Existence...

Since the universe appears to have a near zero-sum balance of opposites, the necessary something is minuscule in its action but large in extent, it being all that is as the something. So, thus it is the nature of fluctuating quantum waves, better known as quantum fields.

The uncertainty principle states that no object can ever have precise values of position and velocity simultaneously. The total energy of a quantum mechanical object (potential and kinetic) is described by its Hamiltonian which also describes the system as a harmonic oscillator, or wave function, that fluctuates between various energy states (see wave-particle duality).

All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every quantum mechanical system to have a fluctuating zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure regardless of temperature due to its zero-point energy.

— Wiki
 
SciWriter said:
Since the universe appears to have a near zero-sum balance of opposites, the necessary something is minuscule in its action but large in extent, it being all that is as the something. So, thus it is the nature of fluctuating quantum waves, better known as quantum fields.

The uncertainty principle states that no object can ever have precise values of position and velocity simultaneously. The total energy of a quantum mechanical object (potential and kinetic) is described by its Hamiltonian which also describes the system as a harmonic oscillator, or wave function, that fluctuates between various energy states (see wave-particle duality).

All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every quantum mechanical system to have a fluctuating zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure regardless of temperature due to its zero-point energy.

— Wiki
Click to expand...

And?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Obviously a rock as no brain to be dead or in a coma... thus it can be claimed that consciousness is not dependent on cognition. However being conscious of something requires some sort of ability to react ( ie. a brain)
I see that the other thread is providing a lot of complexity that I consider unnecessary so I will stand back and read what happens.
Click to expand...

Please don’t stand back.

K.I.S.S(keep it stupid simple) is a great way to reach logical conclusions.
 
On Nil and Still, Ungenerated and Deathless, Null and Full, One and Zero

‘Nil’ can’t be, else there would be a lack of anything, which there isn’t. ‘It’ has no properties and so ‘it’ cannot even be meant; yet, as a non-existent absolute, ‘it’ serves as a boundary that can never be breached. One can never claim ‘it’, not even as little spacers between entities, nor as a lawless ‘realm’ in which anything goes, such as spontaneous happenings, for that capability would be something, not ‘Null’.

Thus, the basic something has to be so, as a must, without option, and always, as in ever, with no parts, which would have be more fundamental than it, and with no beginning, as unmakeable, since partless and not able to come from ‘Nothing’, and with no end, it being unbreakable, since partless. It might be called One or All, but this doesn’t mean Full.

The basic something can’t be still, as in not moving, or full, as 100% chock full, as completely dense, as in being so solid that there can’t be any movement. Full, or ONE, is yet another non-existent absolute only finding use as a boundary that cannot be breached. If there were stillness or fullness, then not anything would have happened.

There is a lightness of being, then, for the universe is a near zero-sum balance of opposites; so now we have to look in the direction of the slight, the little, and very much close to ‘Nothing’.

There is the quantum fluctuation and the zero-point energy that isn’t zero.

Movement, and thus change, is continual, and this begets all that goes on.
 
SciWriter said:
On Nil and Still, Ungenerated and Deathless, Null and Full, One and Zero

‘Nil’ can’t be, else there would be a lack of anything, which there isn’t. ‘It’ has no properties and so ‘it’ cannot even be meant; yet, as a non-existent absolute, ‘it’ serves as a boundary that can never be breached. One can never claim ‘it’, not even as little spacers between entities, nor as a lawless ‘realm’ in which anything goes, such as spontaneous happenings, for that capability would be something, not ‘Null’.

Thus, the basic something has to be so, as a must, without option, and always, as in ever, with no parts, which would have be more fundamental than it, and with no beginning, as unmakeable, since partless and not able to come from ‘Nothing’, and with no end, it being unbreakable, since partless. It might be called One or All, but this doesn’t mean Full.

The basic something can’t be still, as in not moving, or full, as 100% chock full, as completely dense, as in being so solid that there can’t be any movement. Full, or ONE, is yet another non-existent absolute only finding use as a boundary that cannot be breached. If there were stillness or fullness, then not anything would have happened.

There is a lightness of being, then, for the universe is a near zero-sum balance of opposites; so now we have to look in the direction of the slight, the little, and very much close to ‘Nothing’.

There is the quantum fluctuation and the zero-point energy that isn’t zero.

Movement, and thus change, is continual, and this begets all that goes on.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that something that doesn't exist is fundamental to everything existing.

For example if you draw a line and seek it's precise center or middle point you will not be able to find it no matter how hard you try yet it exists no matter how hard you try to deny it.
So we are left with a paradox that simply states that something non-existent exists yet can never be discovered.

It is not just a question of a mathematical anomaly it is a very real and tangible thing. The exact middle point (zero point) exists, that there is no doubt of, yet it can never be precisely revealed except as a factor of range of error.

This necessary existence only of substance, yet proof of non-substance can be demonstrated by calling a specific time like 10 am or any other time where by the very exact point of time is non existent.
So does the point at precisely 10 am exist or not?

Surely the only answer can be that it both exists as evidenced by realities continuity and it doesn't because it can not. (note: Absolute rest is non-existent)

Perhaps we simply need to accept that a paradox is involved and can never be resolved, probably because to do so would unravel the very perpetual existence that the paradox sustains.

Q: Are we, as rational and logical thinkers, able to accept the reality of an essential paradox?
A: Not likely as to do so defeats one of the effects of the paradox. (re: Acceptance of that which is illogically logical.)

Hypothesis:
The universe is a self sustaining perpetual motion "machine" that can only maintain it's perpetual nature because a paradox is an essential part of it's ability to sustain perpetual motion.

We all know the laws of thermodynamics prohibit perpetual motion devices yet we appear to be existing with in one as par of course.

After researching some of these failed attempts at such flagrant breeches of the laws it becomes apparent that to achieve success the artificial creation or the "tapping into" of a paradox would be required.

Notes:
Buddhism - Middle path - Nirvana - void - non-existence, yet the void is the sum of all things (0=x+(-)x)
 
Last edited:
SciWriter said:
There is a lightness of being, then, for the universe is a near zero-sum balance of opposites; so now we have to look in the direction of the slight, the little, and very much close to ‘Nothing’.
Click to expand...
Just a thought:
In support of your comment on the issue of 0=x+(-)x :
It could be claimed that the value of x can never be absolutely and precisely defined for to do so would render the equation as 0=0+(-)0
 
Quantum Quack said:
Notes:
Buddhism - Middle path - Nirvana - void - non-existence, yet the void is the sum of all things (0=x+(-)x)
Click to expand...

In his new book, ‘Helgoland…’, about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only ‘properties’ in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by ‘emptiness’ in his Buddhism (Rovelli refers to it).

Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness.
 
SciWriter said:
In his new book, ‘Helgoland…’, about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only ‘properties’ in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by ‘emptiness’ in his Buddhism (Rovelli refers to it).

Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reference to Carlo Rovelli (brn 1956 Italy). After a short research I find him to be "my kinda" scientist.....( I had no knowledge of him before now)
I also did some quick research into Nagarjuna who strikes me as a great thinker as well...
both require further reading and study, of course...
It reminded me of a word play I constructed years ago,
"Absolutely everything is utterly dependent on everything being absolutely dependent on everything" which led me to the idea of relative zero and absolute zero (the word zero being used in place of nothingness, nothing, void etc) and I note that Rovelli and I share a similar understanding on relational existence even though of course, he is considerably more erudite than I.

The term or word "Absolute" can pose a problem when entering discourse into nothing-ness and in forum type short-speak it can render productive discussion impossible. Suffice to say that it is only from our existent 4dim perspective that we can conceive of such a beast, that being "absolute" ( non-relative or non-relational) zero, nothing, non-existence. So we are left with, for the purposes of this discussion, relative zero, nothing, non-existence.

This thread proposes that absolute nothing-ness is absolutely non-existent and can not be perceived as relational and if so, I agree, however when one considers that zero is in a state of paradox 0=x-(-)x, that is to say that our relative zero is made up of an equilibrium of substance and therefor possesses energistic potential is both everything (existent) and nothing ( non-existent ) simultaneously one can contend with the notion that something can come from nothing. ( if one can upset the state of equilibrium x-(-)x and produce an outcome of substance. aka Quantum Foam, Zero Point energy etc) and possibly understand that the universe may very well have it's foundation by way of a paradox.

Contention:
The energistic potential of vacuum-ous space is only present when the equilibrium is disturbed and not before or after so therefore relative nothing-ness exists until disturbed...

I do hope I am making sense to you but perhaps I am not up to to the challenge.
 
Last edited:
New philosophy, ideas, are not welcome here. You can catch the continuation of this discussion over at ilovephilosophy.com, under the same title, in the philosophy forum.

I invite anyone to counter my logic. If you cannot understand my logic, ask one pertinent question regarding your first sign of being lost.

Enjoy the tomb of your philosophy section here. The dust has resettled.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Contention:
The energistic potential of vacuum-ous space is only present when the equilibrium is disturbed and not before or after so therefore relative nothing-ness exists until disturbed...
Click to expand...
Kind of as being in a sub-time as noise when not anything goes on to persist.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Thank you for the reference to Carlo Rovelli (brn 1956 Italy). After a short research I find him to be "my kinda" scientist.....( I had no knowledge of him before now)
Click to expand...
Summary of part of his book as I understand it:
No Reason to Existence?
(Outline)

Quantum fields form and exhaust reality,
As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!
Reality maintains itself in place
As the net of objects interacting.

Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;
External entities aren’t required
To hold the universe; God’s not needed,
Nor any background; there is no Outside.

Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.
GR’s relational nature extends
To Time as well—the ‘flow’ of time is not
An ultimate aspect of reality.

All is Relational: no entity
Exists independently of anything;
There are no intrinsic properties,
Just features in relation to what’s else.

Interactions and events (not things) are
Quantum entangled with such others else;
Impermanence pertains all the way through—
What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.

There are no fundamental substances,
No permanences, no bird’s-eye view
Of All, no Foundation to Everything,
Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.

The fields are not from anything—causeless!
Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless
‘Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.
There is no reason, then, to existence.

Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!
This realization of Impermanence,
No Absolutes, and Emptiness,
Is Nirvana, though coincidently.

(But, are quantum fields relational rather than fundamental?)
 
Hi-D said:
I invite anyone to counter my logic. If you cannot understand my logic, ask one pertinent question regarding your first sign of being lost.
Click to expand...
To counter something there needs to be something to counter.
Assertions are not logic.
You have not set out any logic (or if you think you have, please point it out, or better yet, lay it out again).
Enjoy the tomb of your philosophy section here. The dust has resettled.
Click to expand...
Farting in the philosophy section and seeing the dust move doesn't mean you have offered anything of worth.

Maybe come back when you have a more coherent position and supporting arguments to present.
 
SciWriter said:
Summary of part of his book as I understand it:
No Reason to Existence?
(Outline)

Quantum fields form and exhaust reality,
As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!
Reality maintains itself in place
As the net of objects interacting.

Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;
External entities aren’t required
To hold the universe; God’s not needed,
Nor any background; there is no Outside.

Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.
GR’s relational nature extends
To Time as well—the ‘flow’ of time is not
An ultimate aspect of reality.

All is Relational: no entity
Exists independently of anything;
There are no intrinsic properties,
Just features in relation to what’s else.

Interactions and events (not things) are
Quantum entangled with such others else;
Impermanence pertains all the way through—
What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.

There are no fundamental substances,
No permanences, no bird’s-eye view
Of All, no Foundation to Everything,
Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.

The fields are not from anything—causeless!
Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless
‘Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.
There is no reason, then, to existence.

Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!
This realization of Impermanence,
No Absolutes, and Emptiness,
Is Nirvana, though coincidently.

(But, are quantum fields relational rather than fundamental?)
Click to expand...
A form of Aether theory?
How do the quantum fields impact on the speed of lights constancy?
 
Hi-D said:
The primary logic is that creation itself can't create itself. Hence, it is eternal, always existed, will always exist. I call it the Singularity to highlight that one time only, for all time, "fact." There are no other existences, but all that is...
Click to expand...
Creation stems from creation so it in fact can create itself. All that is is an illusion to all that can be. All that was is just a reminder of how far we have come to accept today’s reality.

what have you eaten
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top