Theory of Everything and Nothing

[Spencer]

For, within everything, nothing must exist. You may ask, how so, being the statement contradicts life and all that is possible. The truth is, it is the contradiction itself in which all things become possible. The chain of existence, or everything, is only retained by the preexisting links of existence which build it. Therefore, if nothing, a nonexistent link must exist as an essential link to the existence of everything, how could it possibly be nothing, or not exist? Simply, everything is nothing and vice-versa. In other words, nothing matters, everything matters, nothing does not matter, and everything does not matter. This is the concept in which all is possible through chaos and singularity, which both continuously build upon an endless foundation of ultimate contradiction.


-Spencer-


*In the absence of "nothing", "everything" would be incomplete, and no longer be "everything".

[Graybeard]

In other words, nothing matters, everything matters, nothing does not matter, and everything does not matter.

Well ... you've got it all covered in one post ...... it seems like there is nothing left to say (or everything)

welcome to the forum

cool bananas .... greg

[labelwench]

Hello Spencer, and welcome to the forum.

As something is to nothing, so too, would anything be to everything.....

....yet perhaps you present this in a different context?

[melanie]

'' The Chain of Causation is only a concept

it's links are forged in the eternal knowing and can never be broken

and yet...this chain so strong - can never bind ''

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

For, within everything, nothing must exist. ...... This is the concept in which all is possible through chaos and singularity, which both continuously build upon an endless foundation of ultimate contradiction.

Your statements reminded me of the Tao in the eastern culture I endeavor with admiration.

Your concept is a very discussed topic in this ToeQuest forum and I hope would you enjoy your time here and would also be benefited as well by the wealth of wisdom from the members here like I do.

Welcome to the forum.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I have a good story about how the information content of everything equals that of nothing, but

I cannot input to this thread, as it is marked "alternate" (non-science) and I use "science' primarily.

TQ is now strictly adhering to thread prefixes, as announced recently.

To you and all: consider changing the thread prefix to "unified" if you wish for no restrictions on the input. Or to "science" if you wish only that.

[Graybeard]

I have a good story about how the information content of everything equals that of nothing, but

I cannot input to this thread, as it is marked "alternate" (non-science) and I use "science' primarily.

TQ is now strictly adhering to thread prefixes, as announced recently.

To you and all: consider changing the thread prefix to "unified" if you wish for no restrictions on the input. Or to "science" if you wish only that.

I don't know why you have posted this here ?

The prefix rules can be read by any poster ? 'Alternate' means that the thread 'owner' can choose to use alternate hypothesis outside the Laws of physics if they choose, and also be free of harassment. You cannot, under this prefix, continually demand that the thread owner justify their view. In other words, continually pointing out that the thread owner is wrong according to the laws of Physics will be treated as harassment of the thread owner.

Alternative Views - Alternative, or non-mainstream views are welcome. The bar is lower for these threads in regard to providing proof, using scientific method, critical examination, etc. However, rational thought must still prevail. These threads explore the anomalies of science where the doorways to the TOE may lie. Posts that are overly critical may be removed by a moderator.

I have a good story about how the information content of everything equals that of nothing, but [SIZE=2]I cannot input to this thread, as it is marked "alternate" (non-science) and I use "science' primarily.

There is no need to spell this out in every thread, the mods will take care of it. You could start your own thread, selecting a suitable prefix ? You could even quote this thread in your own thread ... but it would be courtesy to notify the person you are quoting ?

Posters who wish to 'brainstorm' outside strict scientific principles are free to do so, and many other posters enjoy reading and debating these ideas ... You can post scientific responses in this thread, but you must not demand a right of hearing if the thread owner requests that is not the direction they wish the thread to go.


Graybeard (mod)

[austintorn@aol.com]

Already explained elsewhere. Not every thread. People may not have seen the notice. Don't get worried, for I will not be posting in any "alternate" threads since I can't, since I utilize mainstream science.

[Bogie]

For, within everything, nothing must exist. You may ask, how so, being the statement contradicts life and all that is possible. The truth is, it is the contradiction itself in which all things become possible. The chain of existence, or everything, is only retained by the preexisting links of existence which build it. Therefore, if nothing, a nonexistent link must exist as an essential link to the existence of everything, how could it possibly be nothing, or not exist? Simply, everything is nothing and vice-versa. In other words, nothing matters, everything matters, nothing does not matter, and everything does not matter. This is the concept in which all is possible through chaos and singularity, which both continuously build upon an endless foundation of ultimate contradiction.


-Spencer-


*In the absence of "nothing", "everything" would be incomplete, and no longer be "everything".

Hi Spencer. First of all I want to thank you for drawing out the comments in Post #7 which I wasn't aware of but should have been and would have been if I had read the rules . Next let me say that I can see the logic up to your statement which I paraphrase, if there ever was a point before time where there was nothing, then that phase in the evolution of where we are today could not be call "nothing" because where we are now is causally connected to it somehow.

And just to ask you from my perspective of "there never was nothing", do you think there ever was a phase in the evolution of where we are now that might be called "nothing" if it weren't for the logical conclusion that "nothing" would be something if that was the case? I pretend like I am making sense here.