Easy logic proves you are of Spirit.

How are you so hung up on nothing being inconceivable? It is very easy to conceive, it is our default assumption. At least the term nothingness implies a limitation of our senses. Like the animation, we might have to ignore fields to see other fields, it sure doesn't make the invisible fields 'nothing'.

Say there's a creature that can only see objects when they move. It can see a flag when the wind blows, or really it sees the ripples of the flag. When the flag is not moving then the flag does not exist to the creature. We know the flag is always there because we have better senses and understanding. But we are in fact creatures that only see movement, energy is movement over time.

Now are you seriously going to tell me that space only exists when it's fluctuating?

 

I don't have a claim on this position but when is space not moving?

 

Never, but he was saying IN THEORY @ zero point there would be "no thing"... which of course is wrong...

because "zero point" is not about thing, it's about zero movement of thing.

 

then let space equal philosophy

 

I don't get it. Y'all are dscussing this as though there was something to refute. The string of free associations listed in the OP's initial post may be something to him.. But I don't see intelligible propostions, let alone logical syllogisms. Were the Emperor's clothes in the fable "something"? Seems to me that's what we have here. "Nothing" is, as Relaxx says, a human concept, and in a sense we could call that something. Mathematicians and logicians can give absolute meaning to "nothing", even though it has no emprircal existence. But to go from that to the idea that "we are of spirit" is a non-sequitor, or rather a string of non-sequitors worthy of St. Anselm. Anselm offered an "ontological" proof of God that started with the premise that God is defined as a pefect being, and then argued that if such a being can be conceved in the mind it must also exist in reality. Otherwise, a more perfect being could be conceived. This argument even had Bertrand Russell going for awhile, but it is really impossible to bridge the gap between human concepts and empirical reality. Hicckey's ontological proof of our spiritual nature suffers from the same problem.

 

a human may observe perfection - such as a perfect circle created of the mind and presented with the language of light .
shall the perfect circle be honored ? if so , how ? Furthermore , the perfect circle cannot be commanded to appear . the
creator has free will . the observer may only receive . there's nothing to be done with it . is the art of it spirit in simplicity ?

 

When you hear the banjos...

...run

 

The ability to engage in abstract thinking is an amazing attribute of the human mind. How could such a capability evolve from the day-to day survival needs of naked apes? How can a concept like the perfect circle or the perfect anything exist in such imperfect minds, and be self-evidently true? Depending one one's definition of "spiritualiity', such concepts can be thought of as emergent "spiritual" (or mental) events that are difficult to account for in strictly material terms. But is that all we mean by being "of spirit"? It is what it is, and "emergent" consciousness might be a natural serendipitous epiphenomenon of brain development.

 

Yes Okiefreak, in regards to the OP, it really is a mundane point-----I was just trying to make a point that to dogmatically conclude that an absolute nothingness is impossible, is also a fallacy because such a conclusion is based on the limits of human comprehension, snd understanding of the known universe. I didn't think it would turn into much of a debate.

Having said that, I will clarify one last thing---because:

I am not sure what you are referring to by zero-point, or zero movement. What I was referring to was the Zero Point Energy Field, which is not "no thing'" nor nothingness. It is a thing---it is in fact the universe. There is movement within this field, and there are places where there is no movement in this field (though in truth everything in the universe is in motion, so for there to be no motion would mean that there is no physical object per se). It is the latent energy of the universe, and since it is everywhere, it implies that the whole universe is energy. Scientists refer to this as the zero-point because it is the ground state of the universe and at any given point the energy is extremely low, and if we did measure it with a positive value, there would be no zero, because, as I said, it is everywhere, and there would be no groud from which everything else exists, or has a gestalt.

There is a theory that inertia----that strange resistance that gives mass its quality of manifestation---is in fact the action of the zero-point energy field. In fact, it goes on to show that everything that is mass, is actually light energy trapped by this inertia, thereby existing as physical mass. The math of this theory works out with surprisingly amazing accuracy. This would suggest that beyond the end of this field nothing whatsoever could exist----there would be no field to give it form, for example.

I am not hung up on the problem of being unable to conceive nothingness as much as I am the dogmatic fallacy I mentioned above, that we can conclude that there can be no absolute nothingness. But everything you mention cannot represent absolute nothingness---because it all resides in this universe-----if the theory I referred to in the paragraphs above is correct, then nothing can exist beyond the boundaries of space-time, which would be beyond the boundaries of the zero point field. But then, it is only a theory----I merely suggest it to point out that we cannot determine if there is anything beyond such boundaries.

As far as conceiving such a point beyond such a boundary---Hegel himself said we cannot, and while I disagree with Hegel on numerous things---this I do agree.

 

"then nothing can exist..."

CAN nothing exist?

If there IS a boundary of space-time with literally NOTHING beyond then that area of NOTHING can not really EXIST.

See the logical paradox here?

We know there is something so therefore the only logical conclusion is there is no such thing as nothing. Even if there was NOTHING somewhere, it is not in our universe and by definition could never have caused or affected our universe in any way whatsoever. NOTHING can NEVER do anything or turn into something or contain anything.... EVER!

 

however humble , spirit needs but one acknowledgement to be meaningful . while perfect is a spiritual attribute , the perfection of a
circle need not be extended to identifying a grandiose god . to be what it is can be honored . spirit is a term of honored intersection
and otherwise it can just be that spirit=intelligence .

how can this reading and writing not be spiritual ? in one consideration , when the intention of either is selfishly manipulative .

 

Sorry---just a little more----I was falling asleep lastnight.

Relaxxx can you picture, or conceive of absolute nothingness?

I am not referring to empty space. I am not referring to an area where there is something there, but we cannot see it. I am talking about a point where absoluterly nothing exists----no light, no dark, no space, no time, no dimesnions, no coffee...

If you can picture that, then you have achieved something that some of the greatest philosophers of all time have struggled to do, yet never succeeded.

Scientists are generally in concensus that there is most likely a limit to our universe. There may be other universes out there, but inevitably, if there are boundaries---at some point, there is no universe, only void.

 

just as space=philosophy
of course , space=as far as you can see

and the Outer-Limits is wobbly

.
.

 

Not only can I conceive of absolute nothingness, I can conceive of absolute NOTHING. I can conceive all kinds of impossible things, or scenarios, or in this case anti-things. But when you say nothing can exist, you are talking nothingness. Any field containing no perceivable fluctuation could be called a void. That is nothingness, actual NOTHING is at least one less field below nothingness and is logically impossible. Sorry if you can't picture it, it's probably like explaining color to a blind man.

 

will the blind person please explain the void ? it's much too scary for a one-eyed yoyo swinging
o'er it on a string that could frazzle and break .

 

Now you've got it. Except that you don't see it. It is a logical paradox, so it is inconceivable. The fact that we know there is something is an existential understanding---i.e. an understanding based on, and therefore limited by, human experience and understanding.

At the boundary of the universe is the void----as far as the eye can see (I'm joking about the eye part)

I agree that nothing can not become something, and I agreed with you that such was a fallacy of the op. But that nothing has no affect on existence is yet another dogmatic conclusion based on our inability to conceive it. Perhaps the nothingness really is necessary for existence to stand out, who knows? But again, whether it relates to existence and being, or does not, is beyond our comprehension.

However----it reminds me of a great joke by a comedian who's name escapes me: I am here to tell you which came first--the chicken or the egg. Clearly the egg came first, because the chicken originates in the egg, so of course it came first. There's your answer. Now some of you will ask, 'But where did the egg come from?' Well---that was another chicken, but it doesn't matter.

Oooops, you don't get it anymore.

Not only is it at least a field below it, if you try to describe it that way, but it is a point where there is no field. Yes, I can picture what you are trying to say----you are saying that at best there is only a spatial area where nothing physical exists---a vacuum---and you therefore label it as a void---but it is something (and in fact, if I may add, it would have a zero-point energy field, meaning that there would be latent energy, and that quantum particles would suddenly appear and disappear at random times----there would also be space and time). You are then saying that absolute nothing which would be nothing at all (as I have said) is impossible.

Yes it makes logical sense and that is as every bit of a rational universe as that of Descartes, or Locke, or Newton, or you name it. But if the universe was all that rational, where would the irrational come in? (Enter the human subconscious.)

Now---to repeat, I am not saying that this theory I have been writing about is true, and in fact the implications of the void I speak of are of my own understanding and the authors of this theory may have a different opinion on it----though it is clearly self-evident I believe------it is a theory, and my whole point is that we cannot conclude that absolute nothingness is impossible.


But here is the funniest thing of all----What have we been arguing about??? Nothing!!!

Now I have done absolutely everything in life, and finally I have argued, for days----about nothing.

There is 'nothing' left for me to do. Now I have done everything, so I guess it is time to end this universe and return it to nothingness... (Oh. I forgot to mention who I truly was in this realm. oh well...)

Ok---all joking aside---the point is about rationalist dogma and the limits of human comprehension. And it is no joke---we really did argue about nothing for days------a Post-Modern koan!

Think of all the girls we can impress! "...yeah, sure, that guy may have single-handedly saved 2 babies from a sinking banana boat in the middle of the shark infested Philippine Sea, but that's nothing---I once spent four days in deep metaphysical agument over nothing. People stayed up all night waiting my response. I mean, so many girls tried to hit on me after that..."

And think of the commercial: "...He once spent 4 days arguing about nothing. He is the most interesting person in the world. 'I don't drink beer often, but when I do, I choose Dos Equis'."

 

That was interesting Mountain Valley Wolf. One question left un-ananswered. Are precise edges better than the fuzzy edges for improved explanations of how eco-systems make habitats evident for the survival of species? Must my logic make the explanation scary for the whole planet than for the particular regions where the species are going extinct? I think the fuzzy edged explanation just last week proved that the Polar vortex is something to contend about for the hope that some castrating cold winter will do the world the justice it needs, and the species of Siberia can move south to look at the friendly people.

 

I admit i havent been following this thread but have to point out that the OP is wrong (in how we wrote his proof).

check out this video which teaches you how to construct a formal proof table that actually makes sense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdJ-RViQook

 

Without nothing, particles wouldn't be able to move and therefore energy wouldn't exist. Nothing is hard for the mind to understand, because it's been conditioned only to see things.