nothing

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Is this really very scientifici? I am drunk now, but I found this online while thinking about Bruce Lee and being drunk it really is blowing my mind because I don't even understand it. But, it sounds like it shoudl be a revelation or something! I just pasted it by accident on ILM and remember I' wanted to post it somehwer and ask about it. Uh... losing my train of thought here.

Here it is, don't shoot the messenger. I can't even remember where I cound it because I copied the link and then I copied the text it looks like and for some fucking reason I can't find it i n my history. Maybe you googlers will have more luck sober.

I might have been searching ILX for all the fuck I know. Sorry about lack of source material.

The mindblowing relveltory text follows thusly....


-----------------

What is the universe? I define the universe as a name for the set of all existents--as in a set in mathematics. Every individual existent belongs to the set called the "universe." The universe consists of everything (the same as every thing), every existent. One can describe the universe only by describing the nature of one or more existents, and the way the existents interact. The universe does not have a nature apart from the nature of its individual members and their interactions.

All things exist. It follows that no thing does not exist. That is clear, as any thing is an existent, as defined above. So "nothing" has never existed, or, there is no such thing as "nothing." By the definition of existence, the last statement says: There exists no such existent as a nonexistent. This boils down to a simple statement: Nonexistence does not exist. Nothing does not exist.

Time is a measurement, a relationship between entities (note the plural), e.g., the earth's motion around the sun. The progression of motion gives us the concept of "time." Nothing can be said to move except in relation to something else. The term "eternal" is meaningless without the existence of physical entities. "Time" is within the universe; the universe is not within time.

It has been asserted that the universe has no end, no edges, no finality. They claim that there is "nothing" beyond the universe. They say that if we could wander to the universe's extremities, we, by our presence there, would create more space; therefore, we would perpetuate the expansion of the universe.

There is no creator of the universe because there was no creation of the universe or creation of existence. The phenomenon of existence was not created. To prove that it is possible for existence not to exist, one must posit that nonexistence can exist.

Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:

"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?"
--Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.

A similar sphericity or circularity might result if the universe had enough mass to be closed - that is, to recollapse on itself in a "big crunch," which in turn might be followed by another "big bang." In that case the end of one cycle would be the cause of the beginning of the next.

You can't start out with absolutely zero / nothing and expect to arrive at something. O. Divide, multiply, etc.

We are able to see intelligence in the supposed non-intelligent minutia of cosmic reality, which leads many to believe it was designed by a creator. Surely some force of intelligence must be acting upon the universe.

I believe the universe IS intelligence, a form of "energy" for lack of a better word which is the building blocks of all else. It could be the dark matter, the Qi, the Tao, the cause of evolution, etc. Intelligence is the will that directs the universe, just as your intelligence directs your hands (matter) via the nervous system (energy) to type at your keyboard. Just as an inventor thinks up new ideas and then creates these ideas in reality out of matter. I believe that thought has the power to literally materialize. That is what magick is all about! (And I think everyone should watch the movie "Solaris," by the way.)

While people take the idea that "man was made in God's image" to mean he is somehow similar to God, I take it to mean, quite literally that man is WITHIN the image of "God". Think of "God"/Universe as a painting and you have been included within it-- literally within the "image" of God.

Just some ideas I cobbled together from the internet via trusty Google and copy/paste. Try them on and see if they fit.

ReNTBAPA: Resolute Not To Be A Prick Anymore (Unfortunate Prankster), Saturday, 4 June 2005 06:31 (twenty years ago)

Oh shit, I should have come up with a more intersting threasd header than "nothing'.

Anyway, hopefully new answers please! Smart people only. Geniuses even!

ReNTBAPA: Resolute Not To Be A Prick Anymore (Unfortunate Prankster), Saturday, 4 June 2005 06:33 (twenty years ago)

or maybe i was searching for more space music

ReNTBAPA: Resolute Not To Be A Prick Anymore (Unfortunate Prankster), Saturday, 4 June 2005 06:42 (twenty years ago)

No nothing is the perfect title for this thread, hmmm except maybe worse than nothing. With repsect utter shite from start to finish, but then you knew that already.

lets dance then, Monday, 6 June 2005 01:09 (twenty years ago)

'Trite Musings of a Naked Vulcan' might have worked.

estela (estela), Monday, 6 June 2005 01:12 (twenty years ago)

sartre said consciousness was like a "hole in Being"--that the "nothing" we are able to posit is like a pure negative capability.

i dont really agree. i think niklas luhmann's systems theory gets at it best--a re-entry of the environment/system distinction into the original system.

ryan (ryan), Monday, 6 June 2005 01:21 (twenty years ago)

(tho i like the implicit circularity or self-reference of the hawking idea)

ryan (ryan), Monday, 6 June 2005 01:24 (twenty years ago)

Hi Ryan IMHO this contains so much doubletalk and so many logical inconsistencies I hardly know where to begin. The central inconsistency to me is this: The writer (correctly) states that "There exists no such existent as a nonexistent." Since this is correct, it follows logically therefore that nothing you say about existents can then be applied to non-existence. Yet the author, after stating that non-existence is not itself an existent, proceeds to describe characteristics of existants, and then attempts to apply the same principles to non-existence!

He says "All THINGS exist. It follows that no THING
does not exist." While I do not agree fully with that statement, the statement is in any case utterly irrelevant to a discussion of non-existence, since he has already
plainly stated that non-existence is NOT "a thing".

He further states that "To prove that it is possible for existence
not to exist, one must posit that non-existence can exist." Once
again, this is a logical inconsistency. One must prove that
non-existence can exist ONLY if non-existence falls within the set of "things" which can exist. But, by his own definitions, (1) only
"existents" can exist, and (2) non-existence is NOT an "existent".
Therefore it is never necessary to prove that "non-existence can
exist" because he himself has specifically excluded non-existence
from the set of things which can exist ( what he calls "existents")!

No-one claims that non-existence "exists", any more than anyone
claims that darkness or silence or cold "exist". Such concepts
merely describe the non-existence of something else. It is not
non-existence itself which "exists", for non-existence is not an
existent; rather it is the existent entity which may be present or
absent in the universe whose absence is described as non-existence.

Peace!

lets dance then, Monday, 6 June 2005 01:46 (twenty years ago)

Buddhism to thread!

lyra (lyra), Monday, 6 June 2005 01:49 (twenty years ago)

Haha lyra is otm. Also, can't one see the semantic trap where one is aspiring to define "existence" ? "Logic" isn't going to help suss out the failings and inadequacies of language here

Vichitravirya XI, Monday, 6 June 2005 01:56 (twenty years ago)

If an existent is a "thing" and nothing means "no thing," which I believe the original article is saying, then it doesn't seem logically inconsistent to say "no thing does not exist." And if "non-existence is not an existent, but rather the existent entity which may be present or absent in the universe whose absence is described as non-existence," as lets dance then suggests, it seems to further imply that non-existence is a logical fallacy. Because, if it is an existent entity to describe the absence of existence, similar to dark being an existent entity to describe the absence of light, then there is no source of existence. With light, there is a source somewhere out there in existence which can be shone into the darkness. In non-existnece, there is no existence which can be shone into it.

Nobody (Unfortunate Prankster), Monday, 6 June 2005 02:01 (twenty years ago)

http://www.springstomania.com/gallery/dancing_in_the_dark_80.jpg

Nobody (Unfortunate Prankster), Monday, 6 June 2005 02:35 (twenty years ago)

Questionizer, you're dead to me now. But not because of that post. WTF is up with that?

k/l (Ken L), Monday, 6 June 2005 02:39 (twenty years ago)

Oh, I get it now.

k/l (Ken L), Monday, 6 June 2005 02:39 (twenty years ago)

http://www.whatthebleep.com/poster/poster.jpg

cutty (mcutt), Monday, 6 June 2005 02:43 (twenty years ago)

cutty otm.

k/l (Ken L), Monday, 6 June 2005 02:43 (twenty years ago)

http://www.draperrichards.org/img/team/quote.gif

Nobody (Unfortunate Prankster), Monday, 6 June 2005 02:44 (twenty years ago)

But what if we're all just tiny little cells? Cells just like the cells in us, only we're part of a greater thing, like we're all just tiny atoms in the cell that is the earth and the universe as we know it is just some giant's fingernail and if he were to BITE the fingernail, we'd all FUCK DUDE! You just ashed on me! FUCK! That totally fuckin' hurt!

Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Monday, 6 June 2005 03:12 (twenty years ago)

are you people on ACID?

Orbit (Orbit), Monday, 6 June 2005 03:15 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I'm totally smoking acid RIGHT NOW and you just harshed my buzz.
Way to go, buzz-harsher.

Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Monday, 6 June 2005 03:17 (twenty years ago)

http://www.lincolnsu.com/docs/LSD/Images/LSD.jpg

Nobody (Unfortunate Prankster), Monday, 6 June 2005 03:25 (twenty years ago)

three months pass...
Nobody cute,very cute, quite the wordsmith- I need a bit of help then with my logic along with everything else then eh.


Assoc others look obv I just dont place much faith in how much science *knows* about the oriign of the universe and for that matter neither does Hawking, I think other theories have more behind them. I have even less faiht in his ability as a philospher "What place, then, for a creator?" This question from the man who claims to be able to "know the mind of God" thru science, he should stick to science.if it makes you feel safe and secure who ami too argue believe what u like as they say all science begins asmyth

Kiwi, Monday, 26 September 2005 09:56 (twenty years ago)

I have been corresponding occasionally with a bloke who is a bit more clued up than me on these sort of questions. What do you reckon Nobody?


"The problem of non-existence in my view is a non-existent problem. Ordinary language does not handle existential statements very well. The German mathematician Gottlob Frege introduced a form of symbolism known as 'predicate calculus' in which this so-called problem cannot be formulated. In predicate calculus, 'exists' is not an attribute of objects but of concepts. So 'unicorns do not exist' would be paraphrased as, 'For all x, it is not the
case that x is a unicorn'.

It is possible, consistently with Frege's analysis (which is accepted by virtually all philosophers working today) to introduce a 'first-order' predicate which applies to all objects which exist. Call it 'eggsists'. Then Geoffrey Klempner eggsists' is true. However,there are no false statements of the form 'A eggsists' because either 'A' has a reference, in which case 'A eggsists' is true, or 'A' does not have a reference, in which case 'A eggsists' is meaningless."

Geoffrey Klempner

Kiwi, Monday, 26 September 2005 10:06 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.