Easy logic proves you are of Spirit.

I agree with the only caveat----what we do not know is if there is a point where the universe ends, and even if there are multiple universes, whether there is a point where these too end. Where does the zero point energy field end? Based on a theory that I have expounded upon numerous times---if the zero-point energy field serves as the actual inertia through which mass is formed, then anything that would try to move outside of the zero-point energy field would disintegrate into random photons at the border of the zero-point energy field, dissipating into the universe. In other words it would be impossible to leave the universe---but outside the universe would be nothingness.

The fact that the term, 'to be nothing,' is an oxymoron simply points to how inconceivable nothingness is to our limited human understanding of the universe.

 

I disagree, empty space is something, but that which is contained in empty space is nothing.
Mathematicaly, the empty set is something, the contents of the empty set are nothing.

 

Also----I will add that in the video you provided, which I just now watched, when they talk about clearing a volume of space to create a true quantum vacuum, that it requires a great amount of energy because it is still within the zero-point energy field, i.e. it is still within the universe. The zero-point energy field is where all this random quantum fluctuation takes place. It would have to be cleared to create such a true vacuum because it represents the ground energy state of the whole universe.

But the problem still remains---what about outside of the universe? In such a point of nothingness, there would be nothing to clear because there is no ground energy state----again it would be impossible for us to enter such a place (unless we had a way of maintaining the fundamental inertia of mass outside the universe, but even then, it becomes an issue of taking a piece of the universe outside of the universe... It seems we could never physically enter such a void).

 

MikeE, while what you are referring to is correct mathematically, what relaxxx is referring to is the fact that when we create what we refer to as a complete vacuum---a nothingness where we believe that we mathematically have nothing---science has discovered that there is a random fluctuation of quantum particles that seemingly appear from nothingness and disappear back into it. As it turns out even in what we deem to be a complete vacuum there is still a ground state of energy---a latent energy that exists----this is, in fact, the universe.

 

Should ever you discover empty space it's for the best to keep it a secret . It's too
stupidly human to throw garbage in there .

 

Truth is not opinion. Truth is not perspective. You are describing perspective, which indeed does determine entirely our own, more personal "truths" - it is, after all, how we see the world that determines what we believe and how we interact with it. Your own mind is the most powerful determining factor in how you experience.... well, everything, really. Belief is not the absolute truth, nor information, however, and belief is DEFINITELY not logic. Logic is the pursuit of truth from a non-subjective viewpoint. Humans, however, are extremely subjective, which is both a blessing and curse. Belief is common; logic is rare. Those who invent their own vision of "truth" are not free, rather they are devoted slaves to their own perspective. The wider the perspective someone has, the freer they are. So yes, is there a god is an authority question - whether or not you want to enslave yourself to your own belief in exchange for comfort in the face of fear of your lack of answers, and of your own mortality.

 

I have stated that perception is not knowledge. It is a fact that the only truth we will ever know is the one we accept regardless the degree of objectivity that may be involved because our mind is a kingdom we alone rule. To be objective is to identify an object. To identify an object the question may be asked what is it or what is it for. Knowledge is being shared or shared being and we become familiar over time or by virtue of experience. What is not true is false by definition and therefor does not exist. What we experience as truth or ignorance generally could be more aptly described as varying degrees of resistance.

 

You have implied, however, that perception is personal knowledge, which is false, as this can be construed as belief.

Is your mind ruled solely by you? No, of course not. Outside influences can affect it, just as can the subconscious and your past, in ways that your conscious mind cannot control. You cannot entirely control your perception; you're only human, after all. As humans, we don't even have control of our own minds... I would tend to think that knowledge is a tool to give us more reign, whereas belief takes that freedom away.

You state clearly here that knowledge comes about over time by virtue of experience... however, have we not agreed that that experience is dependent heavily upon perception? Therefore, knowledge is easily twisted and used to support belief rather than logic.

What a black and white way to look at the universe... what is not true must be definition be false. How... simplistic. How unimaginative, and constrictive, of you. So you're at the same time forcing your own belief upon me, I assume? The only truth we ever know, as you state, is not truth at all. It is our reality. It is true for the individual. From a non-subjective viewpoint, however, it is not true. That does not make it false, however - you can attest to that, since it is your everything. It simply isn't true.

I respect your ability to be good at contradicting yourself and making it sound reasonable.

 

razor that

 

If you perceive that i imply that perception is personal knowledge then let me offer an additional sampling. Perception is not knowledge at all. I didn't say clearly or otherwise that knowledge comes about over time or by virtue of experience, I said we become familiar. Knowledge I define as shared being and also being shared or ongoing.

I respect that reading comprehension is compromised by prevailing associations.

 

No need it is apparent in the word assumption.

 

Nothingness still must be represented as something, 0 is still a quantity ...it still requires a symbol to represent which means it requires information to represent which is something. Lack of a symbol or representation is undefined and could be anything when u take a closer peak.

In programming the value of a variable can be set to be NULL but is really a byte or word set to all 0's such as 0x00000000 but still has defined location in memory. The NULL value is still pushed onto the stack, so it must be something right, how can you manipulate, read or do anything with 'nothing' ... You couldn't!

A NULL pointer is one that is treated as if it points at nothing .. But it still has a defined location in memory, whatever arbitrary memory address the system uses for NULL pointers.

A NUL (1 "L") character is a character with all bits set to 0, or '\0' and is not printed to the screen. It's used as as a string terminator sentinel to tell the computer it has reached the end of a string, or else it would attempt to keep reading past the the end and read garbage data, which is closer to nothing actually since it has no usable meaning (but nonetheless will cause unexpected behavior). The bytes after could be other parts of the program, or just garbage data that has not been set to any particular value yet but when when that memory address is read a value will be returned, whatever it happens to be at the time.

You cannot observe nothing, as there is nothing to be observed, you cannot add or subtract anything from nothing to make it something as there is nothing to add or subtract from/to. If a program tries to actually read a memory address that does not exist it's going to result in a segfault and the program crashes which is interesting to think about, I wonder if reality has the same sort of inherent built in protection to prevent something from traveling outside of the realm of possibility? If a particle were to attempt to travel outside of the universe it's location would then be undefined.

 

in Ideal Mind there apparently exists a Nothingness just as there is a Perfect Circle . each can only be appoximated in physical reality .
apparent existence will mean a perfect circle can be observed with the same intelligence one observes a dream - it is with the language
of light rather than , say , the light of day .

i close my eyes , at rest , in stillness .... and I , the observant self , is presented with a circle . as i look upon it i think these things :

1. to my mind's eye the circle is created with pure light
2. i may assume it is perfect
3 . it is a circle of soft light in a field of gentle darkness
4 . oops , there it goes - expanding beyond the mind-scape

in the old days , this was proof of spirit .

spirit being the ideal giver .

and so it is asked , what have you received today ?
.
.

 

That is why absolute nothingness is inconceivable by humans, and that even to try to speak of it, we have to use terms that imply existence. But that does not mean that we can say that absolute nothingness is impossible. Theoretically if there is no zero-point energy field, there can be no energy, no quantum fluctuation, no quanta, and abolutely no thing.

Ace_k I like your Gestaltian description. There has to be a nothing--not absolute nothingness--but a nothing just the same, in order for their to be a thing---the gestalt of existence as it stands out from the ground, or background of nothing. Binary numbers are meaningless without a zero (or are they... 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, 111111, 1111111... ;-) ). I guess in that sense, the statement of 'void, thing' does make sense. It is not so much that the 'thing' emerges from or is created by the void----as that it stands out from the void. This is how Heidegger, Sartre, and other existentialists use nothingness and void.

I always liked Hegel's dialectic---of the thesis, being, the antithesis, non being, and the resulting synthesis, becoming.

 

what pretentious who conceived

absolute nothingness and even showed you how to spell it ? why is so mysterious , i mean
why the function of the void is vital and why not to throw stuff in there unto forgetfulness .

 

I come to reality non-locally nor remotely in a constant state of I am become, not yet to become but becomingly present.

 

I don't know. I see some spaces there.

 

there are certainly easy lies that pretend to be logic. this however, is unrelated to spirit in any sense of the word in any way.

 

The video explains this. They had to make one field invisible so you can see through the animation.