the size of nothing

[-1-]

But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

There are two more extreme taboos in relativistic physics these days.

1. The salary of relativistic quantum physicists. Nobody talks about that. Those who have, are no longer talking about not only not the salaries, but about not anything else, either. (I got lost in the negatives... somebody right me, please.)

2. The sex life of nuclear physicists. These are a bunch of rabbit-like creatures, who fornicate with gusto. The Hardon Collider was built by duping the public to donate billions for the project, while all it did was stimulate the pituitary gland of advanced physicists via psycho- and physiological suggestions.

3. The math of the inner child in all of us.

[Greta]

Nothing contains everything and as such does not exist!

Ooh, this is fun, try again ...

Nothing is either infinitely large, infinitely small, both or neither.

Nothing is not space, rather it is that which is left over when you take away the space.

There is evidence for something, but not for nothing so, based on current evidence, nothing appears to be less likely to exist than something.

[mickthinks]

uwot, thanks for introducing me to Laughlin's writing on the subject of "the ether". I remember when I first read about Michelson and Morley's challenge to the notion of the ether and how it prefigured Einstein's special relativity theory, I accepted the conventional wisdom that M&M and SR showed that there was no ether. It was only later, when I began to understand what SR actually entails, that I thought "hang on! M&M challenged the notion of the ether (because it didn't detect any "ether wind") but SR predicts that such a wind would be undetectable" IOW, SR explains why M&M is perfectly compatible with the notion of "the ether".

[FlashDangerpants]

if space is actually filled and not vacuous as nothing asserts itself to be - we are merely changing the definition of nothing

-Imp

No. You are just failing to understand the grammatical form "nothing but".
This conversation is nothing but the flogging of a dead horse.
It is nothing but an attempt to make something out of nothing.
It is nothing but a misunderstanding.

In a more technical sense, it is nothing but the fallacy of reification written large.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothingness can be observed as the connective space between all phenomena through entropy, where all phenomena as directed through entropy towards nothingness, effectively come from nothingness.

So where one phenomena may fundamentally seperate from another phenomena, the nothingness between them, regardless of the place of the phenomena, is still the same nothingness.

However considering "entropy" is merely an observation of relation, where in one respect the human being may observe entropy at a different rate than the cells which compose the human being, this entropy effectively observes size as merely the relation of "nothingness" cancelling itself out at various rates.

For instance, the cancellation of nothingness results in various degree of being with these rates of being existing relative to another. So where we may observe "entropy" as a progression towards nothingness, under the line, this one "line" of entropy has multiple lines within it that act as parts of the line while in themselves are 1 line equivalent to the line they compose.

This rate of inversion, as movement through entropy, observes all "being" as founded through movement in the respect it inverts from a unity into multiplicity through change with this change of multiplicity observing a movement towards "wholes" that cycle through the same process, but is constant regardless of position (with position inself existing through entropy as relative to other positions).

In these respects entropy observes a quantum-effect through 0d space.

I may have to clarify some points or elaborate further...it appears I am "repeating" the same thing, but relativistically it is from a seperate angle further proving an inherent quantum-connective effect even in logic itself (as premised in empiricism and physics).

[Cerveny]

If “Nothing” existed, it would have to be “Something”. As it can not be taken up by our mind, the only way to “see” it, is its negative, the All. That the greater philosopher G. W. F. Hegel pointed out that Nothing can be understood only by the context of its complement, that is “Being”... He even put the equation between Nothing and Being...

[Eodnhoj7]

If “Nothing” existed, it would have to be “Something”. As it can not be taken up by our mind, the only way to “see” it, is its negative, the All. That the greater philosopher G. W. F. Hegel pointed out that Nothing can be understood only by the context of its complement, that is “Being”... He even put the equation between Nothing and Being...

Nothingness as change through multiplicity observes that nothingness cancel itself under its own terms, leaving a unity within the multiplicity.