Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion

[Age]

There is no nothingness. Even vaccuum spaces are actually not vaccuums, but have particles/antiparticle pairs and energies flitting in and out of existence. As Quantum Physics claims.

When there is a 'space' and for the moment where the particles/antiparticle pairs and energies are not in existence, then what is that 'space' if it is not a 'vacuum space'?

Existence consists in the continuous play of opposites.

Like the one between empty and full.

Opposites give meaning to existence. But in themselves ... they don't exist.

I look for matter and I find vacuum, I look for vacumm and I find matter.

This is the game of Being, the game of Nothingness.

Okay "dontaskme".

[socrat44]

There is no nothingness. Even vaccuum spaces are actually not vaccuums, but have particles/antiparticle pairs and energies flitting in and out of existence. As Quantum Physics claims.

When there is a 'space' and for the moment where the particles/antiparticle pairs and energies are not in existence, then what is that 'space' if it is not a 'vacuum space'?

Existence consists in the continuous play of opposites.

Like the one between empty and full.

Opposites give meaning to existence. But in themselves ... they don't exist.

I look for matter and I find vacuum, I look for vacumm and I find matter.

This is the game of Being, the game of Nothingness.

[bobmax]

Being = Nothingness/Emptiness, is true only in the Cosmic Vacuum, as Quantum Physics claims.

There is no nothingness. Even vaccuum spaces are actually not vaccuums, but have particles/antiparticle pairs and energies flitting in and out of existence. As Quantum Physics claims.

Vacuum is not the Nothingness.

Because the vacuum is, and is only, the space where something could have been.

But isn't space itself this alternation of vacuum and matter?

For the Big Bang theory, space and time are born.

Therefore the universe is not in a vacuum. The universe is nowhere.

Nothing surrounds him.

But if so...
The universe itself is Nothing.

[Iwannaplato]

Being = Nothingness/Emptiness, is true only in the Cosmic Vacuum, as Quantum Physics claims.

There is no nothingness. Even vaccuum spaces are actually not vaccuums, but have particles/antiparticle pairs and energies flitting in and out of existence. As Quantum Physics claims.

Vacuum is not the Nothingness.

Because the vacuum is, and is only, the space where something could have been.

But isn't space itself this alternation of vacuum and matter?

For the Big Bang theory, space and time are born.

Therefore the universe is not in a vacuum. The universe is nowhere.

Nothing surrounds him.

But if so...
The universe itself is Nothing.

Yeah, I don't think you'll find support in Quantum theory that the universe is nothing.
The Big Bang theory, at least these days, is unclear about whether this space adn time started there or if there is a greater metaverse where time had already been running or...and there are a number of hypotheses there. I don't see how your final deduction works...
BB had the birth of time and space
Therefore(????) the universe is not in a vaccuum.
The universe is nowhere.
Nothing surrounds him (it?)
But if so....
The universe itself is nothing.

To me that doesn't logically follow. Not the conclusion, nor some of the middle steps.

[bobmax]

The Big Bang theory, at least these days, is unclear about whether this space adn time started there or if there is a greater metaverse where time had already been running or...and there are a number of hypotheses there. I don't see how your final deduction works...
BB had the birth of time and space
Therefore(????) the universe is not in a vaccuum.
The universe is nowhere.
Nothing surrounds him (it?)
But if so....
The universe itself is nothing.

To me that doesn't logically follow. Not the conclusion, nor some of the middle steps.

You're right.

What I write cannot make sense.

This happens because rational thought does not admit the existence of limits to its possibilities of understanding.

However, these limits exist and do not concern the power of the intellect. Rather, they are the limits of logic itself.
For which to be there = to be.

We can only think of being there.
But if we go out into the world, in search of the truth, then we inevitably find ourselves faced with the insurmountable limit.

For rationality this absolute limit does not exist. When rational thought comes across it considers it relative: sooner or later it will overcome it.

Instead there are insuperable limits.

For example, faced with the birth of time and space, rational thinking inevitably imagines another time and another space where this universe was born.

He can only think like this, because for rationality to be = to be there.

But if you truly face the limit ... then you can come back to yourself!

It is the Medusa that questions you. And you don't have to be petrified.

[Iwannaplato]

You're right.

What I write cannot make sense.

This happens because rational thought does not admit the existence of limits to its possibilities of understanding.

I absolutely believe that rationality has limits and much of what I know is not via reasoned processes.

But you are presenting things in your post as reasoned processes. You might leave out words like 'Therefore...' and 'But if so...' and 'Because...'
All that presents itself as a rational, here deductive, process and intended to engage the rationality of other minds. Drop that stuff and find another approach that makes it clear you are stating your intuitions or however you frame it.

And then perhaps a philosophy forum will be an odd place for these posts, since it is words on a screen and it is implied heavily one is being rational and using rational arguments.

However, these limits exist and do not concern the power of the intellect. Rather, they are the limits of logic itself.
For which to be there = to be.

We can only think of being there.
But if we go out into the world, in search of the truth, then we inevitably find ourselves faced with the insurmountable limit.

For rationality this absolute limit does not exist. When rational thought comes across it considers it relative: sooner or later it will overcome it.

I mean, I do have a part of my mind, you could say, that sort of thinks this. But that's just a part of me. And even that part has reached limits over and over I think gets it.

Instead there are insuperable limits.

For example, faced with the birth of time and space, rational thinking inevitably imagines another time and another space where this universe was born.

Actually there are some who are very much in their rational minds who DO NOT do this. Others have found what they think is evidence of a greater universe. It's up in the air and that's just in the physics community.

[bobmax]

absolutely believe that rationality has limits and much of what I know is not via reasoned processes.

But you are presenting things in your post as reasoned processes. You might leave out words like 'Therefore...' and 'But if so...' and 'Because...'
All that presents itself as a rational, here deductive, process and intended to engage the rationality of other minds. Drop that stuff and find another approach that makes it clear you are stating your intuitions or however you frame it.

And then perhaps a philosophy forum will be an odd place for these posts, since it is words on a screen and it is implied heavily one is being rational and using rational arguments.

Yes, rationality is insufficient.

But my attempt is precisely to show its intrinsic insufficiency.
So as to hit the limit.
And resist there, without falling back.

I mean, I do have a part of my mind, you could say, that sort of thinks this. But that's just a part of me. And even that part has reached limits over and over I think gets it.

Very good!

That part of you is the real you. Which is awakening.

But the Truth cannot be taken.

Because it is the Truth that possesses us totally.
To the point ... that you are the Truth!

I wish you all the best.