| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/26/2000; 5:33 PM I can't believe I never posted this. This piece of thought is the pride of VaguelyWeird logic, as the SHIP would most likely know, along with Hobbs (muahaha) This is the science of nothing. For the many years of my life, I have contemplated the ideas of existance, logic, and the logic of logic, along with the always interesting crapology. They have led me to some serious conclusions dealing with the contemporary manner of thought. It confounds me how such a non-existant thing as nothing can so illogically be passed over as a simple thought. For, by the knowledge of nothing, we have made nothing something, and yet, the original nothing still exists as something that does not exist. What exactly am I trying to say? Perhaps I should put it in list form. 1) By saying there is nothing, we usually use it to describe the lack of something. For example, as cold is the lack of heat, nothing is the lack of something. Yet, also as cold exists, we use the word nothing to describe a psudo-existance 2) However, the way we use "nothing" is often contradictory. It could mean "no solution" "null" "empty" or "lacking" "none of your business" "something trivial" etc etc. E.G. You ask someone, "What are you thinking about?" They respond "Nothing." Surely they are thinking about SOMETHING. Either cub sonciously or consciously they are, but have decided not to reveal it. If you go into an "empty" room, you would refer to that room having nothing in it. But that isn't true, since there is dirt, air, etc etc things that are so everywhere, that we consider them insignificant enough to be "nothing." In contrast, we ask, what is inside of a vacuum? Nothing of course! It is not a decision not to reveal, it is a statement of fact. 3) But, as seen in the last example, we have given "nothing" a state of existance in saying that IT EXISTS WITHIN THE VACUUM! And although it has no matter, it takes up some kind of space, some kind of property which we apply to things that exist. 4) In doing so, NOTHING becomes a contradiction, stable, but contradictory. Not inly in the simple sense of "nothing" as a word, idea, abstract concept, etc does it become existant, but in creating "nothing" we have made it even more solidly existant. 5) In our limited human minds, when we think of nothing, we must have a symbol, a representation: a Zero, null sign, outer space, a vacuum, a something, anything which can somehow be nothing in our minds. In doing so, we think of nothing as essentially something, destroying it's fundemental property of not existing and containing no matter. 6) And then the question arises in my mind, if "nothing" is defined by the lack of something, does that include light, gravity, and other more abstract concepts of something? Because there can be NO MATTER within these somethings. They cannot be touched, tasted, smelled. As quoted in the recent movie The Matrix (paraphrased anyway) It says something like, If you define nothing as something you can touch, or smell, then it becomes your brain waves and nothing more (or something like that). For that is the only way we know those things "exist" and yet, they could all be fabricated by the mind. 7) we know of the famous statement "I think, therefore I exist." But what might be misunderstood, is that what exists is not necessarily what we define as ourselves. Obviously the ability to retain unique thoughts, memories, emotions, etc exists. For that is what thinks and concludes existance. We claim that the interaction of others in these thoughts show that our brain is not lying to us in saying that we have this world in a gigantic universe yada yada. And yet, If we were more telepathic than we knew, we could simply be a set of networks so to say in a common dream land. Who knows. Now we call the existance of things into question. 8) Therefore, I believe these things: - something, or the existance of things must be what I and others perceive, and base our decisions, life on. It may not truely exist, but it all depends on frame of reference. I will treat it as i see it, so that I am not running blind - nothing has many forms as something does. There is the nothing that we cannot contemplate in order to keep it as nothing which does not exist. There is the nothing of triviality, the nothing of obscurity, the nothing of lack, etc etc. The nothings that exist, exist. The only nothing that does not exist, doesn't exist and so has no properties. That is my philosophy of nothing. And now for a little more thought: if a=b and neither a nor b =0 a^2=ab a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) dividing (a-b) out: a+b=b because a=b: b+b=B 2b=b dividing out b 2=1 Two equals one. Tell me why :) (Don't worry, I do know why)
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/26/2000; 5:37 PM One question I forgot to add... In the beginning was nothing but God right? What kind of nothing was that?
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Sam Marston on 12/26/2000; 5:40 PM Hmm, interesting....
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Dorothy Marie Koveal on 12/26/2000; 5:41 PM because a=b
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/26/2000; 5:51 PM but what exactly is wrong. Yes there is something wrong, but WHAT is it. Doot is very close, and remember it has something to do with nothing....:)
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/26/2000; 5:55 PM Because no one has of yet found the answer... another clue: look not at the algebra. it is perfect look instead at the things which make 0
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Mark Morgan on 12/26/2000; 6:38 PM It's been too long since I took factoring, but the problem is here somewhere: a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) If a=b, then (a-b)=0 and that second equation simplifies to 0=0.
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Matthew Patterson. (Nice try, Mark.) on 12/26/2000; 6:46 PM > And now for a little more thought: > if a=b > and neither a nor b =0 > a^2« > a^2-b^2«-b^2 > (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) > dividing (a-b) out: > a+b=b > because a=b: > b+b=B > 2b=b > dividing out b > 2=1 > Two equals one. > Tell me why :) (Don't worry, I do know why) Yeah, I think I've got it. Follow order of operations. (a+b) is a number either positive or negative, it doesn't matter. (a-b) is zero because a=b, and anything less itself is zero. You wind up dividing both sides by zero, which produces undefined, which I don't think should happen.
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Seth Dillingham on 12/26/2000; 7:17 PM Dropping my own beliefs for a moment, I'll say this: If the following two things are true: 1. The universe started with a big bang, in which all matter exploded out from a single point 2. there is no omni-present God (um, I'm uncomfortable even suggesting that, but it's just a hypothetical argument) ... then it is possible to imagine a place so far from the original source of the big bang that no matter, no light, no gravity, no particles or energy of any kind have yet reached it. Then you could truly have nothing. Boy, would that be something! :-) I really liked that little essay, Chie.
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Mark Morgan on 12/26/2000; 7:24 PM ScottN might weigh in on this, too, but it's my understanding that space does not expand without matter--that there is no space running ahead of the matter that fills it. I'm not sure.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Seth Dillingham on 12/26/2000; 8:14 PM On Tuesday, December 26, 2000 at 6:40 PM, Mark Morgan wrote: >ScottN (http://www.VoicesOfUnreason.com/authors/scottN) might weigh in on >this, too, but it's my understanding that space does not expand without >matter--that there is no space running ahead of the matter that fills it. > >I'm not sure. I was afraid you or Scott would say that, but it implies a lot of things that make my head hurt. Obviously, it doesn't mean that the universe has an "edge". Rather, it implies to me that the universe is like a big expanding balloon, and our travels through it are on the surface of the balloon. That's a really bad explanation of what I'm thinking, because it was a "dimensional down-shift," but it was the only way I could imagine putting it into words. :-)
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Mark Morgan on 12/26/2000; 8:43 PM Actually, you may or may not be happy (depending on how your head is feeling) to learn that the balloon metaphor is the one I've seen most often to describe Big Bang. Spacetime expands like a balloon, and we are all dots on the baloon. That's how everything can be moving away from everything else without having a central expansion point that you can go visit in your FTL ship. From the perspective of any dot on the surface of the balloon, all the other dots are moving away equally, give or take gravity clumping groups of dots together. Oh, fine, now my head hurts too. :-P
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/26/2000; 9:19 PM ah matthew. You got it!! yay! the algebra is perfectly correct. the only thing which causes it to mess up and be wrong is that (a-b) equals zero and dividing (a+b) or anything else by zero... well becomes undefined. I have a little number theory I gave matthew once that is related to this. I should post it. I believe in a ubiquitous, ibiquitous, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God who created the world "in the Beginning" And since if the other big bang shmang were true then nothing would exist which it cant so that obviously never happened Space ships? OK. dum dum dum... lemme find that sheet... I'll post it one day
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/26/2000; 9:32 PM but what if there is nothing in front of that matter, and the nothing was of something propeties?? hehe!
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Matthew Pepperminterson. (Nice try, Mark.) on 12/26/2000; 11:10 PM Thank you, thank you. Although Morgan deserves part of the credit, as he mentioned to me that he thought the problem was in the factoring.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Brian Carnell on 12/27/2000; 12:40 PM Chie wrote: "7) we know of the famous statement "I think, therefore I exist." But what might be misunderstood, is that what exists is not necessarily what we define as ourselves. Obviously the ability to retain unique thoughts, memories, emotions, etc exists. For that is what thinks and concludes existance. We claim that the interaction of others in these thoughts show that our brain is not lying to us in saying that we have this world in a gigantic universe yada yada. And yet, If we were more telepathic than we knew, we could simply be a set of networks so to say in a common dream land. Who knows. Now we call the existance of things into question." Descartes ultimately says we can be sure that we aren't just stray thoughts because we know God exists and God wouldn't deceive us like that, which has never been a terribly convincing argument even for theists (since Descarte really ends up simply assuming God's existence.) A better solution is to follow the leaning of Scottish philospher Thomas Reid -- it would be absurd to assume we are part of some dreamland network or some similar scenario. There are, after all, literally an infinite number of similar scenarios and there seems to be no particular reason at all to favor one over another, much less any compelling reason to favor one of those possibilities. In fact, you are at a serious disadvantage if you assume the world is just an illusion as it is hard to see how one proceeds after making that concession. I might choose to believe that I am in a dreamland, for example, but I will still starve if I choose not to eat the dreamland food. Since you brought it up, "The Matrix" completely whimps out on this point. How does Neo know that he isn't in yet a second elaborate computer simulation once he's left "The Matrix"? See "The 13th Floor" for an excellent multiple worlds version of this premise.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Seth Dillingham on 12/27/2000; 1:06 PM On Wednesday, December 27, 2000 at 11:56 AM, Brian Carnell wrote: >Since you brought it up, "The Matrix" completely whimps out on this point. >How does Neo know that he isn't in yet a second elaborate computer >simulation once he's left "The Matrix"? See "The 13th Floor" for an >excellent multiple worlds version of this premise. Actually, they didn't wimp out. You've just hit on the plot of the sequel, which is being released in 2001. :-)
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Mark Morgan on 12/27/2000; 1:46 PM You've just hit on the plot of the sequel, which is being released in 2001. That's enough of that! No more spoilers for The Matrix II out of you!
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 12/27/2000; 2:52 PM > Actually, they didn't wimp out. You've just hit on the plot of the sequel, > which > is being released in 2001. The snoop in me wants to know how you found this out. The nitpicker in me wants to know how in the hell they expect to pull this off convincingly, although it actually makes a limited amount of sense to me. The little kid in me says, "Hey, cool!"
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Seth Dillingham on 12/27/2000; 3:30 PM On Wednesday, December 27, 2000 at 2:08 PM, Matthew wrote: >The snoop in me wants to know how you found this out. The nitpicker in me >wants to know how in the hell they expect to pull this off convincingly, >although it actually makes a limited amount of sense to me. The little kid >in me says, "Hey, cool!" A couple months ago I read a long story about the next two movies in the sequel. It actually wasn't clear if the plot I mentioned is in the next movie, or the one after that. Unfortuantely I don't remember where I read it. They have an interview with some of the actors and either the direcctor or producer... but that's all I remember.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Dorothy Marie Koveal on 12/27/2000; 7:18 PM hey chie! cub sonciously. did you forget hobbs' other idea? The Big Bang Theory? "It doesn't work completely out for god's perfect universe to have come out of such disorder because all things go to a higher entropy." well, if all that disorder and energy was concentrated in a tight little ball, the explosion allowed to spread out all over the universe, thereby increasing its overall entropy and spreading out/ decreasing its energy. it makes perfect sense. hobbs only agrees with his chemistry gods when it doesn't interfere with religion.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Brian Carnell on 12/27/2000; 9:00 PM Seth wrote: "Actually, they didn't wimp out. You've just hit on the plot of the sequel, which is being released in 2001." If they follow through on including that in the plot of the sequels, I would be most pleased. Unfortunately we're all going to have to wait a bit longer to know for sure as the shooting schedule -- and hence release schedule -- has been pushed back. Movies.Com reports shooting gets underway in March 2001 and it looks like the studio is gearing up for a Christmas 2002 release. Part of the problem is they're apparently still trying to find someone to replace Jet Li who reportedly turned down the $3 million they offered him (which is a pretty lowball figure for two movies). Not to mention they still haven't resigned Marcus Chong ("Tank") who they also gave a lowball offer to.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: ScottN on 12/29/2000; 2:39 AM When you divide by a-b you are dividing by zero, and anything can happen. Seth wrote: Obviously, it doesn't mean that the universe has an "edge". Rather, it implies to me that the universe is like a big expanding balloon, and our travels through it are on the surface of the balloon. Seth, you have it exactly right. The galaxies appear to rush away from each other because the metric of space is expanding. There is no center. The analogy to a balloon is perfect. The universe that we can observe with our 4-dimensional (3xspace +1xtime) senses can be considered the hypersurface of a 5-dimensional (4xspace + 1xtime) hypersphere.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: ScottN on 12/29/2000; 2:46 AM That argument is bogus. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy overall increases. A local decrease in entropy is quite acceptable, as long as it is accompanied by a corresponding increase elsewhere. Quite lucky for us, or else we wouldn't be here reading/writing this. Also, as Dot pointed out, the Big Bang actually increased entropy. All the proto-energy was concentrated in the singularity, and the Big Bang allowed it to spread out, thereby increasing entrropy. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics: 1. You can't win. 2. You can't break even. 3. You can't even quit the game.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Seth Dillingham on 12/29/2000; 10:17 AM On Friday, December 29, 2000 at 1:55 AM, ScottN wrote: >Seth, you have it exactly right. The galaxies appear to rush away from >each other because the metric of space is expanding. There is no center. >The analogy to a balloon is perfect. The universe that we can observe >with our 4-dimensional (3xspace +1xtime) senses can be considered the >hypersurface of a 5-dimensional (4xspace + 1xtime) hypersphere. Wow, that means I even had the "dimensional downshift" right. I should have been a physicist, I missed my calling. ;-)
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 12/29/2000; 2:50 PM Well, remember, this is the same guy who thinks that the Bible predicts the strong and weak nuclear forces.
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/30/2000; 5:36 PM 1) I feel flamed 2) No big bang! Hobbs is right. But it isnt right for you to tell me what he is thinking since you dont really know, do you? now then, no evolution. Im not in the mood to debate and i feel that i might be the only one 3) I had thought that maybe he was in the matrix once again when he got out once i saw it. Recall the x-files episode where they think (scully and mulder) they have escaped the carniverous and hallucinogenic fungi 4) i was not using decarte in relation to the existance of god. if you wish, I will also quote another french philosopher later on once i find the exact words... where is it... 5) im sticking to my guns 6) the matrix is only a sub point. i was simply showing the flaws in out philosophy... of course if you do not eat you will starve... but why? because your "body" will lack nutrition. what is telling the body that? again it comes to the mind/body. 7) personally i do believe that the word we live in is real. But. I was only pointing this out to show again that we have such a weak hold on "existance"
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 12/30/2000; 6:03 PM it isnt right for you to tell me what he is thinking since you dont really know, do you? Actually, he told us that about the strong and weak nuclear forces in class one day. So, yes, I do really know, and so does everyone else that was there that day.
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Dorothy Marie Koveal on 12/30/2000; 10:37 PM um, chie. he told us in class what he was thinking, so yes, i do know. and i'm not telling you directly, just posting. you're not the only that reads these. you were probably sleeping in his class that day...
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/31/2000; 1:05 AM NOT THAT NOT THAT im talking about why he believes it. not only because it doesnt go with the religion but the science my fine feathered friend, the science now then who shal i toretur
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 12/31/2000; 1:09 AM sleeping in clas eh... *sneses the jealousy* ;) no actually when he talks about evolution and such i dont sleep its only when kristen begins the "I have a question." sequence that i consider it high time to get some shut eye
Re: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/3/2001; 9:24 PM Told you I'd getcha that quote... :) Je pense,donc j'existe; il aurait du dire plus exactement; Je sens, donc j'existe; il aurait ou dire simplement; j'ai froid, j'ai chaud, j'ai faim, j'ai soif... donc j'existe. -- Destutt de Tracy, Elements I think, therefore I exist. A more exact statement would be: I feel, therefore I exist. More simply, I am cold, I am hot, I am hungry, I am thristy... thus I exist.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Brian Carnell on 1/3/2001; 10:34 PM >Je pense,donc j'existe; il aurait du dire plus exactement; Je sens, donc >j'existe; il aurait ou dire simplement; j'ai froid, j'ai chaud, j'ai faim, >j'ai soif... donc j'existe. -- Destutt de Tracy, Elements > >I think, therefore I exist. A more exact statement would be: I feel, >therefore I exist. More simply, I am cold, I am hot, I am hungry, I am >thristy... thus I exist. This probably won't matter to anyone else, but it is important to note that de Tracy uses "I think therefore I exist" in a very different way than Descartes originally formulated his famous claim, since de Tracy was a sensationalist who believed that human thought was simply another form of sensation. For de Tracy it's enough to simply say "I see orange, therefore I exist," whereas Descartes clearly means that the fact that there is thought separate from the sensations is what proves we exist -- if we are mere sensation machines then there is no way to prove we exist since it is trivial to demonstrate that sensory perceptions are almost always grossly in error. If sensationalism is correct, "I think therefore I am" is not obviously true. de Tracy, btw, coined the term "ideology" and was a correspondent of Thomas Jefferson's.
RE: Nothing *well not exactly* By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/4/2001; 12:48 AM thank you much for the insight... yeh i found that and translated it when i was writing a paper on Jefferson. Hum. Maybe I should submit that and my pearl harbor one too... dum dum dum what a connundrum
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|