[BIG-BERTA]

Originally Posted by <<>> time should be nearer to being notihng for it is not an entity, it is just a property of entities, in this case of matter.

Yeah thats right i like when you said: Time it is just a property of all entities.
Thats my point

Then all entities are just an interaction of Matter to Matter

[Guille]

But matter itself is an entity.

Now I realise, space is also a property of matter. Thus, also space is "nothing" as well as time. Humm.....thisd goes agianst my ideas of ofundation of physics, I have to re-think about this.

[AntonioLao]

Nothingness is broken symmetry or zero dimensionality. And we live in the side of greater dimensionality, which allow us to contemplate both sides of perfect symmetry.

[michellemfry]

Nothing existed somewhere and someplace at sometime before the universe(s) began. It was as disruptive then as it is now. It's too late for us to be nothing because here we are slightly more than nothing and less than everything. Hence, it is too late for us to know of nothing as well. We cannot plead or fake ignorance on this one. Nothing is gone forever, as extinct as extinct can be.

[michellemfry]

If all things are truly absent, including space, it ceases to exist.

Nothing is non-existence. Nothing is however a real possiblity.

[michellemfry]

"The most dramatic evidence of understanding is seeing significance in nothing. This is the point of experimental controls, and a great deal comes from nothing happening in null experiments. Only when the situation is understood conceptually is it possible to appreciate nothing. So "seeing nothing" is a strong sign of understanding."-Richard Gregory

I had forgotten about the experimental controls. Making nothing happen used to be at times most difficult.

[harmonygirl]

Great thread! If you define existence, you have to have non-existence by definition. If you define thing, you must have nothing, again by definition. I guess this doesn't really go to whether nothing exists, as it would only exists if things exist, and we have only defined them, not proven their existence.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by michellemfry "The most dramatic evidence of understanding is seeing significance in nothing. This is the point of experimental controls, and a great deal comes from nothing happening in null experiments. Only when the situation is understood conceptually is it possible to appreciate nothing. So "seeing nothing" is a strong sign of understanding."-Richard Gregory I had forgotten about the experimental controls. Making nothing happen used to be at times most difficult.

I can see no-thing wrong in that,so is it then
right?

kind regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Nothing existed somewhere and someplace at sometime before the universe(s) began. It was as disruptive then as it is now. It's too late for us to be nothing because here we are slightly more than nothing and less than everything. Hence, it is too late for us to know of nothing as well. We cannot plead or fake ignorance on this one. Nothing is gone forever, as extinct as extinct can be.

Then we have no-thing to worry about then Michelle?All is well!


regards michael.

[zeroca]

Hello everybody!
Why is this thread so interesting?
I think mainly because of nothing.
That’s my favorite theme, but I think, everybody is fed up with my explanations about nothing, so I will try to offer them otherwise – in form of recollection.
In May, 1987 when a heavy snowfall came down in Svaneti (part of Georgia – Southern slope of Caucasus), the blanket of snow was over 5.5 meter’s height at some places. Avalanches caused heavy disasters.


Svaneti



Shkhara (5201m)

I wandered if there was any mechanism for restoring the balance (As I considered falling of such huge amount of snow a disbalance).
After consideration nothingness as a conception appeared anew in my mind:
As we mentioned, it’s useless to look for the “place” where nothing exists, to build a laboratory to detect it, or to argue with others about it.
My approach was very simple: I didn’t care greatly about the origin of the universe, i.e. was it actually created from nothingness, was it created after Big Bang, or does it exist permanently in 3-D space within time, but. . .
If this universe really was born from nothing, then every creature in this universe and the universe itself must contain the code of it even presently and there must be a system or mechanism based on it…
To say briefly such system really exists. It had been used by ancestors of mankind for harmonization of the universe. Lao Tse, Buddha, Sufis, and lot of other persons knew about it. No need to recite all persons.
I restored the system, called it “Active zero”, then set it up and made an experiment.
Then practiced it for 10 years (1987-1997) mainly privately, for political purposes; against national disasters, even in the period when the former USSR made nuclear tests in the Middle Asia (I practiced it mainly for restoration of destructive results of the explode).

I’ll repeat about the essence of “Active zero” in another post, if somebody is interested in it.

So about nothingness again:
1. Everything exists as 3d body-time within 3d space-time and is changing.
2. Nothingness “exists” outside of 3d space-time, i.e. transcendentally (beyond the bounds of 3d space-time) without changing.

Which from two above is more stable, permanent “existence”?
Maybe somebody wants to check its ability and power?

Regards,
zeroca.