The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Dontaskme]

And yet you come out with a ridiculous statement like this; "Time or the play of duality is what stops everything (all possibility) from happening at once. .... As if "Duality" were a cause.

Duality is an illusion, it is the play of timeless infinity in time, in finite....appearance, an effect, acausal...they are the same oneness appearing to and as itself.. The whole cannot be known to itself except in time and space in finite which are illusions since there is only infinity or everything appearing to itself which is nothing.

Everything is the same as Nothing ...if there is just infinitely everything where would be the division of duality?

Nothing can happen within latent pure potentiality without the movement in time and space appearance of duality.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme, you may need to parse more tightly. By the above logic you could also say that that Lovecraft's Cthulu is a knowing because it is an idea.

I do understand your duality angle - nothing/something. I personally see "nothing" as purely relative and limited - "something is all we've even known". A person may have nothing in their bank account, but their account is not "nothing, consisting of a data file with your particulars and the physical servers to handle potential transactions. Mostly, though, nothingness is relative. There is relative nothingness in intergalactic space, yet those voids will still be thinly infused with gravitational waves, EM and the nuclear forces.

I think the deeper notion of nothingness comes from the knowledge that everything dies, so if the universe dies then there'll be "nothing". The view is based on assumptions - that we understand how life and death are related beyond prosaic dynamics, and that the universe is a cosmic fluke, a one-off event.

There is no knowledge of death or that it exists, the knowledge of death is born of language or the knowledge you have about death, but death can never be an experience to be known. And it is the same for life. No one lives a life. Life lives itself. If death cannot be experienced, neither can life.

Life is likened to the living death. I know this might sound a bit ''out-there'' but I'm talking from a Nondual perspective.

Something is known only in relation to Nothing. And since nothing cannot be known, the something is only an assumption / imagined.
These two concepts something and nothing are the same one thing which is no thing.


I'm thinking in the context of everything being of the same one energy that can neither be created or destroyed, has no beginning or ending, is everywhere and nowhere, now here, never not here.

[Greta]

There is no knowledge of death or that it exists, the knowledge of death is born of language or the knowledge you have about death, but death can never be an experience to be known. And it is the same for life. No one lives a life. Life lives itself. If death cannot be experienced, neither can life.

Life is likened to the living death. I know this might sound a bit ''out-there'' but I'm talking from a Nondual perspective.

It's a fair point not to separate life and death - they are all part of the same processes. Without everyone else (including animals and plants) we simply would not exist. We only exist as part of larger systems, not discretely. That is an illusion caused by the problem of other minds, which is probably only a temporary state for humanity. Our communications networks are giving us ever greater capacity for shared understandings in what appears to be an early stage of more profound mental integration. So each death is only the end of a particular story within these larger narratives - larger systems which comprise so much more of us and who we are than we tend to realise.

So I tend to agree with the idea that always been something.

Something is known only in relation to Nothing. And since nothing cannot be known, the something is only an assumption / imagined.
These two concepts something and nothing are the same one thing which is no thing.

Heh. I think of this as "twisty philosophy", which isn't my preference TBH. Thing is, we are here and there's this truckload of stuff around us. Something. Something is all any of us has known, with nothingness having either a limited or metaphorical meaning.

Then there's the idea of The Great Nothingness. The Void. The seat of reality. Ground zero. Trouble is, that nothing has to be something because it would be the (non) thing from which all this sprang. Not a fan, myself, although I do believe in "almost nothing" - the "thinnest" regions of physical reality would exist in intergalactic space, but even that is thinly connected with distant galaxies. Nothingness implies zero connection to anything (nothing to connect - god, this twisty stuff does my head in).

I'm thinking in the context of everything being of the same one energy that can neither be created or destroyed, has no beginning or ending, is everywhere and nowhere, now here, never not here.

Sure, it's only logical to consider the universe - reality - as all one thing that's broken up into particulates (at least from this particulate's perception). Bear in mind, energy is probably not fundamental; the universe was once in a state where all of the forced were unified.

[Obvious Leo]

Sure, it's only logical to consider the universe - reality - as all one thing that's broken up into particulates (at least from this particulate's perception).

Indeed this is perfectly logical. All of physical reality is of only one thing, as the pre-Socratic sages told us and even the great mechanist himself was aware.

“• Tis true without error, certain & most true.
• That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing
• And as all things have been & arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.......”

Hermes Trismisgetus......Tabula Smaragdina......as translated by Isaac Newton.

This is possibly the only truth which Newton and his arch nemesis Leibniz shared in common and yet it still raises the most profound metaphysical question of our modern age, a question which is yet to be satisfactorily answered.

Is this one thing, this ding an sich, a place in which events occur or is it merely the event itself and the "place" no more than an ephemeral construction of the observer of this event?

[Dontaskme]

It's a fair point not to separate life and death - they are all part of the same processes. Without everyone else (including animals and plants) we simply would not exist. We only exist as part of larger systems, not discretely. That is an illusion caused by the problem of other minds, which is probably only a temporary state for humanity. Our communications networks are giving us ever greater capacity for shared understandings in what appears to be an early stage of more profound mental integration. So each death is only the end of a particular story within these larger narratives - larger systems which comprise so much more of us and who we are than we tend to realise.

So I tend to agree with the idea that always been something.

Agreed.

Heh. I think of this as "twisty philosophy", which isn't my preference TBH. Thing is, we are here and there's this truckload of stuff around us. Something. Something is all any of us has known, with nothingness having either a limited or metaphorical meaning.

Then there's the idea of The Great Nothingness. The Void. The seat of reality. Ground zero. Trouble is, that nothing has to be something because it would be the (non) thing from which all this sprang. Not a fan, myself, although I do believe in "almost nothing" - the "thinnest" regions of physical reality would exist in intergalactic space, but even that is thinly connected with distant galaxies. Nothingness implies zero connection to anything (nothing to connect - god, this twisty stuff does my head in).

We only know the concept of nothing in relation to something. We wouldn't have any concept of something without referring to that which it is not, which is nothing...we can know something, but we cannot know nothing.

Nothingness can never be known in and of itself because one would have to be in the state of nothingness to experience it. So it's kind of like a double edge sword. In this sense, something definitely is...which is known as oneness or neutrality since that which is zero has no opposite and is totally absent of itself. So in a sense one is zero and vice versa...one meaning limitless absolute infinity - and zero as complete absence of anything. And since absence cannot be an experience; everything has to be... and nothing is impossible.

Something is here, but it's not known what that is except that it is. It can't be known what that something is... in the same context as the idea of nothing cannot be known except as idea.

Something is only because it has a label; what is a thing without a name? it is not a thing. Therefore, every thing is known only through the language knowledge we have of the thing. We don't know what the thing is directly, we can only know what it is by what we think it is via the knowledge, concept, imagination, idea we have of it. So a thing is just a thought really, and what is a thought, and who's thinking?

Sure, it's only logical to consider the universe - reality - as all one thing that's broken up into particulates (at least from this particulate's perception). Bear in mind, energy is probably not fundamental; the universe was once in a state where all of the forced were unified.

the fact that there is something here is proof enough that the fundamental forces of the universe are and have always been unified. We could never have known the fundamental state of the universe prior to it's self evident obvious reality.

[Hobbes' Choice]

And yet you come out with a ridiculous statement like this; "Time or the play of duality is what stops everything (all possibility) from happening at once. .... As if "Duality" were a cause.

Duality is an illusion, it is the play of timeless infinity in time, in finite....appearance, an effect, acausal...they are the same oneness appearing to and as itself.. The whole cannot be known to itself except in time and space in finite which are illusions since there is only infinity or everything appearing to itself which is nothing.

Everything is the same as Nothing ...if there is just infinitely everything where would be the division of duality?

Nothing can happen within latent pure potentiality without the movement in time and space appearance of duality.

Your brain is a nest of confusion.
You need to look back at your numerous contradictions.

[Greta]

Nothingness can never be known in and of itself because one would have to be in the state of nothingness to experience it. So it's kind of like a double edge sword.

That's the crux of it. Nothingness can only ever be relative.

Having said that, I saw a Roger Penrose clip today about an idea of his called conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), spurred by him noticing that both the pre-big bang state and that if the purported end of the universe (in quadrillions or more years when the last black hole has fully evaporated, are very uniform and smooth. Without energy being present in the end universe, size becomes meaningless, so in that state the universe could be virtually infinite or it could be infinitesimal, akin to a singularity ...

He says there's much work to be done on the idea so he's not touting it as reality, just an intriguing possibility.

[Dontaskme]

Your brain is a nest of confusion.
You need to look back at your numerous contradictions.

That which appears to be confused and contradictory is never confused and can never contradict itself, because there is no self there to know such knowledge. Reality doesn't have a self. The self is an assumption arising in the mind, which is an appearance of something from nothing.All contradictions lie in the Mind only. MIND is a synonym for CONTRADICTIONS... where does contradiction arise without awareness of such? Awareness and Mind are the same one being two.

There can be no such belief as the belief in nothingness.No more than a candle flame can blow itself out.Ever tried blowing out a candle flame without a breath?

Going deeper, the you could never know my brain is confused without being inside it to verify that statement, that would be impossible since two minds can never meet, have you ever even seen one mind? no one has seen the mind or the self. All is appearance, projection, of one to another one, same one.

It's a paradox as known by that which is unknowable.

This cannot be intellectually analysed by the mind only realised.

If you are going to assert that there is contradiction and confusion then you must be able to explain the error in words or your statement is without warrant and is just a meaningless arbitrary judgement. You have to put a bit more meat on the bone than that if we are to meet up on a mind level of mutual understanding.

[Dontaskme]

Nothingness can never be known in and of itself because one would have to be in the state of nothingness to experience it. So it's kind of like a double edge sword.

That's the crux of it. Nothingness can only ever be relative.

Having said that, I saw a Roger Penrose clip today about an idea of his called conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), spurred by him noticing that both the pre-big bang state and that if the purported end of the universe (in quadrillions or more years when the last black hole has fully evaporated, are very uniform and smooth. Without energy being present in the end universe, size becomes meaningless, so in that state the universe could be virtually infinite or it could be infinitesimal, akin to a singularity ...

He says there's much work to be done on the idea so he's not touting it as reality, just an intriguing possibility.

I totally love this idea, as it too is a vision of mine, and well worth the constant ponder, insomuch as we can't know the absolute, we can only know the illusory nature of existence, so thanks.

[Greta]

I totally love this idea, as it too is a vision of mine, and well worth the constant ponder, insomuch as we can't know the absolute, we can only know the illusory nature of existence, so thanks.

Yes, I thought it was exciting. This is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ

[SpheresOfBalance]

This mathematical proof involves hyperreal mathematics and detailed ontological construction techniques. If you are not deeply familiar with those, you might want to take it very slowly, thinking about and asking about each detail from the beginning to the end.

And note ahead of time that even though we begin speaking merely of random possibilities and infinitesimal probabilities, by the time we get to the end, an absolute impossibility has been established.

================================

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.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let's define a term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+...]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all "real numbers". And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can't even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?


But if that isn't good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with "1/AbsInf", as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 ... well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, "Nothingness", is absolutely impossible.

Thus no universe could have ever been at a state of absolute nothingness, a pre-Big-Bang state, nor can even the tiniest fraction of any universe ever be absolutely empty. Every point throughout all space and throughout all time is filled with affectance that merely changes in density and potential.

Exyz = p + a0dp/dt + a1dp²/dt² + a3dp³/dt³ + …

Or:

Your argument is made in a universe of things, it's all you know. As such your proof is all about things, so obviously it can't prove the possibility of nothing. Without using any maths at all, the fact that there are maths, prove there could never have been nothing. If in the beginning there was nothing, there could never be anything, thus nothing could be used to prove there could be something. I see that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. In any case the questions still boggle the human mind.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your brain is a nest of confusion.
You need to look back at your numerous contradictions.

That which appears to be confused and contradictory is never confused and can never contradict itself, .

PLONK!

[Dubious]

Absolute nothingness may not exist in nature except for the human brain which seems to have no problem with it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Absolute nothingness may not exist in nature except for the human brain which seems to have no problem with it.

Sorry dubious, but your statement was not very well thought out. Nothingness precludes everything, even nature.

[Obvious Leo]

Absolute nothingness may not exist in nature except for the human brain which seems to have no problem with it.

Sorry dubious, but your statement was not very well thought out. Nothingness precludes everything, even nature.

Is this an example of a well thought out statement? If so it contradicts your earlier statement:

If in the beginning there was nothing, there could never be anything,

If a state of nothingness is unalterable how can it preclude everything?