The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Obvious Leo]

This has profound metaphysical consequences because when we observe the world from the inside looking out what we're actually doing is looking BACKWARDS down the arrow of time at a reality which no longer exists. This is the simulation which physics is modelling.

On Earth the reality we observe immediately precedes the present so we temporally get a fairly good view of reality, though less finely perceived than the reality small organisms perceive via their high speed perceptual equipment. On cosmic scales the situation is different and what we see can be a long time in the past. As Carl Sagan and NDGT said in Cosmos, when we look into the night sky we see the ghosts of stars that no longer exist.

Obviously what you say is true, and since the speed of light is so bloody fast what we normally observe in our everyday lives is near enough to being a real world being actualised before our gaze. But it's not, and in metaphysics near enough is not good enough and a miss is as good as a mile. The fact remains inescapable that the reality which we observe is a reality which exists no longer. We see only the phenomenal projection of the past, the present being an ever-changing noumenon which lies always tantalisingly beyond our scrutiny. Our observed world is thus merely a cadaver on a slab laid bare for our inspection and not the dynamic reality which is continuously being made. The physicists might not get this but no philosopher worthy of the name could possibly deny it and it is NOT a trivial matter to science.

[Arising_uk]

Yes, and that point is the perceiver, when an object is seen which is never separate from the perceiver, the thought of the object arises giving the illusion of an object over there separate from over here where the perceiver is standing. ...

What is happening when someone throws a rock at my head and I duck or not as the case may be?

Every time you observe an object you are creating what science calls the big bang, you are collapsing the wave function into a particle. The subject is inseparable from the object, they are one. ...

How can you observe this object before you have collapsed this wave-function? Especially if it is not separate in the first place?

The wave particle relationship aka duality is how ''oneness'' or the ''seer'' makes sense of it's reality in order to function sanely in the world. ...

Sorry? Who is this 'oneness' or 'seer'? Me or some other?

The world only appears to itself via this inference.

What world? You say there is only this one?

The reference point of any observer would always be centre, say you are standing on a spot and turn round in a complete circle, everything observed at this spot will appear to stay the same, but as soon as you walk forward your reference point of observation changes to a linear fashion where everything behind you is receding and everything in front of you seems to be coming towards you. But if there is just everything everywhere then nothing is actually moving because there is no where for anything to go. ...

Where are you walking forward to then?

The thing about the point of observation is that it creates a duality of here and there. ...

Or just that there is a here and there is an over there, which you discover by moving and not just looking.

This is the illusion, since the point of observation will always be dead centre while the circumference is everywhere meaning there is no boundary where the seer and the seen meet up at the same point. Try walking toward the horizon to see if you can meet up with it, the further you walk towards it, the more it recedes, even though your senses are telling you it is coming towards you because you are passing objects along the way, the objects are coming towards you and at the same time are moving away from you. But your point of reference never moves, only the objects move, and what's more intriguing is the observer and observed are actually one unitary movement, or action.So in truth nothing is moving.

The reason why your horizon is never met is because you are on a sphere, if it was a finite disc or plane then your horizon would meet you as you fell off the edge.

What is happening when you dodge that rock coming for your head?

When Einstein said the world is an illusion albeit a persistent one, he was actually correct. But the word illusion is not what you think it is, it doesn't mean nothing exists, it means separation doesn't exist, separation is an optical and auditory illusion of the senses.

By 'separation' do you mean 'space'?

The horizon can never be crossed...no matter how far your point of observation moves forward, because as your point of observation moves so does the world around you move at the same time, and this can go on and on infinitely without ever reaching a so called boundary

Like I said, this is true on a sphere.

...there is no edge of infinity...

If there is an 'infinity' then I agree.

so what appears to be receding as you walk forward is actually coming towards you at the same time, it's an illusion since nothing is actually moving since the reference point is always dead centre. In this sense only your body is moving not your sense of seeing, seeing or perception is everywhere at once. Where ever you go there you are.

Er! How is this body moving? As I thought you said nothing is moving.

Another example is the wheel; notice the hub of the wheel never moves, while the spokes appear to circle round in one direction and sometimes it will seem as if they are moving in the opposite direction to where they are going.

Er? Wheel hubs move, if they didn't you'd not be going anywhere.

This is what infinity mean, it means vast boundless space without boundary, ... it means total stillness ...so nowhere for anything to go, there's just here right now, now here, everywhere and nowhere. Matter is 99.9% empty space vibrating at certain frequencies according to their accumulative mass, the denser the mass the denser the vibration. Light being the less dense hence the saying speed of light...everything is light everywhere at once. Matter is like frozen light...we could call this dark matter....

Sorry but I thought you said there is no 'space'?

I could go on and on discussing this forever, but I hope you get the general gist ...

I do and thank you for your thoughts.

It means, if there is just everything everywhere, then there's just infinity expressing itself infinitely, possibility is vast without boundary. ...

Except that possibility is bounded by the tautologies and contradictions.

its Expression arises as the mind, the mind is nothing, since no one has ever seen a mind or touched one, or felt one..you get my drift...and yet from this unseen what ever you want to call it mind... a whole plethora of thoughts arise, and thoughts which are not a thing become things, there is not one thing that is not a thought. So this is how no thing is being everything. And is why nothing is everything..and everything is nothing.

I disagree as the 'mind' is explicable as the experience of a body with senses in an external world with a language and there being two of them.

I take it that you think reality is some kind of computation, if so why do you think it is designed to compute this 'reality', i.e. to examine itself? That is, could it not be that this 'reality' is just accidental or ephemera or a bug or even just the boot-up procedure before the real program gets run, etc, etc.

You cannot know or experience infinity because you are it experiencing itself subjectively. There are no things in reality, reality is a verb, a thing is a noun relative to itself.

Which is presumably what the Noumenon is meant to name. I agree reality is a process but disagree that there are no things in the world as I've been hit by them to many times, so whilst what hits me might not be the thing-in-itself my interpretation of it makes it a very thingy kind of thing.

[Greta]

This has profound metaphysical consequences because when we observe the world from the inside looking out what we're actually doing is looking BACKWARDS down the arrow of time at a reality which no longer exists. This is the simulation which physics is modelling.

On Earth the reality we observe immediately precedes the present so we temporally get a fairly good view of reality, though less finely perceived than the reality small organisms perceive via their high speed perceptual equipment. On cosmic scales the situation is different and what we see can be a long time in the past. As Carl Sagan and NDGT said in Cosmos, when we look into the night sky we see the ghosts of stars that no longer exist.

Obviously what you say is true, and since the speed of light is so bloody fast what we normally observe in our everyday lives is near enough to being a real world being actualised before our gaze. But it's not, and in metaphysics near enough is not good enough and a miss is as good as a mile. The fact remains inescapable that the reality which we observe is a reality which exists no longer. We see only the phenomenal projection of the past, the present being an ever-changing noumenon which lies always tantalisingly beyond our scrutiny. Our observed world is thus merely a cadaver on a slab laid bare for our inspection and not the dynamic reality which is continuously being made. The physicists might not get this but no philosopher worthy of the name could possibly deny it and it is NOT a trivial matter to science.

What is it precisely that you think they are getting wrong? Particle physics has obviously been efficacious, as has the QM particle zoo. The differences in nature of the various subatomic particles obviously do exist. There's no doubt various studies of system dynamics to consider the temporal aspects. What's missing?

[Obvious Leo]

All aspects of system dynamics are missing from the Standard Model, Greta. Subatomic particles are modelled as objects moving in space even though this idea clearly doesn't work. Particle physics only makes sense when the particles are modelled as zero volume mathematical points which means that the particles must be seen as an emergent suite of properties of a dynamic process. Modelling physical reality in this way is utterly impossible with the reductionist tools of classical mathematics because Newton's mathematics simply cannot model processes. This is canon orthodoxy in every science except physics and it is no coincidence that every science except physics makes sense.

[Dontaskme]

What do you mean by "a simulation"? Are you referring to the holographic principle or a giant alien game played on a supracosmic hard drive?

Yes, reality is holographic by nature. Everything in physical reality exist in two states, like two sides of the same coin but cannot know or see each other. The bridge or interface connecting the two would be the brain. The world is in the brain. Not out there, out there is a projection. You are actually living inside a holographic image or simulation decoded by the brain. There are no real entities living separate lives in the world of spacetime except as dream characters in a dream. All is one energy vibrating at different frequencies. There exists an infinite ocean of energy manifesting at different densities or frequencies; and at this moment we are tuned to this one, the "physical world".

Many different densities or frequencies are sharing the same space as your body including radio and television frequencies, but you can't see them and they are not aware of each other because they are vibrating to such different frequencies that they pass through each other and your body without anyone noticing. The only time they "interfere" with each other is when they are very close on the frequency band. Our known 3D physical world is of a slow dense vibration and is why we can't walk through walls, but radio, tv and x ray and other frequencies can. Every thing which is just energy manifest, inform.. (information) exists and shares the same space simultaneously since there is only space. Space is just another word for NOTHINGNESS or CONSCIOUSNESS or VOID or MIND or GOD or what ever you want to call unknown SOURCE

Physical matter has an etheric double which coexist in the same spacetime but out of phase with each other on two different planes of reality. Antimatter is the etheric double of physical matter.

The void is not what you think it is Gretta, we cannot visualise void or nothingness because when you try to think of nothing; you are filling it up in the exact same moment. It is like trying to describe silence by using words. The void is both empty and full at the same time.

This whole subject of object and subject duality being an illusion takes a lot of explaining, so it's best to do your own research.

I've provided a link for you to ponder on the idea of what is meant by Void. I hope you find it useful.Would appreciate your feedback on this, thanks.

The Void is real. All phenomena are ultimately empty and relative. This is a large part of the meaning of the Void.

http://paulbrunton.org/notebooks/19/5

[Dontaskme]

Yes, and that point is the perceiver, when an object is seen which is never separate from the perceiver, the thought of the object arises giving the illusion of an object over there separate from over here where the perceiver is standing. ...

What is happening when someone throws a rock at my head and I duck or not as the case may be?

Every time you observe an object you are creating what science calls the big bang, you are collapsing the wave function into a particle. The subject is inseparable from the object, they are one. ...

How can you observe this object before you have collapsed this wave-function? Especially if it is not separate in the first place?

The wave particle relationship aka duality is how ''oneness'' or the ''seer'' makes sense of it's reality in order to function sanely in the world. ...

Sorry? Who is this 'oneness' or 'seer'? Me or some other?

The world only appears to itself via this inference.

What world? You say there is only this one?

The reference point of any observer would always be centre, say you are standing on a spot and turn round in a complete circle, everything observed at this spot will appear to stay the same, but as soon as you walk forward your reference point of observation changes to a linear fashion where everything behind you is receding and everything in front of you seems to be coming towards you. But if there is just everything everywhere then nothing is actually moving because there is no where for anything to go. ...

Where are you walking forward to then?

The thing about the point of observation is that it creates a duality of here and there. ...

Or just that there is a here and there is an over there, which you discover by moving and not just looking.

This is the illusion, since the point of observation will always be dead centre while the circumference is everywhere meaning there is no boundary where the seer and the seen meet up at the same point. Try walking toward the horizon to see if you can meet up with it, the further you walk towards it, the more it recedes, even though your senses are telling you it is coming towards you because you are passing objects along the way, the objects are coming towards you and at the same time are moving away from you. But your point of reference never moves, only the objects move, and what's more intriguing is the observer and observed are actually one unitary movement, or action.So in truth nothing is moving.

The reason why your horizon is never met is because you are on a sphere, if it was a finite disc or plane then your horizon would meet you as you fell off the edge.

What is happening when you dodge that rock coming for your head?

When Einstein said the world is an illusion albeit a persistent one, he was actually correct. But the word illusion is not what you think it is, it doesn't mean nothing exists, it means separation doesn't exist, separation is an optical and auditory illusion of the senses.

By 'separation' do you mean 'space'?

The horizon can never be crossed...no matter how far your point of observation moves forward, because as your point of observation moves so does the world around you move at the same time, and this can go on and on infinitely without ever reaching a so called boundary

Like I said, this is true on a sphere.

...there is no edge of infinity...

If there is an 'infinity' then I agree.

so what appears to be receding as you walk forward is actually coming towards you at the same time, it's an illusion since nothing is actually moving since the reference point is always dead centre. In this sense only your body is moving not your sense of seeing, seeing or perception is everywhere at once. Where ever you go there you are.

Er! How is this body moving? As I thought you said nothing is moving.

Another example is the wheel; notice the hub of the wheel never moves, while the spokes appear to circle round in one direction and sometimes it will seem as if they are moving in the opposite direction to where they are going.

Er? Wheel hubs move, if they didn't you'd not be going anywhere.

This is what infinity mean, it means vast boundless space without boundary, ... it means total stillness ...so nowhere for anything to go, there's just here right now, now here, everywhere and nowhere. Matter is 99.9% empty space vibrating at certain frequencies according to their accumulative mass, the denser the mass the denser the vibration. Light being the less dense hence the saying speed of light...everything is light everywhere at once. Matter is like frozen light...we could call this dark matter....

Sorry but I thought you said there is no 'space'?

I could go on and on discussing this forever, but I hope you get the general gist ...

I do and thank you for your thoughts.

It means, if there is just everything everywhere, then there's just infinity expressing itself infinitely, possibility is vast without boundary. ...

Except that possibility is bounded by the tautologies and contradictions.

its Expression arises as the mind, the mind is nothing, since no one has ever seen a mind or touched one, or felt one..you get my drift...and yet from this unseen what ever you want to call it mind... a whole plethora of thoughts arise, and thoughts which are not a thing become things, there is not one thing that is not a thought. So this is how no thing is being everything. And is why nothing is everything..and everything is nothing.

I disagree as the 'mind' is explicable as the experience of a body with senses in an external world with a language and there being two of them.

I take it that you think reality is some kind of computation, if so why do you think it is designed to compute this 'reality', i.e. to examine itself? That is, could it not be that this 'reality' is just accidental or ephemera or a bug or even just the boot-up procedure before the real program gets run, etc, etc.

You cannot know or experience infinity because you are it experiencing itself subjectively. There are no things in reality, reality is a verb, a thing is a noun relative to itself.

Which is presumably what the Noumenon is meant to name. I agree reality is a process but disagree that there are no things in the world as I've been hit by them to many times, so whilst what hits me might not be the thing-in-itself my interpretation of it makes it a very thingy kind of thing.

Hi, just to let you know, I answered all your replies, and was just about to press submit button, when my cat jumped onto my laptop and deleted everything I'd written, which took me ages, so I'll not be repeating it all over again...sorry, and thanks for your interest. You can do your own research into the true nature of existence if you are genuinely interested in the concept of oneness, and how duality is an illusion. Which you clearly are, else you would not be hanging around the metaphysical forum...good luck with your studies into the nature of oneness.

Have fun.

Ps...I do not have any knowledge that you yourself do not possess, no one is right or wrong, everything is true since everything is. There's just isness and it's all same truth.

There is a very good book I highly recommend you read if you want to further your interest in the dynamics of metaphysics within reality..

It's called....

The Law of Eternity ..by Angelo Aulisa

You can find it @ the Amazon. website.

[Greta]

All aspects of system dynamics are missing from the Standard Model, Greta. Subatomic particles are modelled as objects moving in space even though this idea clearly doesn't work. Particle physics only makes sense when the particles are modelled as zero volume mathematical points which means that the particles must be seen as an emergent suite of properties of a dynamic process. Modelling physical reality in this way is utterly impossible with the reductionist tools of classical mathematics because Newton's mathematics simply cannot model processes. This is canon orthodoxy in every science except physics and it is no coincidence that every science except physics makes sense.

Leo, physicists routinely model processes such as growth and decay.

Dontaskme, we are almost in agreement, the difference only being one. You say that everything in reality amounts to zero and I say it is all one. I'll answer in more detail when I have more time.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme, we are almost in agreement, the difference only being one. You say that everything in reality amounts to zero and I say it is all one. I'll answer in more detail when I have more time.

Yes, I understand the position you are taking.

But, one cannot know one without anything to relate it to.

Basically, One and zero are the same one appearing as two.

[Dontaskme]

So, I'm going to ask you, Dontaskme, ... seeing/thinking as you do, how does life feel to you... and what are your visions (if any) for experiencing more?

Thanks for sharing same understanding of the nature of reality.

My vision is imagination only...I can see myself existing in infinite parallel realities simultaneously...and so it seems it is virtually impossible for me to disappear.

As for how I feel, I feel like I'm surfing the crest of a wave of pure potential, manifesting itself as and through the wave of experience. When the experience is through...I take a nosedive back into the ocean and wait there until the next wave of adventure rears up, I have no knowing of what that ride will be like as it hasn't been written yet.

[Obvious Leo]

Leo, physicists routinely model processes such as growth and decay.

Decay, yes, growth no. For decay it has the second law of thermodynamics. However physics cannot model an evolving system in which entropy decreases because Newton's reductionist mathematical tools are simple not designed to do this. Thus physics is forever constrained within a conceptual strait-jacket by its own methodology and with its existing paradigm it will never be able to explain why the universe is the way it is rather than some other way. Newton was satisfied that this was simply an expression of his god's will but our obsolete notion of a Newtonian world is no longer viable in a secular age, Greta. Science will not advance without a model which describes a universe sufficient to its own existence.

[Dontaskme]

So are we all in agreement that NOTHINGNESS has to be in order for SOMETHING to be ?

The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever ...is like saying The Absolute Impossibility of Somethingness - ever
Do you see the flaw in this kind of thinking? .... word play, play on words....nothing is impossible. So from this we arrive at the idea that every possibility is possible...do you get what I'm saying?

Nothingness is not what you think it is.... you are turning nothing into a thing here. It's a tricky one this...so think.

Arising_uk there is no such thing as a thing. What is a thing, have you ever seen a thing?

If you know what a thing is please share here, and describe in your own words what a thing is?

Please continue.....many thanks.

[Dontaskme]

Science will not advance without a model which describes a universe sufficient to its own existence.

Is there a model of the universe that is not already here known in symbolic form synonymous to itself ?

[Obvious Leo]

So are we all in agreement that NOTHINGNESS has to be in order for SOMETHING to be ?

Count me out. To suggest that nothing exists is an inherently self-contradicting statement and one which any philosophy undergraduate should immediately recognise as such.

Arising_uk there is no such thing as a thing.

I agree with Arising. A "thing" is purely a phenomenological construct and is thus defined as an artefact of cognition. Therefore the notion of a "thing" has no ontological currency. Kant 101.

I suggest you avoid using scientific terminology in your posts.

[Obvious Leo]

Science will not advance without a model which describes a universe sufficient to its own existence.

Is there a model of the universe that is not already here known in symbolic form synonymous to itself ?

I have no idea what this question means. Would you care to rephrase it?

[Dontaskme]

Science will not advance without a model which describes a universe sufficient to its own existence.

Is there a model of the universe that is not already here known in symbolic form synonymous to itself ?

I have no idea what this question means. Would you care to rephrase it?

You say science will not advance without a model which describes a universe, so my question is what model are you referring to? otherwise your statement doesn't make sense..thanks.