can absolute nothing , produce something?

[thinking]

I define " absolute nothing " as

has no space ( no possibility of manifestation ) , no movement ( therefore no ability to change , or time ) , no dimension ( the ability to allow manifestation to become).

[RascalPuff]

I define " absolute nothing " as

has no space ( no possibility of manifestation ) , no movement ( therefore no ability to change , or time ) , no dimension ( the ability to allow manifestation to become).

________________________

Dear north:
I believe you and I are agreed with the reprise of Philsophy in this context:

"Nothing begets nothing." - Hume

Along with a less directly related, but I think pertinent, submission:

"The same thing cannot occupy two different spaces simultaneously". - Locke

It's always good to hear from you, north, whatever our contentions may be (We have different ways of agreeing on the 'steady state', for example).

Best regards,
- RP

[thinking]

________________________

Dear north:
I believe you and I are agreed with the reprise of Philsophy in this context:

"Nothing begets nothing." - Hume

Along with a less directly related, but I think pertinent, submission:

"The same thing cannot occupy two different spaces simultaneously". - Locke

It's always good to hear from you, north, whatever our contentions may be (We have different ways of agreeing on the 'steady state', for example).

Best regards,
- RP

we agree!!

although we from different angles of the same subject , we do come to the same conclusions

[N0B0DY]

"Re: can absolute nothing , produce something?"

Never, but is nevertheless the only possible state for the absolute universe because it is non-local which prevents local events from occurring. Leaving us only with the power of the mind as an option capable of producing illusory events.

Illusory events aren't something, either, merely being the result of a spatial perspective between two non-dimensional points that can't really exist to the perfectly static universe.

Stating that things exist eternally "just because" of observations, implies the absolute universe abides by the relative confines of humanity. There would have to be a clear demarcation separating matter/energy from space, but there isn't; or infinite space would have to have the capacity to move, but it doesn't. So, I think the logical options are restricted.

[thinking]

[quote=N0B0DY;31442]"Re: can absolute nothing , produce something?"

Never, but is nevertheless the only possible state for the absolute universe because it is non-local which prevents local events from occurring. Leaving us only with the power of the mind as an option capable of producing illusory events.

not sure what your getting at here. explain further

Illusory events aren't something, either, merely being the result of a spatial perspective between two non-dimensional points that can't really exist to the perfectly static universe.

same as above

Stating that things exist eternally "just because" of observations, implies the absolute universe abides by the relative confines of humanity.

eternal has nothing to do with " observations " but has everything to do with the essence of existence in the first place.

energy/matter is eternal , always

There would have to be a clear demarcation separating matter/energy from space, but there isn't; or infinite space would have to havcapacity to move, but it doesn't. So, I think the logical options are restricted.

again explain further

[N0B0DY]

You can only observe things through relativity and evolution, without which there is no existence possible because everything is the same at the absolute level. Yet people's sensory observations of matter/energy are so powerful, that they assume the essence of existence applies to the universe as a whole.

There can be no such thing as matter or energy, motion or time, to begin with in the absolute state. So timelessness replaces concepts of eternity, because there can be only illusory time within the timeless universe, just like there can only be illusory relative motion within the motionless universe. The whole is greater than the parts, and the sum of the parts, and the whole can't move in any way because it is in all "places" at the same "time."

Individuals are reference points of the abstract process of relativity and evolution, and therefore must conform to the required laws that enable this particular existence to function the way it does. The collective subconscious creates the reality for individuals to be conscious of - from exacting subatomic functioning required for atoms to persist to exist for a time, to the galaxies which function exactly the same way.

In other words, people believe what they see, hear, taste, feel, smell; whereas the absolute universe knows only infinite space that must remain eternally solid. Absolute solidity is synonymous to absolute vacuity, but holds the potential of a binary system of information based on the two abstract perspectives of non-existence: one is expansive from one non-dimensional point, to many points; and the other is contractive from many non-dimensional points, to one. Both those perspectives never literally change the absolute state of the universe.

[MJA]

I define " absolute nothing " as

has no space ( no possibility of manifestation ) , no movement ( therefore no ability to change , or time ) , no dimension ( the ability to allow manifestation to become).

And I would define "absolute nothing" as











And also regarding the Locke quote: "The same thing cannot occupy two different spaces simultaneously," I would humbly add: unless the two spaces are the same thing.

All is one,

MJA

[N0B0DY]

Newton's third law states that all phenomena have counter measures that keep everything perfectly balanced at zero - like a balance sheet.

One implies inequality in that it neglects negative one - sort of like focusing on one side of a piece of paper, and neglecting the other because you're not observing it.

I think all is none, basically because 1-1=0.

[thinking]

You can only observe things through relativity and evolution, without which there is no existence possible because everything is the same at the absolute level.

define " absolute level "

Yet people's sensory observations of matter/energy are so powerful, that they assume the essence of existence applies to the universe as a whole.

existence is NOT based on purely sensory observations but on the very make of Humankind its self. we are of the resultants of energy/matter. and the various states of which energy/matter are in , in a certain enviroment. Earth for example.

There can be no such thing as matter or energy, motion or time, to begin with in the absolute state.

define " absolute state "



[/quote]So timelessness replaces concepts of eternity, because there can be only illusory time within the timeless universe, just like there can only be illusory relative motion within the motionless universe. The whole is greater than the parts, and the sum of the parts, and the whole can't move in any way because it is in all "places" at the same "time."
[/quote]

not quite sure what your saying here?

explain further

Individuals are reference points of the abstract process of relativity and evolution, and therefore must conform to the required laws that enable this particular existence to function the way it does. The collective subconscious creates the reality for individuals to be conscious of - from exacting subatomic functioning required for atoms to persist to exist for a time, to the galaxies which function exactly the same way.

In other words, people believe what they see, hear, taste, feel, smell; whereas the absolute universe knows only infinite space that must remain eternally solid. Absolute solidity is synonymous to absolute vacuity, but holds the potential of a binary system of information based on the two abstract perspectives of non-existence: one is expansive from one non-dimensional point, to many points; and the other is contractive from many non-dimensional points, to one. Both those perspectives never literally change the absolute state of the universe.

okay now simplify your abstractions here. now that you have gotten it off your chest.

[N0B0DY]

"existence is NOT based on purely sensory observations but on the very make of Humankind its self."

I can ask how else can you deduce the above, other than by sensory observations? You refer to energy and matter as being real, only because you have sensed their effects. If you didn't sense them, there would be no way to claim they existed.

The absolute is the opposite of relative - standard dictionary definition - and the proposition is that the absolute universe is the same everywhere, which is the same state as being the same nowhere. Without relative reference points, things don't exist, and the absolute state of non-existence has two abstract reference points: primarily, expansive and contractive; a forward extension and simultaneous backward retraction. Simply explained as 1-1=0. The "0" is the non-existent state of the universe, but holds the necessarily-abstract perspectives of "1" and "-1" and all the fractions in between, which are the basis for relativity and evolution to function.