It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Theory of NoThing

page: 5
6
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 11:45 PM
The film "The Neverending Story" also touched on this subject.

edit on 1-11-2011 by HallamFoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:13 AM

I'm calling BS. You relate this theory to math by comparing positive and negative integers. I understand that every number has a negative and if you put them together you get 0 or whatever balance... but when you introduce anti-matter, negative-matter, and regular matter, you are talking about another aspect of existence than cannot be compared using math.
Negative matter is to regular matter as negative numbers are to positive numbers. Anti-matter is a phenomena that exists within our positive Universe, it isn't negative matter. In negative space there would be negative-anti-matter.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:20 AM
I'm confused and must stop you towards the very top of your original post. You state that, "the chances of absolutely nothing happening in an infinite amount of time is 0".

This makes absolutely no sense. If we have true nothingness, then we should (and must) expect it to remain so. The chance of something coming from it are 0. The chance that it remains nothing is 100%. What else can nothingness become but nothingness?

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:01 AM

I'm confused and must stop you towards the very top of your original post. You state that, "the chances of absolutely nothing happening in an infinite amount of time is 0".

This makes absolutely no sense. If we have true nothingness, then we should (and must) expect it to remain so. The chance of something coming from it are 0. The chance that it remains nothing is 100%. What else can nothingness become but nothingness?
You're correct, and your logic would seem to be flawless. But that's simply not how it works. How could anything exist if true nothingness wasn't prone to change? The answer is: nothing would exist in that case. The mere fact we are sitting here proves that something must have come from nothing. And you can't say everything was simply here all along, because there's absolutely no logic in that. Thus we can naturally assume that the neutral state of reality if in fact a state of nothingness.

Assume you have a completely empty pocket of space. The pocket of space is enclosed and nothing can get in or out. You might say "that pocket of space is absolutely empty, it's impossible for anything to appear inside the closed space". Nevertheless, stuff will appear inside that space. 'Empty' space is in fact teeming with activity on very small scales. Virtual particles will appear and disappear, popping in and out of existence.

What you are asking is how any of it could even happen in the first place. What causes things like the Big Bang or virtual particles? I tried to avoid explaining that for the most part. My theory simply explains how the Big Bang can come from nothing, it doesn't really explain what initiated the Big Bang. The simplest way to explain it is that "the chances of absolutely nothing happening in an infinite amount of time is 0". Maybe a better way to think of it is "if something can happen, it will happen".

A Big Bang can theoretically happen if you have a negative Big Bang. Nothing can be represented as finite parts which add to nothing. This allows the state of nothing to be represented in more than just one way. And if something is possible, it is eventually going to happen. Quantum Theory states, that if you shoot a particle at a thin sheet of metal, eventually the particle will "teleport" to the other side of the sheet.

Classic physics would tell us it impossible for the particle to make it through the sheet, but in Quantum Mechanics random things can suddenly happen. Everything is made up of probabilities, you can't even determine the momentum and location of a particle at the same time, this is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. At the microscopic level, and smaller, these obscure concepts manifest themselves everywhere you look.

A particle can suddenly be in one place, and in the next moment it will be some where else, without physically travelling the distance. Some times the most unlikely things can randomly happen for no particular reason, except that the system has randomly decided to occupy a rarely seen state. The state will eventually be occupied no matter how unlikely it is, simply because that state exists.

There doesn't need to be a direct path to any finite state, the transitions are equivalent to a quantum leap. The particle doesn't need a logical path through the metal sheet, but when it is close to the sheet, it's positional probability is reaching into an area on the other side of the sheet; so there is a small chance its position might be on the other side. Thus, in some circumstances, it will suddenly decide to occupy a position on the other side of the sheet.

I hoped this hasn't just confused you more.

edit on 2-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:38 AM
So if the "1" is the physical realm maybe the "-1" is the spiritual realm?

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 07:59 AM
Why is it that we must try to explain EVERYTHING we don't understand? I'll put it to you all this way:

If you are, at present, 40 years old then you were obviously born in the year 1971. But in the year 1970 and every year before 1971 YOU DID NOT EXIST!

So I ask you this: In 1432 (for instance) could anyone predict that your Father (1) and your Mother (1) would ever meet (or indeed exist as we see it) and produce you (2)?

So we have this equation: 1+1=2. ( mother + father = you)
BUT
Prior to 1971 you = 0

So to extrapolate this in short, is it not possible that the Big Bang (which apparently appeared from 0), was the result of another interaction of 1+1 that we have no knowledge about? Is it possible that it appeared from ANOTHER physical interaction beyond our comprehension?

Through our eyes we see the incomprehensible size of the known universe and it's ability to make us feel infinitesimally tiny, yet we also see things such as quarks which are infinitesimally tiny to us..

Does a quark have the same perspective? Yeah, I'm going "Men In Black" on you all here.

Why can't we just accept the fact that SOMETHING always existed? Food for thought.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 08:55 AM

So we have this equation: 1+1=2. ( mother + father = you)
That does not make sense. I can see what you are trying to convey, but you clearly aren't understanding the concept properly.

So to extrapolate this in short, is it not possible that the Big Bang (which apparently appeared from 0), was the result of another interaction of 1+1 that we have no knowledge about? Is it possible that it appeared from ANOTHER physical interaction beyond our comprehension?
This makes more sense. And yes it is possible. There is a theory which states the Big Bang was initiated when two hyper-dimensional membranes collided.

That theory also offers an explanation for why our Universe is actually 'flat'. The Universe is not an expanding sphere. It's more like a squashed balloon. So it would make sense that it could be expanding between two large membranes.
edit on 2-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:50 PM
Using words or math to try to understand something that is beyond both words and math is doomed to fail. Because the relative conditioned universe arises from an absolute unconditioned source, we can never use the relative conditioned universe as a means to actually describe that unconditioned absolute.

Using relative terms and tools like words or math only points to other, relative ideas. These ideas all exist purely within the conceptual, conditioned, relative universe and don't actually touch on the unconditioned reality. Its the difficulty of the finger and the moon. The finger is not the moon, cannot be the moon, and if you think that the finger is describing the moon because of the direction it points then you're still trapped in not knowing what the moon really is.

Even "0" and "-1" are relative and conditioned ideas pertaining only to the conditioned universe.

I suggest you read the Philosophy of Nagarjuna and his commentary on the Prajnaparamita Sutra. I also suggest the study of Dzogchen and Zen.

Aleister Crowley had a similar theory for awhile that -1 + +1 = 0 and that this described the Universe. He later revised his equation to 0=2. But even then its just an equation, just a relative symbol and if it doesn't open the mind up to the meaning it conveys it remains only a relative symbol describing relative, conditional things.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:50 PM
I'll start off by saying that I actually really like the first part of your theory. The probability of absolutely nothing happening in an infinite amount of time is indeed 'zero' - but not really, since we can't just assume that something is impossible. If it was truly 'zero', then it was always impossible, and thus could never have happened in the first place. But I'm going to try your theory using 'approaches zero' instead of 'zero'. By that logic, the probability of 'anything' else happening (individually) must also be 'zero' - for practical purposes we'll call it 1/infinity (assuming that the amount of outcomes in the universe is infinite, or so large that it is reasonable to call it 'infinite' - I will use infinity and 'a very large number' interchangeably). This actually makes a pretty good case, mathematically at least, for the infinite universes theory.

By definition, something is that absence of nothing, or the logical opposite to nothing. It also, by definition, defines a 'set' which includes anything that could happen. Ill buy it, but this would make the probability of event 'something' approach 1 (since the sum of 1/infinity, infinity times, is equal to 1). Here's where the theory breaks down: you propose that this should be impossible, since 1 is a positive number, and 0 cannot give way to 1.

But wait - I thought we were talking about states? Your original thesis implied that the state of the universe is a Bernoulli random variable (value of 0 or 1), considering you used the word 'chances' - probability? With this kind of random variable, you don't 'get' something from nothing, the event simply 'is' (1) or 'isn't' (0). So let's set up your original experiment:

Assume

There are infinite 'anything's that could happen in the universe, each with an equal probability approaching zero.
Pa = 1/infinity

Let

'nothing' = (0)
'something' = Set S['anything' =/= 'nothing'] = (1)
Pn ~ 0
Ps ~ 1
infinite time units = infinite probability experiments with event set S'[0, 1]

You perform this experiment an infinite number of ties and what do you get? Obviously, it converges to event (1). Interestingly, given the previous assumptions, these probabilities imply that 'nothing' basically could never have happened. Even more interestingly, it suggests that assuming the probability of our particular universal state and 'nothing' are equal, that the probability of our universe existing is equally as likely as the 'nothing' scenario
. There's a neat little paradox. Finally, since the probability of each of these events is so infinitesimally small, and only their total combined probability is significant, each universal state cannot exist without an infinite number of alternate universal states. Sounds strange, but given the properties of infinity, it actually makes sense (any number that is not infinity is infinity times smaller).

To be honest, I don't know how well probability holds up in this situation, but if this is correct then I think I can draw a bit of a different conclusion: it is necessary for every state (that is not nothing) of the universe to exist at once, or else none of them can exist.

I hope this helps, but then again maybe I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

top topics

6