The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Dontaskme]

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.

Okay, well who is the self that is self-contradicting itself, are there two selves? if yes, then describe the two selves in this equation, if not then how is it a contradiction? I'm saying no thing exists....maybe I said nothing exist, but I meant no 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.

That's what I said..I said there is no such thing as a thing.

[Dontaskme]

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.

Okay, well who is the self that is self-contradicting itself, are there two selves? if yes, then describe the two selves in this equation, if not then how is it a contradiction? I'm saying no thing exists....maybe I said nothing exist, but I meant no 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.

That's what I said..I said there is no such thing as a thing. There is interpretation as Arising-uk suggests. But from where does an interpretation arise and to whom? ....it's no good just coming out with half a truth.

[Obvious Leo]

You say science will not advance without a model which describes a universe,

What I said was that science cannot proceed until such time as a theoretical model is devised which defines a universe which is sufficient to its own existence. The current spacetime paradigm is not such a model because it is predicated on the Platonist notion of a universe which is a created entity and is thus predicated on the notion of transcendent cause rather than immanent cause. This is why the current models of physics make no sense because they are contingent on the existence of a causal agent for physical reality which is assumed to exist external to physical reality itself. This is bollocks. Spinoza 101.

[Dontaskme]

You say science will not advance without a model which describes a universe,

What I said was that science cannot proceed until such time as a theoretical model is devised which defines a universe which is sufficient to its own existence. The current spacetime paradigm is not such a model because it is predicated on the Platonist notion of a universe which is a created entity and is thus predicated on the notion of transcendent cause rather than immanent cause. This is why the current models of physics make no sense because they are contingent on the existence of a causal agent for physical reality which is assumed to exist external to physical reality itself. This is bollocks. Spinoza 101.

Ah, thanks for that...

So science are looking for an external cause, is that what you are saying?

Of course there is no external cause, so science are basically stumped here, right?

[Dontaskme]

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

You know from memory to duck out of the way of a rock coming toward you. If you don't duck out of the way, you'll get hit and it will hurt, so you know from knowledge to duck...knowledge is memory.

You see the rock coming and you react to the event from memory. A reaction is not the same as an action. Actions are one unitary movement happening in the immediate moment which no one is aware of....In the immediate moment of NOW .. there is just the plain blank space of pure awareness...within which a recognition takes place....by an illusory entity that can only reside in memory... there has to be a slight time delay in order for awareness to realise or recognise what's about to happen, reactions are all that you are aware of not the actual action, which has already passed before there is awareness, cognition of such.

If you had no memory of pain of rock hitting you then the reaction would not occur. All reactions are cause and effect happenings within the framework of knowledge of such events which are illusory since knowledge is illusory. The action was real, the reaction is illusory.

[Dontaskme]

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

There is no such thing as space.

Except as idea.

Where is space, what is it, and how do you know it is there? space is a concept, a concept is knowledge, and all knowledge is illusory.

Wisdom is more important than Knowledge ...wisdom is knowing ...knowledge is not knowing.

If space and objects were known to exist...we would have to find a joining line separating the object from the space it occupies. No such joining line exists.

As you can see, the two ideas of space and object define each other in the form of the knowledge we have about them...that is all that is known about them, and since knowledge is illusory...reality is compared to a dream, the dream has no more substance than a computer video game.

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

There is only seeing..reality is a verb. That which is seen is the looked upon by the seeing, inseparable.

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.

[Lacewing]

...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.

[Lacewing]

There was a whole page of replies I hadn't seen when I wrote my previous post...

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Obvious Leo]

You say science will not advance without a model which describes a universe,

What I said was that science cannot proceed until such time as a theoretical model is devised which defines a universe which is sufficient to its own existence. The current spacetime paradigm is not such a model because it is predicated on the Platonist notion of a universe which is a created entity and is thus predicated on the notion of transcendent cause rather than immanent cause. This is why the current models of physics make no sense because they are contingent on the existence of a causal agent for physical reality which is assumed to exist external to physical reality itself. This is bollocks. Spinoza 101.

Ah, thanks for that...

So science are looking for an external cause, is that what you are saying?

Of course there is no external cause, so science are basically stumped here, right?

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.

[Obvious Leo]

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.

If space and objects were known to exist...we would have to find a joining line separating the object from the space it occupies. No such joining line exists.

I agree with your notion of the "object" as a construct of the consciousness of the observer of it but this doesn't mean that this construct cam have no noumenal underpinning. There is such a thing as an objectively real world even though the way the observer elects to describe it is necessarily entirely arbitrary.

You are also quite right when you say that physics admits of no joining line between space and the objects it contains. Quantum field ontology is exclusively an action at a distance paradigm which assumes the existence of "field lines" in space with no possible explanation as to their origin, form, or means of propagation, which defines then as transcendent. In this model the fields are assumed to define physical reality rather than the other way around, which in my view is simply conflating the map with the territory.

knowledge is illusory.

This is to misrepresent the objective of science since science does not claim to be a quest for truth. Science is a quest for knowledge and knowledge is never anything more than a work in progress. Unfortunately few physicists are nowadays schooled in the philosophy of science and this basic principle is routinely overlooked when they attempt to translate their mathematical models into plain language accessible to the layman.

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.

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

Our scope is probably unlimited but your point is a valid one. We don't actually observe our external world at all but rather we model it within a conceptual framework which must first be specified in advance. This conceptual framework is an ever-moving target and thus so are the models we devise to describe it.

[Greta]

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

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).

What I'm saying that reality is all ONE thing because everything is connected. Any very dense object can exist in any substance that is less dense - it's entirely relativistic. You don't need nothingness in which to operate, just zones of significantly less density than you. This is due to the property of fluidity. Perhaps if we lived underwater we would understand this more instinctively? (Or maybe we would think of water as almost akin to nothing?).

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.

I do believe in relative nothingness, just not absolute nothingness.

I don't engage in philosophical word play because my focus is always on the phenomena and noumena. Personally, I think word play gives philosophy a reputation amongst the masses for BS. Ok ... "nothing is impossible", "everything is possible". I disagree with both and TBH have long harboured a special hostility towards the "nothing is impossible" cliche because I believed it when I was young and was bruised by the disappointment of finding just how untrue that idea was.

"Nothing is impossible" is what a society tells individuals when it is happy to sacrifice them to achieve its larger goals. If society wants to tell me that I'm being negative for believing in natural limits, then the government and its dominant corporate friends can show us how the impossible is achieved by eliminating poverty. Or even making the attempt ...

Some things simply are impossible, for instance, going back in time and preventing my parents from meeting in the classic time travel paradox. Evens aside from the paradox, Leo and others will tell you that time travel per se is physically impossible because we always exist in the now. Most possibilities are exceedingly improbable in reality, which is why we have our current configuration of reality and not the countless quintillions of alternative realities (many of which would be universes consisting entirely of various types of amorphous gas clouds).

But complete emptiness does not seem to be a feature of reality, only relativities.

[Greta]

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.

I think there is some observation of growth via integration functions but, yes, the focus does seem to be on radioactive decay and its products. You have often spoken of work being done on non-linear fractal systems, though. Isn't that physics-related work concerning growth? Also, it seems that growth and emergence are the domain of chemistry, biochemistry and biology. In time I expect all of these fields to become more integrated as more connections are found.

[Obvious Leo]

You have often spoken of work being done on non-linear fractal systems, though. Isn't that physics-related work concerning growth?

Unfortunately not. Physics is the ONLY science which is wholly unable to model its empirical data by using the tools of fractal geometry, which is essentially the toolkit which the father of modern relativity theory, Henri Poincare, was attempting to develop over a century ago and the reason he gave for immediately rejecting Special Relativity. The reason for this is quite simple. A fractal time dimension can only be modelled in a topological space, sometimes known as a phase space, because all motion in such spaces is uni-directional. On the other hand Minkowski modelled time in the Cartesian space, which because of its bi-directionality left physics with models of reality which are time invariant, which reality is self-evidently not. Eggs do not reassemble themselves back into their shells and then find their way back up the chook's bum and any scientific model which suggests that this is possible is bullshit, full stop.

Also, it seems that growth and emergence are the domain of chemistry, biochemistry and biology.

This has basically been the case throughout most of the 20th century, starting out with the pioneering work of Bogdanov. Von Bertalanffy was possibly the first formal systems theorist in biology but the true mathematical modelling was mostly the work of the information theorists, notably von Neumann, Shannon, Conway, Turing, Weiner, and crucially Mandelbrot. In chemistry the major figures were Onsager and Prigogine, both of whom won Nobels for their work in molecular evolution and both of whom were completely ignored by physics, because a universe in which entropy decreases is not one which their spacetime paradigm can encompass, even though such a universe is quite obviously the one we happen to inhabit.

I expect all of these fields to become more integrated as more connections are found.

The hubris of the physics priesthood is in a class of its own, Greta. They have managed to convince themselves that the universe is simply too complicated for us dumb schmuck biologists to understand and the fact that their models describe a universe which makes no f****** sense is to them nothing more than a trivial inconvenience. Watch and learn because the stamp collectors will be having the last laugh.

[Greta]

You have often spoken of work being done on non-linear fractal systems, though. Isn't that physics-related work concerning growth?

Unfortunately not. Physics is the ONLY science which is wholly unable to model its empirical data by using the tools of fractal geometry

Maybe that is changing? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... ntum-realm

http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-n ... ly-1.13717

On the other hand Minkowski modelled time in the Cartesian space, which because of its bi-directionality left physics with models of reality which are time invariant, which reality is self-evidently not.

On the other hand, we can at least gain some information from a series of snapshots.

Again, while Googling some of your ideas I came across something you might enjoy. J.Theiler: Estimating the Fractal Dimension of Chaotic Time Series https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/jou ... actals.pdf. I don't understand it but you might, but it does appear to be an attempt at physically modelling and trying to predict fractals.

This has basically been the case throughout most of the 20th century, starting out with the pioneering work of Bogdanov. Von Bertalanffy was possibly the first formal systems theorist in biology but the true mathematical modelling was mostly the work of the information theorists, notably von Neumann, Shannon, Conway, Turing, Weiner, and crucially Mandelbrot. In chemistry the major figures were Onsager and Prigogine, both of whom won Nobels for their work in molecular evolution and both of whom were completely ignored by physics, because a universe in which entropy decreases is not one which their spacetime paradigm can encompass, even though such a universe is quite obviously the one we happen to inhabit.

This is a very old battle, isn't it? All the way through the evolution of classical physics another physics has been evolving concurrently with its own chain of champions. I have generally thought you a lone operator but can see that you are simply backing a chain of dissidents examining reality from a different perspective, one that they and you believe is closer to reality. The lack of time in parts of classical physics certainly is an obvious issue.

The hubris of the physics priesthood is in a class of its own, Greta. They have managed to convince themselves that the universe is simply too complicated for us dumb schmuck biologists to understand and the fact that their models describe a universe which makes no f****** sense is to them nothing more than a trivial inconvenience. Watch and learn because the stamp collectors will be having the last laugh.

I am no biologist, just a dumb shmuck "fan" I think arrogance infects many fields of expertise to some extent. How many biologists speak about the false hard barrier drawn between geology and biology and insist on this hard line between the living and nonliving?

While I have no time for the back-to-the-Iron-Ages anti-science crowd, a serious consideration is that the angle of research has for some time been skewed towards commercial functions. A materialist physics would seem to be the physics of short term economic prosperity - where the "dead matter of the Earth" (and the equally "unimportant" plants and animals) can be ransacked wholesale with all the empathy of the predators that we were, and are - with precious little perception, let alone understanding, of the living systems they are breaking.

There are hints of retrocausality at quantum scales (apparently there were issues between Poincare and Boltzmann about this), but at larger scales Prigogine's irreversibility is all we've ever observed.

[Obvious Leo]

Greta. You raise a number of critical points which I fully intend to respond to. However my cognitive peak occurs in the mornings and gradually wanes throughout the day so I'll leave it until tomorrow.

I know bloody well that you're very close to getting my story and I have no intention of giving up on you for this very reason. Because of your deep and clear understanding of systems theory in biology there remains only a small conceptual hurdle to overcome to apply exactly the same thinking to all of physical reality.