## Re: A More-Better Nothing

Expand Messages
• ... 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 1 of 8 , Mar 29, 2013
> 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
• 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 2 of 8 , Mar 29, 2013
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
>
• 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 3 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
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
>
• 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 4 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
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]
• 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 5 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
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
• ... 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 6 of 8 , Mar 31, 2013
> 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.