The Theory of NoThing

Thinking on this gives rise to the question what caused the Big Bang (Big Split)? If the universe was in a neutral state, what caused it to deviate from that?

reply to post by Ark005


Awareness, perception and or thought. With life there is chaos and on the other end is stability. Positive and negative caused the split. Ha! Just thinking out loud.

Originally posted by Therian
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Yeah but that doesn't actually describe anything. You can call it anything if that how you call nothing. Point of fact no matter what you use to get 0 as your nothing marker. Either way you would need something one side of the equation or the other to start the need for a balance. Be it negative or positive either way you would need One to get the other.

The point is that they happen simultaneously. Not one then another balancing it all out, but both splitting out of their total(0), and never disrupting the balance.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by Therian
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Yeah but that doesn't actually describe anything. You can call it anything if that how you call nothing. Point of fact no matter what you use to get 0 as your nothing marker. Either way you would need something one side of the equation or the other to start the need for a balance. Be it negative or positive either way you would need One to get the other.

The point is that they happen simultaneously. Not one then another balancing it all out, but both splitting out of their total(0), and never disrupting the balance.

I think the point Therian is trying to make is that for Negative and Positive to burst out of anywhere simultaneously as you put it they would have had to exist in the 1st place... equalling 3 states... negaitve, nothing, positive

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


Okay so he is saying there was nothing then Bang there was something... Sounds familiar some how... why not go further then and say have a -2 and a + 2 and so on. Then we would have millions of dark reality's and millions of positive ones. We could call them dimensions.. Oh then after we could be right back at the same theory which doesn't actually do anything but repeat the big bang theory.
Therian

WOWOWL... "I" just love things... that are much... To do about nothing

This is my kind of philosophical thinking... and positively hope I can add nothing... to this highly scholared quantum string of concept of thought... + = ...

Maybe "I" can E= hu in this thread... a personal favorite thought quote of something... from a guy who was classified & commited as "Religion"(for money & control reasons only... Of course )

Jesus(aka?) said/says, " if the flesh came into being because of spirit,
that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body,
that is a marvel of marvels.

Now back to nothing at all ... and the concept of it all... can only be that...
Thought in it self is the apple... In the |quantum reality sandwich|... Adam & Eve took a byte from... as why it was called the "forbidden fruit of knowlege"... knowledge meaning something ... Other wise-owl... would there of still been/be just nothing/naked.

Mr X-ULTRA/1/01/11/D-LIGHT... is helping U-ALL get through to the other side of the D-DARK black hole of nothing ness

reply to post by Mister_Bit

Could it not be that the Universe "grew" from something infinitely small (and I don't mean a bang), in that it still came from something but something so small we are yet to be able to quantify it?

What do you mean by "grow". Dispersing out and increasing in mass are two completely different things. And even that initial 'seed' needed to come from some where. The fact is, all the mass in our Universe HAD TO have come from some where. The only explanation is that it came from nothing. And if something is coming from nothing it needs to be balanced. Consider this post I made a while ago:

Consider that Quantum Mechanics tells us at the most fundamental levels reality is completely abstract and based on exotic concepts which incorporate things like super-position and probability wave functions for physical matter. Also, empty space is actually thriving with "virtual particles". It is believed that they literally borrow energy from nothing or from the future in order to exist momentarily but then disappear again. And this isn't pseudo-science, this is fact - as long as they give the energy back quick enough these virtual particles can thrive in empty space. What if the natural state of reality is 'nothing' and the appearance of 'something' is like a momentary blip in the system, similar to a virtual particle, it's not absolutely "real", it has to stretch the laws of raw reality to create illusions which actually appear to be real. That's why reality is "fuzzy" at the most fundamental levels.

A virtual particle could be like a mini Big Bang. It allows matter to exist momentarily before disappearing again. The Big Bang could perhaps be considered a much more extreme and much more permanent version of a virtual particle. If the Big Bounce theory is correct, our Universe will stretch out to a maximum point, and then collapse back in on it's self. I think this is probably the most likely outcome for our Universe. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Imagine we have a special elastic fabric called the "fabric of nothing". When our piece of fabric is perfectly flat, it is in a neutral state. If we push down on the fabric and create a dent on the bottom, this lump is in a negative state. If we push up from under the fabric and create a mound, the lump is in a positive state. The fabric can only exist when it is in a neutral state on average, meaning is we make a positive bump on the top we also need to make a positive bump on the bottom. The fabric would still be in a neutral state over all. However, if we let go it will collapse (stretch back into a flat position) because it would rather be in it's natural neutral state.

Now that is a very simplistic 2D representation of a much more complex idea. What I am saying is, when you try to 'stretch' nothing into something you to "pull from both sides" with equal but opposite forces. The energy provided in the Big Bang explosion is what does the 'stretching', but the explosion happens not only in positive space but also in a seemingly abstract negative space. The Universe will eventually collapse back in on it's self and both Universes will annihilate each other, because reality wants to be at that neutral state. A virtual particle is this same concept on a much smaller scale. The reason these unexpected bursts of energy happen is simply because the chances of nothing happening in an infinite amount of time is 0, as I stated in the OP.

Originally posted by Therian
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

Okay so he is saying there was nothing then Bang there was something... Sounds familiar some how... why not go further then and say have a -2 and a + 2 and so on. Then we would have millions of dark reality's and millions of positive ones. We could call them dimensions.. Oh then after we could be right back at the same theory which doesn't actually do anything but repeat the big bang theory.

You might want to clarify, I don't think I understand what your saying.

However, it's actually not +1+(-)1=0 it's +*massive number* + *Same Massive number negative* = 0. Because we're talking on a quantum level. Each quantum is a plus 1 or a negative 1, and the universe is built up out of all of them. "Nothingness" often splits into a plus 1 quantum and a minus 1 quantum, and they return to nothingness if they reunite. Meaning that, if the universe totals to 0, the sum of all it's parts equals 0, it is essentially 0, and could have came from 0.

And yes, it does hold potential for the multiple(even maybe infinite) universes idea, but I don't see how that somehow returns it back to not explaining anything.

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
I think the point Therian is trying to make is that for Negative and Positive to burst out of anywhere simultaneously as you put it they would have had to exist in the 1st place... equalling 3 states... negaitve, nothing, positive

But Neutral(nothing) is nothing more than equal parts of the other two states. You can make both out of neutral, or you can reunite them back into nothing.

They're not 3 separate states, but 3 closely tied parts to the same ultimate state of the universe.


~
Wow, that's an easy way to burn up the morning. I'm gonna leave this thread for now. I'll check the progress later. I really recommend that YouTube I posted in the meantime if anyone's interested.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

The point is that they happen simultaneously. Not one then another balancing it all out, but both splitting out of their total(0), and never disrupting the balance.

Exactly, as one increases, the other increases at the same rate. As the normal Universe gets bigger, so does the negative Universe. The total is always 0. That's a crucial point to understand, that the change (or 'stretching' if you read my last post) happens simultaneously. It must be this way to create a constant equilibrium.

Originally posted by CosmicWaterGate
WOWOWL... "I" just love things... that are much... To do about nothing

This is my kind of philosophical thinking... and positively hope I can add nothing... to this highly scholared quantum string of concept of thought...

+

=

...

Maybe "I" can E= hu in this thread... a personal favorite thought quote of something... from a guy who was classified & commited as "Religion"(for money & control reasons only... Of course

)

Jesus(aka?) said/says, " if the flesh came into being because of spirit,
that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body,
that is a marvel of marvels.

Now back to nothing at all

... and the concept of it all... can only be that...
Thought in it self is the apple... In the |quantum reality sandwich|... Adam & Eve took a byte from... as why it was called the "forbidden fruit of knowlege"... knowledge meaning something

... Other wise-owl... would there of still been/be just nothing/naked.

Mr X-ULTRA/1/01/11/D-LIGHT... is helping U-ALL get through to the other side of the D-DARK black hole of nothing ness

edit on 1-11-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Dont forget about the great EVENT on 11/11/11... I pray/think it's something... and not just quantum nothingness again

edit on 1-11-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Something else "I" forgot... The Alex Jones Quantum Zeno "MONEYBOMB" to help defeat the 'who are the globalist' Effect

HAHAHA! You always make me think!!! I love it when you contribute to a thread because I am left pondering even more when you add your two cents in....or nothing at all.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit

 

Could it not be that the Universe "grew" from something infinitely small (and I don't mean a bang), in that it still came from something but something so small we are yet to be able to quantify it?

What do you mean by "grow". Dispersing out and increasing in mass are two completely different things. And even that initial 'seed' needed to come from some where. The fact is, all the mass in our Universe HAD TO have come from some where. The only explanation is that it came from nothing. And if something is coming from nothing it needs to be balanced. Consider this post I made a while ago:

Consider that Quantum Mechanics tells us at the most fundamental levels reality is completely abstract and based on exotic concepts which incorporate things like super-position and probability wave functions for physical matter. Also, empty space is actually thriving with "virtual particles". It is believed that they literally borrow energy from nothing or from the future in order to exist momentarily but then disappear again. And this isn't pseudo-science, this is fact - as long as they give the energy back quick enough these virtual particles can thrive in empty space. What if the natural state of reality is 'nothing' and the appearance of 'something' is like a momentary blip in the system, similar to a virtual particle, it's not absolutely "real", it has to stretch the laws of raw reality to create illusions which actually appear to be real. That's why reality is "fuzzy" at the most fundamental levels.

A virtual particle could be like a mini Big Bang. It allows matter to exist momentarily before disappearing again. The Big Bang could perhaps be considered a much more extreme and much more permanent version of a virtual particle. If the Big Bounce theory is correct, our Universe will stretch out to a maximum point, and then collapse back in on it's self. I think this is probably the most likely outcome for our Universe. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Imagine we have a special elastic fabric called the "fabric of nothing". When our piece of fabric is perfectly flat, it is in a neutral state. If we push down on the fabric and create a dent on the bottom, this lump is in a negative state. If we push up from under the fabric and create a mound, the lump is in a positive state. The fabric can only exist when it is in a neutral state on average, meaning is we make a positive bump on the top we also need to make a positive bump on the bottom. The fabric would still be in a neutral state over all. However, if we let go it will collapse (stretch back into a flat position) because it would rather be in it's natural neutral state.

Now that is a very simplistic 2D representation of a much more complex idea. What I am saying is, when you try to 'stretch' nothing into something you to "pull from both sides" with equal but opposite forces. The energy provided in the Big Bang explosion is what does the 'stretching', but the explosion happens not only in positive space but also in a seemingly abstract negative space. The Universe will eventually collapse back in on it's self and both Universes will annihilate each other, because reality wants to be at that neutral state. A virtual particle is this same concept on a much smaller scale. The reason these unexpected bursts of energy happen is simply because the chances of nothing happening in an infinite amount of time is 0, as I stated in the OP.

edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

That was kind of my point, that in fact it does not come from nothing but comes from something.

You see, no matter much you divide 1, you always have a positive, so if you infintely divide 1 you have still have a positive result.

What I would like to know though, is this "stretching" or "pulling" you refer to, that is a reaction is it not? Or the work of force of somekind, which is something.. correct?
I just don't buy the idea that something appears to create something and disappears just to explain a theory... bit of a stretch in anyone's imagination but as I said earlier, if you write the rules you win.

I find it a lot more possible that, up to now, invisible particles combine to create matter or energy... something from something. What created those brings us to religious beliefs that I want to avoid.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Wow, that's an easy way to burn up the morning. I'm gonna leave this thread for now. I'll check the progress later. I really recommend that YouTube I posted in the meantime if anyone's interested.

I'll check it out soon, when I have a little bit of time. I have enjoyed your contributions to this thread.

From what I understand, the opening post it saying that before the 'big bang' more or less, there was nothing-at that math can help us explain how such could be so.

I do not think the word and definition of nothing can represent that 'monad' of a moment.

Maybe the word 'stillness'? Maybe even 'sleep'?

Look at what the 'moment' held, before 'everything' came into 'being'.

It held, possibility. And not just any possibility...but infinite possibility. All and One, being 'still', at the same moment in 'time'.

Even before 'to and fro' -there was something. There has always and will always be 'something'.

reply to post by Mister_Bit

What I would like to know though, is this "stretching" or "pulling" you refer to, that is a reaction is it not? Or the work of force of somekind, which is something.. correct?
I just don't buy the idea that something appears to create something and disappears just to explain a theory... bit of a stretch in anyone's imagination but as I said earlier, if you write the rules you win.

The 'stretching' in my example is the creation of negative or positive states. The sudden 'explosion' of energy in the normal Big Bang provides the 'work' or 'force', and represents a positive state. So then we must ask where is all that energy is coming from...HOW can it come from nothing? And that is what I have been explaining this whole time. A negative Big Bang also happens in the negative Universe simultaneously and perhaps symmetrically.

But the reason things like the Big Bang happen in the first place it probably much more complex. Take my example of the elastic fabric of nothingness. You might say that if we just left it alone, without touching it, it would always stay in a neutral state. Well that's not really true. Quantum Theory states that if something is possible, it will eventually happen, no matter how unlikely it is. Since our fabric of nothingness is flexible, that means eventually it will spontaneously flex, but it will do it in a way where it always remains in a neutral state, by flexing in the negative and positive directions in equal amounts.

I understand what he is attempting. He is attempting to Quantify something he can't see. The problem is for it to explode would imply a change even in a smallest most minuscule way. For nothing to become something and then repair itself as the center. It is like a boomarang shoot it out there and it comes back. Now nothing equals the boomerang in the hand both times his 0. the displacement in the air caused by the boomarang is the big bang. Equaling the out and then the return trip -1 then the 1 . Okay that explains the big bang but now you need to know where nothing got the power to send out the boomarang in the first place..

You could say it started by small bumps that the average is not really nothing but a whole lot of nothings that don't get along. But then they would be something. But if it was all really nothing then there would be nothing. To imply any force would imply something inside or outside of nothing meaning nothing was not alone. If you say it was a time drop. You can really use it. Any thought of time would incur the wrath of paradox. Something or one had to exist in the nothing to bump it prior to it existing to be able to bump it and down the list which will never work.

Therian

According to the Sunyata ("emptiness") doctrine in Buddhism, the material universe (Maya) is a void, meaning that it has no ultimate substance. According to Lurianic Kabbalah, God created the physical and superphysical worlds by an act of zimzum in which He caused a void to appear in the Ain Soph Aur (Boundless, Limitless Light) through which streamed Kether, the first of the ten Sephiroth that compose each and all levels of reality.

According to the two well-known Theosophists Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, who claimed to exercize a yogic siddhi that enabled them (as it turns out) to experience visual images of subatomic particles over 50 years before physicists conceived of quarks, the basic unit of matter is composed of "holes" or "bubbles" in an invisible plenum or superphysical medium that fills all space. All their observations have now been analyzed and shown in four books and in presentations at international parapsychology conferences to be consistent with facts of nuclear physics, quark and superstring theories. The analysis is presented here. Their high-magnification picture of the E8xE8 heterotic superstring constituent of up and down quarks as composed ultimately of bubbles of "nothing" can be seen here

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


If your nothingness is flexible that implies consistency which implies vibrations. Which will tell you where the big bang started. However by definition nothing is exactly that nothing. No matter how many names or forms you give nothing. Nothing is formless. It has no vibration because it simply doesn't exist. If you are implying that it is neutral then it is something not nothing and had to be created.
Therian

reply to post by Therian

If your nothingness is flexible

'nothing', as I am describing it, is only 'flexible' because it can be represented in finite parts (-1 and 1 for example) which when totaled equal 0. So if nothing can be represented by discrete values, according to quantum mechanics, 'nothing' is going to eventually occupy a state where it isn't perfectly 'flat'; it will be made up of positive and negative states that equal nothing when put together.

reply to post by Mister_Bit


If you think in the terms of a absolute vacuum. The vacuum becomes negative when particles are present.
So the absolute vacuum which would be neutral (neither positive or negative), actually becomes negative. Because of the particles. The particles would always be positive compared to the absolute vacuum.


In our terms a absolute vacuum would be non existent (Nothingness/infinite).

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Mister_Bit

 

If you think in the terms of a absolute vacuum. The vacuum becomes negative when particles are present.
So the absolute vacuum which would be neutral (neither positive or negative), actually becomes negative. Because of the particles.


In our terms a absolute vacuum would be non existent (Nothingness/infinite).

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Well no, a vacuum is a vacuum which is something.

For something to be finite, positive or negative logically they exist.

This brings us really to quantum theory and chaos theory which no-one can really argue with because they are like faith, you either believe or don't.

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Mister_Bit

 

If you think in the terms of a absolute vacuum. The vacuum becomes negative when particles are present.
So the absolute vacuum which would be neutral (neither positive or negative), actually becomes negative. Because of the particles.


In our terms a absolute vacuum would be non existent (Nothingness/infinite).

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Well no, a vacuum is a vacuum which is something.

For something to be finite, positive or negative logically they exist.

This brings us really to quantum theory and chaos theory which no-one can really argue with because they are like faith, you either believe or don't.

Of course it is something, but to us it is nothingness/infinite, because we can never prove its existence.

The absolute vacuum is the true Zero (0). We will never discover.