Can nothing not exist?

[Moontanman]

Can you demonstrate anything that is nothing?

[davidivad]

thus the definition of the word.

it is a moot point because this is what the word is used for.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Wasn't that what i said?

If that's what you meant then yes.

[wucko]

Can you demonstrate anything that is nothing?

 

no, if I want to keep everything. if there is *an* nothing, there is no everything. I can demostrate a nonexistant nothign though.

Hi Moontanman!

How do we know that all we know about is what we can observe?

Can we actually observe it, or do we somehow reason us to it?

 

we dont know what all we did observe, there will always be things we dont know that we know. we dont only know what we observe, we also know what we observe, but dont know we observe.

"What knowledge can I gain from this different viewpoint?""

 

yes, but in a non-solipsystic manner only.

[hoola]

nothing cannot not exist, because if it didn't exist, that would manifest it's existence as a description of state of nothingness...I prefer the term"void" instead of nothingness.....

[Daniel Zrmanjac]

How do you know that you exist? can you prove that you exist? Can I prove that I exist?

[hoola]

actually, you or I don't "exist" in the common understanding of the language...we and everything are holographic expressions from the singularity (IBH)...however, we are that information that is projected, which does exist, and therefore, even though reality isn't completely real, it's real enough to produce interesting things. This might also provides a form of eternal life, as if you die, the information that described you is still in the IBH, although I doubt it would do you any good....like an unread book, no information expressed or observed, no you...that doesn't mean you won't live again...if the universe collapses or goes caput in a trillion years or so, and a new one is formed with the same parameters of PI, than your information could be "expressed" again in an identical life...not a parallel universe with doppelgangers, but a sequential universe with "clones"...with only one You at a time...

[SamBridge]

Wouldn't nothingness just have no dimensional size?

[hoola]

nothing (void) has no dimensions with which to have size..dimensions are information, just like everything else....so a more accurate way of saying void, is a region without information. This is only altered slightly in that the void contains the "concept of one" as there was, in a theoretical sense, only one void....thereby a defacto content of "one theoretical bit" of information...this one bit is a dimensionless theoretical point, so doesn't violate the no dimension rule of a true void..

[SamBridge]

nothing (void) has no dimensions with which to have size..dimensions are information, just like everything else....so a more accurate way of saying void, is a region without information.

But if a dimension was a piece of information then it wouldn't be able to travel faster than light which means dimensions would have to follow time symmetric and conservation laws and not be observed traveling faster than light. Dimensions are by nature infinitely long and already extend to any point that could be obtained by traveling a finite speed.

[hoola]

aha !!! you put your finger on it...communication can happen faster than light.......what about inflation? what about the electron's near instant speed when changing valence positions, what about symmetry breaking of entangled particles? I still think the speed of gravity is near instant, or Newtons equations don't work, curved space or not, the effective straight-line control speeds vastly exceed light speed...so dimensions are possibly faster than C....regardless of their speed, dimensions may not be infinitely long......but I would think that they are in the super-luminal category. I do think the dimensions are not infinite...the universe is composed of a finite amount of information. The void is infinite.....so there is an edge to this universe, and the dimensions...as there is only so much information to spread around. That information is increasing as the universe expands, but will always be of a finite amount...

[SamBridge]

aha !!! you put your finger on it...communication can happen faster than light.......what about inflation? what about the electron's near instant speed when changing valence positions, what about symmetry breaking of entangled particles? ..

Correlations, no violation of relativity, no superluminal speed needed. It's not much different than saying gravity affects a particle in a position that the gravity has already propagated too. You don't need to travel distance over time simply to exist, a dimensional by nature already exists at all points indefinitely and so it never sent any information about its propagation between any two points for any duration of time,.

 

I do think the dimensions are not infinite...the universe is composed of a finite amount of information.

Homogeneous, but not finite. Out models suggest that space extends indefinitely, and that wherever you go, you will see the same things, you will see space expand at the same proportion of distance and you will see galaxies evenly distributed to matter how far you travel in any direction.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[hoola]

(gravity may affect a particle it has already traveled to).....and that travelling may have been held at C, but to keep the orbits in their proper positions, doesn't gravity have to communicate change in strength faster than C? I'm not saying gravity isn't "already there", only that the changes communicated by this already established field system operate faster than C. Maybe gravity is the weakest of examples given....ok, what about this inflation that seems to be fairly accepted these days... Surely that is considered superluminal...if it happened even once in the history of the universe, that is the exception that proves the case...and what about tunnel diodes? Doesn't the electron disappear on one side of the barrier and re-appear on the other super luminally? The universe may be homogenous, but not be infinite... I don't really look at the issue as regards to speed of propagation, I simply say that the universe has a finite amount of information available to be expressed, and the void to fill is infinite. Why are the dimension infinite? If something exists, there must be a mechanism behind it's existence....and if it is "infinite" than it must have travelled infinitely fast, or had an infinite amount of time to "be everywhere"..

[SamBridge]

but to keep the orbits in their proper positions, doesn't gravity have to communicate change in strength faster than C?

IF there's a change, sure, but if there is no change, then no, there's no communication happening whatsoever, gravity instantaneously has an indefinite effect on all mass-bearing objects in space it has already propagated too. Similarly, dimensions constitute space at all points they already exist at, and there is no measured point where space doesn't already exist. In fact, it would be impossible to measure the absence of dimension.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge

[hoola]

you state yourself that "gravity instantaneously has an indefinite (don't you mean definite?)effect on all mass bearing objects in space it has already travelled to....right...so you agree that the "setting up" gravity field is held at C, but a communicative relation between masses post setup happens superluminally...that is all is required to make my case . If the comm system wasn't ultra fast, orbits would be unstable, actually would never form....from what I have read on the subject of a light speed gravity effect. Whether the effects are felt due to warpage of space or some other mechanism...that is a mechanistic detail to the process and somewhat irrelevant. Actually I don't think it is "infinite" only much faster than light speed..I don't think anything is infinte within the confines of the universe.....the way I think about the void, having no size, and being infinite....it is like quantum processes, will behave in a dualistic manner, depending on how you visualize it.....it had no size, yet, it was all there was.....that it existed before the universe came about and produced the chaos, which produced logic, means that it was not governed by the strictures of the formal logic that runs things today. Is it possible to perceive things that occured before logic developed? Please straight me out on that definite/indefinite thing...thanks...as far as the dimensions always "being there" no matter where in space you measure, I agree, but i also say that the universe is not infinite, and there is a boundary to it beyond nothing, not even dimensions can go. The universe is expanding at C, yes, and the dimensions are expanding at superluminal (but not infinite), so there will never be an arrival at the boundary. That boundary is expanding at ultra speeds, but there will always be the other side it travelling into. You would have to have a ship faster than the "speed of gravity" for you to ever catch up with the dimensions, though you would catch up with the edge of the material universe pretty quickly...since it pokes along at C. As a point of reference, gravity effect, entanglement failure, electron valence shifts....electron tunneling....I have started to think of them, as equivalent speeds....perhaps not totally identical, but in the same grouping of ultra fast speeds....and with a common mechanism behind these high speeds, perhaps.......C squared or something similar. I think I read somewhere that the speed was actually calculated as some such high value....and what if a person did have a "faster than gravity" vehicle, caught up with the edge of the observable universe, then sped along till the edge of the dimensions came into "view"...could a material object exist without dimensions to support the description? Seems unlikely....seems some inviolable principle would be violated.....I would think it wise to send in a slightly faster probe to see what would occur......and observe the results safely distanced from the experiment....I vote that it would "disappear" in an energy liberation of the information (matter) contained within the probe.... resulting in an explosion as soon as it edges past the boundary, the mass energy liberated by removal of containment by dimensions...a similar idea to a matter/antimatter explosion, but with a matter/void explosion...

Edited April 23, 2014 by hoola

[SamBridge]

but a communicative relation between masses post setup happens superluminally

Except that it isn't "communication," it's "correlation," a fundamentally different property which doesn't deal with traveling any distance over any time. Do I need distance over time for 4*3 to = 12? Nope. You don't need time simply for things to specially exist.

Edited April 23, 2014 by SamBridge

[hoola]

but I suppose the universe would have it's "hawking radiation" of virtual particles reflected back, as one particle is liberated at the "end of universe event horizon" ....by the other one disappearing as it "falls out" of the universe...

oh, that just popped up...are you asking if I need distance over time to do the 4X3=12? if so, then yes....any changes within a region, including theoretical multiplicatons frequire time to accomplish this,,,as that indicates a change of informational status...and what is the specific difference between communication and correlation in the case of orbiting bodies?

Edited April 23, 2014 by hoola

[SamBridge]

but I suppose the universe would have it's "hawking radiation" of virtual particles reflected back

No idea what that's suppose to mean.

 

 

oh, that just popped up...are you asking if I need distance over time to do the 4X3=12? if so, then yes....any changes within a region, including theoretical multiplicatons frequire time to accomplish this

But, a correlation isn't a change, it's almost the opposite of a change. 4*3=12 is never going to change, that statement will always be true regardless of how much time passes anywhere and regardless of where anyone is. Only changes in which correlation matter/energy decides to follow need to be observed as being at or less than light, such as changes in position, how they are affected by differences in gravity, ect. But, I don't need any amount of time to pass to say "position x = position x" because the correlation is never untrue, the state of correlation is independent of physical dimension. You can see this exact propety in entanglement, assuming our current models and not some wormhole or 10-dimensional position model, whereby correlation, entangled particles become the same particle, and since any object equals itself regardless of where it is in space, we measure the phenomena as being seemingly instantaneously upheld independently of its position in space.

Edited April 23, 2014 by SamBridge

[hoola]

I think I see what you mean. with the 4X3=12, but we're talking fluxing gravity effects here, not a fixed mathematical complete equation...the gravity equation value is a constant re-calculation of change requiring constant communicatons between non-stationary masses..... Hawking radiation...? (I'm sure you know what that means, but as a quick review).., as virtual particle pairs are near the event horizon of a black hole...one partner of the particle pair falls through the event horizon, and one flies off, as hawking radiation. That's what I am referring to, but the pair I am referring to are separated not with gravity of the black hole, but by the fact that one particle of the pair materialzes on the wrong side of the universe/void "event horizon" ala the black hole analogy...as I see the virtual particle pairs as appearing wherever dimensionality has extended to...I would think this would be a similar energy as the hawking radiation...

Edited April 23, 2014 by hoola

[SamBridge]

I think I see what you mean. with the 4X3=12, but we're talking fluxing gravity effects here,

No, we're talking about static gravitational effects where what I am saying upholds. It's not a constant "recalculation," it's a correlation, recalculations take time, correlations don't. Time doesn't need to pass for a gravitational field to exist where it already exists. If what you were saying was true, it would imply everything would stop existing if we stopped to look at an individual moment in time.

Edited April 23, 2014 by SamBridge

[hoola]

Yes, time doesn't need to pass for a gravitational field to exist.....duly noted....what I am talking is change of gravity fields strengths....that change of strengths pulling between the two objects is faster than C, or else the orbits fail in short fashion according to Newton's Law. I still can't get past this...I am either misunderstanding the process, but I haven't heard and explanation of how I am wrong........and I do no understand where the last sentence is coming from...."everything would stop existing if we stopped to look at an individual moment in time ? Please explain...thanks hoola..

h

[SamBridge]

what I am talking is change of gravity fields strengths

 

Yes, changes in fields propagate at the speed of light.

 

that change of strengths pulling between the two objects is faster than C

Which doesn't happen, a change in a field doesn't propagate faster than light, it propagates exactly at the speed of light.

 

or else the orbits fail in short fashion according to Newton's Law.

 

 

What way do you expect they would fail? Not that Newton's models were as accurate as Einsteinien models anyway. If the sun suddenly disappeared, Earth would continue to rotate around where the sun use to be for around 8 minutes since 8 minutes is how long it takes light to reach Earth and thus is how long it would take before Earth saw the sun's gravity disappear. After that, Earth would fly off in the direction it happened to be pointing in when it experienced the lack of gravity.

 

and I do no understand where the last sentence is coming from...."everything would stop existing if we stopped to look at an individual moment in time ? Please explain...thanks hoola..

 

If you claim a field is the result of a time dependent recalculation, then if time stopped, there would be no time for a recalculation, therefore you wouldn't measure the field as specially existing. But, that's not what actually happens, the spacial dimensions of a field are a different component of its spacetime interaction than the temporal dimension. So if time stopped or if it mathematically stopped when we looked at an individual moment in time, the spacial dimensions of a field still exist and still have a correlation of their strength to distance. Or like with throwing a ball. Velocity is dependent on time, you need time to pass to measure velocity, so if time froze, we wouldn't see the ball traveling distance over time but would still see its spacial dimensions.

Edited April 24, 2014 by SamBridge

[hoola]

Isaac Newton says the effects of gravity are instantaneous....his laws, which are extremely accurate within the realm of our discussion, require instantaneous interactions....I've dragged the conversation of off topic long enough, the topic is "can nothing not exist"...and I haven't really responded to your question....in further thinking. I think the answer is no, in that nothing can exist...which I define as a complete lack of information, and also (kinda) yes, as even in the informationless void, a concept of "there is one void" exists , but that is a concept of one, not an actual one.....so it is a weak yes...and in a technical sense, another no.. I also see that the void existed for a certain period of time before even the concept of " oneness" evolved....if I can imagine the chaos and logic and the maths evolving, why not the concepts? In this case the first concept, the concept of one ....Say there was a true emptyness and then the concept of (one) emptyness developed from that. Only later did that concept of a one emptyness evolve into a one.( numerical bit)...so the answer is still one strong no, and one weak yes, if you consider a concept of something to be information, and that the concept and actual "thing" are inseperable and originate simutaneously....which I don't...

Edited April 24, 2014 by hoola

[SamBridge]

his laws, which are extremely accurate within the realm of our discussion, require instantaneous interactions

But they aren't as accurate as Special Relativity's laws of motion.

[davidivad]

can nothing not exist?

 

at the smallest scales that we can measure, nothing physically exists. even space itself is not a distinct entity. therefore nothing truly exists. by definition, nothing refers to the absence of something. it is a logical paradox. i would call upon the strangeness of quantum mechanics to try to find a reasonable solution. perhaps nothing is something yet is nothing at the same time. can we measure this phenomenon? i know that space is a vacuum filled with virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

 

when it all boils down, it is proof that our perceptions are a result of insanity. it is a good thing that we can sometimes agree on some things.