Absolute emptiness

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6244 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jacquws,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>there is no space to traverse in your singularity.
Little bit inconsistent <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I'm confused by your confusion.<img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle> I don't see the inconsistancy you refer to. Want to try and elaborate.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6140 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[/b]
Mac,

The problem I have with the concept of "nothing" is that 20 people get on this board and all use the term with completely different meaning and assume that their definition is obvious and clear to everyone else. I tend towards the view that in physics a clearer concept is that of nothing being where there is a LACK OF SUBSTANCE. Substance is a tangible thing that we can measure and nothing is the lack of it. A lack of something cannot be a "singularity" nor can it be "multiples" because it is not a THING.[/b]

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I would have to agree with you on this point but I would also disagree with your definition. Removing substance (matter or material things; icluding energy; still leaves space-time. I don't consider that nothing.

To further elaborate on the concept of "Nothingness" and "Infinity", I view infinity as an attribute of "0" or nothingness only. Infinity only exists mathematically as a consequence of dividing by zero. Nothing tangiable or physical is ever "Infinite" although anything tangible can be divided (theoretically) an infinite number of times by zero.

In UniKEF you will see that I hold "0" and "Infinity" as the same point on a mobius and I agree there are not multiple singularities seperated by space but every singularity is infact a common point in creation.

I also hold that what we call nothing is in reality someting but in a form or another dimension that is non-existant to our physical reality. It is as though the entire universe efudes from and goes into a common point (singularity) in creation.

In UniKEF Addendums I refer to this as our "Holographic Universe".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6143 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Removing substance (matter or material things; icluding energy; still leaves space-time. I don't consider that nothing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I do. Spacetime is a mathematical/philosophical concept that only has the utility that one gives it. Space and time are not necessarily intertwined simply because one can jam the two words together on a typewriter. Is it substance? Hand over a pound of spacetime to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
To further elaborate on the concept of "Nothingness" and "Infinity", I view infinity as an attribute of "0" or nothingness only. Infinity only exists mathematically as a consequence of dividing by zero.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You can well decide to define a word to mean anything you want it to mean except that you will only confuse your audience. Historically "nothing" and "infinity" have never been regarded as the same thing. If you want to mash them together you would be better off inventing a whole new word (nothinity?) to not cause error. Infinity does not exist as a concept merely as a result of division by 0.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6144 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

The concepts, models and real things are all mixed up. It would be great if there was some way of sorting this stuff out. Space seems to be at the root of most of this argument. Can it be defined since it can be empty or full? I like to think of space as a field where protons and photons roam.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6146 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jeremy,<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Removing substance (matter or material things; icluding energy; still leaves space-time. I don't consider that nothing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I do. Spacetime is a mathematical/philosophical concept that only has the utility that one gives it. Space and time are not necessarily intertwined simply because one can jam the two words together on a typewriter. Is it substance? Hand over a pound of spacetime to me.

ANS: It would be extremely difficult to visualize the universe without space or time. I do not link space-time as they do in Relativity but use it only as required to convey modern thought.

I'll hand you a pound of space-time as soon as you hand me a pound of gravity or quarks.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
To further elaborate on the concept of "Nothingness" and "Infinity", I view infinity as an attribute of "0" or nothingness only. Infinity only exists mathematically as a consequence of dividing by zero.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

 Being an attribute does not mean they are the same.

You can well decide to define a word to mean anything you want it to mean except that you will only confuse your audience. Historically "nothing" and "infinity" have never been regarded as the same thing. If you want to mash them together you would be better off inventing a whole new word (nothinity?) to not cause error. Infinity does not exist as a concept merely as a result of division by 0.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

ANS: Then show me something physical which can be infinite.That is by definition larger than any finite quantity or to put it in lay terms larger than itself. Physical things have finite quantity.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6427 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It would be extremely difficult to visualize the universe without space or time. I do not link space-time as they do in Relativity but use it only as required to convey modern thought.

I'll hand you a pound of space-time as soon as you hand me a pound of gravity or quarks.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I agree, indeed substance cannot exist without space and time. But that does does not mean space and time are substance. Space and time do not exist without substance. If I made all substance disappear so that there was just an empty void that is what most people would call nothing, but there would be no concept of space or time since the movement of matter with respect to other matter is what defines it. A coordinate system is not a physical thing sitting in space like a rock, it is a mental concept and that is why I do not consider the absence of substance as still leaving a tangible THING that has physical reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
To further elaborate on the concept of "Nothingness" and "Infinity", I view infinity as an attribute of "0" or nothingness only. Infinity only exists mathematically as a consequence of dividing by zero.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If I say that infinity has an attribute of "redness" does that make any sense? I see no way in which a finite concept with well defined extent can be said to have an "infinite" property. You're going to have to clarify this notion better for it to make sense. 0 typically represents either a lack of quantity or a position on a number line, both concepts are finite in nature.

Division by 0 is considered undefined in mathematics, it is not equal to infinity. The notion of infinity existed well before any formal mathematics were leveraged to describe it. Cantor was examining the cardinality of sets, not division by 0.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Then show me something physical which can be infinite. That is by definition larger than any finite quantity or to put it in lay terms larger than itself. Physical things have finite quantity.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This depends on what type of infinity you are going to invoke. Obviously any single object is going to be finite in extent. If we are going to consider the filling of volume then the STRUCTURE of all matter in the universe fills it out to infinity. A pattern can be infinite while all its parts are finite. Unless someone can show me a space probe crashing into the wall of space then I will proceed under the reasonable assumption that there is no end to extent.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.388 seconds