A blog created by deep thinkers

As you probably know by now my concept of a matrix of reality [some may see as infinity] is the analogical foundation stone pertinent to my beliefs relating to my Awareness model of physics. In this instance the word reality means my concept of primordial awareness.

It is for this reason I have incorporated this quote into my website. In other words I am suggesting that you image the participants are debating the blog are reflecting upon a nothingness that is akin to my idea of a primordial reality. I feel quite certain that you will find the blog will intellectually challenge you at nearly every point of the way. I see the blog as being a very honest and open document.

Quote:

“I would agree with that. We have to now what “sameness” or “identity” is in order to make distinctions between things that don’t have “sameness”. Seems pretty common sense to me.

Yes, I tend to think that with out a concept of zero difference we would not be able to recognise actual differences.

And yes it is common sense….or more to the point basic or fundamental to how we view the world.
As Android has suggested it is from a vew point of nothingness that somethingness exists….

Another example:
When we state we are moving at 5 kmh we are by default making reference to zero kmh…..so that all measurements are relative to zero, in fact all observations are relative to zero is my contention….

Question:
How do we know we have been unconscious? [Either asleep or under anaethesia]

I once considered it from this POV
Absolutly nothing is entirely dependent on everything being absolutely dependent on everything”
To explain:
If we accept that every thing is in somesort of relationship with every thing then and only then can nothing not exist.

If everything is dependent on everything for it’s existence then nothing can not exist.

It isn’t easy to descibe the non-value of nothingness except by referring to the absolute value of everthingness……hmmmmm…..yet the absolute value of everythingness is absolutely dependent on the non value of nothingness.

Yes. There are no absolute measures of distance or time. They are completely variable dependent on your state of relative motion wrt some other object.

Well that’s my point. A culture without ‘zero’ has no idea of ‘nothingness’. Although it would be nice if you could tell us what you mean by ‘nothingness’..

Nothing differs from zero in the way that zero is something, a finite amount which is defined. While nothing overlaps the quantity zero, in the way that it also is, when finitely defined, zero, it differs in the way that it has no specific basis like zero does in numbers.
– Wikipedia

I don’t think the concept of nothing is at all important or necessary to us. We don’t think of nothing or feel nothing or talk about nothing. There are some uses in the language which can be of interest:

Q: What did you do at school today Timmy?
A: Nothing.

(Let us assume Timmy ditched school, so that the statement seems to be true; if he had been to school, then the response is false. But the real problem when the statement seems to be true is that the original question commits the fallacy of question begging; it is akin to asking, “have you stopped beating your wife?” This seems to point toward the conclusion that breakdowns in logic, such as this one, where premises are false can only lead to further problems. ‘Nothing’ is not something you can do – obviously – and therefore we see that the answer too is flawed whether or not Timmy went to school.

But if ‘nothing’ is not something you can do then it seems that ‘nothing’ is something you can’t do.. but that conclusion also makes no sense to us.

Maybe I have totally missed the point of the thread but I was going to write something along these lines later

Unfortunately when discussing the abstraction of nothingness it is easy to mix context’s.
In you example of Timmy his answer was “nothing” but implied “nothing special”

And thus it is a true statement and not false. To answer nothing in fact means to imply that whilst he went to school [what did you do at school] he did nothing that he would consider of value.
By switching context we also establish a logical falacy.

For an atheist there is nothingness after we die. The definition of nothingness is implied in the statement.
no life, no movement, no existence, no consciousness, unconsciousness in absolutum.

Of course a relatively non sentient being such as a slug , ant or worm is incapable of conceptualising nothingness…. this seems to be the main ownership of sentience.

“If I switch of my monitor there is nothing on it to see” of course we still have a blank screen but this would be a shift in context and intent.
A longing for sleep is also a longing for nothingness – unconsciousness.

My radio is currently switched off and I can hear nothing coming from it [ context is – audible sound.]

It could be contended that nothing is our most important life [ existence ]aspect, if maintaining my current line of reasoning.

I disagree. Zero is a mathmatical concept useful in computations. Nothing (or nothingness) is a description of reality as in NO – THING.

Nothing is the absence of an act or thing that otherwise has some standalone reality. Zero is a mathmatical abstraction that has meaning only when placed in some context.

Examples:
A. I did nothing to stop the fire.
B. I have nothing to offer you.
C. 1390.
D. 48022.
Zero is an important concept indeed.

It is this zero that gives the concept of {1} and {-1} meaning.

Zero is as much a positive idea as a negative one. It is the starting point of all ideas.
It is the void from which all sprouts forth and all eventually returns. It is beginning and end it is God and nothingness it is the great mystery.

Zero is the focal point for all reality, the center of the event horizon, the essence of all being, the underlying fabric upon which numerical reality is spread across to give consciousness a purpose.
It is a mathematical concept representing an unimaginable reality.

there is nothig after death, there is nothing, but hthere is everyhting
i dont know….. what im tlaknig aobut
*walks down a country road looknig at the courntry sceanory….*
agian i dotn know hwta im tlkaing aobut
thats my 2 marbles….
no i lsot al lym maebles

Satyr , this may come as a surprise to you but I actually agree with the above post……ha after all what is the duration of the moment between past and future…..?> What do we see around us? That moment…yes? zero

There is no moment, really.
None that is accessible to human consciousness, at least.
All there is, is past and future.

+1 or -1.

0 is that hypothetical starting point; that “I think therefore…”, the transcending lost in the infinite.

But why would I be surprised with you agreeing with me?

and zero or nothing is the origin of consciousness and awareness. “From a vantage point of nothingness I see something”

The only thing we are conscious of is in fact an event of zero duration…..thus the moment is nothing yet we percieve it as something. Thus the universe exists totally in a moment of nothingness.

That is why Self can never be truly known but only known as self.

The great ‘I’ that hides the secret of free-will and which makes humanity so absurd.

The event of zero duration can only be perceived in hindsight or in foresight, as a positive or negative and so nothingness is given a value in relation to it.

Consciousness is the perception of zero after the fact or before the fact. An endless speculation/expectation or retrospection/ reminiscence.

thus existence is an effect and not a cause
Yes.

But does an effect become a cause once it perceives itself?
Does zero gain value once it is deciphered?

in the context of my last post there is no cause…..just effects effecting effects.
For example:
Gravity is an effect IMO and not caused. As nothingness [higgs] is the non-cause of gravity. IN someways it is every-thing that causes gravity by the fact of being a “thing”…. thus nothing ness is a default outcome of everything else. BY default, meaning that it….hmmmmmm……has non-existence except by the existence of every-thing.

The reason it is soooo difficult to describe some thing as a non-something is due to our preoccupation with “things’ as you would expect given that we are essentially nothing looking at something.
However in answer to your last questions, yes ….IMO if one can truely percieve themselves then they can become the non-cause of everything else.

In Buddhism it is the quest to percieve the absolute nothingness of who we are that is the quest for godhood or nirvana….to break down the illusion of suffering [existence which is suffering] To find the truth of our origins which is nothing…..[Nirvana]

Okay, I have to step in to this river of nothing. Hmm….a river…of nothing….Let us refer to the physicist David Bohm’s concept of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate Order is that into which everything is “enfolded.” It has no form. Things emerge into the Explicate Order, giving us form. Yet there is this constant flow between the two that Bohm called the holomovement. And this is the basic substance. In his view. Now, this “substance” has no form; it is just movement. So since it is without form, it is like “nothing.” Yet it is everything.

Similarly, the concept of the Tao. The Tao is also completely empty, yet everything is made of it. It is like the substance is the very “vesselness” that permits flow, which gives rise to form, yet within the form, there is only ‘vesselness,” which is emptiness. But not just emptiness; emptiness that permits emptiness to flow. And emptiness-in-motion gives us form. And voila, matter. Something from nothing.

So the cosmos, by extension, is absolutely full. And absolutely empty. Thing and NoThing. At the same time. We live with one foot in each mode of perception, and cannot shift into one of the other – for we are the observers of form, and thus we are the creators of form, and thus we are the bridge. The holomovement personified.

Just another perspective…
Onefinity, can I ask if you personally agree with what you have posted. possibly you hold it as a hypothetical or abstraction that requires neither agreement of disagreement?
BTW I found your post fascinating
Perhaps it is part of the Implicate Order, or perhaps the most basic dimension. If so, then this dimension isn’t constucted of things, isn’t constructed at all, but is simply is. We would refer to such a dimension as containing no-thing, but the possibility for every-thing.

Zero is correspondent to this dimension. Mathematics is a way of describing the world about us. It is no surprise that we should find a correspondence between zero and nothing, even though zero can correspond to any crux of a scale. The reason that zero corresponds to nothing is that zero represents the point of non-movement. Whenever you speak of a number, or a point on a scale, what you’re speaking of is a movement either toward or away from a specific point on the scale. + if it’s away from that point, – if it’s toward that point. You cannot subtract from a point of non-movement, you can only move away from it, which means addition. Subtraction from movement will only move you toward that point of non-movement. The number line in mathematics is a fallacy when talking about the real wolrd. You cannot move in a negative direction from a point of zero-value in reality.

Suffice it to say, zero can, and does, correspond to no-thing, even though zero can also correspond to other things. *sigh* I think I’ve said enough on the subject.

Interesting post BTAS….
as an example in relevance to your post if we take a tennis ball an throw it upwards at som epoint it will cease moving upwards and at this point it is neither moving upwards or downwards it is teetering with zero momentum but heaps of potential.

At that very point it has nothing but potential.

That zero duration moment like an infinitely sharp knife edge is a moment of transition from it’s propelled state to it’s freefall state.

Thus all movement has potential from nothing to something.
so the object always exists in a zero moment yet it moves……

hmmmm…sorry …a bit abstract….

I don’t know if this is a Deleuzian perspective but there seems to be some truth to the idea of the non-existence of a present but only a ceaseless relation between the past and future.

There is no Being but only a Becoming that relates to itself through memory of a past event or in expectation of a future one.
There is no self but only a long string of selves connected through memory, which we call consciousness.
We cannot define a present nor can we define a self but only determine its borders, its starting and ending points, while it, itself, – also from a Kantian perspective – remains forever unknowable.

From this we could assume that there is no Zero or that it isn’t accessible to us, but only an infinite progression of values into the positive and negative with no definite starting point and no end.
Zero is defined as being encapsulated between -1 and +1 but its precise definition is inaccessible since it would acquire a numerical value if it were accessible. The event horizon would shift and 0 would be redefined

This linear movement backwards and forwards is what causes perception and creates the possibility for consciousness. A consciousness that is forever recreating itself and unable to comprehend or to imagine its real essence of nothingness or Zero or inertia because, even though this is its underlying essence, it, itself, is only possible due to change/time, movement.
Time is the definitive character of life or reality, as Heidegger stated.
It is both our foe and the thing that makes us possible; the concept which both condemns us and blesses us.

Now here’s the contradiction: If all of the above is true then Zero [the concept of inertia or non-being/non-becoming] or nothingness is all that there really is, even if it might be indefinable and unapproachable to a mind in constant reinvention. This thin veneer of Something, of Reality, of Becoming is what springs from the nothingness, due to time/change and looks at itself….but cannot see it.

Something is Nothingness moving – given Time – or repeating itself and in this repetition reinventing its essence.

There’s nothing at absolute rest for everything is in motion in the universe. Earth is going over 1 million miles per hour through space therefor a tennis ball never is at 0 speed for it is traveling at 1 million miles per hour (In this orbit, we (and the rest of the Solar System) are traveling at a velocity of about 155 miles/sec (250 km/sec).) So therfore we can never say anything is ever at 0 mpk/kph in reality.

Thanks cosmict, what I was trying to show was that moment when direction changes is an infinitely small moment of nothing or neither direction [up or down]
But I admit my post was vague…..very vague….hmmmm…”

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47781&page=2