single entity physically exists. "Dogs" is a concept in the mind only. So nothing exists as a concept in a mind. There is no question about the existence of nothingness. The only question is about what it is that makes claims on its existence. The mind as external object makes these abstract classifications like "dogs" and "nothingness".

Quote:

Originally Posted by shot (Post 451802)
I see my self as something so every thing I perceive is something and always will be something, in my likeness, nothing, is nothing more, than a word I use to describe another part of my perceived self. Nothing or Nothingness can be nothing but something.

"If all the world is a dream, then I am part of the dream. As such the dream is real to me". Conan the Barbarian. This implies that you are your mind 'me'. There has to be something to have 'nothing' or anything else. There has to be something from which something else can be distinguished from. Who would 'you' be if there was nothing with which to compare 'yourself' to? This may be all new and a little confusing at first. For “this” to exist there must be a “that”. It is irrelevant what “this” and “that” are. This is the case for the philosophy of relativism which I claim is false. Consciousness requires no external entity for its existence with which it can compare itself to. Consciousness can be consciousness of itself. The perceiver is not the mind but consciousness. The mind simply captures conceptions of experiences had by consciousness which is the true perceiver. Consciousness existed before the universe came into being and will still exist when it is gone.

TruthInArt 06-17-2010 07:43 AM

Only IF
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 447741)
Does Nothingness exist?

If it does, then it is not nothingness, for it then exists.

The concept of 'zero' exists. We use nothingness as a 'thing', and without this, we would have no PC's, and no internet. No language.

But it is 'nothing', so how can nothing be also something? How can it exist, if it does not exist?

oi!

So why this thread?

To demonstrate a perfect paradox.
Which shows that REALITY does not always abide by logic.

Can something come out of nothing?
Or in a more mundane sense, can more come out of less?

Well the Universe is marginally more today than it was yesterday.
So were does this expanding space come from?

ok, so hypothetically, it comes from another universe... and we are left in the infinite regress.

Now, if it was not possible for something to come out of nothing, then nothing would ever change. Even if the universe is accumulating extra space from another universe, how can this process arrive? It must have always been thus (if we accept that something cannot come from nothing)

But before this universe existed, this process could not have existed, for there was no local universe to expand into.

Somewhere along the line something has to come from nothing (more from less) or else all would be static.

In order for change to be possible, something must change from one thing to another ~ thus more must come from less, which is to say something from nothing.

Confusing?
Like all paradoxes, yes.

If nothing exists, then it is not nothingness, for it then exists.

;-j

YOU believe in it? Very important it is inside a lightbulb is a vacuum.
Burnout problems tyres shredded down to the rims flappity flap flap.
Your wings little black duck in the pond: the hunters will collect you.
As a trophy for the taxidermist to stuff full of expletives so vacuous.

Seven Billion Lightglobes burning one hundred and fifty watts per hour.
All of them related to each other thinking they are so, so very special.
That is too themselves but not necessarily important too each other.
Vacuum statement since a strangest alian mafiosa took over the world.

Constitutions written then common and statute law: high court fiasco.
Fight that out in court: challenge your nations constitution I dare you to!
See if nothing exists after that like, what happens if all sold their houses.
At once then no money then no sale since all houses for sale no buyers.

Burnouts on the streets doughnut writing on the tarmac after wheelies.
Noise pollution of B flat Vuvuzela acting like white noise or rag to a bull.
Picture perfect convention on whether you or I are in or out of the party.
If nothing exists, nothing to talk about, does that thought not startle YOU?

Peat:whoa:

shot 06-22-2010 06:09 AM

Not sure how to use the quote thing, just doing the best i can for now.
Not quoting Mike exactly, not intended to be perfect.





Mike Dubbeld said:

My point is that 'we' are not what we are aware of.
If you experience a tree you are not a tree (duh).

Shot says:
I disagree.

Mike Dubbeld said:
But what can you say about nothingness?
How do you experience 'nothingness'?

Shots answer:
Perhaps “you” don't experience nothingness, perhaps it experience s you, or you are one and the same. Looking at your self from different angles


Mike Dubbeld said:
My point is nothing whatsoever that exists - either as a physical sensible entity like a tree or a concept in the mind (nothingness) - is required for consciousness/the perceive rs existence.

Shot answer:
I don't agree.

If we are talking about consciousness and weather or not “external” stimulation of some kind is needed for consciousness to exist then I would say the exact opposite of what you argue when you say, “nothing whatsoever that exists - either as a physical sensible entity like a tree or a concept in the mind (nothingness) - is required for consciousness/the perceive rs existence”.
I would say that in fact “a physical sensible entity like a tree or a concept in the mind (nothingness)”IS in fact necessary for consciousness, and I would go further to suggest necessary /vital for the perceivers existence, (I say this to finish a point, and for the sake of argument, even though there can be no such thing as “non-existence”).
One can not exist and NOT be conscious, as there is always “external” which may even be what your consciousness...through mind, may call nothingness. to be conscious and to exist one most have an external, such as “nothingness” consciousness can not exist with out this, as nothing is something and can not be anything other than something, we just attach an arbitrary word and meaning to that which we know is something, but have no other way of relating to others.
In fact...in truth the word “nothingness” or “nothing” means in effect Nothing! Ha ha ha : )
And yes based on what I am theorizing or suggesting, Rocks Trees Air, and any thing you care to name...is in fact conscious with an internal, based on the “external” which we belong to, in it's entirety.
and yes nothingness that is something, will always be external, even if we mistakenly perceive it to be internal.

Mike Dubbeld said:
If I am aware/conscious of a tree, I am not the tree. If I am conscious of the thought of a tree, I am not the thought of the tree.

Shot's answer:
Once more I would disagree with you and say, we are in fact , the thought of the tree that is us.
If you are aware/conscious of a tree you are in fact the tree, how can you be conscious and aware of the tree it you are not a tree, prove to me you are not?
At the moment the tree is illuminated.
It is experiencing its self through you and you through it at a different angle you are doth the same.
There is a mutual impact from one to the other, each effects the other, by the very observation or discovery of the others existence.
How can you say you are not a tree when you think, tree, if you would agree that you do not know what it is to be a tree.
Not being aware of being a tree does not mean you have not become the tree ,with the thought ...tree.

Mike Dubbeld said:
"Nothing" exists as a concept.

Shot says:
I agree.

Mike Dubbeld said:
the only question is about what it is that makes claims on its existence.

Shot says:
There is no question, as that which IS, claims its own existence, and correctly so.

Shot says:
If every thing originated from the same source (big bang or whatever)...then as we are all cut from the same cloth we are all one and the same. All conscious of the other ,all impacting the other,all being the external and internal of the other.
If I take a rose and make cuttings of it and make more roses even different colored roses then they are all still one rose.
Experiencing themselves/each-other creating the internal and external that allows them to exist and be conscious, one shifting into the other, interchangeable as humans are with flowers or grass or cats or air. If there is only one source, weather that is a big bang or a single cell or an atom. Then there can never ever be an individual, a broken mirror appears to have many reflections of the same or different things, but since there was only one original mirror there is in reality only one reflection from many angles.

Mike Dubbeld said:
"If all the world is a dream, then I am part of the dream.
As such the dream is real to me". Conan the Barbarian.

Shot says:
There is NO dream, only different reality's self seeing self from different angles is still self.

Mike Dubbeld said:
Consciousness requires no external entity for its existence with which it can compare itself to. Consciousness can be consciousness of itself.

Shot says:
I do not agree.
What is self but a part of “other”.
Self can only be the original all else is the original looking at its self from many different angles.
At that point it becomes it's own “external”.
looking in a mirror is it looking at you, is the image of you , or are you the image of it.

Is it possible you don't know you are a tree or a rock or air, relating to others of your kind with out knowing what you are. Or are you and can you be all of them at once.
I believe you are and can.
As there can only be one source.

Mike Dubbeld 06-25-2010 04:49 AM

You have a lot to learn shot. Sure glad my guessing days on these issues are over.

Amergain 07-03-2010 12:01 AM

At the time when the Big Bang started, it was called a singularity. There was no space and no time.

When the cosmos was compressed into that singularity what was around it. It is implied that "area" was empty but it was not space because the four dimensions of space and the one of time were still locked up in the singularity.

Science programmes show the singularity as a small white dot in a black field. What, if anything was in that field?

I would appreciate Mike giving me his thoughts. I have no idea or concept of what was outside of the singularity.

Amergain

galatomic 07-04-2010 02:07 AM

Logical Farts
 
Amergain,

Good question.

I believe the concepts of space, time and singularities are artifacts of the physical model we are attempting to show best fits the data, COBE &WMAP e.g. Singularities are values of the variables in the model where the model breaks down and does not make sense.

If we accept inflation theory then there was a “space” with certain properties and “energies” that existed initially within an “abyss” that must have had different properties or the complete absence of properties. Although something not having properties is a property therefore it is really something of a paradox.

To deal with these problems one has to either accept the logical conundrums of the current theories because they have not been bettered or one has to boldly go where none have gone before and proclaim a new theory that has no foul smells like the smell of an expanding space fart within an abyss.

Reconciling GR with QM is the name of the game. QM doesn’t give us much insight about the macro world while GR is much better it still gives us a singularity about the beginning.

There are models that are being developed that view our world as having come into existence as a result of a former world, previous to the BB, which collapsed and the BB is viewed rather as a Big Bounce transformation rather than the creation from nothing of everything.

galatomic

Mike Dubbeld 07-04-2010 01:25 PM

No one does know what preceded our BB singularity. One possibility is that in some other universe (set of dimensions) where there is a supermassive galactic size black hole with billions of solar mass’s (sun masses) some threshold is reached (like the Chandrasekhar Limit for white holes) and it results in this supermassive black hole exploding into other dimensions (ours) as a ‘white hole’ or what we call a big bang. Some day our universe may produce a galaxy with such a supermassive black hole resulting in a BB in some other universe. There are many possibilities like ‘Breeder- black hole universes’ (Lee Smolin) and what the superstring theorists have to say including the Ekpyrotic superstring theories that involve 2 enormous “brane’s” colliding’


What is now the 'thing' is how many big bangs were there. It is common today in the physics community to believe that our universe is simply one of many. The question today is just how special IS our universe? Leonard Susskind inventor of string theory predicts it is necessary to get a universe like ours with the strength of gravity being what it is, the strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces being what they are as well as the strength of the electric field being what they are etc would require 10^500 universe's (in his book The Cosmic Landscape - his first book ever). In other words the majority of astronomers/cosmologists/astrophysicists no longer believe that the BB gave rise to THE universe. It is now common to believe there are many universe's with many BB's each with their own set of strengths of forces and constants giving rise to innumerable unliviable universes - for example - for OUR universe had the BB been a tiny bit stronger the only element in our universe would have been hydrogen. Can't do much with hydrogen especially when it is accelerating away rapidly from all other hydrogen atoms disabling the formation of stars due to gravity and therefore anything interesting in the universe. Had our BB been slightly less as strong, after a few million years the entire universe would have collapsed into one gigantic black hole. Not much interesting can be produced out of that.

Keep in mind, above I have given only TWO of many, many such things that can result in a lifeless universe ON THE SCALE OF UNIVERSES ALONE. As in there is another ton of very special circumstances required to get a planet like the Earth and had such circumstances like the size of our moon and the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth on its axis or the distance of the earth from the sun or the length of our day been different - we statistically would not be here. No life may statistically be here let alone intelligent life. There, there is another whole set of criteria biologically/evolutionally that could have gone wrong leading to no intelligent life on earth.

Two good books on just such subjects is:
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-A.../dp/0742511677
http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

Among these subjects I have many books another excellent source is by Professor Seth Shostak at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute) course by The Teaching Company "The Search for Intelligent Life in Space" --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Shostak

Seth nails down un-ambiguously what ET is likely to look like, his motivations and why "UFO's are bunk". From what he says he is clearly an atheist. I do not doubt what he says only his interpretation OF the data. These 3 sources alone can quickly eliminate a ton of junk and I have long since pushed on to subjects like the conditions under which photosynthesis can take place (type sun necessary to support plant life). In other words the electromagnetic spectrum of our sun is special and had it been bigger or smaller, the amount of red, green and blue wavelengths of light and infrared and ultraviolet light it emits would be different and the question is – what mass of star provides the necessary cutoff for photosynthesis to occur from which the rest of the food chain follows? And for instance how fast Jupiter would have to spin on its axis to enable creatures on its surface not to be squashed by its enormous gravity - how fast would it have to spin for creatures to be nearly weightless and yet the planet not fly apart due to the Roach-lobe effect from centrifugal acceleration? Would we get lucky and find that same spin rate provided the means for hydrogen and helium and other poisonous gases to fly off into space leaving room for oxygen and nitrogen to stick providing a livable troposphere like the Earth?

What role does the rate of spin on its axis have on plate tectonics and life trying to survive? What is the cutoff tilt of a planet on its axis (the tilt remember gives rise to seasons on Earth – too little tilt – not much seasonal change. Too much tilt – vast deserts and wasteland). If a planet is too close to its star it will be tidally locked like mercury to the sun. One side of the planet continuously faces the sun and is far to hot for life. The other continually faces away from the sun resulting in sub-zero temperatures too cold for life.

Mass of planet necessary to contain nitrogen and oxygen yet small enough not to contain poisonous gases like hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere like gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. How exactly do you get plate tectonics (for which if the earth did not have it it is very unlikely any life would be on the earth)? Is it normal for an earth-size planet to have things like radium and uranium and thorium to have plate tectonics? If the moon had not collided with the earth merging its molten core with the Earth's would we have enough mass to support an atmosphere and radioactive elements for plate tectonics? Is volcanism a means to have life at great distances from the sun like Europa a moon of Jupiter 5 times the distance of the earth to the sun distant another means for life to arise in 'smokers' underneath its ice like on Earth with sulfur eating bacteria living at temperatures above 200 degrees Fahrenheit?

The above mentioned sources only get you started asking the Right questions and are by no means an end in themselves. How do you detect life on an extra solar world the size of earth in a distant stars solar system? You look for oxygen in its atmosphere by observing its spectrum. What size and type of telescope is necessary to do this? Are they being built today? How exactly are nations on Earth searching for ET? How much money is being spent by who and by what means? If we found a signal from ET could we interpret it? What would ET's motives be? Human stakes. (Nope! as it turns out) Our water? nope. Our minerals? nope. Would ET be bigger than the empire state building? nope. Smaller than a bird? nope. There are things called convergent evolution (search) that pretty much force certain facts on ET just like life on Earth evolved. There are things like scaling factors (search) that similarly dictate ET's size. ET will not have his eyeballs in his kneecaps (Seth Shostak).

The above is just food for thought for people that don’t normally think about these sorts of things in detail. The devil is in the details so to speak. You have to ask the question – how can you know the probability of life existing elsewhere in A universe if you do not know precisely the conditions under which life has arisen in this universe with this type star on this type planet with this type mass, orbital period, length of day, with this type moon with plate tectonics etc. Same goes for universe’s – how likely is it for us to get a universe like ours? 1 in 10^ 500 per Leonard Susskind. That is not a mistake that is a number with 500 zeros in it. Then you can Start thinking about galactic characteristics (which I did not even mention) and solar system characteristics. Then you can start thinking about how if 65 million years ago had that asteroid not hit the Yucatan Peninsula and wiped out the dinosaurs (because it was 10 minutes LATE say!) whether mammals would have ever evolved into homo-sapiens. Some argue that intelligent life is inevitable by evolution. But clearly this is wrong since the cockroach, shark and alligators have been around for many millions of years while homo-sapiens has only been around a couple of hundred thousand years. Clearly, nature is not interested in producing intelligence. Nature is interested in producing species capable of survival.

Mike Dubbeld 07-14-2010 07:19 AM

Where is Amerigain? I am beginning another round of a 36 lecture course on neurscience by an university professor. I just finised a 24 1/2 hour lecture series on quantum mechanics. It seems I respond but you don't Amerigain. I may have questions for you on my new Neuroscience course I would hope you do not similarly disappear in the next few days. Like I said before, we do not agree on interpretation of the data however I wonder just how much you are keeping up with the data/would appreciate your comments on it.

You know I just watched another idiotic episode of "Ancient Aliens" on the tube tonight where I have once again found PhD's to be on DRUGS. In particular the guy tried to sell the idea that Sirius B - a well known white dwarf star to astronomers - feared for its potential to colliding with Sirius the brightest star in the sky and causing a supernova ending all life on Earth- this yahoo said that Sirius B was an 8 solar mass star in orbit around Sirius. Well it is common knowledge that no white dwarf can exceed the Chandrasekhar Limit (search it) of 1.4 solar masses. What this cable TV series DOES NOT say is much more impressive than the junk it tries to persuade the public of LOL. I do not claim any PhD's (although I have advised them) but am very leary of just because someone DOES have A PhD that they are some kind of authority. In fact it seems to me that PhD's are a time sensitive entity. But here on FC, ANY PhD is heads and shoulders above the rest so when I take the time to respond I expect to see some hint of someone on the other end having some sort of clue.

Aileen 07-16-2010 08:44 AM

Our frigging human brains are not capable of understanding nothing. We are constantly searching for a meaning. There is no meaning.

Meme Virus 07-16-2010 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aileen (Post 453063)
Our frigging human brains are not capable of understanding nothing. We are constantly searching for a meaning. There is no meaning.

Really, young woman! Let me take you aside and offer a bit of kindly sisterly advice:

If you want to advertise products in your signature, the negativity of your posts really won't do! If people are going to be feeling cheerful enough to feel like facing the challenge of clicking your links and trying out what they find there, you need to make them feel bright and optimistic, by putting positive, cheery and motivational posts on here. They need to think you're offering something good. I assure you your advertising will be at least a little more effective that way.

:)

Blossom 07-16-2010 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meme Virus (Post 453086)
Really, young woman! Let me take you aside and offer a bit of kindly sisterly advice:

If you want to advertise products in your signature, the negativity of your posts really won't do! If people are going to be feeling cheerful enough to feel like facing the challenge of clicking your links and trying out what they find there, you need to make them feel bright and optimistic, by putting positive, cheery and motivational posts on here. They need to think you're offering something good. I assure you your advertising will be at least a little more effective that way.

:)

Regardless if she is being negative or positive, I had absolutely no urge to click her links until you, Meme, made this post. For some reason I can't understand, you are making me want to click her links. Maybe if her links were your signature I would act out on this urge, which I have already done in the past. I feel satisfied now, I don't feel like clicking her links anymore.

PoseidonsNet 07-18-2010 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aileen (Post 453063)
Our frigging human brains are not capable of understanding nothing. We are constantly searching for a meaning. There is no meaning.

A profound observation, one which lead Rene Descartes to say
'I think therefore I am'
which sounds obvious and nothing,
however
it lead this Jesuit priest to invent the scientific method,
which then resulted in Galileo and Newton and their
discoveries. It was the fulcram of philosophy,
and the beginning of the technological era.

~

When you say 'there is no meaning' you are implying something meaningful, that is : you are implying it would be pointless to think, and you propose that this idea of having no ideas is a good idea.
I think.

;-j

TruthInArt 07-20-2010 05:59 AM

Spatial Manifolds
 
The latin natura non facit saltas = 'nature does not make leaps' is breached by hyperbolic geometry which extends from scepticism over the fifth postulate of Euclidian geometry.

Energy fields speak only of


Quote:

Originally Posted by EB 1994-2002@ Modalities of the natural order
" Renouncing unbroken causality, it speaks only of a probability that is statistical and a discrete saltatory events of which physical processes consist - aview that must now, in spite of Einstein, be regarded as irrevocable"

PEAT:)

TruthInArt 07-21-2010 05:52 AM

Yes?
 

1 Cor 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network