originally posted by: mbkennel
What specifically counts as "substance" and what does not?
Is there a word we can agree to use which turns our understanding of eternal reality into absolutely something, and absolutely nothing? Absolutely
something being that which is absolutely opposite of nothing.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Something cannot be turned into nothing.
I refer to something, as substance.
The only kink in this discussion, is the nature of movement.
Which is real, but not 'a thing'. But an aspect of things.
A thing exists.
A thing that exists moves.
It is still the same thing entirely.
But there is a real difference.
And its real difference is not 'a thing'.
Movement is not a 'substance'. (unless it is... as I have not deeply considered the nature of movement enough to say)
A thing exists.
That thing which exists, when moving, is said to have more energy.
The thing itself; the thing as it was before it started moving, is the same thing as it is while it is moving.
Then we must consider, how it might require a thing, to make a thing move.
But then we just get entirely into a rabbit hole.
So yes, I will stand by my claim;
Nothing equals nothing.
That which is not nothing.
That which is something, can move.
Movement is not 'something'.
Movement is not 'nothing'.
Now last time we discussed these topics, I was trying to think about how movement might actually be actual something, because I was utterly distraught
over the nature and meaning of movement, what it is, how it exists, what it means.
So it might be, if there is not pure perfect nothing space
And now I must be clear again, to define these terms I have been using, which I have assumed are so obvious as they speak for themselves, but alas.
When I say pure perfect nothing space.
I am referring to the above axiom of; Nothing equals nothing. Something is not nothing. Something is something.
So if the universe is a lot of different somethings (all ultimately related as 'all the something that exists')
and there is real area and volume of nothing space, in between the somethings;
Then we can imagine the most fundamental particle of something not moving at all, in a space of nothing;
Ok, let me backtrack;
Because something exists. Because something cannot be created or destroyed (only transformed; time). The ultimate quantity of something is finite
(due to time; quality is infinite).
This means eventually, if we were to with our minds hypothetically travel in any direction away from the point we are currently at in the totality of
something; if we did this for infinite light years at infinite times the speed of light; eventually we would be completely away, from the totality of
something that exists.
Now it is possible that there is not infinite nothing space in all directions surrounding the absolute totality of something.
It is possible that due to some reason and the nature of the existence of the totality of something, that the somethings at the edge of the totality,
cannot leak out and drift off infinitely into nothing space.
Perhaps because the network of the totality of something is just too connected, too strong, that it is always more compelled to contain itself, then
to infinitely break apart forever.
I suppose then we must consider if this universe is the first time something has ever began to splinter; and yes this is about the theory of big
crunch and big bang etc.
But it really is impossible to tell; considering what you call a statement, and I call eternal proof, proves that something has alway existed and
always will; we have no way to determine the odds if the something had eternally existed in the highest ordered state, and that this expression of
universal creation is the first time the totality of something has acted at all.
For the smallest particle of something, lets consider we can take it infinitely far away from the rest of the totality of something, into a pure
And lets say, because there, there are no fields, or particles, or light or anything...it is purely absolutely nothing space; that we can allow this
most fundamental particle to be perfect still, perfectly motionless.
Oh and shame, do all theories break already, because an actual particle of something is meaningless, because actual particles of something do not
exist as objects, but what is required is an entire universal field, to then say; the field is not composed of particles, it is composed of... a
certain type of mass soup, and at points amidst this mass soup, the mass soup has solidified in places, and these solidifications cannot be
unsolidified, if they are, in another layer of the soup, equal solidifications will appear.
So we cannot drag a solidification of a field, outside the universe, and sever the particle from is field; because we must drag and stretch the entire
field, out with us infinitely away from the totality of something.
If we could sever the field. If we could cup our hands around an excitation of field, as a particulate of something which cannot be created or
destroyed. And steal it from the totality of something. And bring it infinitely far away into a space of pure nothing. And then let it be perfectly
motionless out there.
We would notice that the thing exists. It is an object, a thing, a something.
We would then notice, that if we want to create what is known as movement, we need another thing to move the motionless object.
So lets say we go all the way back to the totality of something, and do the same thing again to get another smallest particulate of something.
Now we have a motionless particle sitting in nothing space.
And a very similar particle, in our hand.
Well of course this reduces all the way back to the nature of consciousness, and our bodies stored energy, and our ability to cause motion to occur.
But anyway. Does all this fall apart anyway, because if we were to toss the particle in our hand, at the motionless one. Being severed from all the
fields of the universe; would they even be able to interact? Would they even be able to move?
So yes, one of the puzzling(/necessary/beautiful) things, is the nature of 'aspect'.
We might be compelled to bring up other things like 'human perception of color' as being 'not things' but not nothing.
But perhaps the result, of things, interacting amidst nothing.
This train of thought is so important, to the nature of light, how we define mass and movement, and physics understanding of space and time.
Light is not nothing. Therefore it must be something. The interesting thing is it is thought light cannot be motionless. My argument, is that light
is the motive result of an underlying structure/something, that must be something, or have relative motionlessness, or what which what is known as
I think those who have been disagreeing with my insights in this thread, are either shills, or people who are very scared of the mistakes of the
science of physics.
There are things I know which must be true, which are contradictory to physicists beliefs.
I.e. There must be something which exists. Which when moved. Is light.
Physicists ignore the something which exists, prior to the detection of light.
All this fudging, creates a mess out of physics, and interpretations of reality.