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

Re: A More-Better Nothing

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      >
    • 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 2 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
        >
      • 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 3 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]
        • 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 4 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
          • 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 5 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.