MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Existence: does it even? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Like Nifegun, I have often wondered why there is something when there could be nothing. He has proposed this answer: That there is something because there is nothing.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

So when I assume the universal law of conservation has always been, it's not just a wack idea.


I never said it was a wacky idea. It's actually a commonplace idea in physics that every law is probably a conservation law - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

It was discovered by Emmy Noether one hundred years ago!

We are essentially one of the ways in which nothing can exist. But this still leaves the question - who is keeping score? And how does She keep score?

I think I've got the explanation but I'm keeping it to myself for now.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
who is keeping score? And how does She keep score?


I really don't like the number of assumptions one must make to ask such questions.

1) that something needs to be keeping score.
2) that the thing keeping score needs to be a person.
3) that they need a method to keep score.

Also, my theory accounts for this already. Everything is automatically kept in check at 0. because the cost of something being made is also the cost of the anti-something being made. Things enter into existence and anti-existence in lock-step. It would be physically impossible for something to enter the physical realm without also adding its own inverse as well. That is what I mean when I refer to the Universal Law of conservation.

Also this requires only one assumption. That all matter, energy, or any other possible existing thing has to have an equal and opposing energy, matter or other possible existing thing.

And just for clarification, for anyone who cares. I don't mean it's necessarily 1 to 1. as in 1 neutron also adds 1 anti-neutron, I mean the opposing energy could be in any form, so long as their existence would at some point converge back to 0.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
It's actually a commonplace idea in physics...


You keep making dismissive statements such as this and yet, keep linking to sources where I fail to read any statement concerning the fundamental relationship between everything and nothing, such as that proposed here by Nifegun.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
I think I've got the explanation but I'm keeping it to myself for now.


You think you have the explanation, do you?

I admire you Grant (you know I do) but I remain skeptical that you have the answer to what amounts to the most fundamental question of existence. ;-)

I don't even think Nifegun is right; nor do I think we have the capacity to evaluate his answer for accuracy---but I do think he has authored a novel and interesting response to the question of why there is anything---a response which demonstrates a clever mind at work. It's the best conceptual framework for an answer to that question that I've yet encountered.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

All of the positive forces and negative forces---all of the positive entities and negative entities---time and time's unmaking---these are all the things that are; these constitute the elements of the universe. All of these components---all that is, is found to one side of the equation. And on the other side, a singe digit: Zero.

Everything and nothing at once. All that is: An expression of nothingness.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mind you Grant, I think you've contributed valuable material to this discussion. The mesh between this proposal and theoretical work in math and physics is a subject Nifegun should familiarize himself with....

...as I believe he ought to write a book-length essay on this subject.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
as I believe he ought to write a book-length essay on this subject.


A common sentence people have said to me my entire life on many subjects. I think I should. It would be titled "The infinite conundrum" and include why humans fail so hard at conceiving things that deal with infinity or with 0. The simple point is that you can't truly think of nothing, you can't examine an example of nothing, and we've never really had nothing to test. Even an environment in a vacuum is never truly nothing.

But aside from playing with words and examining the comprehension abilities of the mind, I'd like to touch on Ishmael's comment. That I should brush up on the subjects, math and physics and how they relate to this topic. I will grant that claiming math is fully man made is a tricky thing to do. Yet I claimed it, however in their respective relations to this topic I was correct. my universal law of conservation stands alone without mathematics. Unless you accept that mathematics is also a law and that it plays a role in making all things and anti-things stay in lock-step. The reason I don't agree with that is that it requires yet another assumption that we cannot test.

By stating that math is just the way humans analyse things, I avoid making the assumption that both math and physics need to exist for the universe to work. Though I fully admit that I am neither provably right or wrong, it is always safer to make less assumptions. As such Accepting that the sciences will always work out and that math is simply how we can interpret and explain them is much safer and by induction, more likely the correct answer.

Also if you truly disagree with that, as it seems like the forum does, can I please see a reason too? I will always admit that I am wrong if it is logical to do so. I just think assuming math is anything more than our own system is in and of itself fallacious. We know we made math, we know we made our own number systems even with different bases and functions. But we still declared the symbols, values, and functions. No one declared the strength of gravity per unit of matter. So I really don't see why people are taking issue with my statements regarding math and physics. Please give reasons and or links if you can.

thanks guys.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One plus one equals two.

Is this statement subjective?

Truly now.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The law of conservation has always been.

Is this statement subjective?

Truly now.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

One plus one equals two.

Is this statement subjective?

Truly now.


Yes
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The law of conservation has always been.

Is this statement subjective?

Truly now.


Yes
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Gotta agree with grant. Technically every statement made is subjective. I would concede though that "one plus one equals two" is less subjective, but only because it is easily falsifiable and already so well known. But that doesn't change the fact that literally everything is subject to interpretation.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
All that is: An expression of nothingness.


I prefer, Existence: does is even? haha ;)

good line though
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You two either are talking out of your ass or we needn't have this conversation. The purpose of all discussion here is to find the truth that is outside of ourselves--that exists independent of whether we think it or not.

If you insist on this subjective malarkey I shall withdraw my former enthusiasm for the proposals made. They are rendered moot. Mere sophistry. And I withdraw my former assessment of our latest colleague's intelligence.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group