[N0B0DY]

Ask anybody what "Truth" is; ask anybody what "Light" is; ask anybody what "Reality" is. All for nothing, because "It" cannot be known.

Perhaps Einstein's declaration is justified: "All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken."

It is the unstable mind that fluctuates between the abstract perspectives of the absolute, to create illusory conceptions of finitude and infinity that are thought to be understood "just because."

[N0B0DY]

The physicist Richard Feynman (1988 stated that quantum theory can be used to explain all of our physical world except gravity. It has been proved over and over to be a successful theory. However, when it comes to understanding what quantum theory says about our world, he acknowledged that “my physics students don’t understand it ... I don’t understand it. No-body does” (p. 9).

There is no agreement in the scientific community as to what is really going on in the microscopic world of quantum mechanics (Herbert, 1985). There is agreement with the results of quantum experiments and observations. The problem comes when those results are interpreted. Herbert (1985) lists eight different interpretations of our world, all based on the same experimental results:

1. The Copenhagen Interpretation #1. There is no deep reality. Our physical world is real enough, but its quantum foundations are not real (Segrè, 1980). This interpretation was favored by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.

2. The Copenhagen Interpretation #2. Reality is created by observation. The world has a phenomenal reality, but we each create our own reality through our observations (Wolf, 1984). John Wheeler’s famous maxim states that “no elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon” (Herbert, 1985, p. 18.

3. The Undefined Wholeness Interpretation. Quantum wholeness suggests that everything is inherently interconnected. This connection is unaffected by time or space. Adherents include David Bohm, Fritjof Capra, and Walter Heitler.

4. The Many-Worlds Interpretation. Reality in an increasing number of parallel worlds. Every possible outcome of every decision actually occurs, but it does so by splitting off into new, parallel universes (Wolf, 1988. Formulated in 1957, by Hugh Evertt, one of its chief adherents today is Paul Davies (1980).

5. The Quantum Logic Interpretation. The world obeys a reasoning which is non-human. In the same way that Einstein’s relativity requires a new way of logic from the old Newtonian universe, so the quantum world requires a new logic in order for us to understand it. Its chief adherent today is quantum theorist David Finkelstein.

6. The Neorealism Interpretation. The world is composed of ordinary objects and is ruled by logic and reason and order. The champions of this view were several pioneers in quantum mechanics including Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, and Prince Louis de Broglie.

7. The Consciousness Creates Reality Interpretation. In this view, it is not enough to observe phenomena, such as a camera or recording device, but the observer must be conscious. Adherents include Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner and the famous mathematician John von Neumann.

8. The World as Duality Interpretation. The world consists of potentials and actualities. Our everyday world is real, but atoms and subatomic particles only exist in the form of possibilities. This interpretation was described by Werner Heisenberg.

http://www.schuelers.com/ChaosPsyche/part_1_30.htm

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 10-19-2006, 12:41 AM

------------------------------------------------

"1. Absolute nothing is when we refer to something coming from nothing. The age-old impossibility. However, absolute nothing can not exist. We just assume it can. If absolute nothing EXISTED, what would there be? There certainly wouldn't be absolutely nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence. What does exist, is an a-prori absolute. This is either easily self-evident to some or not. If it isn't, it can drive one crazy thinking about it. It's an absolute 1 with no absolute 0.

"2. Relatively absolute "no-thing" is the absence of everything. It is inside of a pre-existent everything. In other words, everything doesn't come from no-thing. In addition, everything is relatively absolute and not the absolute. It is within the absolute 1. Now we can enter the infinite universe, that doesn't reach either one of these relative absolutes. They are the border of an infinite universe.

"3. Relatively nothing is partners with something relative. One doesn't ultimately contain the other. They intermingle infinitely inside and out of each other. One is the space we keep finding that isn't quite empty and the other is the mass that we keep finding isn't solid or real. One is the 0 and the other the 1, that we use in mathematics. Both are axiomatic assumptions that appear to be finite, just like space and mass, but are not. They blow up or collapse to infinity under non-approximate scrutiny." - Eric (ToeQuest Member)

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 10-23-2006, 12:04 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is one of the most interesting discussions I've ever witnessed. I knew there was a good reason I entered this thread. It's also a civil discussion.

"The 1 and 0 are outside of infinity. The 0 is not outside the 1. And, the 0 is at the CENTER of 1.

"Three dimesnionless points. 1 has no outside, 0 has no inside, and the center is the only location inside the 1.

"The 1 and 0 are indivisible, and the center where the 0 is located, is everywhere inside the 1. The 1 is focused in at its center and the 0 reflects out from the center. This is because the 0 is in perfect respect to (reflective of) the 1. The 1 is focused in at its center from all directions around it. The 0 reflects outward in all directions from the center.

"The universe is an inversion of this reality. It is within the focus and reflection, and is the resultant 'image'." - Eric (ToeQuest Member)

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 10-27-2006, 12:18 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"How can somethig absolute come from absolutely nothing? This is the greatest question of all (IMHO). Is there an "absolute nothing (non-existence) outside of something absolute (existence)? If not, then why? This is the question, I personally, would like to discuss." - Eric

[N0B0DY]

Just think of a magnet and you'll know everything in essence - 10-30-2006, 06:30 PM - Re: Theory of Nothing

--------------------------------------------------------

"Again for an accurate paradigm of everything I would encourage everybody to think of a magnet, and magnetism is the best force by the way. A magnet is the unseperable union of a north and a south pole. If you cut a magnet in half do you seperate the two poles? No, you simply form two magnets. That is why magnetism represents the perfect fusion, the ultimate combination of yin and yang, north and south.

"Now your theory Nobody relies on the idea that when you combine negative and positive, yin and yang, the net result is nothing. But in magnetism we have a clear example of how two opposites can be combined in an unseperable way, and not cancel eachother out. In other words, the combination of north and south does not result in nothing. We see the same sort of thing in the number 1/0, where positive and negative infinity have become so absolute that they have melded with eachother. The net result is not a cancellation, but a creation of all that you see around you. Everything is the combination of ying and yang, whereas nothing is the lack thereof. Both these ideas are represented ideally in math by the numbers 1/0 and 0/1. Whereas 0/1 represents a lack of positive and negative, and whereas 1/0 represents the simultaneous occurrence of both. That is the correct definition of nothing and everything. It is a difference between the existence and non-existence of the unseperable yin and yang duality." - lodestar

[N0B0DY]

Re: Theory of Nothing - 10-30-2006, 11:45 PM

---------------------------------------------------------

I don't imply that nothing or non existence exists. The point is that the ancient and modern scientists who aim to unify the forces into "one" and proclaim the universe is one, propose an absolute theory based on "one." I remain to proclaim that the absolute "one" doesn't exist and believing that it does is the same as saying that non existence exists. There can be no absolute one.

The magnetism was mentioned a while back I remember, and the response is the same. The separation of North and South is what makes the magnet, not the absolute combination. Absolutely combining North and South renders a non-dimensional point, which is neither North nor South, so only by separating the two poles (Yin and Yang) can you have a magnet.


MEST Regards,

Nobody

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-15-2007, 12:22 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm not fooled by movement. It goes around in circles. You can dismiss absolute or misinterpret it as infinite, but you will never arrive at a point." - Eric

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-18-2007, 06:07 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"For a theory with nothing at its centreless centre it has certainly attracted many posts, maybe we are idulging ourselves with nothing in mind,rather than attracting something tangible to mind to deal with,something to do about nothing?" Michael (ToeQuest Moderator)

Lloyd had mentioned that absolutes "suck" and it's a good point because of the lack of spacetime it is fully vacuous...bonded.

The reason for my posting this thread in a theory of everything forum is because you can't observe absolutely nothing and you can't observe absolutely everything. So the two so-called "absolutes" can be equated as non-existent.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-19-2007, 05:41 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge - "It is simply as I said. Nothing is invisible. The light passes through it, as you say, 'as though it was not there.'"]

"Right,then it is of absolutely no consquence then,and can dismissed as being
worthless,and having negitive value." - Michael ( ToeQuest Moderator)

I would suggest considering a further rendition as both absolute solidity and absolute vacuity are impenetrable - impossible to pass through - and neither positive nor negative as pertaining to any sort of arbitrary relative values.