Broken Circle

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />North,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>now infinite something IS because this is the only way that creation can become, because nothing is inherently infinite and therefore not capable of any becoming of any sort.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Try this. Your nothing within nothing within nothing sphere of nothing is nonsense. Wholly a fabrication. Nothing means nothing without further qualifications and in no manner suggests infinity or any other additional adjectives.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

mac

the point is depth,you say that you have a hard time thinking that there was not at some point a begining,true.and yet no matter how deep we go "nothing" never changes,therefore it is not also reasonable to follow this with the idea that something must always have been there because as you say "nothing means nothing"?

of course "nothing" is the purist form of infinity because within itself "nothing" will never change,therefore well!,stays nothing!!your formula will always stay n

---

&gt;(+n)+(-n) because once "N" stands for something it is no longer,well "nothing" therefore the formula stands "something not found yet"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />North,

<b>also i would like to add that nothing is also infinitly small since it has no capacity for dimensionality,therefore does not exist.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: No "Nothing" is not infinitely small. For something to be infinitely small it must be something which has dimension. Nothing is NOthing without any further elabortion or qualification. trying to expand the definition and properties of Nothing destroys Nothing and creates circlar logic.

Your "therefore does not exist" is a case in point. You allow the words to twist your thoughts around to result in confliction. Nothingness is "Non-existance" not "Non-existant". Big difference.

"Nothingness is the absence of time space. Not the absence of "Something" in a spatial void.


mac

that is my point,this is exactly what i have been trying to tell you before but in other ways,your right "nothing" has no dimension never will,that is why the physical universe is infinite both back and forward,because nothing else make sense,"nothing else can exist"!!

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>the point is depth,you say that you have a hard time thinking that there was not at some point a begining,true.and yet no matter how deep we go "nothing" never changes,</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Your first unsupported assumption.</font id="yellow">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>therefore it is not also reasonable to follow this with the idea that something must always have been there because as you say "nothing means nothing"?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Just as I see concepts of infinity and eternity being mis-used physically, you also misuse words to try and create conlict of meaning. The is no basis to extrapolate properties to "Nothingness" it is absence of time and space. Saying for example (AS I have had some argue) that claiming "Nothing" exists makes it "Something" since it is claimed to exist. That is a play on words without any value. The definiton given is not changed by such pjlay on words. that is if you wish to call "NOthing" something because it is claimed to exists, you still are claiming "Something which is the absence of time and space which is still "Nothing". Mixing words does not alter the reality and definition. </font id="yellow">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>of course "nothing" is the purist form of infinity because within itself "nothing" will never change,therefore well!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Your second unfounded assumption. The definition of "Nothingness" is still the absence of time and space. There is no additional fucntion to be served by trying to add infinity. It is not justified in any manner. It is an ad hoc and baseless effort to alter the definition as it stands.</font id="yellow">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>,stays nothing!!your formula will always stay n

---

&gt;(+n)+(-n) because once "N" stands for something it is no longer,well "nothing" therefore the formula stands "something not found yet"</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Your third unfounded assumption and assertion.</font id="yellow">


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>that is my point,this is exactly what i have been trying to tell you before but in other ways,your right "nothing" has no dimension never will,that is why the physical universe is infinite both back and forward,because nothing else make sense,"nothing else can exist"!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Your are doing it again!. The universe is not infinite. By definition it can never be infinite. Nothing physical can be come infinite since it would have to become larger that everything that exists.</font id="yellow">

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />north,

<b>the point is depth,you say that you have a hard time thinking that there was not at some point a begining,true.and yet no matter how deep we go "nothing" never changes,</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Your first unsupported assumption.</font id="yellow">


mac

of course that is ridiculous."nothing" has no dimension remember!!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>therefore it is not also reasonable to follow this with the idea that something must always have been there because as you say "nothing means nothing"?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Just as I see concepts of infinity and eternity being mis-used physically, you also misuse words to try and create conlict of meaning. The is no basis to extrapolate properties to "Nothingness" it is absence of time and space. Saying for example (AS I have had some argue) that claiming "Nothing" exists makes it "Something" since it is claimed to exist. That is a play on words without any value. The definiton given is not changed by such pjlay on words. that is if you wish to call "NOthing" something because it is claimed to exists, you still are claiming "Something which is the absence of time and space which is still "Nothing". Mixing words does not alter the reality and definition. </font id="yellow">

mac

is not space and time a "property",you are in conflict with yourself.the thing is you came to these conclusions on your own that "nothing" can never be more or less than that,there is no play on words.the comment that "something" is the absence of time and space is your own play on words since something has time and space.TRUE!! or if i must say that "something" is another word for SUBSTANCE, is that better!!



]