-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Everything and Nothing
- Thread starter 1664
- Start date
ElusiveMind
Rising Star
Thanks for sharing!!
The BBC always has amazing documentaries :d :d
The BBC always has amazing documentaries :d :d
delicious :d
kept me locked on the screen like a cruise missile.
Nice playfull way of introducing this philosophical topic. Very good quality doc.
I like it when ideas are presented in a linked and understandable way, to produce an overview on which it is possible to base new views. This documentary succeeds at that very well. pretty visual too. fascinating stuff. This i where i live in for and from.
Wouldnt it by default be a dead (finite) end to assume there is something that is nothing?
If it exists, wouldnt the no thing be some thing ? therefore it exists no? therefore it is infinite no?
Anyone dare to take up for nothing?
Pls make me doubt
kept me locked on the screen like a cruise missile.
Nice playfull way of introducing this philosophical topic. Very good quality doc.
I like it when ideas are presented in a linked and understandable way, to produce an overview on which it is possible to base new views. This documentary succeeds at that very well. pretty visual too. fascinating stuff. This i where i live in for and from.
Wouldnt it by default be a dead (finite) end to assume there is something that is nothing?
If it exists, wouldnt the no thing be some thing ? therefore it exists no? therefore it is infinite no?
Anyone dare to take up for nothing?
Pls make me doubt
1664
Rising Star
Virola78 said:
I can (almost) conceive of a time where no space, and indeed, no time existed. I think these two reference points are what all of physics is based on. You could call this concept "nothing"
I think there may be other aspects of the universe that do not involve space or time at all. Maybe these aspects are "always" there, independent of when our universe (of spacetime) began at the big bang.
If spice has taught me one thing, it's that the totality of existance is a bit more complicated than I initially thought.
Cowboy5560
Rising Star
Thanks for sharing the link!
Mr. Al Khalili has a great ability to instill wonder in viewers when watching his documentaries.
I first saw his 3 part "Atom" series (only saw the first two, didn't know it was a 3 part until today) and from your link, led me to part 3 (
), which I found very interesting as well. Of course, I'm a sucker for these types of documentaries, and they're all interesting.
Mr. Al Khalili has a great ability to instill wonder in viewers when watching his documentaries.
I first saw his 3 part "Atom" series (only saw the first two, didn't know it was a 3 part until today) and from your link, led me to part 3 (
ElusiveMind
Rising Star
Virola78 said:
Sorry if this doesn't make too much sense in advance.... running on 2 hours of sleep in 34 hours... :shock:
Anyways... I believe this concept of nothing can exist, but to comprehend nothing (for most people) you ALWAYS need to contrast it with something. Even if you went methodically down a list a removed EVERY element that was a "something"... you still wouldn't be sure that every "something" was removed because there is nothing to contrast "nothing" with to check.
It seems peculiar when looking at the world, there always seems to be a ying and yang.... balancing out the world... even in the documentary above when there was "nothing" in the box (time slowed and vacuum box example), matter and anti-matter sprang out of nothing temporarily to fill this void of nothing so that there was something. Hell, it seems even the universe can't comprehend nothing! (or at least doesn't want to
)So to get back to "nothing"... and to tackle the "If it exists, wouldnt the no thing be some thing ?, etc, etc" question... I think what you're trying to get at is the fact that even with "nothing", that "nothing" would still be "something". As a concept it seems sound... for even when nothing is around to contrast it to, you would still say it is something as even the fact that you labeled it "nothing" shows that you, at least try to, comprehend it as something.
As for "nothing" existing, yes, I believe it does but in union with "everything".... As Alan Watts puts it "You can't have something WITHOUT nothing". They need each other to exist, and I can't find a single example of when they can't so far.... unless someone can enlighten me??
I have just hit a brick wall and I'm done for now....
ZZzzzzz......
ElusiveMind
^ Just chewing some trains of thought here:
I agree that nothing will always be conceived as a (some)thing. Like even a concept is conceived as a thing.
As an abstract thing that is. Like even a thought is a thing indeed. I mean, what else is there really?
If anything, a thought must be a thing. I think therefore etc.
Nice flexible and open end concept of 'thing.'
Though we sense all things to be finite, we can still intuit infinity.
The same way we can understand the open end meaning of the yin yang symbol.
Since infinity must be without boundaries it is obvious to consider all things to be infinite.
Yea why not.
After all, the boundaries we experience between things are defined by our perception and understanding.
Perceiving boundaries and limitations does not necessarily mean things are bound and therefore finite.
Remembering the way things are organized in and therefore limited by 3d tells about perception,
not at all about the thing in itself. Hundreds of threads about this. Well, maybe 10 or so.
Considering the only real thingy to be a dynamic contrast makes more sense.
Things always seem to be limited by other things (like the concept of nothing.)
Assuming there is only a neverending contrast happening gets rid of things and nothing,
as a contrast is infinite and the other two are not. As an answer to dualism: yin yang.
"A thing can not exist without nothing." they are both concepts and therefore the same
(existing thing, which would be contradicting.) The proof of nothing (as non-existence)
would be a lack of contrast. Which is impossible because i exist. I experience contrast.
I am contrast.
Depending on how one defines a thing, one will come to a conclusion about nothing.
To me it feels like to assume that if it exists, then it is something
(which is actually a contrast or balance, depending on how one wish to look at it).
As i am at least a thought, or abstract representation, i am existing.
When existence is considered to be an axiom (how can it not be?) it simply does not allow for non-existence,
as there can not be existence that is non-existing. Therefore existence must be unbound,
free, infinite, nothing yet everything, to be..
Existence includes nothing. Simply put, as it is not experienced in our finite world,
it can be nothing, yet. Experience is key here as we do experience things to be.
Tommorrow is nothing yet. It is always becoming and as you know it is never the same river.
Point is, again there is a contrast that is not one thing or the other, whatever is happening,
it seems to be in between forever. Or to put it more precise, it becomes the 'in between.'
Matter and anti-matter 'being borrowed from the future' or 'spring from nothing'
tells us about what we can not experience. For all we do know, there is less stuff we can experience
than there is stuff that we can not expierence. Then again, if we truly are infinite than probably we can
It sure is not nothing (yet).
Unless you change my mind of course.
Which is easy : )
I agree that nothing will always be conceived as a (some)thing. Like even a concept is conceived as a thing.
As an abstract thing that is. Like even a thought is a thing indeed. I mean, what else is there really?
If anything, a thought must be a thing. I think therefore etc.
Nice flexible and open end concept of 'thing.'
Though we sense all things to be finite, we can still intuit infinity.
The same way we can understand the open end meaning of the yin yang symbol.
Since infinity must be without boundaries it is obvious to consider all things to be infinite.
Yea why not.
After all, the boundaries we experience between things are defined by our perception and understanding.
Perceiving boundaries and limitations does not necessarily mean things are bound and therefore finite.
Remembering the way things are organized in and therefore limited by 3d tells about perception,
not at all about the thing in itself. Hundreds of threads about this. Well, maybe 10 or so.
Considering the only real thingy to be a dynamic contrast makes more sense.
Things always seem to be limited by other things (like the concept of nothing.)
Assuming there is only a neverending contrast happening gets rid of things and nothing,
as a contrast is infinite and the other two are not. As an answer to dualism: yin yang.
"A thing can not exist without nothing." they are both concepts and therefore the same
(existing thing, which would be contradicting.) The proof of nothing (as non-existence)
would be a lack of contrast. Which is impossible because i exist. I experience contrast.
I am contrast.
Depending on how one defines a thing, one will come to a conclusion about nothing.
To me it feels like to assume that if it exists, then it is something
(which is actually a contrast or balance, depending on how one wish to look at it).
As i am at least a thought, or abstract representation, i am existing.
When existence is considered to be an axiom (how can it not be?) it simply does not allow for non-existence,
as there can not be existence that is non-existing. Therefore existence must be unbound,
free, infinite, nothing yet everything, to be..
Existence includes nothing. Simply put, as it is not experienced in our finite world,
it can be nothing, yet. Experience is key here as we do experience things to be.
Tommorrow is nothing yet. It is always becoming and as you know it is never the same river.
Point is, again there is a contrast that is not one thing or the other, whatever is happening,
it seems to be in between forever. Or to put it more precise, it becomes the 'in between.'
Matter and anti-matter 'being borrowed from the future' or 'spring from nothing'
tells us about what we can not experience. For all we do know, there is less stuff we can experience
than there is stuff that we can not expierence. Then again, if we truly are infinite than probably we can
It sure is not nothing (yet).
Unless you change my mind of course.
Which is easy : )
longshot
Enrique
Thanks for the link. I'm extremely intrigued by this subject and think about it every day.
I love to talk about it! I'm hoping there is a kind of salvation for humanity in this concept, a break from our daily lives and a true insight.
If you got more info like this, or forums or talkgroups, pm me! For me, this is the knowledge that is going to change our future drastically.
I'm always hoping dmt would be able to show me more, but that's sadly not it's function.
I love to talk about it! I'm hoping there is a kind of salvation for humanity in this concept, a break from our daily lives and a true insight.
If you got more info like this, or forums or talkgroups, pm me! For me, this is the knowledge that is going to change our future drastically.
I'm always hoping dmt would be able to show me more, but that's sadly not it's function.