[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by 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.

[I'm not an expert on dark matter and the vacuum so you'll have to bear with my limited view on the subject] I would have to say that dark matter could not be a member of the empty set because even though we can't perceive it we can measure (perceive) it's effects. So something is there, we just don't have the skill to "see" it yet. In order for it to be a candidate for the empty set it would have to have no effect at all. In addition, nothing could affect it.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>> 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.

I agree that identifying these concepts as either an entity or the "sum of it's parts" is a good idea. I would recommend using capitalization to differentiate between the two though. So when talking about entities it would be Everything or Nothing. Sum of it's parts terminology: everything (all-that-exists) or nothing (all-that-does-not-exist) (assuming we are agreeing that Nothing=non-existence). Or is that too much to type?

I like the idea since it helps to avoid ambiguity.

[dustin_archibald]

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

Are you referring to the Theory of Definition?

[Lost]

The way I understand it, dark matter is a term used to explain the missing mass of the universe. We know that the universe is expanding at a certain rate, but that rate of expansion does not coincide with what it should be according to how much mass is out there. Therefore there must be mass out there that we do not see, or know of.

In 1998 it was show that neutrinos, that were previously thought to have no mass at all, do in fact have mass, it is extremely low, but it's there. When you take into account the billions of billions of billions of neutrinos out there, that explains a nice chunk of the missing mass.

Rather than dark matter, physicists now wonder about a newly discovered phenomenon: dark energy. Given our understanding of gravity, the universe should be expanding at a constant rate, or, depending on the mass of the universe itself, galaxies should be slowing down the farther away they get from the center of the universe. What is being observed though, is that the galaxies are actually moving away faster as they get further. The only way of accounting for that is that something is pushing them away.

So dark matter, doesn't actually exist in a textual way. There may or may not be things out there that we cannot perceive yet. But they are certainly not nothing.

[dustin_archibald]

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

Can you elaborate on this?

[dustin_archibald]

I like the idea subversion had that Everything = All that is possible.

Is it possible that there's a piece of paper on my desk? Yes!
Is it possbile that the piece of paper doesn't exist at all? Yes!
Is it possible that there will be an elephant on my desk in the next 2 seconds? Yes!

[Lost]

Might wanna move your desk!!

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion 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.

Well, most of the people that talk about making a TOE either forget relativity or forget QM, so actually the development of theories is abandom of theories. When we want to make a theory about every single thing in the univere, that is, not a theory of the basic, but o everything, then we will abandom and forget the TOE which will explain the basis and make theory that explains every single thing. But I doubt we humans achieve that theory of all everything, I even doubt we will acheive a TOE of basics.

Anyway my post doesn't impply that. A theory of words is a theotry about things (words) that has no existence as such in reality. They are ink symbols in paper, that's a word. This is why there can be no empirical theory of words. But there can be empirical theories of spacetime, matter, force, energy... That is why the TOE won't be liek the theory of definition. And anyway, if we don't do what I mean, even in a different way, but do it, we will never be able to talk about everything for everything will automatically be an entitiy itself.

[Guille]

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

I agree. Thoughts exist, are real 8part of reality), but they are not thing. Exactly what we say something or a-thing is for physical existence is what a thought is for mental existence: an object.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald I agree that identifying these concepts as either an entity or the "sum of it's parts" is a good idea. I would recommend using capitalization to differentiate between the two though. So when talking about entities it would be Everything or Nothing. Sum of it's parts terminology: everything (all-that-exists) or nothing (all-that-does-not-exist) (assuming we are agreeing that Nothing=non-existence). Or is that too much to type? I like the idea since it helps to avoid ambiguity.

Maybe it's shorter to use this:
Everything: the entity of all things.
All Things: the sum of all things.
Nothing: the entity of no thing.
No Thing: that is no thing.

Many think there is no problem with jsut saying everything and nothing as entitites, but they are wrong: because this is what lead to the wrong idea of a God, what lead to religions: everything as entity, the worst idea of human history.