[kj512512]

This is where I find the bulk of my thought these days. I believe that this relationship may hold one of the keys to quantifying everything. The first axiom that begs consideration is the statement that nothing is greater than everything. On the surface this seems like an acceptable thesis.

If we agree that nothing is greater than everything then we must also conversely agree that everything is less than nothing.

Please forgive me if this has already been debated or commented on. Feel free to direct me to those previous conversations as I would appreciate a further discussion on the subject.
kj

[neutralino]

Hi kj,

I've moved your thread to one of the philosophy forums, since the introductions forum is reserved for members to make a posting introducing themselves, and not talk about any of their theories. If you see another subforum that you think this is more suited to, then PM me and I'll move it there.

I guess my first question would be what do you mean by everything and what do you mean by nothing? Only then can we discuss relationships between the terms.

[Profpat]

Thats odd, I would think anything is better than nothing. There is a theory of nothing thread, however, that you may be interested in.

Best,

Pat

[purveyor of knowledge]

Originally Posted by kj512512 This is where I find the bulk of my thought these days. I believe that this relationship may hold one of the keys to quantifying everything. The first axiom that begs consideration is the statement that nothing is greater than everything. On the surface this seems like an acceptable thesis. If we agree that nothing is greater than everything then we must also conversely agree that everything is less than nothing. Please forgive me if this has already been debated or commented on. Feel free to direct me to those previous conversations as I would appreciate a further discussion on the subject. kj

Dear KJ,

Welcome. I have thought of your exact same quandary and have come to the same conclusion, essentially.

If you think about it purely enough you may make the realization that there should be a number that means the exact opposite of nothing. You may come to the odd but rather uplifting conclusion that if nothing is 0, then everything is 1/0. Also you may conclude that if nothing is represented by a circle, 0, then everything should be represented by two circles interlocking. Like in these ads
http://fargobluesfest.homestead.com/candlewood.jpg
http://www.coronadocleaners.com/images/Doubletree.gif
http://www.seenontv.com/prod-pages/i...ooty_thumb.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/...rqs_dt1_sm.jpg
http://www.eztobacco.com/images/brands/KoolFF.jpg

Now as you were saying, the definition of everything is that nothing is greater than everything. But also the definition of everything is that everything is everything, and nothing more or less. What this means is that nothing is greater than or less than everything, and everything is equal and paramount - the absolute greatest value

this is how I would write it
0<1/0<0
1/0=1/0
0 does not equal

this means that nothing is greater than or less than everything. Everything is everything, and nothing more or less. Zero does not equal anything. What do you think?

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge Now as you were saying, the definition of everything is that nothing is greater than everything.

Actually, the first post introduced an axiom that said nothing>everything. However, that is not a definition of the object "everything"; it is a definition of the relationship between the two objects "nothing" and "everything." The statement that you make, and the statement that kj makes are not the same.

Originally Posted by pok 0<1/0<0 1/0=1/0 0 does not equal this means that nothing is greater than or less than everything. Everything is everything, nothing more or less. Zero does not equal anything. What do you think?

This is just a statement of a weird number system in which the operation "=" is not properly defined.

Also, whilst I understand that your ideas are closely related to this topic, let's remember that this thread was started by kj for kj's topic, and so please let him/her discuss this instead of overly advertising your theory. I'm not saying that you have done anything wrong, but just wanted to mention that to enable you to consider it in your replying posts.

[purveyor of knowledge]

mind your own business Neutralino. Do not meddle in the affairs of others and do not say that something is not defined properly without giving an alternative definition or having the wherewithal to explain why. And always let people speak for themselves. And remember who is the moderator of the moderators Neutralino, and the meek shall reign on earth.

-pok

[kj512512]

Everything is bordered by nothing.

I do not want to suggest that the universe is everything. I think the universe is a system who's behavior is representative of everything. It is highly likely that our universe is simply one of many universes.

If we entertain the current hypothesis that our universe is expanding then it is also likely that other universes are in a state of expansion or contraction. I don't think light could exist in a static universe. If all universes are in a state of flux then perhaps everything is in a similar state. If we say that everything is either expanding or contracting then we can assume that everything has a border. If we are able to go in any direction and eventually arrive at that border I believe that nothing will be on the other side. Nothing must therefor be greater than everything. kj

[N0B0DY]

"Please forgive me if this has already been debated or commented on. Feel free to direct me to those previous conversations as I would appreciate a further discussion on the subject."

I personally feel that all threads are semi-related, but "the more the merrier" as they say.

Have a Merry Christmas...kj

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge mind your own business Neutralino. Do not meddle in the affairs of others and do not say that something is not defined properly without giving an alternative definition or having the wherewithal to explain why. And always let people speak for themselves. And remember who is the moderator of the moderators Neutralino, and the meek shall reign on earth. -pok

Please attempt to stay on track in this thread. I will not give "alternative definitions" to points relevant to your theory in someone else's thread!

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by kj512512 Everything is bordered by nothing. I do not want to suggest that the universe is everything. I think the universe is a system who's behavior is representative of everything. It is highly likely that our universe is simply one of many universes.

Quite true. However, most people tend to call the universe we live in the "universe" and everything else the "multiverse."

If we entertain the current hypothesis that our universe is expanding then it is also likely that other universes are in a state of expansion or contraction. I don't think light could exist in a static universe. If all universes are in a state of flux then perhaps everything is in a similar state. If we say that everything is either expanding or contracting then we can assume that everything has a border. If we are able to go in any direction and eventually arrive at that border I believe that nothing will be on the other side. Nothing must therefor be greater than everything. kj

Why must something that is expanding or contracting necessarily have a boundary?