NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE

[Age]

physical things move about freely bumping into and off of other physical things

Do physical things actually bump into and off each other or does electron repulsion instead stop this from happening in reality

I have never thought about this before.

When the word 'reality' is being used, like here, what does this word actually mean, from your perspective?

Does the 'reality' word mean that the being sought from the clarifying question being asked is from the one and only Objective perspective or from one of the many subjective perspectives?

Anyway, is 'electron repulsion' a physical thing in and of itself?

If yes, then I would, at first, Say that physical things bump into and off each other.

But, if no, then I would, at first, ask; Does 'electron repulsion' exist in a non physical space, or dimension, and could 'electron repulsion' be what is the non physical thing, which is 'what' separates ALL physical things from each other?

Is it not possible that when you touch something you are just feeling the electron repulsion between the object and your body

When 'you' say "touch something", then does this imply that actually physical things can actually bump into and/or off each other?

When 'you' ask whether it is possible or not, that when this body touches some 'thing' do 'you' mean touches a physical thing or a non physical thing or both?

Because it could well be possible that physical things NEVER actually touch, but are (always or some times?) 'constantly' being repelled, just like physical things are (always or some times?) 'constantly' being attracted. This might help in explaining and unifying just HOW the Universe 'sits' in perfect uniform balance, while in constant-change.

The fact that every thing has an opposite, in equilibrium, explains HOW the Universe works ALWAYS, constantly-forever, HERE-NOW, the fact that now Everything might actually just be in opposition of Its own Self, attracting and repelling, might help in WHY the Universe is in a constant evolutionary-CREATION.

For EVERY side there is a middle ground of equilibrium, which is where Truth lays and IS, STILL.

When the more clarifying questions are asked Truly OPENLY, and the more Truly OPEN and Honest Answers are provided, then does more of the Truth become REVEALED?

Can the 'electron repulsion' from "others" be felt/sensed?
Can the 'attraction' towards "others" be felt/sensed?

Could these things actually exist, but, hitherto have not actually been felt/sensed physically before?

[Age]

if we are in agreement that there are things classed as non physical and that they do certainly exist then we can carry on and discuss whether the space between two quarks which is just the distance that separates quarks is made up of any thing physical or if it could just be a non physical space or distance

I do not know if the space between quarks is truly non physical or if there are smaller particles between them that have yet to be discovered

If there are other smaller particles between quarks of inside quarks, then could that space or distance between those particles be non physical?

Also, what actually separates the physical quarks from the physical proton?

No matter what is supposedly the fundamental physical thing, what is it that keeps the physical things apart from each other could be EQUALLY fundamental as the fundamental physical thing.

Could thee Universe, Itself, just be made up of two fundamental things: One just being matter (physical things), and the other just being space (non physical). This is some times just known as something and nothing? Could the Universe really just be this simple and this easy to understand?

All that can currently be said is that there is no evidence for anything between them and that would be true though it may only true for now

So, according to the current evidence there is NO thing between physical things. That is perfectly fine, for me, as it makes PERFECT SENSE.

There obviously would have to be some thing, which is relatively no thing, so that physical things could easily and freely move about. Otherwise, things would just be static. And, obviously, without change, then there would NOT be any outcome.

There was a time when quarks were not known to exist but that knowledge was only true for then

Yes obviously.

And so when quarks were discovered that knowledge had to be updated to allow for the discovery

Fair enough.

Any time a statement pertaining to science is made relating to something not existing or not being possible it is only true at the time

To me, any statement pertaining to "not existing" or "not being possible" is just a very short sighted, closed, or narrow perspective of Things.

By the way when 'we' discuss 'you' like to continually remind me of these FACTS?

Do 'you' think that I am not yet Aware of them?

So it does not automatically mean that it is absolutely true because at any given point in the future new evidence may be discovered

Why is there a seeming "rush" to discovering or seeing the absolute truth YET.

I am just LOOKING AT what IS, for the moment.

It could be absolutely true but there is no way of knowing that so either way one can only go on the available knowledge at the time

And, to you, does the available knowledge, to you, in the days of when this is written point to there being some thing separating physical things from each other, and that 'some thing' just could be no physical thing?

We have already agreed that there are things that are classed as being non physical things, which are existing, correct?

If yes, then if we just proceed only LOOKING AT what IS the available knowledge, without ASSUMING any thing else, then we might discover some things that have NOT yet been recognized and SEEN, and thus are NOT YET KNOWN?

[Age]

I am curious as to WHY then present any thing without actual PROOF [ OR EVIDENCE ]

One can actually think that something is true without having to provide evidence or proof for it at all

OBVIOUSLY, one can actually THINK absolutely ANY thing, without HAVING TO provide evidence or proof for it at all. This goes without saying.

Why do you some times state what is so PLAINLY OBVIOUS anyway?

Also, just THINKING some thing is one thing, but WRITING down that THOUGHT and wanting it SEEN in a philosophy forum, is another thing.

It is only when one makes an actual truth claim that said claim has to be demonstrated in some way

How does one KNOW how to differentiate when "another" one is just expressing a thought, is saying some thing is true, is stating some thing as a fact, is making an actual truth claim, or any thing other thing that can be done with words?

For example, do 'you' ever, in this forum, make actual truth claims?

If yes, then how do I separate them from other things that you say and write, which appear, to me, to be very much like truth claims?

If no, then okay.

Also, if some one is saying some thing, then if they are NOT claiming it to be a truth, and they have NOT specified it to be some thing, then what else could they claim their words to be?

[surreptitious57]

By the way when we discuss you like to continually remind me of these FACTS

Do you think that I am not yet Aware of them

Are you absolutely sure of this because it is not something that I am sure of at all
Unless I actually know what you are aware of then how can I continually be reminding you of anything I say
Also what about others here who may be reading my words and who may not know of the facts that you do

[surreptitious57]

Why do you some times state what is so PLAINLY OBVIOUS anyway

Since you do exactly the same thing then you can answer that question
Why then do YOU some times state what is so PLAINLY OBVIOUS anyway

[surreptitious57]

The reality word means that the meaning sought from the clarifying question being asked is from a subjective
perspective but one that is nonetheless as objective as possible based upon knowledge that is available to me

Electron repulsion is a physical thing in and of itself because it has actually been observed . And so it could well be possible that physical things NEVER actually touch and are therefore constantly being repelled just like physical things are constantly being attracted . For physical things to touch would require that electron repulsion was not actually a constant but at the ordinary classical level it would appear to be universally true

It is entirely different for very large objects of mass [ stars ] where actual collapse occurs as a consequence of mass and gravity attempting to
repel each other with gravity finally winning and the star in question either then becoming a black hole or neutron star depending on its mass

[surreptitious57]

If there are any other smaller particles between quarks then the space or distance between those particles could possibly be non physical
What separates the physical quarks from the physical proton is probably empty space although the strong nuclear force resides there also

[surreptitious57]

We could proceed by only looking at what is the available knowledge without assuming anything at all then we
might discover some things that have not yet been recognised and seen and therefore are not yet known to us
Or alternatively we could hypothesise - not the same as assuming - to see what happens from that perspective

[Age]

By the way when we discuss you like to continually remind me of these FACTS

Do you think that I am not yet Aware of them

Are you absolutely sure of this because it is not something that I am sure of at all

This would all depend on what the words 'continually' are in relation to exactly?

IF, for example, 'you' remind me of some thing just twice, then I might refer to this as 'continually'. Whereas, from your perspective, reminding me of some thing just twice might NOT be 'continually' at all. So, 'you' would, in a sense, not be sure of at all.

Unless I actually know what you are aware of then how can I continually be reminding you of anything I say

What do I have to do so that you actually KNOW what I am aware of?

Could 'you' do any thing to make "yourself" aware that I actually KNOW of some thing ALREADY?

Also what about others here who may be reading my words and who may not know of the facts that you do

IF being reminded of some thing, continually, is of NO real concern to "others", then it is of NO real concern to 'us' either.

I am sure that if some thing is of enough REAL concern to some one, then they will do some thing about it. Until then, then is NOT much use in wondering or "second guessing", as they say.

I just find concentrating on what 'we' are actually discussing, far more rewarding, without being reminded about some thing VERY OBVIOUS like: Any statement of some thing is only true at that time, which can completely SHUT down the discussion, which can then lead onto other things, exactly like what is happening now.

This I find was a waste of "mental energy", as some call it.

[Age]

Why do you some times state what is so PLAINLY OBVIOUS anyway

Since you do exactly the same thing then you can answer that question
Why then do YOU some times state what is so PLAINLY OBVIOUS anyway

Because 'i' do NOT YET KNOW what 'you' KNOW.

SEE just HOW quick, simple, and EASY it is to just answer the clarifying question posed.

Absolute NO so called "mental energy" is used nor wasted on providing Truly OPEN and Honest Answers, well from my perspective anyway.

The very reason WHY I ask so many Truly OPEN clarifying questions is so that I can then learn, and thus KNOW, what the "other" KNOWS. Then I would NOT have to say NOR write what IS PLAINLY OBVIOUS to that 'one', as many times as I do.

[Age]

The reality word means that the meaning sought from the clarifying question being asked is from a subjective
perspective but one that is nonetheless as objective as possible based upon knowledge that is available to me

Okay, but what if the knowledge, which is available, but just has NOT YET been made available, to you, already exists, which would actually REVEAL how to distinguish between subjective AND objective perspectives, and HOW to be able to LOOK AT and SEE things from the Objective perspective instead of looking at and seeing from the subjective perspective ONLY?

Electron repulsion is a physical thing in and of itself because it has actually been observed.

Has 'electron repulsion', itself, been observed or just the effect of 'electron repulsion' been observed?

Because if the 'electron repulsion' is in between quarks, and is a physical thing, which has actually been observed, then there are physical things smaller than quarks, correct? Or is this not correct?

Remember the effect of a magnet's attraction and repulsion can actually be observed, but can the actual attraction/repulsion, itself be observed.

And so it could well be possible that physical things NEVER actually touch and are therefore constantly being repelled just like physical things are constantly being attracted .

Yes, I KNOW. I have alluded to this many times already, in this forum.

And, what IS, is what I am 'trying to' get to the "bottom of", as they say.

What is this thing that actually separates physical things?

For physical things to touch would require that electron repulsion was not actually a constant but at the ordinary classical level it would appear to be universally true

What is the 'it', which 'you' say would appear to be 'universally true'?

Also, LOOKING AT things from the so called "ordinary" classical level, but NOT from the quantum level ALSO, nor from ALL the so called "levels' TOGETHER, then thee actual REAL Truth of ALL things will NEVER be REVEALED nor SEEN. This can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN True from how 'you', human beings, have been LOOKING AT things from the conception of human beings existence hitherto, when this is written, and STILL can NOT unify the "quantum" with the "classic". There is NO separate levels. So, as to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE there is, and to LOOK FROM the perspective that there is, then what IS REAL and TRUE just gets MISSED and over-LOOKED.

It is entirely different for very large objects of mass [ stars ] where actual collapse occurs as a consequence of mass and gravity attempting to
repel each other with gravity finally winning and the star in question either then becoming a black hole or neutron star depending on its mass

How is this at all different. Remember the so called "very large objects" are made up of "much smaller objects". There is NO distinguishing levels anywhere, and ONLY LOOKING AT or FROM one level or supposed "other" level will OBVIOUSLY only provide a very narrowed field of VIEW to observe, and thus learn from, which WILL OBVIOUSLY ALSO distort the FULL and WHOLE True picture of things.

Do 'you', human beings, ever wonder WHY 'you' are NOT unifying things, when 'you' only LOOK AT things separately, and as though they are Truly separate different things?

I actually can NOT see what separates the things, which 'you', human beings, consistently say and insist EXISTS. Instead I SEE HOW ALL things are United together as One. However, I can also very easily SEE, and very simply UNDERSTAND, HOW and WHY 'you', adult human beings, perceive there is a separation.

The very reason WHY 'you', human beings, PERCEIVE, which are NOT there is also very easy to explain, in very simple to understand terms.

[Age]

If there are any other smaller particles between quarks then the space or distance between those particles could possibly be non physical

Imagine if there was NOT a non physical thing between physical things, then what does that conjure up?

What would matter together, without space separating it apart, actually mean?

And, then could that one inseparable thing, exist in the form that the Universe is in now, when this is written?

What separates the physical quarks from the physical proton is probably empty space although the strong nuclear force resides there also

Is the strong nuclear force a physical thing itself, which can be observed as a separate physical particle of matter from other particles of matter?

[Age]

We could proceed by only looking at what is the available knowledge without assuming anything at all then we
might discover some things that have not yet been recognised and seen and therefore are not yet known to us

This sounds PERFECT to me.

ALL previous observations CAN BE FULLY explained AND understood, very simply and very easily, with the available knowledge anyway.

Or alternatively we could hypothesise - not the same as assuming - to see what happens from that perspective

If 'you' like we can start this. So, if you like, go ahead and 'hypothesize' any thing you like, and let us SEE what happens, from this perspective.

Or, if you like, I can 'hypothesize' some thing, and then see what happens?

But remember 'you', human beings, have been doing this hypothesizing, theorizing, et cetera for thousands upon thousands of years, without any really different satisfactory results.

Some times doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results is a well known form of mental illness.

[surreptitious57]

I SEE HOW ALL things are United together as One
However I can also very easily SEE and very simply UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY you adult human beings perceive there is a separation

I also see the Universe as a SINGLE entity but equally so each individual thing within it is a separate thing while ALSO being part of it too
And so there are simply two different but compatible ways of looking at the same thing and either of those ways is perfectly acceptable

There is however ultimately no separation to reality because everything is connected to everything else either directly or indirectly
There are therefore absolutely no gaps - there may be actual empty space - but that is as much a part of reality as anything else is

[Age]

I SEE HOW ALL things are United together as One
However I can also very easily SEE and very simply UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY you adult human beings perceive there is a separation

I also see the Universe as a SINGLE entity but equally so each individual thing within it is a separate thing while ALSO being part of it too

LOL

I keep asking 'you' HOW are the supposed AND perceived "separate" things SEPARATED EXACTLY?

What is IT that 'you' are SEEING, which is doing the SEPARATING?

If 'you' do NOT KNOW this, then WHY make the statement that this IS what 'you' SEE?

Also, do 'you' SEE the contradiction that ONE SINGLE entity is actually broken up into SEPARATE, individual things?

The two can NOT be true, unless you can SHOW and PROVE otherwise and HOW.

And so there are simply two different but compatible ways of looking at the same thing and either of those ways is perfectly acceptable

LOL

So, to 'you', two completely OBVIOUSLY incompatible views IS 'perfectly acceptable', correct?

To me, ONE VIEW, which EXPLAINS ALL-OF-THIS, and HOW and WHY the misperceptions and misconceptions exist, is far more 'perfectly acceptable'.

There is however ultimately no separation to reality because everything is connected to everything else either directly or indirectly

Now 'you' are contradicting "yourself" AGAIN.

If, ultimately, there is NO separation, then WHY do 'you' say 'you' also SEE "individual things"?

WHY can 'you' SEE 'that', which, ultimately, is NOT even there?

Where is this ILLUSION coming from EXACTLY?

By the way absolutely ALL and EVERY part of ALL-OF-THIS can be explained AND understood.

There are therefore absolutely no gaps - there may be actual empty space - but that is as much a part of reality as anything else is

Ah okay. This makes PERFECT SENSE.

Finally, the outcome sort HAS BEEN REACHED.