Theory of existance

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Just joined this forum. I have no clue if i'm on to something but i kinda have a theory of everything that i wanted to share.

"Everything" exists, the lack of everything(nothing) is equal to everyting and therefore cancels it out creating a complete nothing, but that nothing is an entitiy, ONE entity. what's the cause of all the compexity in the world if there's those two things, everything and the lack of everything, what causes the disturbaces in that even field, does simple order/configurations of ones and zeroes contain more information than we think? does the lack of everything equal complete nothingness?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 3,938 • Replies: 30

No top replies

@Takopai,

Good q, Tak. The complexity, us apodictical existential pantheists suppose, posits God (She, It) as all, the matter, energy, etc Her body and all the activity therein Her thought. She being a perfectly natural phenom, attaching the word "God" entirely up to the individual depending on his defs

Yes one of the biggest ;puzzles of all is, why does there have to be anything at all

Intuition suggest it's maybe because nothingness is impossible

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Thanks, probably because complete nothingness can't be complete nothingness if there is no something, so something is somehow forced to exist to uphold that nothingness.

2 Replies

@Takopai,

No, Tak, I disagree. The idea of nothingness, though impossible to see in mind's eye, is a perfectly legitimate notion

0 Replies

@Takopai,

Don’t have a clue as to what you are trying to get across, Tak, but I will comment on one segment of your post…and perhaps you can fill me (us) in on the full “theory.”

Quote:

"Everything" exists, the lack of everything(nothing)…

Why does the lack of everything equal “nothing?”

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why does the lack of everything equal “nothing?”

Well Frank I guess it depends entirely on your defs. I certainly would define "nothing" as a complete lack of anything, including space

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Why does the lack of everything equal “nothing?”
Well Frank I guess it depends entirely on your defs. I certainly would define "nothing" as a complete lack of anything, including space

Aha...that sentence can be read in more than one way, Dale.

Let me tell you the way I was reading it.

I am reading it to mean that unless "everything" is there...then nothing is there.

That seems to me what Tak is saying...but I say again: I don't have a clue as to what he/she was trying to get across.

If I am reading the sentence incorrectly, Tak...explain what it is you mean to say. And explain the "theory" as though we are hearing it for the first time. Don't assume that because you have considered it at length and in detail...that it is clear to us.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yea Tak, you gotta clarify a bit

0 Replies

@Takopai,

http://able2know.org/topic/267310-1

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well i could work backwards, think of this entity consisting of everything that exists and the space it occupies which would be a negative of that everything, the two fields cancel each other out and makes a special kind of nothing that isn't just the negative field. I'm just asking a lot of questions really. Are there different kinds of nothing? Can there exist an even greater kind of nothing beyond this entity. Does it make sense to have different levels of nothing since they would contain an amont(which is a kind of entity) of nothingness. I'm just completely lost and want to know everything you have to say about the subject. There are a lot of holes and things i haven't figured out and something's definitely wrong.

2 Replies

@Takopai,

Takopai wrote:

Well i could work backwards, think of this entity consisting of everything that exists and the space it occupies which would be a negative of that everything, the two fields cancel each other out and makes a special kind of nothing that isn't just the negative field. I'm just asking a lot of questions really. Are there different kinds of nothing? Can there exist an even greater kind of nothing beyond this entity. Does it make sense to have different levels of nothing since they would contain an amont(which is a kind of entity) of nothingness. I'm just completely lost and want to know everything you have to say about the subject. There are a lot of holes and things i haven't figured out and something's definitely wrong.

My whole problem with this stems from a seemingly lack of a proper definition of reality. But people do this all the time. We are matter-centric and mistakenly assume that matter is important or necessary in the universe. It isn't. Matter makes up less than 3% of the total universe.

Here is the thing. What we call solid matter really is a mistaken in perception. Really what is happening is the strong force between the molecules are repelling one another giving the impression of solidity.

To give you a better picture it is like trying to push two magnets with the same poles pointing towards each other. They repel and never actually touch. This force gives the sensation of solidity. The fact is it is this repulsive force is all that there is to solid matter. Without this force you would be able to walk through walls, you would sink through the ground and you wouldn't be able to pick up or hold anything in your hands.

So this idea of "everything" and "nothing" is just a bent understanding of reality. We like to talk about "things" because ourselves and everything in our lives are based on "things" so we get self absorbed and assume they are important.

In other words all there is the nuclear force. There are no "things" just the repulsive force between molecules. You can overcome this repulsive force if you apply enough pressure and heat. You can get molecules to fuse together. You can also reverse the process as well and break the force holding the molecules together.

Other than this, there is nothing else. Just this force..

1 Reply

"Something", "nothing", "everything" are just words. They are used in attempts to discuss the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

The only thing that can reasonably and logically be said about REALITY...is the tautology that I use so often: Whatever is...IS.

Now there are some who will argue that "is" and "reality" are just words used in attempts to discuss the true nature of the REALTY of existence also.

To them I say...go do something else.

Something is going on here even if I am the only thing existing (a possibility) or that I am the only thing "experiencing" this thing the "we" considers to be the reality.

I do not know...and that stuff may be beyond the comprehension of me...and anyone else who might exist.

Interesting stuff to discuss, but to suppose, as some do here, that answers can be obtained seems naive.

I'm still not getting what Tak is about here, but I will follow and listen to what he/she and others say...and hope to gain a better insight into the point being made.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Mmkay, hearing that i don't think i could pose an accurate theory scince i probably don't fully know what reality is. I know no one ever will have all the answers but i want to progress. I'm here to learn. I'm sorry if you felt like this was a waste of your time but this stuff's so interesting.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Thanks for bringing that up. I'm really having a headache now. I kinda know that there's only the forces that makes us think matter matters. Even if you redefined the whole interaction with all these forces and called them reality it still wouldn't matter, nothing would change, so nothing "exists"? and "nothing" and "exists" are counter-intuitive words if you're trying to understand them?

0 Replies

@Takopai,

Takopai wrote:

Mmkay, hearing that i don't think i could pose an accurate theory scince i probably don't fully know what reality is. I know no one ever will have all the answers but i want to progress. I'm here to learn. I'm sorry if you felt like this was a waste of your time but this stuff's so interesting.

If I thought it were a "waste of time" I would not participate in tens of dozens of discussions about it.

I am merely sharing my views that very, very little will ever be determined about it.

And, I am suggesting, as respectfully as possible, that I do not get where you are heading with your post here.

Pick out the single most essential thing you have to say about your "theory" and present it so it can be discussed apart from everything else.

(Example: My single most essential point I have to present about my "theory" is that...other than 'whatever IS...IS'...nothing of any substance can be said about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...except to share blind guesses about it.)

You're up.

1 Reply

So how would this debate include science, especially the Boson-Higgs God particle and the nature of a universe that 'sticks' to moving matter ? Is it to be only concerned with a human level of 'reality' because human experience includes science ?

0 Replies

@Takopai,

Quote:

Are there different kinds of nothing?

No, Tak. Some imagine empty space but that's not nothing

Quote:

Can there exist an even greater kind of nothing beyond this entity

Doesn't make sense to me

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I guess there's nothing about my "theory" that holds up anymore. I feel like i'm back at square one. The most important thing i'd like to discuss now is what the best way to view "reality" is.

2 Replies

@Takopai,

Takopai wrote:

I guess there's nothing about my "theory" that holds up anymore. I feel like i'm back at square one. The most important thing i'd like to discuss now is what the best way to view "reality" is.

There is no way to view REALITY, Tak...but if you are satisfied with viewing what could be, or might be, REALITY...there are all sorts of things open. And seeing how many possibilities there are...opens doors of understanding.

What we normally call "reality" MAY be the REALITY. Fresco and JL have a problem with that...they, particularly Fresco, always demean that perspective...considering it to be "naive realism."

But that MAY be the actual REALITY.

EVERYTHING I normally think of as reality...MAY be an illusion...and I MAY be the only thing that exists.

Non-duality MAY be the REALITY in some other way.

And...every notion that has ever occurred to a human...may be no closer to the true REALITY than the cosmology conceived of by an ant.

Start your quest by coming to grips in a grok way...with the fact that no human may ever be appreciably closer to the truth about REALITY than you are right at this moment.

Then search from there.

0 Replies

@Takopai,

Takopai wrote:

I guess there's nothing about my "theory" that holds up anymore. I feel like i'm back at square one. The most important thing i'd like to discuss now is what the best way to view "reality" is.

Well all I can say is, Welcome to A2K! There are only like a dozen if not more threads on that very subject. It is not an easy one to tackle and there are several branches of approach. Most of the discussions devolve or get derailed so the people with the great input just give up the discussion because you end up having to weed through a bunch of nonsense.

How about instead, you give us your shot, doesn't have to be your best, just toss something out to get the ball rolling. I know you already have but perhaps you can work things out by bouncing some ideas off the various minds that frequent a2k.

3 Replies

Theory of existance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know