Nothing, No-thing, and the universe

The only proof of the nothing I speak of, is that which many call "paranormal" Occasionally one who has passed, may be trapped in the nothing, not fully in either dimension, we call them ghosts. However paranormal research has not fully proven the existence of ghosts, there is quite a bit of evidence that could support the existence of ghosts. It is fitting actually, how can one prove the existence of something that exists in nothing?

Perhaps I better stop there.



[edit on 3-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Interesting topic to see you posting on, Byrd.

Nothingness does intrigue me quite a lot, it is always something that I feel is not possible to define.

I don't like the idea that there is a nothingness outside the universe, but then I do not understand it all that well. To say there is nothing outside the universe is strange, as to observe there being nothing, would imply that you can observe out of the universe, which perhaps implies you are looking into something.

If you aren't observing something, does that mean there is nothing there? I cannot personally say that such is the case, but even what seems to be a non observation can be a observation, so that confuses me really and I'm not really sure how to get a point across on this issue.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Move carefully between that which we can and cannot know, the nothing you speak of is the place that lies between dimensions, it is the path to that which lies beyond your existence. Nothing, is indeed what awaits us all at the end, on our journey to what is next.

So... your concept of nothingness is a place between physical dimensions? Is this correct? Or is your concept of a dimension something else?

I'd like to explore this a bit, if I may.... if I interpreted correctly, then since it "lies between dimensions" do you hold with the idea that there are perhaps an infinite number of dimensions (and therefore an infinite number of nothingnesses) or a limited number or what?

(I'll ask about dimensions later, because this also is an interesting topic.)

If you don't mind, I'll ask questions on just tiny pieces of your answers, because the subject (as you see) is quite complex. In philosophy, the self-answer is not wrong... everyone can simultaneously be right. But the answers lead to different paths.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
No, there are no "boundaries". The boundary of Existence is nothing, therefore making Existence nothing(giving existence/uni-verse all the attributes of nothing). I can not decipher between things and nothing any more, at a point in "time" I could, now it is "all" nothing, and there is no "time".

Could you explain that more? I can see the concept that the boundary of existence is nothing, but then you say the universe has all the attributes of nothing. This seems contradictory.

What attributes does nothingness have that the universe shares?

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Back to topic, this is a very interesting thread. Wish I got into philosophy sooner. Byrd, the link you provided was a great read. I especially loved the glacier theory that says we are all frozen water floating in melted water, not realizing that we are all connected and will eventually turn back into water.

I don't know that theory -- hadn't come across it. Could you provide a link?

I haven't talked or written about philosophy in a long time, but I'm enjoying investigating the directions suggested by others' concepts here. We will all come to our own conclusions, since philosophy is a tool to make sense of the world. And I enjoy learning.

Originally posted by Byrd
So... your concept of nothingness is a place between physical dimensions? Is this correct? Or is your concept of a dimension something else?

Yes! Yes! and No!

Originally posted by Byrd
..if I interpreted correctly, then since it "lies between dimensions" do you hold with the idea that there are perhaps an infinite number of dimensions (and therefore an infinite number of nothingnesses) or a limited number or what?

Infinite is possible, because if this dimension has a path to the next via nothingness, then that dimension also has a path to the next, and so on. Ever had a really powerful moment of deja vu? With infinite possibilities perhaps one could pass through the same more than once. Maybe you have been here before at this very moment, thinking this very thing!

My ATS thread that started this thread has A Worm Hole I created by careful design using Spin Torsion Fields with a Kaluza Klein gravity guage theory and voila.

It has created a rip in the space/time fabric of the ATS Thread and has nothing but the open future in the link.

I am Nothing, and I have created Nothing.
I am God Here

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Originally posted by apex
I don't like the idea that there is a nothingness outside the universe, but then I do not understand it all that well. To say there is nothing outside the universe is strange, as to observe there being nothing, would imply that you can observe out of the universe, which perhaps implies you are looking into something.

Heh. You're not alone.. it bothers a lot of people, including physicists!

If you aren't observing something, does that mean there is nothing there?

Well, that depends on the approach you take. Philosophically, the answer could be "yes" -- that the universe you perceive is your reality and that if you're not perceiving it, the thing is not real/nonexistant (I'll come back with a better explanation later, after I've eaten.)

In physics/cosmology, the answer is "no." This science considers an area (no matter how small) as existing for all the time that the universe exists. There is a high probability that at some point in time (and we can't say how long) that SOMEthing is there (a boson, quark, electrical field, part of a planet, etc, etc) and so Nothingness inside the 3 dimensional physical universe actually does not exist.

I cannot personally say that such is the case, but even what seems to be a non observation can be a observation, so that confuses me really and I'm not really sure how to get a point across on this issue.

Hey, we're just exploring! That's why I'm asking questions.

A lot of times people think very shallowly about these things. It's interesting to ask about them -- as long as nobody's trying to grind this down to some sort of religion.

Originally posted by UM_GazzInfinite is possible, because if this dimension has a path to the next via nothingness, then that dimension also has a path to the next, and so on.

I find the idea of an infinity of nothingnesses to be rather charming, myself.

Now... (wicked grin) the hard part: "What's a dimension?"

There's any number of answers for this and if you pick one, you have to integrate some of the others some way (which is fine... this is philosophy and you can construct what you like!)

A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.
Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of alarming dimensions.
Aspect; element: “He's a good newsman, and he has that extra dimension” (William S. Paley).
Mathematics.
The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
The range of such a coordinate.
Physics. A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time

Now, in common views, a dimension is a spatial property and can be identified by coordinates (so you could say that in a 5-dimensional space, something is at position (2,3,55,-482,1)). Nova's got a nice little page on this when they discuss string theory and the need for 10 dimensions:
www.pbs.org...

In physics, a dimension is more complex and can indicate a property such as time or velocity or even a color-ness.
Wikipedia gives a decent review (look at the section on theoretica physics and manifolds):
en.wikipedia.org...
A fairly un-readable math page is here:
mathworld.wolfram.com...
Math includes things like fractal dimensions:
mathworld.wolfram.com...

Which of those seems most right for your world view? Myself, I go with the physics one because it's most useful for the work I do and for the modeling I sometimes do. But there's no right answer, only a personal choice.

And if you like the manifolds and all, nobody here's gonna force you to do the math (though I will start asking about your ideas of some of the concepts!)

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Byrd]

Originally posted by ByrdWell, that depends on the approach you take. Philosophically, the answer could be "yes" -- that the universe you perceive is your reality and that if you're not perceiving it, the thing is not real/nonexistant (I'll come back with a better explanation later, after I've eaten.)

In physics/cosmology, the answer is "no." This science considers an area (no matter how small) as existing for all the time that the universe exists. There is a high probability that at some point in time (and we can't say how long) that SOMEthing is there (a boson, quark, electrical field, part of a planet, etc, etc) and so Nothingness inside the 3 dimensional physical universe actually does not exist.

I sort of prefer the Physics answer myself, but if outside of this universe, there is something which exists separately to our standard 3-d spacetime, which it is thought particles can randomly pop in and out of existence from, which we cannot observe, can still be there, even though we do not have the means to see it. If something exists which is two dimensional, we could see it, but if there is something that has more space dimensions than us, we can't see it, I think.

And don't worry, I won't bring up any religion into this, though I do wonder if something else is running sort of intersecting with this universe.

Well Byrd, you had to go and get all scientific on me.

It was much more fun dealing with a subject of unknowns, in a "charming" way.

I'm convinced there are things beyond what we can prove with science now, and theorize about with a pure scientific approach, the reality is there are things we cannot know, and quite possibly never will know, at least at this level of consciousness.

I suppose that is why some people have faith in a god or higher power, a creator, and an "afterlife".

We are aware, we know many things, and deep inside many fear the unknowns that exist beyond the death of our human bodies.

This is an area that neither science or religion can fully satisfy.

But maybe one day....

Well, humans are limited by their 5 senses. We can only experience the universe through our narrow vision of 5 senses. Perhaps things exist outside the scope of smell, vision, touch, etc, and that is where a being like God may dwell.

Actually, in philosophy, you can bring in the notion of a supreme being or a "first cause" and there's no penalty.

Originally posted by apex
I sort of prefer the Physics answer myself, but if outside of this universe, there is something which exists separately to our standard 3-d spacetime, which it is thought particles can randomly pop in and out of existence from, which we cannot observe, can still be there, even though we do not have the means to see it. If something exists which is two dimensional, we could see it, but if there is something that has more space dimensions than us, we can't see it, I think.

And don't worry, I won't bring up any religion into this, though I do wonder if something else is running sort of intersecting with this universe.

Let's hop back to philosophy, then.

The idea of something acting on a universe is an old one. Aristotle thought that everything that exists has a cause and that there must have been a first mover/thing/cause to cause everything. Is that something similar to the "medium" you're thinking of?

Again, just taking the opportunity to explore.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Well Byrd, you had to go and get all scientific on me.

Yes, I know I'm a wicked old birdie! But we often have these interesting thoughts and then don't ever really explore them. I think it's fun to talk to people about these kinds of things.

I suppose that is why some people have faith in a god or higher power, a creator, and an "afterlife".

I suspect that there are as many reasons for faith or non faith as there are people.

Originally posted by Byrd
If you don't mind, I'll ask questions on just tiny pieces of your answers, because the subject (as you see) is quite complex. In philosophy, the self-answer is not wrong... everyone can simultaneously be right. But the answers lead to different paths.

No problem, and I agree. Even nothing can be relative, relative to awarenesses of nothing, but I do believe there is only one real nothing, and that is... no thing. Awareness doesn't change the dynamics of existence, never has and never will. It may change the experienced reality and illusion, but the dynamics of existence out side of our limited awarenesses has always been.

Could you explain that more?

Of course I love this stuff too.

I can see the concept that the boundary of existence is nothing, but then you say the universe has all the attributes of nothing. This seems contradictory.

The boundary of existence is nothing, the attributes of existence are that of nothing, and nothing's that of existence. In simplicity the statement is inferring that the boundary of nothing is nothing. The boundary of the awareness of nothing is some thing, division, "egoism".

For instance. Existence outside of Human expectation and awareness is always functioning with and at the same dynamics, it is always interconnected because there is no "existing space of nothing" to separate any thing. But here come little Humans (excuse my deragotory language) not aware of what nothing is and is not (not some thing) thus they think that things are actually separated. If we can get past this path of deluded psychology we can see, in our minds (and by naked eye if we choose to), that every thing is connected, and in being so there really are no things because things represent separability and no space of nothingness can actually exist to separate them because nothing does not exist as some thing. No-thing as opposed to Some-thing

Now that this is the case we have an immeasurable existence that is eternally interconnected and stopped by No-thing, that is, it can not be stopped, it is ever expansive and already there. An illusional reality, a primitive delusional optical deception of separateness is the manner in which most of us currently think.

What attributes does nothingness have that the universe shares?

Immeasurability, yet an illusion of measurement, no beginning and no ending, yet an illusion of birth and death, non-existence, yet an expression of existence, immovability, yet the illusion of movemement, unstoppability, yet the illusion of things stopping and going, static in its dynamics of never changing, yet always changing and that is its static dynamics.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
what is next is beyond the nothing,

There is nothing beyond the nothing, there is not a thing to go beyond, it is only its self, that which is selfless, no-thing is no-thing with no beyond and no within, therefore only no of and of no

[edit on 3-6-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

For me nothing or nothingness is a word that describes something that doesn't exist, there is a big flaw in this though because as soon as you try to describe or even mention nothing it becomes something, you cant give nothing a word, you cant describe it and you cant picture it, its not nothing, its not the space between here> < and here, it isn't even simply is, its just


(keep note theres no full stop as that would imply something, since you cant describe nothing in any of the above ways you can never really finish the sentence.)

non-existence, which has also been touched here I believe is something completely different (to an extent) partly being it is like saying we do not exist even though we may appear to but theres more to it than that, unfortunately i really cant think of the words to explain what i think about it, maybe because the words are non-existent.

reply to post by Byrd


Very cool idea for discussion. S &F.

I tend to expect a kind of balance from the universe, much like polarity (perhaps a trinity) - so for every something there must be a nothing... In time (no time), place (no place) and space (no space). Never mind all the more nebulous stuff. Thus implying a veritable multiplicity of multiple nothings, each entailing a multiverse and of course - a multitude of multiverses.

Do multiple multiverses comprise "the" universe? Heck if I know. Just wanted to bump the thread and get it on my favorites list.

bump

I didn't learn nothing from this thread and figured I would dig this one out before I attempted a new topic.

"Nothing" and why is the word "create" involved in scientific theories related to the subject.