Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 01:53 pm
@north,
north wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
where there is space at all, that is something
What is that something ?


Energy


And space! Which is something.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 05:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

north wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
where there is space at all, that is something
What is that something ?


Energy


And space! Which is something.


True

Which nothing has

Nothing is the complete opposite of something . In totality .
0 Replies
 
sumdumgui
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2015 11:19 pm
As Slick Willie said: " That depends on what the meaning of is is ". Here is my definition of exist: Capable of being , (or causing an effect) that can be observed. This is all material things matter, energy, motion etc. . This does not include concepts because concepts affect other concepts and not material things . Nothing is the opposite of exist, it has no characteristic, condition, state or effect on anything whatsoever and therefore does not exist.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 May, 2015 03:32 am
There is something to be said about distinguishing nothingness from equilibrium which the scientists have some trouble to do.
A full equilibrium can lead you to a zero result relative to energy mass motion time space. But it doesn't lead you to a nothingness. What it leads into is to a "reset", to a loop hole in the computing where at some point you have a perfect equilibrium, a zero state of the machine. The best way to illustrate what I mean about distinguishing it from nothingness goes as follows:
Imagine two constant opposing forces with equal power intensity that annihilate each other at some vector, or a particle and an anti particle that collide and vanish. These things produce equilibriums out of their existence which are null. But you can't do the opposite from full fledged nothingness without necessarily requiring a previous moment from which something produced said null equilibrium. So apparent nothingness always requires a loop hole from where something produced an equilibrium that has a null, nothingness result. Think of it as a "reset" state in a perfect computing process.

Furthermore, there are two possibilities here. Either the system is truly dynamic and the "reset" state is not a full perfect equilibrium, or if there is indeed a full perfect equilibrium, then motion itself is not fundamental but rather apparent. My guess is that motion is not real...consequently causality is not true either, and the whole of reality is an ensemble.

PS - I would love to confront Lawrence Krauss with this small text I just came up with in the Q&A section of a conference. It might just provide him with a tangent on the importance of Philosophy...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2015 07:38 am
The state of misery of our current science in relation to deep concepts:
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2015 08:11 am
@sumdumgui,
And, empty space is filled with ???
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2015 09:58 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

And, empty space is filled with ???


Cosmic Plasma
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 10:36 am
Empty of empty.
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2015 11:18 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Empty of empty.


Meaning exactly what?

And I expect an answer
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2015 11:34 am
@north,
Answered.
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2015 08:08 am
@mark noble,
No.

If nothing existed then it'd be something, called "nothing." But in the universe there's no such thing as a literal nothing. Even 'empty space' has space in it which is something called time-space. And since time-space can be warped naturally as during Inflation in the early universe, gravitational lensing, etc. or artifically via warp drives it's obviously something. If you can warp it, it's not nothing.
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2015 08:09 am
@Huxley,
Zero isn't nothing. It represents a value which is something.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:05 pm
@argome321,
Yeah, ok.
Your attention-seeking is hereby acknowledged.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:22 pm
@cvaontology,
Hi cv.
No, I do not frequent this (monitored) site any longer, but, for the sake of your interest, I will partake.
There are only two questions a conscious entity need ever seek an answer to (Once the bleeding obvious is accepted) ......
Who am I, and Where am I?

If you wish to discuss, with me, this topic - And that which it reveals, I will check my private-messages (twice-yearly), and respond accordingly.

"private-messages" Smile
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:26 pm
@layman,
Remember the 'oracle's words'
He, who knows nothing, knows everything.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:35 pm
@ApollosEnvy,
Causality is based on (PHYSICAL) properties.
It does not extend beyond the existent.
To stress that material (matter) has a (newtonian 3) opposite, is a failure to understand (PHYSICAL/MATERIAL) dynamics.

0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Hi Fil.

You have hope for humanity's future?

I do not..... Nor do I give a damn.

0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:40 pm
@nseyer97,
Well said.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 01:53 pm
@Rickoshay75,
5 SENSES?

Think about that proclamation a while.

Just because you heard/read/were taught it DOESN'T make it
factual.

I must wait 9 minutes to post this reply in case I'm a robot or spammer (According to this bollux-system).
So, if I haven't got to your post yet..... Catch you in February'ish.
ps, don't go to Turkey for your winter hols.
cya.

3 mins left.......grrrrrrr.

secondary advice - Michael Jackson ain't dead.
Now that's fckd up...... kinda like his entire family.
que sera...
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 06:21 am
@mark noble,
etymologically no and logically no, since there is no assertion, it is 'No thing'
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/26/2022 at 08:27:58