Nothing exists... literally!

[Dean Mullen]

I was just thinking, if you had a 2-D circle sidewards and shown to a three dimensional observing entity, there appears to be nothing there, yet something is there, and maybe the opposite is true. There appears to be something yet there is nothing. And maybe nothing exists. Although it sounds irrational, just open your mind for a minute and maybe nothing exists.

 

Although you may argue "I doubt therefore I am" yet if you wrote the words "I doubt" on a piece of paper, you could then realize the possibility of letting a computer process the words "I doubt" in someway, then maybe our brains can process the words "I doubt" and we can experience an illusion that "I doubt" yet it is only the brain stating "I doubt" and the brain does not experience, for it is possible for the brain to be an illusion, thus the concept "I doubt therefore I am" maybe an illusion and not true.

 

We maybe so deep inside the illusion of everything that it becomes so real and so defined, we find no reason to believe it's not there. Yet science has always pressumed then been disproven. We pressumed the world we see is external, yet it is really internal and experienced inside our brain, we pressumed reality was solid & defined, yet quantum physics tells us otherwise and that reality is created by consciousness and that the solidity of matter is no more than an illusion.

 

This is a leap in thinking, and yet the idea nothing can create an illusion in the first place seems impossible, even if it were possible we may neve realize it, because we haven't thought that deeply and explored reality that complex yet. I guess it is more of a philisophical leap of the imagination, but in theory it could be true, yet I'm not sure.

 

 

[swansont]

I think you want to read up on the holographic principle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

It's still not much more than conjecture at this point.

[steevey]

If the singularity universe had a wave function, then there wasn't a big bing, but just an extension of that singularity which contained 0 volume since it's probability would extend to what seems to us as everywhere. Everything would be made out of the same singular thing containing 0 volume.

[darkenlighten]

I have an idea...let's change definitions so that it seems like what we are stating are contradicting natural thought, but it is actually just redefining the word so that it seems to make sense, though it's just the same thing twisted around.

[steevey]

I have an idea...let's change definitions so that it seems like what we are stating are contradicting natural thought, but it is actually just redefining the word so that it seems to make sense, though it's just the same thing twisted around.

 

That's a good idea, and while we're at it, let's post things helpful to this topic starting with the next post after this one.

 

There may be a hologram-like property of multiple planes of existence, but even if there is, its still the same probabilities of all the same matter.

Edited February 7, 2011 by steevey

[36grit]

Personally, I define nothing as everything existing everywhere all at once in some wierd chaotic realm. "Everything" is literally every possible thought. The speed of light divides the realm of chaos from the realm of time. Time is the stage where thoughts play out in a line. (This too, might be considered chaos by many). Humans are conciesness at liberty. We pick and choose the thoughts we think. Time is the singularity. Everything that is real is matter of time dialations and expansions that came out of the chaotic void.

When we study the quantum realm we are studying the surface tension membrane that exists between reality and chaos. Objects are continually being positioned and repositioned according into an exact mathamatical present position, and condition, according to the momentums and entropy that act upon them, according to a previous instant of time. It takes energy to think and it takes energy to act. True wisdom is to use this energy in a spiritually responsible manner.

Edited February 15, 2011 by 36grit

[dalgoma]

Regarding the disc viewed edge on:-

 

Although the line has no width, it does have length - and that is information, not nothing.

 

Viewed from the disc edge, the line is a tangent of infinite length. Unless viewed from infinity its length is always greater than the diameter of the disc.

 

When viewed from infinity it is nothing.

[Dean Mullen]

Regarding the disc viewed edge on:-

 

Although the line has no width, it does have length - and that is information, not nothing.

 

Viewed from the disc edge, the line is a tangent of infinite length. Unless viewed from infinity its length is always greater than the diameter of the disc.

 

When viewed from infinity it is nothing.

 

It's not about its factual information its about the illusion it creates and for e.g. if there was nothing it doesn't matter about its information its about the idea that the everything within is an illusion.

[hypervalent_iodine]

You need to stop posting these philosophical things in physics.