Re: NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:21 am
Yes, true.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:32 pmYou said that space is a thingAge wrote:
When have I EVER said or stated that space is a physical thing
I asked a clarifying question. Instead of just answering the ACTUAL question, you make up an ASSUMPTION INSTEAD, then this leads to a completely an unnecessary waste of "mental energy". Do not feel alone though. Most of 'you', adult human beings, have this same WRONG reactive behavior when a question is posed to you.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:32 pmso if you do not think it is physical then it must be non physical
WHY do 'you', adult human beings, continually PRESUME some thing is being said just because a clarifying question is being asked of you, or some thing else is being said/stated?
For example, if I say; "Space is a thing", then HOW does this instantly transfer into mean "space IS a physical thing"?
The ANSWER to these two just asked clarifying question really IS very simple and easy indeed. In other words, What are the things that make 'you' SEE and VIEW things WRONGLY and from a CLOSED perspective? Or, in another way, What are the things that PREVENT and STOP 'you' from SEEING and VIEWING thee actual REAL Truth of things? BOTH of the two things in the answer apply to BOTH questions here.
Just to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, when I ask a clarifying question, then the question is coming from a Truly OPEN, wondering AND inquisitive perspective. Although I might ALREADY KNOW what the actual True, Right, and Correct Answer IS, I am STILL wondering what answer WILL BE provided. Until that is given, I am left wondering, while remaining completely OPEN.
Firstly, just because I either think some thing, or do not think some thing, this does NOT make any thing SO.
For example, If I do not think space is physical, then that has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether space IS physical or non physical.
The "logic" IF I (or anyone) does not think space is physical, THEN space is non physical, is just plain WRONG, and ILLOGICAL.
Secondly, I NEITHER think space is physical NOR non physical. I SEE 'space' as the distance between two visibly physical separated things.
I think 'space' could be a physical and/or a non physical thing.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:32 pmnow So do you think space is a non physical thing and if so then how can it actually exist in reality
If 'space', however, is a non physical thing, then space CAN, and DOES, actually exist in reality either through the way I describe space as just being a distance, or, as being like a non-physical, unobtrusive thing IS, which would HAVE TO some how exist, BECAUSE physical things would NOT be able to move freely about, like they do, if physical things were NOT separated some how.
For example, IF it is possible to collide an electron with a proton, then there NEEDS to be some thing separating the two, and that some thing would have to be as close to be non physical like to ALLOW the electron AND the proton to be separated AND be able to move freely towards each other, in order to collide. Obviously, IF there were physical things between them, then they would NOT touch either, nor collide together. Unless of course they demolish completely the other physical thing.
Now, IF inside a proton there is three separate physically hard cores, known as 'quarks', then what is there between and around these three quarks that separates them into being three separate physical things? If what separates them are physical things, then what are they? And/or if that space in between and around the three quarks, which is what separates the quarks is 'space', then how could that 'space' be physical?
In 'Reality' physical things move about freely bumping into and off of other physical things. For this to happen, then this could indict that a non physical thing exists, which is just what separates the physical things from each other and IS what ALLOWS 'freedom of movement'. Obviously, without 'freedom of movement', then there would be NO change. If there was NO change, then 'Reality' would NOT exist HERE-NOW as It does, and ALWAYS WILL.
By the way, preexisting ASSUMPTIONS about how that EVERY thing that exists HAS TO BE physical, does NOT help in being able to SEE and ACCEPT what I have been 'trying to' say and explain here.
In fact ANY PRESUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS do NOT help ANY one in SEEING what thee actual REAL Truth of things ARE.