The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Dontaskme]

Now you're getting it. It's not so much that science is looking for an external cause but that's effectively what it amounts to because if taken literally the spacetime paradigm mandates for a universe which had a beginning in time. Nowadays it is widely accepted that this assumption is an extrapolation of GR beyond its domain of applicability, and nobody actually buys it any more, but GR is nevertheless still accepted as the predominant cosmological model for no other reason except that they haven't yet found a better one with which to replace it. There isn't a theoretical physicist on the planet who isn't fully aware of the fact that such a new model is desperately needed.

So yes. They are stumped.

So GR would be relative to what in particular?

Also Leo, do you not think reality is eternal therefore Acausal? and that time is just an illusion?

[Dontaskme]

...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.

Yes! We see nothing where we do not have words and reference...

Our definitions and "laws" are naturally as limited in scope and frequency as we and our "known world" are.

And this dynamic/nature seems reflected between individual experiences (and what individuals can and cannot see), as well as what we might imagine is beyond our collective experience. Our limitations somehow convince us that we're seeing all there is... when actually we're only seeing all that we can see.

I'm glad there is someone else seeing this as well. Thanks Lacewing.

Can you also see that every thing is relative to no thing and is how the idea of thing is born in the first place? except it's not actually born, it's just an idea...so yes an idea is born apparently, and yet not since an idea is just a transitory opaque phenomena of the senses.

Yes, we from the perspective of the individual only get to have a pinprick view of the whole. But even the part of a whole is still the whole.Realising "what is" does not need to be conscious. Does not need to awaken to itself. Doesn't need sense perceptions, is prior to language and consciousness and is not energy or light or God or sub-atomic particles or emptiness or any other explanation. It doesn't need to be believed in or proven, it's just seen by no one.

[Dontaskme]

Sweet! I've used this description a lot myself. I describe it as being the wave... rising up and experiencing... then settling back in. Being part of such an immense, limitless ocean... while not being separate at all. The concept of this "me" is just part of the illusion for experiencing. And I'm at peace with that. It's actually a huge relief. And very freeing. And... makes it easier (it seems) to love what is.

Yes, I agree, to love what is is love loving itself unconditionally. For love to know love it has to hate. But the hate can never extinguish the love no more than darkness can extinguish the light.

Love also has to go hungry in order to know the delightful abundance of a well fed belly. There is only love, love for itself....it gives and gives and gives of itself, never wanting anything back, for it is everything, it's all itself.

[Dontaskme]

There is no such thing as space.

You've made this statement several times and it's the only reason why I'm continuing to read your posts. Not only is this an ancient metaphysical first principle which dates back to the pre-Socratics it is also a necessary a priori first principle in order to make QM and GR compatible with each other. However I regard the arguments which you draw from this first principle to be a curious blend of half concepts and inconsistencies which contradict much of the empirical scientific data without offering a coherent narrative to account for it.

Okay, Leo, there is no need to complicate what is obviously so simple... why is saying there is no space a half truth. Space is after all a concept, so in that respect yes, it exists and no it doesn't...do you agree with that principle ?

What I mean is where and what is space unless you think about it?

And even more bizarre is who's thinking?

This is all I'm pointing to.

[Dontaskme]

Nothing ever moved. Apparently movement is in the context your blood is moving around your body, true, but it's not going anywhere. Movement happens but it's not going anywhere except here now..nowhere. Think tv screen again...people appear to be walking around in the film, but they are contained to the screen, they are not going anywhere, same with physical realtime reality.

This statement is simply not true. Whilst our concepts of objects moving in space might be illusory there can be no question that matter and energy move in time from the past into the future via the nexus of the present. I have missing hair, arthritic hips and absent teeth to attest to this proposition and that's proof enough for me. Reality is ONLY definable in the language of its changes and simply refuses to conform to Minkowski's eternalist model of the frozen Parmenidean block.

There are no objects external to the mind. Time also is a mental construct. The mind does not move.

The present is unknown and known only in reference to past or future which are born of memory. The body is in a state of continual atrophy as the play of permanent, enduring energy transforming from one state to the other, the symmetry of life is unbreakable...what is everywhere at once cannot move.

[Dontaskme]

This is interesting. Are you saying you have a sense of it... or that you actually see it? I don't actually see it, but I get the sense that I'm doing it.

Do you also have the sense of not being a "me" at all? Perhaps this relates to what you said below.

I think the sense of it is same as saying you see it, so in this respect it's just a conceptual way of pointing to the ineffable.

Dear Lacewing..I had a vision of nothingness at the tender age of 6 years old....I recall the exact moment so vividly even today...At that moment when the vision of nothingness spontaneously arose in me, did this ''me'' person disappear in the same moment. It's like I had my first awakening to oneness when I was 6 years old. Wow!!

Of course I found it difficult to conform to rules imposed upon me by society after that realisation....my mission now is to help free others from the matrix of their own makings...return people to their natural state.

[Dontaskme]

Nope Now you are saying the universe is dual - something and nothing - but earlier you said it was all nothing (neither of which are uncommon models, it should be said).

I'm sorry, do you not understand the principle of opposites?


The existence of opposites provides a meaning to a word. The word by itself is devoid of any meaning without the presence of it's opposite, for example; good is known because of its opposite bad, otherwise what good is could never be known. The opposite is a word as well, which gets it's meaning from the word it gives meaning to, which is nevertheless without a meaning by itself. Therefore, since opposites are in everyday life, it only means that the quantum nature of meanings is a word with it's opposite in the same moment. This implies that the meaning which you do not want is also present in the meaning that you do want, for example right or wrong.

Some thing only exist within the framework of knowledge..ie: the concept you have about it.

You should therefore, question the who is the you part of your knowledge. Is it the concept in and of itself, does the table know it is a table? ..or does the conceptual word table say it is a table. In this case, there is no such thing as a table, and no table has ever been seen, only known via the concept, and the concept in inconceivable.

But, it's fine, such is the play of words aka duality.

From cradle to grave we are programmed to think and feel a certain way that we all agree on and by general consensus we live our desperate lives.

Does anyone even have the urge to question the true nature of reality or are they just happy to go along with the status quo.

Deprogramming ....who cares, who's interested... find out for yourself what's actually out there, what's actually real...any one want to really deeply delve into the truth and challenge and question their reality, hmm, hardly anyone...ok so be it...it's your life after all, you have created it.

[Scott Mayers]

This would have been an interesting topic to join in but I don't want to have to read the whole 9 pages of dialogue to catch onto the flow.

I happen to disagree with the OP though and have to note that his words look 'proprietorially' created. Infinites/infinitisimals and Zero are well defined using Calculus (I see it well used in the link on Hyperreals). The "homogeneity" of the OP also points only to the fact that given Zero, at least a One must be true, or given a One, (or any other finite number based on it), requires a Zero. It should be noted that if not for all these definitive quantities, It is more absurd to presume any number in between (neither zero, one, or infinites [+/-]), like '42', for for instance, could be the truth.

And while the 0, 1, ∞, +/-, and Limits, the '0', at least has the only sincere logical rationale if any one of them must ORIGINATE all the rest. This is because, as Godel/Turing and others have proven using 'consistent' logic, for any system of number theory(including logic) that could be designed, discovered or otherwise with sufficient inclusion, none could Completely satisfy all truths while remaining consistent. Therefore, reality is "contingent" at best (has at least one inconsistency or contradiction AND at least one tautology). This assures that ABSOLUTE REALITY (or Totality), could NOT be absolutely CONSISTENT. And so, if you find anything contentious of ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS as perfectly INCONSISTENT, should it not be unsurprising should it actually originate Totality, even if contradictory, since it is also being most 'consistent' in BEING 'inconsistent' [== Contingent]?!!

This PROVES that while all of these exist, only ABSOLUTE NOTHING is possible as any rational origin.

[Scott Mayers]

Nope Now you are saying the universe is dual - something and nothing - but earlier you said it was all nothing (neither of which are uncommon models, it should be said).

I'm sorry, do you not understand the principle of opposites?

Okay, I'm going from backwards here to determine who stands for what here. I seem to agree with you on opposites. And while many may or may not find this difficult, even what the OP mentioned demonstrates it while he maintains disagreement of at least the possibility of absolute nothingness. That is, given ABSOLUTE NOTHING begs AT LEAST SOMETHING in order for it to have meaning because to ask what such an 'absolute' concept means would assure at least ONE TRUTH exists, even if that truth is the 'truth' of ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS. This contradiction IS itself the motivating factor of all reality. But it requires beginning with NOTHING.

If you started with ABSOLUTE SOMETHING(ness) (with includes the set or set of sets of all things == infinite truths), it STARTS as 'consistent' but leads to being 'inconsistent', which is contradictory to any ABSOLUTE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. This is the Dualism that MUST be true if one begins with ANY assumption of 'consistency' and where we agree.

But notice what I mentioned above and emphasize: Beginning with any ABSOLUTE RULE OF INCONSISTENCY is 'safe' because it can always be certain to be 'inconsistent' with closure by randomly being 'consistent' even once! A non-entity has NO RULES [no mind to care whether it is or is not being consistent] in principle to obey and so even should it accidentally have some 'consistency', it isn't breaking any rules with respect to itself being inconsistent.

[Dontaskme]

Nope Now you are saying the universe is dual - something and nothing - but earlier you said it was all nothing (neither of which are uncommon models, it should be said).

I'm sorry, do you not understand the principle of opposites?

Okay, I'm going from backwards here to determine who stands for what here. I seem to agree with you on opposites. And while many may or may not find this difficult, even what the OP mentioned demonstrates it while he maintains disagreement of at least the possibility of absolute nothingness. That is, given ABSOLUTE NOTHING begs AT LEAST SOMETHING in order for it to have meaning because to ask what such an 'absolute' concept means would assure at least ONE TRUTH exists, even if that truth is the 'truth' of ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS. This contradiction IS itself the motivating factor of all reality. But it requires beginning with NOTHING.

If you started with ABSOLUTE SOMETHING(ness) (with includes the set or set of sets of all things == infinite truths), it STARTS as 'consistent' but leads to being 'inconsistent', which is contradictory to any ABSOLUTE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. This is the Dualism that MUST be true if one begins with ANY assumption of 'consistency' and where we agree.

But notice what I mentioned above and emphasize: Beginning with any ABSOLUTE RULE OF INCONSISTENCY is 'safe' because it can always be certain to be 'inconsistent' with closure by randomly being 'consistent' even once! A non-entity has NO RULES [no mind to care whether it is or is not being consistent] in principle to obey and so even should it accidentally have some 'consistency', it isn't breaking any rules with respect to itself being inconsistent.

Perfectly explained.

Only the illusory (duality) is known
The absolute (nonduality) can never be known.

[Scott Mayers]

Perfectly explained.

Only the illusory (duality) is known
The absolute (nonduality) can never be known.

....EXCEPT if we allow Nothingness only to be a unique origin. It took me a long time to figure out Christianity's use of 'trinity' but now believe that it was likely also a means to accept the three extremes simultaneously....0, 1, and ∞! From Genesis, of Judaism, YHWY, is the word Yehovah, or "ye ova" meaning 'egg' or "source", since life seems to derive from these things. And notice how latter Judaism adopted the idea of the meaning of this to be 'ineffable' (meaning 'unspeakable')? Their concept likely was thus interpreted as a being (a Source) that derived out of Nothingness, which was impossible to 'point' to.

"Adam" (Atom) was the 'shape' of the source (or Aten, as in the circle of the sun that finitely bound or defined it) is granted as the 'one' from the source, 'nothing'.

Then what follows, is Eve (re: ever, even, evening) to represent all mankind that followed as 'infinite'.

Thus the convention of the Trinity later convened to accept all of these as somehow significant. The 'father' is "the source", the egg, the internal factor or source of the sun, the 'son' is the one defined by the shape (like being formed of solid earth defines something understood) and the "holy spirit", which was just a reference to water (the 'waters' below) and the sky (the 'waters' above) OR simply, fluids, like chaos. None of these concepts can be isolated and can help define each other. [For science, this became solids, liquids, and gas ('chaos' originally).]

NOTE: I see you edited what you said to mention the ineffability of nothingness. This is just where we may disagree since we CAN infer nothing from anything and everything, even if you can't 'know' it exists initially. But it DOES make sense given any of these interpretations.

Cool huh?

[Scott Mayers]

I had another similar argument that demonstrated that this OP is wrong logically. ...that we may infer something, everything, or even nothing, as 'true' but we cannot assert the absolute impossibility of nothingness uniquely! That is, we might be able to prove that a something is impossible or that everything is potentially impossible, but never that nothing is impossible. Here's how I've argued it using the liar's paradox with an acceptance of quantifiers (some/all):

(1) Some of what I say is true.

(2) Some of what I say is false.


If we assume (1) true, uniquely, it is true by default of its assumption. This is because the instance of assuming the statement as 'true' is itself 'true' for the assuming. That is if (1) is true, then while I could possibly lie about all other things potentially, the statement can "CONFIRM" its validity. And even if it is uniquely true, (2) can be either true or false because I may possibly say everything truthfully.

If we assume (2), uniquely, while it may be true, you could only determine that some of what you say is false but by default assures that at least one thing I say is 'true', namely (2) as a statement itself.

And of course both (1) and (2) could be 'true' without contradiction but we still can't confirm that (2) is ACTUALLY true because nothing in these two statements would be themselves 'false'.

At last, assuming both (1) and (2) 'false' could be the case because "I" may not be even confirmed to exist should these be false. But if you were alive and knew I (or some other 'I') could say these 'falsely' both (1) and (2) would be indeterminate.

This assures that all you CAN do is to AFFIRM what IS 'true', never what IS 'not true'. The OP asserts an impossibility, therefore that can NOT be justified on mere logical grounds. ....except of course if we ignore the possibility that NO logic is sufficiently powerful enough to be perfectly consistent. Then we can't even count on the consistency of ANY rational argument to assert even a single possibility let alone an impossibility!!

PROOF CLOSED!

Scott.

[Arising_uk]

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.

Sure, a thing is the noun we use when we haven't or can't remember the specific noun for the thingy. It's the thing my baby points at that it wants. It's the thing I point at that others can then pick-up which confirms it's thinginess.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

Sure, a thing is the noun we use when we haven't or can't remember the specific noun for the thingy. It's the thing my baby points at that it wants. It's the thing I point at that others can then pick-up which confirms it's thinginess.

A 'variable', in other words, right? I could use a box with a label on it to refer to its contents without knowing or being able to specify what is inside or even knowing they exist to reference. But the box would hint that it 'contains' something for just existing. Otherwise, it would collapse on itself and either represent itself as constant (a box itself only containing itself) or non-existent and unreferenceable . Just the fact that we can reference anything is enough to assert 'some' existence. "Thing" is thus as suitable a term to at least assert the meaning that "at least one X exists". And if anyone disagrees, they've asserted their own existence as a constant to you, which is even more certain to prove you are correct regardless of anyone else's opinion to the contrary.

[Dontaskme]

NOTE: I see you edited what you said to mention the ineffability of nothingness. This is just where we may disagree since we CAN infer nothing from anything and everything, even if you can't 'know' it exists initially. But it DOES make sense given any of these interpretations.

Cool huh?

I agree with you Scott.

Reality doesn't ask questions, the question is born out of the answers we already hold, else the question wouldn't arise in the first place, the reason the question arises in the first place is because there are no answers, there are only questions. The question who am I and where do I come from cannot be answered because there is only the question. You cannot know who you are or where you came from. Because you are you, you are here, and that's all that can be known about that.

Everything else is just an interpretation.

So what do you think of this....idea of mine...?

That which knows it is ALIVE is actually DEAD.

I really like that one.

The world is not ready to hear that statement....not pretending to know something others don't here, I'm attempting to point people toward truth and perfect understanding of the nature of reality. We all have the exact same truth within us as a part of the whole is still the whole.