[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by Lost The way I see it, {everything} = {all that exists} + {all that does not exist}

We agree on this one (our initial equations are the same ). I just took it a step more and followed the equation to the next step.

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald If you wanted to you could say that "everything" is all that exists or does not exist but that would ultimately lead to all things in existence being Everything. If you want to get into sets (please excuse my notation, it's been a while since logic courses): Definitions and assumptions: A={Non-existence}={} We say that A is the empty set since it has no items (technically it has all of the items that do not exist). B={Existence} This set includes all things that have existed, do exist, and will exist (as per my original post) C={Everything} Calculations: C=A U B C= ø U B C=B {Everything}={Existence}

I would have to say that ultimately Everything encompases all that exists as well as all that does not exist. Perhaps my logic is flawed with the initial assumption that A={Non-existence}={}? Is this set truly empty?

Originally Posted by Lost After all, without nothingness, how could anything be said to exist? Compared to what?

The theories that I linked to are not intended to be dependent on eachother (which is why they are listed as two theories instead of just inferring one from the other). As such we can define existence using the properties in the Theory of Existence without relying on comparrison to non-existence (nothing):

Something is said to exist if:
a) it affects something
AND/OR
b) something affects it

[Lost]

I would have to say that ultimately Everything encompases all that exists as well as all that does not exist. Perhaps my logic is flawed with the initial assumption that A={Non-existence}={}? Is this set truly empty?

I believe A should indeed not be empty.
Keeping your variables for clarity if we agree that {non existence} is different than {nothing}:

a = { Non existence} = { All that does not exist }
b = { Existence } = { All that does/has/will indeed exist }
c = { Everything }
d = { Nothing } = { ø }

If we do agree that everything is not simply what exists ( c != b )

but rather that everything encompasses all that exists as well as all that doesn't:
( c = { a U b } )

what about d? Does "nothing" exist? Isn't it true that it both does and doesn't? +0 is the same as -0...
a = {Non existence} = { c - b + d} = { c - b - d }

In the truest sense of the word, everything is the opposite of nothing, therefore nothing should be excluded from everything. But there is a duality to that.

Does excluding nothing from everything mean that:
c = { a U b }?

Or that nothing is excluded therefore all variables are part of {everything}, including nothing...
c = { a U b U d }?

I think that both are true. Therefore everything both contains and excludes nothing.

Thus my definations of everything and nothing are:

Everything is all that is and all which is not, all there ever was and all which never was, all that will ever be and all which will never be.

Nothing is what is not.



Kind of strange how time seems to have no meaning in the defination of nothing. I could not say that nothing is what never was can I? I used to have a sandwich and now I have none. I can't say nothing is what will never be either, cause I'm making another.

Time is an even stranger concept in our defination of non-existence. Sure it's what does not exist, but it's not what will never exist. My son does not yet exist but someday I might have one. Or maybe I had one and he died... So if I had one in the past he goes in column a (exists), if I will have one in a few years he's in column b till then. Since I dont know if I will ever have a son does my son exist or not? I'd say he doesn't but existence was defined as all that ever will exist... So by that defination my son neither exists or doesn't till the die I'm dead or infertile.

So if we relook at existence, shouldn't it be what DOES exist, as in NOW, not tomorrow or yesterday. If so, everything then should be what exists presently as well, not what will or may.

By that logic, everything's defination depends on your perception of wheter time is indeed linear, and wether events in the future are predetermined or not.

[dustin_archibald]

After doing some thinking and going over the previous posts I've come to the conclusion that A={Non-esistence}={} is correct. To elaborate, for example, if you have a parking lot with 24 Green Cars, no other cars. You want to group them into seperate sets of cars with colour properties of red and green:

A={Red Cars}
B={Green Cars}

However, since there are no cars in the parking lot that match the red colour property, A is the empty set:

A={Red Cars}={}

Extending that to our problem, we must find items that match the properties of non-existence (ie: they have no effect on anything and
nothing affects them (they don't even affect themselves)).

A={Non-existence}//all items with the properties of non-existence
B={Existence}//all items with the properties of existence

However, we cannot find an item to put in set A because any time we find an item we either affect it or it affects us. As such, all items that can be found will go into set B, making set A truly empty (A={}).

Consequently, the definition that Everything is all that exists is correct but simplified to its lowest form. To elaborate: Everything is all that exists as well as all that is non-existant. It just so happens that when the logic is run through the {} has no effect thus it is excluded (keeping it or leaving it has no effect so it it reduced for simplicity).

Does "nothing" exist? Isn't it true that it both does and doesn't?

The idea or concept of "nothing" does exist. But actual, physical "nothing" does not exist. It has all the properties of Non-Existence and none of the properties of Existence.

I'll have to think on that time bit though...

[subversion]

Lost,

thanks for joining the discussion. I agree with what you're saying but I think you are wrong in a very technical sense. Nothing exists as nothing, which means technically it does not exist as something. In this case maybe we should rephrase our definition. Nothing does not form a meaningful part of everything. We reserve meaning for things which are something and meaning is most important when we talk about definition so that's why we like to paraphrase the definition of everything and say nothing does not form part of everything. In reality nothing <i>does</i> form part of everything technically but it has no value. So perhaps it is true that everything is all that exists plus all that doesn't, but all that doesn't exist is considered to be irrelevant, nothing, and nothing has no meaning. Thus all that doesn't exist is meaningless with regards to everything. It has no value in the definition. Similarly, since nothing has no value, both of these statements are equal

everything=everything plus nothing
everything=everything minus nothing
therefore nothing is irrelevant so we just disclude it and again we arrive at
everything=everything (which exists)

I think Dustin actually just said that but I already was writing this before he put his last post

ps. Nothing is the same as non-existence and we have to keep that definition strict.

another ps. if something either could or could not exist at some point in time we call it a possibility, and possibility forms everything because everything is defined strictly as possible. Nothing is defined strictly as impossible and nothing is the ONLY thing defined as impossible. So everything does not just mean what exists now, it means everything possible. If something is impossible then it is nothing which means meaningless. Events of time are technically pre-determined because after eternity everything will have happened and everything is all possible things, thus the only thing you can predict that won't happen is nothing. Thus you can literally predict everything, if you catch my meaning.


cheers, SubVersion

[michellemfry]

Hi Dustin, you're doing some deep thinking on this one, I can tell. Could dark matter be considered a candidate for the empty set along with the vacuum?

I know it produces gravitational effects, but all attempts to understand dark matter have been futile. It doesn't seem to be anywhere or be anything. Just wanted your opinion on this one. You've done such good things with this thread.

[Guille]

I have a proposition for a solution to the proble of Nothing and Everything. But before, I want to tell you all that we are not stupid for discussing such an "obvious" theme, because this is actually one of the most discussed philosophical questions, from Socrates' "ideal all", passing by Kant's "the rest, and the not rest OR not it" and Hegel's "one determined" to Wittgenstein's "possibility to exist, and reality opposed" and Deleuze's "positive cualitive difference"...

Basically, my idea is that if we want to refer to everything or notihng as an entity, as something, which although may appear not to be possible, as we don't want, but maybe if we do want to speak about them in relation to the other, or to a parallel concept, we would want ot talk about it as entity, then we say everything and nothing, but if we want to refer to what those words really mean, that is, all-the-things and no-thing-at-all then we use those two phrases and that's it, to define them.

[subversion]

but if the phrase defines the word then the word is synonymous with the phrase according to the definition of definition which we must hold to be true according to the <i>theory</i> of definition

[hairykleitous]

Originally Posted by subversion Well, now that you asked, I guess that's what this thread is about. Afterall, if we want a TOE we should first start with a definition right? So tell me, what does everything mean to you?

Every "thing" means the totality of all physical existence. A Theory of All Reality would be another matter.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion but if the phrase defines the word then the word is synonymous with the phrase according to the definition of definition which we must hold to be true according to the theory of definition

As you've said, it's a theory, not a fact. The gramatical world, which the analytical philosophers in USA, UK and Ger loved so much to work with, is not completely logical (good proofs of this are Chomsky's books) or based on the world. My theory seems of course to be misleadind definition, but sometimes to mislead something into another path is the only way to stop it from crashing into the iceberg, if you don't believe build yourself a time machine go to the titanic just before flooding and ask the people in charge...

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>> As you've said, it's a theory, not a fact. The gramatical world, which the analytical philosophers in USA, UK and Ger loved so much to work with, is not completely logical (good proofs of this are Chomsky's books) or based on the world. My theory seems of course to be misleadind definition, but sometimes to mislead something into another path is the only way to stop it from crashing into the iceberg, if you don't believe build yourself a time machine go to the titanic just before flooding and ask the people in charge...

well now that you put it that way, I guess the Theory of Everything is just a theory. So we should forget about it then.