[Nobody]

The Theory of Nothing, as opposed to a Theory of Everything, is based upon the negation of the universal forces that produce all natural phenomena. It is a journey toward the absolute, which is often sought after, but ironically solely through relative concepts. So I propose using a philosophical rendering of the exact definition of “nothing” and “everything” in order to draw logical conclusions about the nature of existence.

It has long been decided that there are “things” and then there are “no things”. Yet the further we delve into matter, the further we verify the “space” between so-called particles. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10

It was the Ionian Greeks who first developed the concept of an infinitesimal and fractal-type nature for particles, yet they either did not realize or include in their rendering, what absolute nature is: the difference between an infinite, progressive-type nature, and the absolute which is static or solid; infinity has no end, whereas the absolute does.

There is only one possible absolute state - nothing - for the following reasons: “things” are formed through interactions that cancel out at zero as a whole; “nothing” as the primal state is the only possible means of solving the dichotomy paradox of what is outside the Universe; and all massive particles (there is provably no such thing as rest mass) are created through the interactions of a massless substance (light) that provably does not literally exist. http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/science1202.html

I suggest a returning to first philosophy so as to ask: how can a Universe be contained by something that doesn’t exist (the outside of the Universe), let alone expand into a non-existent place, which is the commonly accepted notion?

[harmonygirl]

Interesting Nobody. I don't agree that nothing does not exist, it exists as the absence of something. Nothing cannot be defined without the concept of something whose absense defines it. I am also wary of your prescription that infinity has no end but absolute does. Take 1/3. It has no end (and is infinite) but it has parameters that define it. It will always consist of the number 3. So in this sense it is not infinite. Depends on your perspective, no? I have often wondered what exactly we are talking about when we say 'infinity'? Are we talking about time (which I don't believe exists) or space (ditto) or some other quality or quantity? Also, I don't know about 'things' whose interactions cancel out at zero. I think this is a big leap to make, but maybe you can explain what you mean...I don't think that my interactions cancel out at zero but maybe I simply don't understand what you mean...

[r.p.bibra]

for the spiritualists T.o.N does 'exist'. it is the stateless state where nothing exists except the stationary particle(s),which are in cuaseless state (casual).hypothetically speaking this scenario is possible,becuase such a state can be experienced in deep meditation.pl. note the little-self is not talking about the state of 'nihilism'---the void at the end(exhaustion) of worldly knowledge.even otherwise the Original-Particle(after big-cruch), which was the cause of creation, was obviously in stationary condition,only then there would have been the activation of energy latent in it.beyond guons there might be innumeral families of even more subtle particles till we reach to the root--the ultimate particle!in the universe of 'matter' there is no state of 'nothingness'---only the gaping chasm at end of known knowledge. beynod singularity,there might be Original-Particle! with love.little-self

[mkirkpatrick]

Interesting idea Mr Nobody,how far can you go with nothing?suppose you said zero instead,how far could you then get?A theory on absence,denial,
the very word is really two words,that have been linked together and now seem co-joined at the hip.the words are really no---thing!Meaning the absence of attendence,no manifested manifestation present here!The more
you look into this "theory" the less of it you find????????

kind regards michael.

[Nobody]

Harmonygirl,

If we imagine that all there was in existence was a stick and we broke it in three pieces, each piece would be finite with ends. So I don’t consider one-third to be infinite. Universally speaking, if all there was was a stick, it might be thought of as being absolute, but with regards to the paradox I’m referring to in message one the Universe would be split into the one verse and its exterior which implies two differing states.

I sort of connect infinity with space and eternity with time, and both imply a continuation of sorts without end. Whereas absolute space and time have boundaries where, again, there would be nothing outside of these. And this latter point is why I concluded that there is only one possible absolute state, which is the result of erasing concepts of space and time - there is no literal space and time, yet the concept of space and time manifests incrementally when the speed of light in an absolute vacuum is slowed down to varying degrees. To clarify what I mean by speed of light in an absolute vacuum, based on the Uncertainty Principle: we are decreasing Planck’s constant to zero, and therefore the velocity of light increases proportionately. Infinite speed is the same as no speed because it takes no time for light to reach anywhere at all. It is already everywhere.

And why I say things cancel out is because "things" are created from light - re: the second link which depicts the fundamental building blocks of matter being created from photonic interactions. The mass created from the light - in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs - annihilate and release energy which in turn produces more mass; and all the mass of the Universe plus all the gravity in the Universe equals zero. Your center of gravity holds your body together, and because our brains process information at a far slower rate than the constant of light we observe things asymmetrically. But in reality it is impossible for things to have enough time to form because, absolutely speaking, there is no such thing as time from the standpoint of light. In other words, everything immediately annihilates but we break the symmetry because we separate ourselves into individual points that fluctuate and are differentiated at varying frequencies within the visible-light range - a very small portion of what I think must be an infinite number of frequency ranges.

[Nobody]

People have a tendency to make things more complex than need be. I think if we can consider all "things" as being the result of interactions between only the elementary electrons, positrons and photons, and a corresponding elementary math: these three "particles" are all we need to explain "everything" in the Universe, and also explain that nothing "outside" of it - paradox solved. Brainwashing ideas such as inflation, big bangs/crunches, warpable space, etc., have served only to create confusion as to what gravity is and how it can be reconciled with other "forces." String Theory is a perfect example of that brainwashing whereby instead of changing Einstein's gravity to fit in with quantum interactions, quantum reality was force-fit to comply with macroscopic reality and empirically-based constants - why on Earth would we want to limit the speed of light based on the limitations of its spatial medium? The vacuum that it travels through is not a true vacuum, so why should we consider the constant of light to be true? Setterfield gave a great analogy that depicts light speed being relative to energy density in the form of a runner running a track with and without hurdles. If we can say that light speed is infinite in a true vacuum, it is understandable that undetectable frequencies/energy/hurdles would impede the speed and give a false impression as to its constant.

The information of electromagnetic effects are carried by the photons through an alleged spatial medium, but let's say that no spatial medium is possible and that all possible effects happen in no time at all - at the speed of light which is infinite in all possible directions. All these potential scenarios would create possible states of virtual particles in the form of electrons and positrons with fractional energies - aka: quarks, call them what you like. The positrons are bound by magnetism created by the electrical current which in turn creates magnetism - aka: gravity in order to give us a new fancy name, "electrogravity" (not a real or necessary name btw).

Now, the funny part of my hypothesis is that it is illusory simply because the above interactions happen outside of time. In other words, the moment an effect is created is the same moment it is cancelled, but obviously there is time so we have to invoke the consciousness of time out of one of those possible scenarios which has obviously turned out to be probable because you have the capacity to read this. I guess we can say that consciousness is in effect a result of the slowing down of the speed of light due to centripetal forces that forms the atom.

[harmonygirl]

Okay Nobody, NOW I get what you mean by "cancel"...I agree with your take on String Theory, warpable space, big bang/crunch. I am not sure about your speed of light thinking but I need to explore it. I agree with your that our perception of time needs to be accounted for in the cancellation scene. I am not sure, however, that the slowing down is with respect to TSOL or TSOL only and I am likewise not sure about the slowing down being due to the centripetal forces that form the atom. Perhaps you could clarify your thinking in this regard? I was thinking that the slowing down is with respect to all energy and I thought the slowing down was due to a denser medium. But these are just ideas that I have had, nothing that I have formed into a TOE...

[Nobody]

Harmony,

I think all all things that are now considered fact were once ideas, and if you have ideas on energy density that's what we're all here for isn't it, to express our ideas? I think also that you and Setterfield are correct in saying that a uniform energy would impede light speed, but where would that energy come from - we could go deeper and deeper to reach the root or absolute level to express our thoughts on where this energy can arise from.

To fit it into my own thoughts on the "matter," and the problem I see with placing a literal Universe inside of an exterior space that isn't there, I can't use any literal substance or proclaim an eternal exchange of energy and material forms because it doesn't logically work at all. So I tend to look at whether or not an absolute vacuum could have the potential to differentiate itself from itself, and I think it can. There would be two different perspectives to the state: one would be more expansive than any infinite Universe we could imagine; and the other would be more contractive than any point we could imagine. Both would be "eternal" if you will or simultaneous because they are essentially the same state, but there could be an infinite number of non-dimensional points that could each be considered the center of the Universe as well as each expanding to infinity.

These points would be the basis for virtual interactions that would form spherical positive and negative particles which require both centripetal and centrifugal forces to exist for the extremely short time that they do - simultaneously existing and not - but we are not conscious of this because we create time in the mind which creates a sense of reality. A time for the effect to reach from one point to the point the information is processed in the brain, sort of like the redshift effect.

Perhaps uncomfortably, anything and everything has already happened long ago because there is really no time to begin with - it's all like a dream made real where individuals aren't aware of it because they're in it; and being a potential state based on probable outcomes, any dream can be made real in relative to "time."

[ZenClone]

Its like the hollow of a cup.
The emptiness makes it useful.

Without Nothing, can there be Anything?

Wu Wei -- do nothing, yet everything gets done.

Tao Te Ching is probably one of the top 3 books I've ever read concerning the Yin-Yang you all are talking about.

[Nobody]

That's one of my favorite books as well, it's another large part of what lead to my thoughts on the absolute state - that "unfathomable" Tao is sort of like the "undefined" zero, don't you think? Yin + Yang = Tao, which can be interpreted as 1 - 1 = 0, which carries both negative and positive potential charge and an infinite number of different universal states.

The Wu Chi state of the Tao or Zero would be the exact same result as two annihilated particles. Although, instead of releasing the proportionate quanta of energy based on the mass of electrons and positrons, by its absolute neutrality (to the exclusion of anything and everything) an infinite number of non-dimensional points would release an infinite amount of energy because of the division of Zero by itself - which is limited to 0/0; 1/1; -1/1; -1/-1; or 1/-1. Yet can represent fractional charges of quarks from 0 thru 0.000~1.

This would be responsible for the detection of electrons as opposed to the positrons with the opposite charge hidden within the "proton."

Works for me!