The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Obvious Leo]

Please don't bash me.

Far from it. On this occasion I absolutely agree with you apart from a minor technicality which is largely of a semantic nature only.

Light is not travelling;

In the sense that "travelling" is a relativistic and thus an observer-dependent phenomenon this is certainly true. However in a process model of reality it is also true to say that light "travels" from the past into the future via the nexus of the present and that it is only the spatial extension of this phenomenon which is illusory. Because the speed of light is finite it is impossible by definition to ever observe light in the act of moving. We can only ever observe light after it has already "moved" so the light we observe is light from a physical reality which no longer exists.

[Dontaskme]

Please don't bash me.

Far from it. On this occasion I absolutely agree with you apart from a minor technicality which is largely of a semantic nature only.

Light is not travelling;

In the sense that "travelling" is a relativistic and thus an observer-dependent phenomenon this is certainly true. However in a process model of reality it is also true to say that light "travels" from the past into the future via the nexus of the present and that it is only the spatial extension of this phenomenon which is illusory. Because the speed of light is finite it is impossible by definition to ever observe light in the act of moving. We can only ever observe light after it has already "moved" so the light we observe is light from a physical reality which no longer exists.

I agree, and would like to add my thoughts on this as well...

The observer is the Light. The point of any observation is always centre. The centre is everywhere. Nothing is observer dependant except in the story of ''I'' ''EYE'' ...Light...Consciousness or whatever the imagined concept maker invents.

The only thing that travels is a mind movement ..a thought....The moment of the awakened Consciousness is The Now, which is innocent from the memories of the past and from the expectations of the future. There is only this unmoving NOW present...everything else is illusion.

A concept is a thought. Thoughts have no mass - carry no weight. The whole universe weighs zero. It is a mental construct, time is a mental construct..gravity is an illusion too.. electro-magnetism is what creates all effects, all effects are without external cause. Magnetism is an invisible force, creating equal action and opposite reaction from within it's own one force...Life is an inside job.

Not preaching, just giving my opinion, this is my vision, just saying.... peace! lets discuss without semantic friction please.

[Dontaskme]

For many years theoretical physicists have believed that the universe came about as a result of a single Big Bang event—Einstein's theories suggested it was so. The problem with this line of thinking however, is that the theory of general relativity can't describe what came before the singularity, which should exist at the point in time just before the Big Bang. Theory also suggests that a similar singularity should exist at the center of black holes, but again, general relativity fails to describe them properly. Worse, there is the problem of the information loss paradox—if something falls into a black hole and is eventually squeezed to a singularity, what happens to the information it contained? Big Bang physicists can't say.

To address these problems, Abhay Ashtekar and his team at Pennsylvania State University, back in 2006, came up with a theory known as loop quantum gravity. They suggested that instead of a singularity existing just before the Big Bang, there was the remains of a crunched down universe that had existed prior to the one that exists now. The universe didn't just Big Bang itself into existence from nothing, they said, instead there is an infinite loop where a universe shrinks down to a very tiny spot, then explodes in a Big Bang, then shrinks down again, over and over again forever—hence the use of the term "loop" in the theory. Since that time, some in the field have begun to refer to the theory as the Big Bounce, to replace the name Big Bang.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists- ... y.html#jCp

[SpheresOfBalance]

My bottom line is that it appears that what we perceive as "nothing" is not empty, just empty of whatever we can perceive. Yes, infinity is as unimaginable as nothing, but the alternative to infinite reality seems impossible. A bounded universe? Bounded within what?

The mere existence of something renders the concept of nothingness relative. In truth, parts of reality are simply more densely packed than others - "something" is everywhere. The "thinned out" parts are what we call "nothing".

I can see that your and my definitions of nothing are completely different. I mean, I understand your meaning. e.g., I can open my clenched fist, palm up, and say I have nothing in my hand. And while it's true that no one present can see anything, there are many things on/in/immediately above my hand. That is the common meaning of nothing. I mean no universe, no matter, no antimatter, no anything. I see that it's just as possible as something, i.e., our current universe, and all that it contains/is comprised of.

Why would you think nothing is just as possible as something? You have ready evidence for something but, by definition, not for actual nothingness.

Agreed, and so it would seem to be the more logical view. But what I'm reminded of is the causal question, "cause and effect." If life on planet earth is the effect of various elements being joined together, via electromagnetic energy, and the most common belief of the "origin" of the universe is a "big bang", it begs, "what banged," where did that come from, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum, such that it's unbelievable. Just a much, to my way of thinking, as the possibility of nothingness. So I include it. Lets face it, existence we are all friends of, because without it, we wouldn't be talking about it.

Yet every night we crave deep sleep. Also, meditation is considered preferable to waking states by some for the peacefulness it provides. So are we so down on nothingness?
If you're asking why we are so down on nothingness, it would seem to me that it's due to, "The Denial of Death."

The problem I have with nothingness is wasted information at death - so much of what we are and have learned. Is it really lost, or is it changed?
So, you're searching for immortality... Aren't we all

Ancient life gave rise to today's forms. We will give rise to tomorrow's. What's the difference. It seems to me that the character of each entity is gradually distilled into the essence of a larger system. So, whatever makes up you and me and the rest of humanity is being distilled and concentrated rather than lost.
Yes physically/elementally we are in fact recycled. Of star dust we are made, so as star dust we must return. So as to possibly be joined with the next life form of planet earth. In that non conscious way, we are somewhat eternal.

Eventually humanity's bodies of knowledge will far greater but will only be accessed by many fewer than seven billion minds.
Yes the history of our consciousness's reasoning may survive us, well at least some of us that write something interesting, that's published.

However, all of that information is still there and potentially retrievable, which is why some posit that we could be part of a holographic recreation by hyper advanced beings (which is theoretically possible but obviously far fetched).
Well at least to the minds of some, it is as you say. That belief is for or against, does not necessitate the truth of the matter either way. Only time shall bear out the truth of any matter. But humans do indeed like to imagine fanciful things, some of us do appreciate the beauty of life. As to life, what's not to appreciate, as far as I'm concerned. It is in fact miraculous after all. I just wish I lived somewhere where I could see the night sky as clearly as it was possible, thousands of years ago; far too much light pollution where I live.

I can see your theoretical point that everything having its opposite, so something's opposite would be nothing. However, the universe, while unbounded, is does have limitations.
That mankind may or may not actually be privy too.

There are numerous possibilities that are impossible (or have probabilities in the quintillions) in the reality we live in.
Yes there are many possibilities, that to current humankind, 'seem' quite improbable. At the leading edge of humankind's current 'supposed knowledge,' we can only see what that 'supposed knowledge' allows. Ignorance is that which shrouds humankind's vision, and in fact we shall never know it, until the shroud is slowly lifted, in time. We do of course make educated guesses, based on what we believe are facts. I for one, see that we are very far from knowing the absolute truth of the universe, though many of us fear being honest with ourselves. Fear being the biggest human problem of them all, it shaping all aspects of out beliefs; our lives.

It then stands to reason that nothingness is not to opposite to the "something" in which we live. Rather, the opposite is as far from absolute nothingness as our reality is from manifesting "everything all of the time". In other words, while being a very long way from absolute nothingness, the opposite to something to our perspective would seem so close to nothing as to make the difference moot.

In short, everything manifesting at once all the time is the logical opposite to absolute nothingness.
Yet I would disagree, because it is only obvious, the bias, that is contained in being. Humans fear going some places, their death/non existence, is their primary fear, above all others. This bias of forever wanting to be, precludes non existence, in most peoples minds. It's how we can handle the day to day without having a continual melt down. To side track the inevitable truth, we fill our days with drama, anything to keep our minds clear of it's acknowledgment.

In other words, humankind, by the very fact that we exist, and want to keep on existing, automatically shuns non existence, because our very lives, 'seems' to depend on it.

FYI, I'm currently reading Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize winning book, "The Denial of Death." Here's the official trailer on youtube of a documentary based upon Ernest Beckers book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH7686gJgj8

The full movie was my intro to his book and used to be on Hulu.com but unfortunately it seems as though it no longer is. Here's the home page for the movie: http://transcendentalmedia.com/new/film ... mortality/

Many are frightened to watch it. I must admit, that the first time that I did, it's beginning caused me to feel a bit apprehensive. It's definitely an eye opener. A must see for all students of philosophy, sociology, psychology and anthropology, to name a few.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Just for you dalek, just for you!

Yippee! I feel special!

You are indeed "special."

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB, can we have a longer post next time, please?

I agree. There is just not enough to not read through.

Ones anger and hatred, the objects of their ignorance! Yet it is in fact their prerogative to remain ignorant.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Wanderer, your footsteps are
the road, and nothing more;
wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking.

The Theory of Everything

Love that, Leo!

I quoted the verse in honour of the late Francisco Varela, philosopher, Taoist, Buddhist, non-believer, evolutionary biologist and all round saint. "Caminante no hay camino" was one of his favourite poems and he quoted this verse often in his public lectures to illustrate a deep truth about the nature of physical reality. Varela's world was not something which was simply "out there" to be understood but a dynamic reality which was continuously being made by the behaviour of the physical entities within it.
Typical selfish human tendency, to over exaggerate self importance.


Francisco was not a physicist, however, and thus never came to realise that he was the keeper of the key which the mathematicians were unable to find. We cannot travel faster than the speed of light because we can't walk on a road which hasn't been made yet.

[Dalek Prime]

Typical selfish human tendency, to over exaggerate self importance. Yes. You were self-important enough to continue your genetic line.

[Hobbes' Choice]

SOB, can we have a longer post next time, please?

I agree. There is just not enough to not read through.

Ones anger and hatred, the objects of their ignorance! Yet it is in fact their prerogative to remain ignorant.

And you do that oh so well.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB, can we have a longer post next time, please?

I agree. There is just not enough to not read through.

Ones anger and hatred, the objects of their ignorance! Yet it is in fact their prerogative to remain ignorant.

And you do that oh so well.

Said the fool while reflecting.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Typical selfish human tendency, to over exaggerate self importance. Yes. You were self-important enough to continue your genetic line.

Woah there nelly, some things for many are 'simply' biological.

But I honor your choice to not procreate. Your a good human in this time, of overpopulation. Kudos go out to all you homosexuals as well!

[Dalek Prime]

Typical selfish human tendency, to over exaggerate self importance. Yes. You were self-important enough to continue your genetic line.

Woah there nelly, some things for many are 'simply' biological.

But I honor your choice to not procreate. Your a good human in this time, of overpopulation. Kudos go out to all you homosexuals as well!

So, you can't overcome your biology with your intellect? Okay then...

[Arising_uk]

Thank you for taking time out to write your comments Arising-uk ...appreciate your feedback. ...

My pleasure, don't take my manner to heart.

The you that you only think you are, aka the body mind mechanism, is a thought. ...

In the 'mind' of what?

A thought become a thing, a thing thought, apart from the thought, there is no thing...

No things, nothing to thought about.

Of course the Buddha was right. ...

In some things.

Every one is a Buddha, ...

No, everyone can become a Buddha.

which is prior to thought..

Nope, after the thought, what it is supposed to be appears to be the 'experience' of the structure of perception without sensation, or some such.

thought is superimposed other ..

Yes, and it's the other of our recognizable others, i.e. other people.

conceptually laid over what already exists as one.

Yes, the Body.

If not for this conceptual overlay..There is no image or knowledge of you.

Unless one see's a reflection but what is this 'knowledge of you'?

Therefore, there is no such thing as an experience....

True, 'experience is how you deal with what happens to you'.

for there to be an experience there needs to be an experiencer of the experience.

No, there needs to be a body with senses and a memory in an external world.

This would mean that oneness would have to split itself in two...this apparently is what's appearing to happen, but that is the illusion.

No, it just means there have to be bodies with senses in an external world.

Oneness wholeness cannot be divided, for any division is still the whole.

Then it wouldn't be a division? You mean it's a factal? But then there are still two of them.

No matter how many time you cut a piece of stick off the end of a stick the stick will still be a stick.....

No it won't, it'll be a stub.

there is no experiencer, or thinker of thought.

True if you mean an homunculus of some sort but there is an experiencer and a thinker of thought if you mean the being of a body with senses and a language in an external world.

There is only thought....and it is the thought that is the apparent experience.

Wht do you mean by 'thought' here?

There is only knowing. ...

And doing.

There is only experiencing. ...

Not quite as this is what you do with what happens.

There is only living.

True.

There is only dying.

True.

There is only seeing.

Not true, there is also touching and 'feeling', smelling, moving, hearing, etc.

No one has died.

Loads of things have died.

No one has lived.

Billions have lived.

No one has known.

Known what?

No one has experienced.

Experienced what?

No one has seen.

Seen what?

There appear to be a few to many 'only's' going on?

The you that you think you are is a thought. Thoughts have no knowledge of life or death, except the meaning attached to them. No one is doing this, it is just happening appearing as if there is, but there is no one there...there's just the sense sensing itself.

And what's doing the sensing? A body with senses in an external world.

Reality is a VERB all the way down to base level.

No, at base it has to be a noun.

Balance is the great leveller.

No idea?

[Arising_uk]

You are exceedingly repetitious, "nothing can never 'exist!'" NOTHING IS DEVOID OF EXISTENCE!!! GET IT??

Just checking.

Exactly!! With 'nothing' there is no existence, Exactly! That you can't imagine it, is at issue here, nothing else. ...

You're right, complete non-existence is unimaginable do you now claim it still possible?

You also can neither imagine something from nothing nor infinite existence.

I can imagine something from something unimaginable, if by this you mean inexplicable. I can also imagine something existing for infinity.

Surely something always existing, is diametrically opposed to everything never existing. ...

Not really as it'd have always existed and so no never existing or is this what you meant?

And something can't come from nothing.

I thought you agreed that nothing is devoid of existence?

The entire issue is full of the brain hurting inability to comprehend. That you and all others exclude nothingness, is simply because you believe you exist. But existence is just as strange as non existence.

It is, but this does not mean that non-existence can exist, as it really can't as it's a contradiction. What can not exist is the current state of affairs.

I've heard it from one of the leading Astrophysicists, not a bunch of wannabe philosophers here at the PNF. Sorry but I tend to believe those that would actually know about astrophysicists, namely astrophysicists.

Funny that as I thought you heard it second-hand from the telly?

Now me, I've known a few astrophysicists and the only one's who have found a fear of 'God' were those who had 'it' with them in the first place.

Yet you can't explain why there has to be anything in the first place. No one can! ...

Well philosophers can as Logic says that if 'nothing' existed as a thing then it would not be nothing and as such 'nothing' is a contradiction so cannot exist.

You appear to be a closet godbotherer as you want absolute answers but are not interested in Logic?

As it's well beyond our horizon. A bunch of dumb monkeys treating each other and their symbiotic biosphere, on which their life depends, as they do, in no way can understand such things. The human race is far to young to grasp the truth of such things. Theories are all we can muster.

Accoridng to Philosophy theories will be all we can ever muster, is it because you are a closet godbotherer that this bothers you?

No more so than you. So then what's the point, as they cancel one another out. It's just your means to 'believe' that you aren't one, (due to your fear), which in fact is false, if I am one. Your emotional self's means to fool yourself into 'believing' you are better than another. It's 'child's' play my friend, pure and simple. When you use such unnecessary redundant things as argument, it's your child speaking.

Show me these 'unnecessary redundant things as argument' as I think it most relevant about a person if they decry in others what they do for themselves first.

No, I know, that on those aspects of which I speak, we are the same, all of humanity. ...

For all humanity is it? How do you know this.

That you make excuses, framing them otherwise, is your denial, for fears sake. Here's some lyrics from an Aussie band called "Unitopia." Obviously I'm not the only person admitting they know this, as evidenced by their lyrics. Maybe their method of saying it you'll appreciate more so than my venomous words. :

"...It's the way we live and die, in constant state of fear,
All we do is cover weakness, don't shed a single tear.
And every waking moment only serves to tell us why,
There's no second chances here..."
All many of us do, is still 'try and cover weakness,' at least I'm trying to grow beyond that. It would seem you're the queen of not. Keep in mind that I usually only respond in kind.

I find pop-stars and musicians not a great source of profundity in the main. I could find you a billion other songs that disagree.

Are you actually capable of putting two thoughts together. Or is it just your ploy to purposely not do so?

No, I just want to know what you mean by this term 'human'?

That you say this, your smoke screen of justification. By the way the title of that Aussie bands, (Unitopia's) song is "Justify." "All you do is cover weakness!" Denial!

Show me where bigmouth.

Your child again, rearing it's immature head!

Says the child who thinks 'elitist' a term of abuse.

There you go again with your elitist ways. You are NOT 'the' measure of meaning, understanding or language! you are just like ALL the rest, my dear KIM. Namely, "a work in progress."

And again your insecurity allows you to ignore the meaning of what I say as deep down you think you are the source of all meaning and brook no threat.

I'm not like all the rest and in fact all the rest are not like each other, this is why language and meaning works the way it does and why it has been so useful to such beings.

And so have I, which makes no necessary comment on your psyche, rather you giving your time.

So know you know godfree's mind as well do you?

Not at all, you have changed things in your own mind so as to "cover weakness."

I have changed nothing, as I think your interpretation is of the insecure elitist rushing around on their white horse defending those they think weaker than themselves against imaginary chimera.

You are not superior in any way my friend, simply a parrot! I have yet to hear anything 'original' from you that would speak of you alone, not those that you can quote.

And yet I rarely quote anyone, whereas you love your links and definitions?

Because you have not bothered to study Philosophy, but think yourself eminently qualified to comment, you have not discovered the fact that whilst one's thoughts may be original to one this hardly makes them unique, and in fact the study of Philosophy brings that home to one with a big bang, if one is actually interested in the subject that is, and as such, anyone who has qualified in the subject will not be bringing anything that original to things, rather what Philosophy Now is about is the application of Logic to things allied with what has already been said. Not much use if you want 'absolute' truths, if you want those then Logic has them, but useful when others proclaim such things as empirical.

Not true at all, how the hell can anyone compare apples to oranges as if they are equal? ...

And yet you just did this with me? Idiot.

To then say which is more important. You can't, each are just as important, theirs your just. ...

Bollocks, anyone who is fucked-up knows from this who is fucked-up more and who less. Importance has fuck all to do with it.

I have continually been the anti falsehood voice here. ...

No, you've continually been a false white-knight charging in to defend those you thin need your 'protection' and all in the name of a cobbled together psycho-babble theory from psychoanalysis.

And when I call attention to yours, you usually get pissed off and respond condescendingly.

Not pissed-off at all, as I find your premises nonsense.

Only after you treat me with your condescending nature. Again I usually only treat in kind. The "degree" in which one is seemingly confrontational is of no consequence, as it has no necessary universal quantity.

And this is why I know you give two-shits about those you supposedly defend, as the degree in which one is confrontational is exactly of consequence in confrontation.

No, rather the facade you portray. "All we do is cover weakness," for fear!

Try looking harder in your mirror.

Funny how you cling to those things that you believe you know, when you don't.

Is that a bit like you knowing my sex?

I've never been in therapy, though I have picked the brains of psychologists, psychology courses at university, and psychology books. But then you shall characterize it however it serves your purpose, almost always condescendingly.

Of course, and I characterize it as the dilettante, the worst product of a partial edumecashun.

Godfree did not ask. ...

Yes he did, he asked what gave me the right to tell him that Philosophy had addressed his thoughts.

Yet you still don't understand my point on this matter. I'm saying that the way you "use" your education is to FIGHT! NOT teach! You use it as a weapon to defend your "self" more than you use it to enlighten others. There are those here that obviously use their education to help others, they tend to be somewhat selfless. Ginkgo comes to mind, as one of the greats! There are others whose dialog of relative degrees, displays nurturing of other psyches versus defense of their own psyche. 'Obviously' for you, largely education is a weapon.

LMAO! And yet I've been a teacher. Show me a post of mine where I have not interacted civilly with those seeking to discuss things philosophically?

This is a Philosophy forum, not an Academy.

Even that is combative, to get a job, to feed yourself, to stay alive, are you kidding me?

Which bit of 'fell in love' didn't you get?

You use it as a weapon! ...

Only against those who think they can pontificate upon a Philosophy forum with no knowledge about the subject.

When the college counselors asked me what I wanted to major in I said, "Good question, I'm not sure." They then asked, "What career do you plan to pursue?" To which I replied, "I'm not attending college for the sake of making money, I'm here to learn of the world, to find the truth of things, (I had been thinking of philosophy though.)".

Was this before or after your career in the militarily?

So they said, "Then you should start with a degree in 'general studies' until you become more focused." I said, "that sounds great, sign me up." ...

did you complete it?

The only thing that matters to me is the truth of things, fuck everything else, I absolutely hate lies and liars. ...

You must hate yourself then, given you think you are one of these through fear?

So I piss people off!

I suspect you've always done so. Bugger all to do with 'truth'.

Feelings aren't as important as the truth.

Well, not as important to the 'truth' that you think you hold.

And they usually take it personally.

Dur! What do you think 'feelings' are?

That's their problem, because the truth shall actually set them free, if they take it to heart.

Veritas liberabit vos eh! Or Die Wahrheit wird euch frei eh! I knew you were a godbotherer.

I have your child, your 'slight psychopath' hanging.

I'm calling the Police.

In truth your assessment of my psyche couldn't be less informed. It's ran by pure logic.

And you deny that there are absolute truths from Logic?

The difference between me and others here is that they care more about friendship and getting along than the truth, I only care about truth, fuck peoples feelings! In that way I'm extremely honest. I can't be bought or sold because of my extreme allegiance to truth, fuck everything else, it doesn't matter. Only truth matters. So no NLP for me. ...

Your loss, as if you did you'd understand why your 'truth' is the issue.

My solution has been to understand the why of my psyche as well as everyone else's; the reasoning, I have in the past, am currently and will, employ to address human life's situations.

And yet what you do is understand your psyche and apply it to everyone else's?

Seemingly missed my point.

Which was?

My point was that I bet the way you carry yourself exudes arrogance, just asking to be humbled.

You project and your betting ability is up there with your gender intuition.

[A_Seagull]

Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be (1/10)^10 or 0.0000000001.

]

Did anyone else notice the mathematical errors in this?

The probability should be calculated as (1/11)^9. = 4.24 * 10 ^-10.

For there are 11 possibilities for the number of coins in the cups (0- 10) and you only need to multiply this quantity 9 times as it doesn't matter how many coins there are in the first cup as you are only comparing the number of coins.

If the author cannot get simple arithmetic right at the start of his thesis, it hardly bodes well for the rest of it.