The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by RCSaunders »

PoeticUniverse wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:46 am The universe is a large quantum field, ...
What's a, "field?"

I know what meant by a gravitational field, a magnetic field, and electrical field, which are just ways or picturing how entities behave relative to other entities and events. Fields do not exist as actual things, or substances, or entities, and all fields are analog, not discrete (quantized).

The whole of quantum theory is based on the observation that all dtscrete things within fields only at particular thresholds, of energy or charge. Again it is only a way of picturing behavior, a mataphor for what can only be described mathematically. A, "quantum field," is not an existent, it is a description of the behavior of existents. Sans entities, there are no fields.

Why do people want to turn science, especially physics into some kind of mystic nonsens?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:07 am Yes, whatever seems to matter on the human level ...
What could possibly matter except to human beings? If there were no human beings, nothing would matter.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Lacewing »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:55 am
Lacewing wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:07 am Yes, whatever seems to matter on the human level ...
What could possibly matter except to human beings? If there were no human beings, nothing would matter.
Agreed. My comment was about awareness... which could exist beyond the human level (and what seems to matter there).
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:54 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:55 am
Lacewing wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:07 am Yes, whatever seems to matter on the human level ...
What could possibly matter except to human beings? If there were no human beings, nothing would matter.
Agreed. My comment was about awareness... which could exist beyond the human level (and what seems to matter there).
Well, you have baffled me. I have no idea what awareness is except conscious perception (in all conscious animals) and human rational consciousness. What, "awareness," could possibly be beyond human consciousness?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Lacewing »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:39 pm I have no idea what awareness is except conscious perception (in all conscious animals) and human rational consciousness. What, "awareness," could possibly be beyond human consciousness?
Perhaps you might consider the way plants demonstrate a type of awareness within their environment. It's different than consciousness -- yet there is interaction and responsiveness. Such an example might help point to the reasonable possibility of levels of awareness that we humans are not typically aware of.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:39 pm I have no idea what awareness is except conscious perception (in all conscious animals) and human rational consciousness. What, "awareness," could possibly be beyond human consciousness?
Perhaps you might consider the way plants demonstrate a type of awareness within their environment. It's different than consciousness -- yet there is interaction and responsiveness. Such an example might help point to the reasonable possibility of levels of awareness that we humans are not typically aware of.
So you are calling any response by anything to something else, "awareness?" You are perfectly free to call anything you want awareness, but anything you have to say about awareness that is your own private view does not pertain to what anyone else is talking about.

Is the fact that a piece of iron moves toward a magnet because the iron is, "aware," of the magnet? Whatever plants' ability to respond to external stimulation is, it is not what is meant by conscious awareness. It might be a kind of primitive sentience, inferior to true consciousness, and inferior to it, but it is certainly not some kind of, "other level of awareness," nonsense.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Lacewing »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:35 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:39 pm I have no idea what awareness is except conscious perception (in all conscious animals) and human rational consciousness. What, "awareness," could possibly be beyond human consciousness?
Perhaps you might consider the way plants demonstrate a type of awareness within their environment. It's different than consciousness -- yet there is interaction and responsiveness. Such an example might help point to the reasonable possibility of levels of awareness that we humans are not typically aware of.
So you are calling any response by anything to something else, "awareness?"
No.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:35 pmYou are perfectly free to call anything you want awareness, but anything you have to say about awareness that is your own private view does not pertain to what anyone else is talking about.
Did I say otherwise? I'm not sure what word to use other than 'awareness'. If you haven't experienced such a thing, you might not be able to imagine it. You questioned what I was saying based on my own experiences -- which included my near-death experience. Maybe see what you sense when you're dying... or maybe if you simply have an epiphany about the energy of life that doesn't depend on man... then we can compare notes. :wink:
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:35 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:14 pm
Perhaps you might consider the way plants demonstrate a type of awareness within their environment. It's different than consciousness -- yet there is interaction and responsiveness. Such an example might help point to the reasonable possibility of levels of awareness that we humans are not typically aware of.
So you are calling any response by anything to something else, "awareness?"
No.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:35 pmYou are perfectly free to call anything you want awareness, but anything you have to say about awareness that is your own private view does not pertain to what anyone else is talking about.
Did I say otherwise? I'm not sure what word to use other than 'awareness'. If you haven't experienced such a thing, you might not be able to imagine it. You questioned what I was saying based on my own experiences -- which included my near-death experience. Maybe see what you sense when you're dying... or maybe if you simply have an epiphany about the energy of life that doesn't depend on man... then we can compare notes. :wink:
I wasn't questioning what you were saying, only what you meant by the word, "awareness." What you had to say about it is apparently some subjective private feeling/experience you have. No one can question that, but neither can it mean anything to anyone else. No one else can be conscious of your conscious experience. Individuals can only talk about that which anyone can be conscious of by seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting it, but never what any particular individual's actual seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting are to them, can we?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Lacewing »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:31 am I wasn't questioning what you were saying, only what you meant by the word, "awareness." What you had to say about it is apparently some subjective private feeling/experience you have.
I'm referring to something that is measurable and noticeable by others, as well. Your bafflement appears to be too big of a job for me to address, so maybe I didn't try hard enough in my previous response. 8)

Consider that many studies have been done that show plants (despite not having human consciousness) demonstrate an awareness of their environment... including being aware of approaching pests and responding, or exhibiting memory about injuries, or adjusting their growth based on surrounding conditions yet-to-come. The implications of this (along with other bountiful observations/experiences in life) indicate that there does not have to be a brain and an ego: the human understanding of brain-consciousness [b]isn't the only type of awareness in nature[/b].

Using this example of plants is just a more common/obvious demonstration of a different kind of awareness (beyond brain consciousness). Seeing this, why not consider that although the human brain may die/cease, is there really no other field of awareness that we are naturally part of? This is what I meant by the word "awareness" in the February post which you have inexplicably just drummed up and questioned me about. :D:

Lacewing wrote:the human level is full of noise and fabrications that only apply to the human level. When that ends, however, the quality of awareness could shift to something else, if awareness is not limited to the human body.

If you don't like using the word awareness, please say what word you would instead use to describe that which indicates some kind of perception, which does not necessarily require a brain and an ego? If you do not think such perception/awareness is possible, then how do you explain the cooperation and interaction throughout all of nature?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:31 am I wasn't questioning what you were saying, only what you meant by the word, "awareness." What you had to say about it is apparently some subjective private feeling/experience you have.
I'm referring to something that is measurable and noticeable by others, as well. Your bafflement appears to be too big of a job for me to address, so maybe I didn't try hard enough in my previous response.

Consider that many studies have been done that show plants (despite not having human consciousness) demonstrate an awareness of their environment... including being aware of approaching pests and responding, or exhibiting memory about injuries, or adjusting their growth based on surrounding conditions yet-to-come. The implications of this (along with other bountiful observations/experiences in life) indicate that there does not have to be a brain and an ego: the human understanding of brain-consciousness [b]isn't the only type of awareness in nature[/b].

Using this example of plants is just a more common/obvious demonstration of a different kind of awareness (beyond brain consciousness). Seeing this, why not consider that although the human brain may die/cease, is there really no other field of awareness that we are naturally part of? This is what I meant by the word "awareness" in the February post which you have inexplicably just drummed up and questioned me about. :D:

Lacewing wrote:the human level is full of noise and fabrications that only apply to the human level. When that ends, however, the quality of awareness could shift to something else, if awareness is not limited to the human body.

If you don't like using the word awareness, please say what word you would instead use to describe that which indicates some kind of perception, which does not necessarily require a brain and an ego? If you do not think such perception/awareness is possible, then how do you explain the cooperation and interaction throughout all of nature?
I'm not interested in semantics. "Awareness," is fine if it you are referring to just any biological reaction to internal or external stimuli, like the leaves of a tree turning toward the source of light or an amoeba sensing and ingesting a particle of food. (I'd use sentient, but awareness is fine). But mere biological response is not perception or consciousness, however. (It might be a kind of proto-consciousness, perhaps, inchoate or incipient.)

Consciousness begins with perception, the actual direct experience and recognition of entities by means of their perceivable attributes (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting). A tree may be, "aware," of the sun's light and heat by, "sensing," (biologically responding to) it, but it cannot perceive (recognize) the sun.

But even for biological awareness, there is none sans organisms, and certainly no consciousness exist except as an attribute of organisms with perception.

[What in the world, "ego," has to do with any of this baffles me. I wish Freud had never invented that meaningless word. He and Anna cursed the world with whole thausaurus of perverse deceptive concepts.]

I doubt you will agree with this view. Just explaining mine, not criticizing yours.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Lacewing »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:13 am I doubt you will agree with this view. Just explaining mine, not criticizing yours.
Got it -- yes, I see what you're saying -- thanks. Our language is limited to the things we think we understand, and there's always more being discovered.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

JSS wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:27 am This mathematical proof involves hyperreal mathematics and detailed ontological construction techniques. If you are not deeply familiar with those, you might want to take it very slowly, thinking about and asking about each detail from the beginning to the end.

And note ahead of time that even though we begin speaking merely of random possibilities and infinitesimal probabilities, by the time we get to the end, an absolute impossibility has been established.

================================

Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be (1/10)^10 or 0.0000000001.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let's define a term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+...]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all "real numbers". And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can't even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?


But if that isn't good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with "1/AbsInf", as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 ... well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, "Nothingness", is absolutely impossible.

Thus no universe could have ever been at a state of absolute nothingness, a pre-Big-Bang state, nor can even the tiniest fraction of any universe ever be absolutely empty. Every point throughout all space and throughout all time is filled with affectance that merely changes in density and potential.

Exyz = p + a0dp/dt + a1dp²/dt² + a3dp³/dt³ + …

Or:
Image
The differentiation of one phenomenon to another is the absence of one set of qualities, in one phenomenon, within that of another, the other phenomenon. Differentiation necessitates void as an absence; one phenomenon is void of qualities contained within another.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

JSS wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:27 am This mathematical proof involves hyperreal mathematics and detailed ontological construction techniques. If you are not deeply familiar with those, you might want to take it very slowly, thinking about and asking about each detail from the beginning to the end.

And note ahead of time that even though we begin speaking merely of random possibilities and infinitesimal probabilities, by the time we get to the end, an absolute impossibility has been established.

================================

Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be (1/10)^10 or 0.0000000001.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let's define a term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+...]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all "real numbers". And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can't even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?


But if that isn't good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with "1/AbsInf", as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 ... well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, "Nothingness", is absolutely impossible.

Thus no universe could have ever been at a state of absolute nothingness, a pre-Big-Bang state, nor can even the tiniest fraction of any universe ever be absolutely empty. Every point throughout all space and throughout all time is filled with affectance that merely changes in density and potential.

Exyz = p + a0dp/dt + a1dp²/dt² + a3dp³/dt³ + …

Or:
Image
1. Void is the absence of one quality within that of another. This absence points to a relation thus to see void is to see a relation. Void is thus multiplicity of phenomenon.

2. If void is mathematical unreal then 0 is unreal.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:35 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:39 pm I have no idea what awareness is except conscious perception (in all conscious animals) and human rational consciousness. What, "awareness," could possibly be beyond human consciousness?
Perhaps you might consider the way plants demonstrate a type of awareness within their environment. It's different than consciousness -- yet there is interaction and responsiveness. Such an example might help point to the reasonable possibility of levels of awareness that we humans are not typically aware of.
So you are calling any response by anything to something else, "awareness?" You are perfectly free to call anything you want awareness, but anything you have to say about awareness that is your own private view does not pertain to what anyone else is talking about.

Is the fact that a piece of iron moves toward a magnet because the iron is, "aware," of the magnet? Whatever plants' ability to respond to external stimulation is, it is not what is meant by conscious awareness. It might be a kind of primitive sentience, inferior to true consciousness, and inferior to it, but it is certainly not some kind of, "other level of awareness," nonsense.
You have no idea what you're talking about, no one can become a plant so as to know what's going on inside one. Because you can cut one open and see no brain like ours, means nothing. Sunflowers follow the arc of the sun, while morning glories unfurl into full bloom in the early morning. The flowers usually start to fade a few hours before the corolla begins to display visible curling. There are several species of insect eating plants that close when an insect is sensed.

Not saying that it's true, just saying that one can't really know for certain.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:31 am
Lacewing wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:35 pm
So you are calling any response by anything to something else, "awareness?"
No.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:35 pmYou are perfectly free to call anything you want awareness, but anything you have to say about awareness that is your own private view does not pertain to what anyone else is talking about.
Did I say otherwise? I'm not sure what word to use other than 'awareness'. If you haven't experienced such a thing, you might not be able to imagine it. You questioned what I was saying based on my own experiences -- which included my near-death experience. Maybe see what you sense when you're dying... or maybe if you simply have an epiphany about the energy of life that doesn't depend on man... then we can compare notes. :wink:
I wasn't questioning what you were saying, only what you meant by the word, "awareness." What you had to say about it is apparently some subjective private feeling/experience you have. No one can question that, but neither can it mean anything to anyone else. No one else can be conscious of your conscious experience. Individuals can only talk about that which anyone can be conscious of by seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting it, but never what any particular individual's actual seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting are to them, can we?
Neither can you experience what a plant, dog or cat does. It's purely conjecture, a relative depreciation. Usually humans have a habit of feeling superior to other lifeforms. It's called the big head syndrome. ;-)
Post Reply