Realism and the Existence of Nothing

[mkirkpatrick]

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.

Merab my friend I am most keenly interested in your active zero thoughts,can you share them withus on another post,or privately via pm if you prefer.
itend to agree with the idea you present here.

kind regards michael.

[surreality]

the whole question of No-thing is that it cannot and has never been any part of reality,

That's a very presumptuous. Wouldn't knowing that nothing has never been any part of reality only possible if one knows exactly what every part of reality is? Also, it shows a very Western-centric worldview; Nothing and Nothingness are integral aspects of many Buddhist philosophies. Take a look at the works of Keiji Nishitani or Nishida Kitaro.

[N0B0DY]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kyoto-school/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

[Profpat]

Thanks for the links Nobody, they should be of interest to everybody.

Best,

Pat

[thinking]

I believe that we must clarify in this thread what is the actual existence of nothing, nothingness, 0, empty set, absolute vacuum...This means, to determine the what kind of existence if any at all do the representations and concepts of Absense have.

In this theme, we must all agree that these exist as concepts and symbols. This means, that they are part of our thoughts and part of our expressions of our thoughts. To extend this, we can say that nothingness exists in the mind.

But the question now is: Is nothing "real"? Does it have an existence out of the mind?

You may have noticed that I havne't used the word "physical". This is because the fact of existing out of the mind, and being real, doesn't impply a physical existence. It is a concept hard to think about, but evne harder to express. Basically, if the is "nothing" out of the universe, what is it? It's extremelly hard to idealize, and impossible to visualize by imagination.

I very welcome any person who wants to share some thoughts in this.

think of " nothing " as the opposite of " something "

something has space , depth , breadth , movement ( don't mistake movement as another way of saying " time " . its not at all . movement is about the object(s) their internal actions and interactions with other objects , and the consequences thereof )

[thinking]

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

time is not a " property " of all entities

but a consequence of all entities actions

[thinking]

therefore nothing has no possibilty of existing

ever

[greenbug]

Wasn’t it Pythagoras who came up with the half of half thing? If you cut a square in half you still have a half to cut, so on and so on.. Nothing is the same way. There is nothing but the moment you brake it down to study it, it becomes something and you find a whole new nothing to begin studying so on and so forth.

Just as you never really touch an object. If you go half way to the object you still have half way to go. So on and so forth so you never really ever touch any thing. I love that bit..

But yes I do believe that nothing gave rise to something and now something keeps trying to explain nothing in return always creating something more.

[AntonioLao]

The physical mystery is the zero rest mass of the photon as quantum of the electromagnetic field. Yet the linear momentum p of the photon is the ratio of its energy E over its speed c: p=E/c.

[AntonioLao]

Except for the zero rest mass of the photons, differences in mass of all other elementary particles remain an unsolved mystery of physics although some believe it can be solved by finding the Higgs scalar boson. Maybe it can be called the quantum of mass. FYI, the quantum of energy is really the photon but the quantum of mass cannot be the neutrino or the electron since both vary in their rest mass and relativistic mass. Theories already asserted that only zero rest mass particles can move at light speed. Yet, in supernovae we detected the neutrinos first before seeing the photons.