The Necessity of Nothingness

[Beany]

You know, I LIKE reality. I'm happy in it, happy to be here now, happy about my past because it brought me to this every-changing moment of grace & beauty. I guess I'm sort of done with philosophizing, done with searching for answers, and done with religious/spiritual philosophies arrived at by others. These days, I try to live my own spiritual/higher truths outside of a body of knowledge, content with letting Spirit/Divinity reveal itself. I'm even questioning the concept of Spirit; I'm beginning to think there is no divinity, but in fact, everyone and every thing around me just simply is, I'm part of that, it's part of me, and while it may have qualities of the divine, it isn't necessarily sacred in, as in a religious context, but sacred in a sense that it supports all life.

Is it possible that we we have come to use religious/spiritual terms to describe the whole? Because the whole is so awesome, so beautiful, so complex, so diverse, so immense, that it is almost impossible to conceive every part of it? Does this make any sort of sense to any one? I'm struggling to find words for what are my changing perceptions. So maybe this DOES go back to I AM, maybe that's all that essentially needs to be said or known, and each of us experiences or explores what that means to us in our lifetimes. So I guess I'm not really done with philosophizing, contrary to what I said previously!

[Mr Right Wing]

1. Yes, but when you are not observing or stop seeking information from a star somewhere in the galaxy, does it not behave in the same manner as when you are observing it? If so, its reality is separate from your mind when the mind is not observing the star.

2. A photon traveling some distance is still a photon, whether as superposition or as a particle. A photon in superposition means its potential exact location withing that superposition cannot be determined.

3. Everything out there is objective

4. Superposition itself is an aspect of Reality.

5. Yes, we are living in a self-creating feedback loop. That is the limiting factor for our conscious awareness. We only experience this incomplete internal loop created by the brain as determined by our senses.

6. I think it is a error to consider the content of the mind to represent the totality of Reality, much less to create Reality. The mind creates its own internal reality, which is separate from the aspects of Reality it is unable to experience.

7. There must be an "outthere" for the mind to create its model.

1. In quantum mechanics it becomes harder to prevent information leakage between two objects as they become bigger. This is because theres more information you have to prevent from leaking from one to the other. If you close your eyes does the star in the night sky cease to exist? That depends if closing your eyes is enough to block all information leakage between it and you. If its isolated from you then yes it ceases to exist becoming a super-position instead.

2. It is only a photon when information is being gained on it.

3. If you take away mind what exists?

4. A super-position is not a particle, it is not material, it has no substance to it at all, it is just potential.

5. The loop is full as without your mind there are no perceptions and no measuring going on to bring into existance the universe from potential.

6. You're dividing reality and perception as if they were two different things.

7. A self-contained feedback loop doesnt require 'an outthere'

[StarMountainKid]

Mr. Right Wing, I believe I understand your position on this subject, but I don't think we will ever agree with each other, or convince each other that one of our opposing views is correct.. If we continue with this discussion, we'll just continue to go round and round. I think we both may have stated our positions as well as we can, so far.

We can continue, if you like, but It will only continue as a presentation of opposing views. I say this in a friendly way. Maybe we both should just move on to some other subject in the future. If so, it's been fun. There are not many of us who take an interest in these kinds of profound subjects, so I think we both (as well as others who comment on these topics) should feel good about ourselves, in that we don't spend all our time in deep thought about the newest reality show on television.

[jugoso]

A special thanks to Mr.Right Wing and StarMountainKid for your time and elequency in addressing the OP . It really helped to deepen my understanding on a number of things. They are certainly interesting concepts to contemplate and who knows.....maybe somehow you are both right!

[lightly]

i think nothingness is self explanatory .

... If i may jump in late... i can't understand how Reality can be in MY, or anyone's, mind alone.

If there are two of us in a room .. and I dropped dead.. did the Reality of the universe change? Did the perceptions, mind, or reality of the other person in the room change? .. nope.

I can get behind the idea of some sort of all inclusive universal cosmic consciousness as being the source of Reality .. if that's the idea ? .. but not separate "minds".

These sorts of questions/arguments always remind me of the tree falling in the forest gag. Things happen , whether we know it or not. And nothing ever happened in nothingness. .. potential is somethingness?

[StarMountainKid]

I'm thinking we may have things backward. We think nothing is the natural condition, if I may put it that way, and something must be somehow created. Perhaps something, existence, is the natural state, and nothing is what would need to be somehow created.

This idea would be very restful to our minds, as we wouldn't have to furrow our brows trying to figure out how existence could have come into being. After all, something is easy to comprehend, while nothing is I think impossible to comprehend. Especially difficult to comprehend is something being produced by nothing.

If this is the case, "nothing" is an impossible condition. Existence is everywhere, infinite in substance and infinite in duration. It is the natural state of affairs, a natural imperative.

This may sound daft or frivolous, but why couldn't this be true? Nothing is an absence. If you are absent in school, you are not there. Being not there is less than nothing, in a way, because there is nothing to be not there. My coffee cup is on the left side of the table, it is not in the middle of the table. It not being in the middle of the table is not nothing-coffee-cup there, it is an absence of not-coffee-cup, an absence of nothing.

So, by this reasoning, nothing can not "exist". Only existence, something, can exist. My coffee cup that is not in the middle of the table cannot not exist, even as nothing. Therefore, let's cross out "nothing" and forget about it. What a relief!

[Professor T]

LOL.. Dang Coffee!!

I think you've almost hit the nail on the head.

IMO nothing is unlimited potential, a table covered in coffees!

I dont think nothing is an absence, for an absence creates potential.

nothing therefore becomes essential to everything because it creates potential.

If the universe was just full of dense matter, everywhere, there would be little potential for us to exist, let alone a table top to place our coffee left , right or center..

[Mr Right Wing]

I'm thinking we may have things backward. We think nothing is the natural condition, if I may put it that way, and something must be somehow created. Perhaps something, existence, is the natural state, and nothing is what would need to be somehow created.

This idea would be very restful to our minds, as we wouldn't have to furrow our brows trying to figure out how existence could have come into being. After all, something is easy to comprehend, while nothing is I think impossible to comprehend. Especially difficult to comprehend is something being produced by nothing.

If this is the case, "nothing" is an impossible condition. Existence is everywhere, infinite in substance and infinite in duration. It is the natural state of affairs, a natural imperative.

This may sound daft or frivolous, but why couldn't this be true? Nothing is an absence. If you are absent in school, you are not there. Being not there is less than nothing, in a way, because there is nothing to be not there. My coffee cup is on the left side of the table, it is not in the middle of the table. It not being in the middle of the table is not nothing-coffee-cup there, it is an absence of not-coffee-cup, an absence of nothing.

So, by this reasoning, nothing can not "exist". Only existence, something, can exist. My coffee cup that is not in the middle of the table cannot not exist, even as nothing. Therefore, let's cross out "nothing" and forget about it. What a relief!

While nothing cannot exist the potential for all things can. Image a block of marble as the potential. We chip away at it to remove marble leaving behind one statue from a selection of millions. Well the potential is like than, in fact its just like the multiverse.

The multiverse isnt a series of universes in co-existance with each other it. This is because it isnt material but potential. It isnt atoms or energy but a super-position. Better called potential.

The Super-position is a probability formula and you cant gain information on a probability without collapsing it. You look then you gain information or you hear then you gain information. This collapses the super-position (chipping marble off the block) leaving behind an outcome (statue or universe).

What do you see when you look out of your eyes? An engineer has different perceptions than a casino assistant. They see a different reality out of their eyes. Where the engineer see's understanding when looking at something the casino assistant may not see anything at all. The statue from the potential is different for them. Reality is not the same for all of us it is plastic and tailored to the individual.

[StarMountainKid]

If the universe was just full of dense matter, everywhere, there would be little potential for us to exist, let alone a table top to place our coffee left , right or center.

I didn't mean dense matter, I meant matter and energy as exists as our universe.

nothing therefore becomes essential to everything because it creates potential.

Nothing creates potential, or nothing is potential, potential for something. If this were so, this nothing must have some structure. If our universe is the result of nothing's potential, why is our universe arranged in a coherent way? What determines the structure of the resultant manifestation of this potential?

If nothing is "I Am Not", explain the steps nothing must take to create "I Am"

While nothing cannot exist the potential for all things can.

The multiverse isnt a series of universes in co-existance with each other it. This is because it isnt material but potential. It isnt atoms or energy but a super-position. Better called potential.

What is the origin of this quantum superposition state, this potential?

Edited September 5, 2012 by StarMountainKid

[Professor T]

I didn't mean dense matter, I meant matter and energy as exists as our universe.

Nothing creates potential, or nothing is potential, potential for something. If this were so, this nothing must have some structure. If our universe is the result of nothing's potential, why is our universe arranged in a coherent way? What determines the structure of the resultant manifestation of this potential?

If nothing is "I Am Not", explain the steps nothing must take to create "I Am"

I know you didn't mean dense matter. You are right on that first point.

Nothing creates unlimited potential. IMO that underlying structure @ a quantumn level would be something like the current search for the Higg's Boson. When you consider that all matter is 99.999999 so-called empty space, the most likely underlying stucture of all Matter is (so far) 0.0000001% of the smallest partical known to man. It is such a miniscule thing, but something that changes it's own stucture & behavior depending on the scientist or observer measuring it, which in it's self is a good argument that the underlying stucture of all matter is consiousness, for how else can one explain how these particals behave at the bequest of observers?

IMO, Nothing is unlimited potential, or the I Am not as stated in the OP. The I Am is just a product of this unlimited potential.

I don't think I can explain the steps needed to create the I Am from I Am not.

I think of it like a cycle, Nothing can not exist because it's true definition is Unlimited potential, And when portions or pieces of this potential are used or depleated they return to the source which is nothing. It's a cyclical dizzying spiral of something & nothing. Birth & Death are just crude exchanges in potential that no one will ever agree on. The only that everyone can agree on is that we're experiencing it, that consiousness is a fundimental.

Put it this way... How can one measure the mass of a thought?

one cant.. It is nothing.. But one cannot deny that thoughts have limitless potential.

[StarMountainKid]

It is such a miniscule thing, but something that changes it's own stucture & behavior depending on the scientist or observer measuring it, which in it's self is a good argument that the underlying stucture of all matter is consiousness, for how else can one explain how these particals behave at the bequest of observers?

Very well said, IMO. I think your statement could be flipped. Perhaps consciousness behaves at the bequest of these particles. When we measure a system at the quantum level, is the result not determined by the probabilities inherent in that system? When a particle in superposition "chooses" which probability becomes a "real" particle, we are just along for the ride, so to speak.

So in this sense, although by our measurement we make the particle become "real", the superposition state is in charge of its own probabilistic outcome. This may be nitpicking, but there is always elements of uncertainty inherent in QM, which we are helpless to predict or know beforehand.

Looking at it this way, I think one could say the probabilistic nature of reality determines what we are conscious of.

The nature of QM and Relativity are counter-intuitive. For consciousness to determine reality, would not reality be deterministic and obey the logic and intuition of human rational thought?

I think the universe is "out there", and although we can manipulate our environment to some extent, our consciousness is an entity that is mainly a spectator. After all, the universe came first, and we must submit to and obey its nature, it does not obey us.

Put it this way... How can one measure the mass of a thought?

one cant.. It is nothing.. But one cannot deny that thoughts have limitless potential.

I would not contend that a thought is not nothing. A thought is an electro-chemical pattern in the brain.

[Professor T]

Hmmmmm, Now that's a possibility I havn't thought of.... Thanks...

I think I'll look into this proposition a bit more.

In discovering that quantumn particals behave "consciously" the Observer becomes part of the experiment.. I is stumped now.

Oh, and by the Measurement of thought I meant that a "A thought is a Thing", disregarding any chemical or Electical processes that can be measured..

[StarMountainKid]

Oh, and by the Measurement of thought I meant that a "A thought is a Thing", disregarding any chemical or Electical processes that can be measured.

Yes, that's a good point.