Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A better nothing

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    How might the two arguments go in defense of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest? Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states? Absolute unrest
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      How might the two arguments go in defense of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?

      Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?

      Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.

      Mary
    • wsindarius
      Mary, As Zizek suggests as well, contemporary physics has all but deconstructed classical space and materialism. According to current theory, the closer you
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Mary,

        As Zizek suggests as well, contemporary physics has all but deconstructed classical space and materialism. According to current theory, the closer you get to zero values, the more instability there is. One can even posit a less-than-zero temperature — which is temperature understood as energy quanta and which can have a minus value. This results in extreme heat! (This was the subject of a recent YouTube from CERN.)

        All of which leads Krauss and others deny the nothingness of nothing, thereby allowing for the creative moment at a singularity (ther Big Bang), the something from nothing issue that religion uses to somehow prove the necessity of God. (I think Victor Stenger's writings are probably more persuasive on this. There is nice excerpt in Hitchens' The Portable Atheist which I recommend.)

        Wil







        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Mon, Mar 25, 2013 10:57 am
        Subject: [existlist] A better nothing





        How might the two arguments go in defense of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?

        Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?

        Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.

        Mary









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • fictiveparrot
        ... If nothing were unrest, it would not be nothing because there would be energy. ... The thing that I was suggesting is that a state of rest may have
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          > How might the two arguments go in defense
          > of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?

          If nothing were unrest, it would not be nothing because there would be energy.

          > Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?

          The thing that I was suggesting is that a state of rest may have limitations. To become anything other than nothing, something would be created. It isn't the same as nothing turning into something -- at least not exactly.

          > Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.

          Unrest = something. Logically you can't have 'nothing' in unrest as then it has some type of energy. Any disturbance in nothing is something.

          Just to say it for the sake of consistency: this is just how I am thinking of it. I can claim no validity of the model. I find it pleasing.

          Maurie Lesser
        • Mary
          Perhaps nothing is stateless and unlimited. Nothing can t be described, because it s the complete opposite of being. Or maybe nothing is exactly the same as
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 29, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Perhaps nothing is stateless and unlimited. Nothing can't be described, because it's the complete opposite of being. Or maybe nothing is exactly the same as being.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
            >
            > > How might the two arguments go in defense
            > > of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?
            >
            > If nothing were unrest, it would not be nothing because there would be energy.
            >
            > > Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?
            >
            > The thing that I was suggesting is that a state of rest may have limitations. To become anything other than nothing, something would be created. It isn't the same as nothing turning into something -- at least not exactly.
            >
            > > Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.
            >
            > Unrest = something. Logically you can't have 'nothing' in unrest as then it has some type of energy. Any disturbance in nothing is something.
            >
            > Just to say it for the sake of consistency: this is just how I am thinking of it. I can claim no validity of the model. I find it pleasing.
            >
            > Maurie Lesser
            >
          • Jim
            Knott, I agree with your line of thought here. In terms of physics, I would call an area of space with nothing in it a vacuum. I cannot see how anything –
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Knott,

              I agree with your line of thought here.

              In terms of physics, I would call an area of space with nothing in it a vacuum. I cannot see how anything – even tiny sub-atomic particles – could be produced out of a vacuum.

              There used to be philosophical disputes about whether vacuums could exist, but not now.

              If there was nothing but an infinite vacuum before the big bang, I cannot understand how a big bang could happen. But I am not a physicist.

              Jim



              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
              >
              > > How might the two arguments go in defense
              > > of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?
              >
              > If nothing were unrest, it would not be nothing because there would be energy.
              >
              > > Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?
              >
              > The thing that I was suggesting is that a state of rest may have limitations. To become anything other than nothing, something would be created. It isn't the same as nothing turning into something -- at least not exactly.
              >
              > > Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.
              >
              > Unrest = something. Logically you can't have 'nothing' in unrest as then it has some type of energy. Any disturbance in nothing is something.
              >
              > Just to say it for the sake of consistency: this is just how I am thinking of it. I can claim no validity of the model. I find it pleasing.
              >
              > Maurie Lesser
              >
            • wsindarius
              Jim, Ironically enough, I recommend Lawrence Krauss book, A Universe from Nothing, or one of many YiouTube Videos by him on the subject (but the book is
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim,

                Ironically enough, I recommend Lawrence Krauss' book, A Universe from Nothing, or one of many YiouTube Videos by him on the subject (but the book is better), that explains just that: how the old notion of vacuum is wrong. Nothing, in that sense, "happens", as it were.



                Wil



                -----Original Message-----
                From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 4:00 am
                Subject: [existlist] Re: A More-Better Nothing





                Knott,

                I agree with your line of thought here.

                In terms of physics, I would call an area of space with nothing in it a vacuum. I cannot see how anything – even tiny sub-atomic particles – could be produced out of a vacuum.

                There used to be philosophical disputes about whether vacuums could exist, but not now.

                If there was nothing but an infinite vacuum before the big bang, I cannot understand how a big bang could happen. But I am not a physicist.

                Jim

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
                >
                > > How might the two arguments go in defense
                > > of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?
                >
                > If nothing were unrest, it would not be nothing because there would be energy.
                >
                > > Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?
                >
                > The thing that I was suggesting is that a state of rest may have limitations. To become anything other than nothing, something would be created. It isn't the same as nothing turning into something -- at least not exactly.
                >
                > > Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.
                >
                > Unrest = something. Logically you can't have 'nothing' in unrest as then it has some type of energy. Any disturbance in nothing is something.
                >
                > Just to say it for the sake of consistency: this is just how I am thinking of it. I can claim no validity of the model. I find it pleasing.
                >
                > Maurie Lesser
                >









                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jim
                Thanks for that, Wil, I ll put Krauss s book on my reading list. The poor old vacuum - no longer even a nothing! You can t get much lower than that. Jim
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for that, Wil, I'll put Krauss's book on my reading list.

                  The poor old vacuum - no longer even a nothing! You can't get much lower than that.

                  Jim


                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                  >
                  > Jim,
                  >
                  > Ironically enough, I recommend Lawrence Krauss' book, A Universe from Nothing, or one of many YiouTube Videos by him on the subject (but the book is better), that explains just that: how the old notion of vacuum is wrong. Nothing, in that sense, "happens", as it were.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Wil
                • fictiveparrot
                  ... I think vacuum suggests less than nothing, which is why I suggested that I would think nothing is rest--without energy. Vacuum seems more like a black
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 31, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > In terms of physics, I would call an area
                    > of space with nothing in it a vacuum.

                    I think vacuum suggests less than nothing, which is why I suggested that I would think nothing is rest--without energy. Vacuum seems more like a black hole, which I believe is the opposite of something, anti-matter, to some extent. I don't see nothing like in my model.

                    > I cannot see how anything – even tiny sub-atomic
                    > particles – could be produced out of a vacuum.

                    Well, I am not exactly sure home they make salt into those nice little crystals, but I am sure someone does. I don't know how to use machine language, but essentially I use it daily. I don't know if gawd exists or not, but I am certainly not going to base that determination on my lack of understanding. But it is also relatively easy to think of gawd.

                    If nothing is REST, and not a vacuum, you might get something and its opposite from that. I don't know that I can define how any more than I can help you make salt. If you want instructions you have to read the package.

                    > If there was nothing but an infinite
                    > vacuum before the big bang

                    I think that would be incorrect. But its just an idea.

                    > ...I am not a physicist.

                    You are certainly claiming a lot of underlying physics by the whole declaration of the vacuum knowledge.

                    Knott Gnitt
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.