RetardedPhysics
Something is sometimes nothing, relative to some other something. Nothing is sometimes something, relative to some other nothing. Without this, there would be nothing: neither nothing, nor something. Nothing and something are equivalent. Nothing and something are subject to a relativity -- one that encompasses Einstein's relativity in the same way that Einstein's relativity encompasses (and revises) Newton's relativity. To put it another way, information is not always information. A lack of information can be informative, from a certain point of view. What is a source of information from one point of view might not be from another. The important thing is that, wherever you are, some things manifest themselves to you, and they comprise your universe. No matter that those things that manifest themselves have as much right to call themselves nothing as any nothing out there; your universe need only, and can only, be real for you.
-OutRadulous
Nothing is sort of like the empty set.
Using set theory we can construct a general purpose logical system based on the empty set, {}. We can, for example, construct the integers 0, 1, 2, 3 as {}, {{}} {{},{}}, {{},{},{}}, and set operations become arithmetic operations. We can map integers to letters, words, or whatever. Adding an order of evaluation (time) to the logical operations of set theory you can do general purpose computing. Any logical structure in any language, such as the universe, can be manifest.
-JimScarver
Using the empty set instead of integers is just playing with symbols. Aren't you confusing semantics with physics if you venture to say that the existence of an alternate and equivalent mathematical language explains the relativity between somethingness and nothingness in nature? If empty set constructs are equivalent to integer math, then both languages ought to reveal the same notions about the underlying reality, no?
-OutRadulous Now I'm going to make ItFromShit
LorraineLee asks: "What advantage does your set theoretic construction of positive integers have over Peano's postulates?"
They are equivalent. You could write a very similar set of postulates for the empty set sequence, if you were bored enough. OutRadulous
Nothing is nothing, but the sum of the parts is less then the whole. The participatory universe is less than nothing. It's existance is based on the missing information. Existance is a mistake. -JimScarver
Couldn't you just as easily say that the participatory universe is less than everything? A mistake in a perfect everything would produce a substantively equivalent universe, no? -OutRadulous
Not really. It is not a ZeroSumGame, it is a negative sum game. Everything would be nothing. Nothing is nothing, not everything. The manifest universe is errors in nothingness, less than nothing, lower than shit. We don't notice that it is less than nothing, being less than nothing is different from nothing and is something after all. -JimScarver
the relativity of this conversation is equal to the proportions in which it is enclosed in; this edit size being, H22, W80. to confine ideas to a certain space is to limit it's value in every day life. due to these constrictions, i find it completely impossile to attempt the exploration of physical evidence of any said "relativity" rendering this conversation null. UNLESS, of course, you were to bring up the point of "fractured dilemma" - in which the entire discussion would be tranferred over into a mock-situation of what-if's and who-knows. i am prepared to contradict any person who cannot defend their argument and anyone who feels they have been prematurely outted from their closets.
Dear InCrudiBull,
Perhaps the limitations imposed by finite strings of words should be discussed in a new group, LanguageIsLimited, or something of that order. Since the work I originally put on this page consisted an assertion, then I think responses in the form of retorts would be most productive. To say that such assertions are worthless, given that they are finite strings used in an attempt to describe something infinite, is to defeat the purpose of this group. To invoke this 'fractured dilemma' of which you speak, and which I have never heard of, would simply change the work from an assertion to a hypothetical scenario. Such a transformation wouldn't alter the substance of the discussion; it would only confuse the language and lead to more typing. For me, if not for you, this has already been a successful exploration of relativity, as it has generated thoughtful and worthwhile responses. You say this conversation is null. I say that's what makes it something. -OutRadulous now I will make ManifestDestiny
By changing the conversation from the concept to hypothetical, it allows those who do not grasp the concept itself something to grasp. This can allow for further jumps of intution from the example/hypothetical to and understanding of the concept itself.
Of course, the debate does tends to side-track about the examples and their specifics, rather then the original concept. And this side-tracking action is an excellent way to shoot down the original concept 'by association'.
You haven't made ManifestDestiny yet. We are still waiting. ;-) ---StarPilot
====News flash!
==
Quantum mechanics has reveiled that objects in the universe create eachother in a participatory fashion. Further examination reveils that they do so through deception and secrets. Objects receive and transmit information like repeaters, but they delay and distort the information they mirror. They are in fact manifest only by their inept information propogation. Interations between objects are not witnessed by any other observers creating a secret world not manifest in any larger context. This conspiracy participates in limiting what is manifest.
The deceptiveness of existence is however what is manifest. As the universe contains no perfect information decoder that perceives everthing and propogates it completely and accurately into the future all that exists are the remaining lies and deception.
This turns out to be a boon for information physicists who need not model all that might happen, only how it is propogated.
-JimScarver