Jump to content
The Corroboree
qualia

what is outside the universe

Recommended Posts

I remember wondering about this when I was seven, asking my Dad what was at the edge of the universe.. a brick wall? Empty space?

I don't think current scientific knowledge about it is much more advanced than my Dad's hemming an hawing.

Still fun to think about though.. check out Stephen Baxter books if you want a some trippy and scientifically informed ideas about the universe to infect your mind (and who wouldn't?) :)

Oh yeah, and 'nothing' cannot exist, because at the moment it begins to exist, it ceases to be nothing... no thing.

Edited by chilli
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the logic used to negate the idea that nothing exists in a sense also applies to the inverse of nothing, everything

to say that everything exists says that what can exist does, but this is also a logical fallacy, thus everything does not exist in the logical sense, for what has yet to be or no longer exists is still part of everything yet does not exist.

to dismiss nothing as not existing is at best foolish

for nothing to exist it must be void,

in itself not existing, it does

if nothing does not exist, then nothing is what it is and exists as nothing

Edited by Gunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For nothing to exist does not mean that there is a thing called nothing that exists somewhere.

Rather, it means that there is somewhere where no thing exists.

Furthermore, I see no reason to think that talking or thinking about this state of nothingness makes it into somethingness.

When we speak of "nothing", we are throwing around the label we use to describe it - "nothing" - That label is something (if only in the minds of those who use it). But the somethingness of the label does not imply that the thing the label describes is also something.

That's how it seems to me anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to dismiss nothing as not existing is at best foolish

Really? Because the next thing you said:

for nothing to exist it must be void,

in itself not existing, it does

if nothing does not exist, then nothing is what it is and exists as nothing

sounded a lot more foolish than the logical assertion that nothing is "no thing" and therefore does not exist.

For nothing to exist does not mean that there is a thing called nothing that exists somewhere.

Rather, it means that there is somewhere where no thing exists.

As soon as you speak of "somewhere" that a "thing" "exists" you are no longer speaking of nothing, you are speaking of a place where something that you erroneously define as "nothing" exists.

Furthermore, I see no reason to think that talking or thinking about this state of nothingness makes it into somethingness.

When we speak of "nothing", we are throwing around the label we use to describe it - "nothing" - That label is something (if only in the minds of those who use it). But the somethingness of the label does not imply that the thing the label describes is also something.

The label and idea of nothingness is itself a thing, and therefore a self-refuting conecpt. You keep referring to nothing as "a thing" and "something" and therefore keep refuting the idea you are trying to explain.

Anyone who truly believed nothingness "existed" would be unable to speak about it, and then this discussion would not exist.

Edited by chilli
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep referring to nothing as "a thing" and "something" and therefore keep refuting the idea you are trying to explain.

I did not do this. I referred to nothing as somewhere where no thing exists. Not "a thing", but the absence of all things. I don't see why there couldn't be an area of space that contains no thing. Nor do I see any reason to think that it is problematic for that area of space to have dimensions - it could be exactly 100 x 100 x 100 km. It is inside this area that no thing is contained, and talking about this area is not incompatible with nothing being within it.

That is, unless I'm mistaken in some way?

Edited by Sir Jeans
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For nothing to exist does not mean that there is a thing called nothing that exists somewhere.

Rather, it means that there is somewhere where no thing exists.

Furthermore, I see no reason to think that talking or thinking about this state of nothingness makes it into somethingness.

When we speak of "nothing", we are throwing around the label we use to describe it - "nothing" - That label is something (if only in the minds of those who use it). But the somethingness of the label does not imply that the thing the label describes is also something.

Said it better than I could have, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not do this. I referred to nothing as somewhere where no thing exists. Not "a thing", but the absence of all things. I don't see why there couldn't be an area of space that contains no thing. Nor do I see any reason to think that it is problematic for that area of space to have dimensions - it could be exactly 100 x 100 x 100 km. It is inside this area that no thing is contained, and talking about this area is not incompatible with nothing being within it.

That is, unless I'm mistaken in some way?

Sorry, I misread part of your post.

You did refer to nothing as "existing" which is self refuting. To the best of my knowledge even a vacuum contains something in the form of quantum fluctuations or whatever, so even though we can conceive of such an empty space, I'm not sure if it's actually possible. I think part of the problem comes with the way we naturally assume space to be empty, when really it is full of stuff.

Nothing is by definition the absence of things that exist, and therefore nothingness cannot be said to exist in the same way we speak of things existing.. I still think if you are speaking of a place or a state then that qualifies as a thing, but perhaps saying no thing exists does make more sense.

It's all just philosophical ramblings though.. as a metaphor to help with meditative exercises etc, the idea of nothingness might be useful (or not), but I don't think it relates to anything in reality and I don't think nothing can be said to exist logically.

Edited by chilli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as a vacuum, the idea of quantum fluctuations is just a theory,

the exact same claim can be made about nothing

nothing exists in non-space, it has no location, it has no form, no property whatsoever

if nothing did not exist, it would not be nothing

for it to be nothing it has to exist as nothing

it is non-linear, logic can't refute or prove it

the moment you say it does not exist, you imply that it does

as nothing

logic is garbage for the human mind

Edited by Gunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing exists in non-space, it has no location, it has no form, no property whatsoever

I don't think "nothing" is a thing that can be subject to either existing or not existing. Thus, I do not think it makes sense to speak of its lack of location, form, property etc. These kinds of statements don't seem applicable to "nothing", because "nothing" is not a thing, it or entity that could have or lack anything. As soon as you treat "nothing" like it is a thing, you end up with this sort of paradox:

the moment you say it does not exist, you imply that it does

as nothing

And that's why I agree with this:

I don't think nothing can be said to exist logically.

Because I don't think "nothing" is a thing that could either exist or not exist. It is just a lack of things. And (hypothetically) there can be places where there are no things. So you might say that there is nothing in such a place, but that's just a manner of speaking and means nothing more than that there are no things there. Of course, I have no idea as to whether anything I'm saying is actually consistent with the nature of the universe. I'm just speaking hypothetically.

After having said all that, I think that Chilli has really got it nailed:

It's all just philosophical ramblings though

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is twisted logic. An area of space can contain nothing, and thus it can be said that nothing exists within this space. This statement is saying that there is not a single thing existing within said space, by definition of the word nothing. Nothing = no thing - the lack of things in an area indicates that nothing exists there. It is not a thing, its definition states that it is a lack of things.

it is non-linear, logic can't refute or prove it

Nothing is a creation of our language as a negative definition. As such it can be said to exist in all places where no things exist, without filling those spaces with a thing to negate said nothingness (remember - negative definition). As such, logic has no need to prove it. It exists by its very meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, nothing is a human construct. Just like time. Time doesn't actually exist. It appears to exist because everything is in a constant state of flux, but really there is only ever now. Time is imaginary. So is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, nothing is a human construct. Just like time. Time doesn't actually exist. It appears to exist because everything is in a constant state of flux, but really there is only ever now. Time is imaginary. So is nothing.

If time doesn't exist, then how can I move from one place to the next? If matter doesn't exist, then how could I be at the place I want to move from in the first place?

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If time doesn't exist, then how can I move from one place to the next? If matter doesn't exist, then how could I be at the place I want to move from in the first place?

Peace

time is a model we made up to explain this paradox ie that it seems something was there & now is here... it's a useful model.. but just a model.. as far as logical explaination of this paradox goes i guess it's the best we've got... though as i heard someone say once, we are talking monkeys for dogs sake, why are we so perplexed that we can't make sense of it?

the 'solidity' of matter (which i guess may be interpreted as what makes matter qualify as 'existing')is purely dependent on the perspective you're observing 'it' from... in this case of course we are human & we inhabit a specific location in the fractal continuum that we have inherited from the billions of years of our stream of evolution on this planet which has led to our consciousness in an ape body... at this specific location in the continuum relative to the size of atoms & molecules & being composed of these things ourselves, our perspective on a world partly composed of dense amalgamations of atoms & molecules & our specific human neural structures & neuro-chemical makeups which are the product of our stream of evolution dictates that we percieve these dense amalgamations of of atoms (which are almost entirely empty space) as solid...

it makes a great deal of sense that a predatory ape with an oposable thumb & propensity for constructing objects as a means of survival would evolve to percieve a world of un-utterably profound complexity as 'solid' objects... thats all matter 'is'.. as for what anything 'actually' is, no-one knows what the hell is going on... we have some good guesses but they're all relative to the profound limits of the biology of our consciousness & our cultural programs etc which ultimately means they really have no meaning... science is great & explainations are useful but if people think our explainations of the universe tell us anything more than simply how our own minds interpret & structures incoming sense data then i think the whole point of science as a discipline for knowledge is being missed...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as a vacuum, the idea of quantum fluctuations is just a theory,

the exact same claim can be made about nothing

nothing exists in non-space, it has no location, it has no form, no property whatsoever

if nothing did not exist, it would not be nothing

for it to be nothing it has to exist as nothing

it is non-linear, logic can't refute or prove it

the moment you say it does not exist, you imply that it does

as nothing

logic is garbage for the human mind

If you think logic is garbage that might explain why I find your reasoning with regards to this subject confusing.

To say no thing exists is not that same as saying a thing called nothing somehow exists. eg. I can say nothing exists 'outside' the universe but that doesn't mean there is actually a thing outside the universe called 'nothing,' rather it means there are no things outside the universe, or that the universe is all there is.

Edited by chilli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it possible that both senses are true. ie

nothing exists- ultimately there are no truly distinct 'things' in the universe

but

nothing exists- nothing is a pre abstract but still real feature of the universe

everythingisnothingiseverythingisnothingiseveryARRGHH :wacko:

Edited by bulls on parade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation is similar to a question which I have: where does the universe come from? I always think about this, and noone has ever been able to give be a direct answer. If you a proponent of the 'God' theory, then where did God come from and what did he exist in? If you believe in in the 'Big bang theory' then what did that singular entity(ies) exist in? It blows my mind.

EDIT: Sorry to hijack the original topic.

Edited by TheExplorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of bertrand might come in helpful here: nothing is simply just saying "there does not exist a thing" not "that there exists nothing".

In fact, it is impossible to formulate "nothing exists" or any positive statement about nothing in modern symbolic logic, it all just comes back to you saying "there does not exist some x".

Once you realise this, and it took logic 2000 years to come up with this formulation, makes all the inane comments above look jeuvenile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of bertrand might come in helpful here: nothing is simply just saying "there does not exist a thing" not "that there exists nothing".

In fact, it is impossible to formulate "nothing exists" or any positive statement about nothing in modern symbolic logic, it all just comes back to you saying "there does not exist some x".

Once you realise this, and it took logic 2000 years to come up with this formulation, makes all the inane comments above look jeuvenile.

Actually I said virtually the same thing in my last couple of comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, it is impossible to formulate "nothing exists" or any positive statement about nothing in modern symbolic logic,

i would say nothing is an essential feature of the universe, even though it's ultimately resistant to symbolisation and its core feature is something inadmissable or incompatible with positive meaning, it nevertheless may still exist. to me thinking materially change generates absence in its cycles of growth and death, time is like the great vacuum of nothing slowly eliminating every sameness and identity, time doesn't proceed positively, it proceeds by a never ending negation of the present moment. i would argue nothing is time, and it's ultimately more real than the lame worn out categories of everyday meaning, including symbolic logic

think of a sentence where you would use the word nothing and replace it with time. 'there was nothing to do' -> 'there was time to do' - everyone is doing time, changing. time is a seamless negation of the present, it's essential feature is negative. nothing/time is more real than linguistic categories which require the condition of time's opposite, ie positivity. 'nothing' is more real than the stuff people say are things.

Edited by bulls on parade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread title would be a great single pointed intention/ question

to ask of a powerful allie.

The answers will be outside language, and reason-

this seems as it should be : )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do and attempt to tell us what you learn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

logic is garbage for the human mind

hahaha,....... only if your logic is flawed it's garbage.

for me logic is something that springs up in the mind out of harmonization of the inner being with the outer world. Logic springing up out of unconditional love and understanding is divine in it's nature. Therefore it is not flawed and no garbage. I think that the illusions that we harbor in ourselves is the real garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time is a model we made up to explain this paradox ie that it seems something was there & now is here... it's a useful model.. but just a model.. as far as logical explaination of this paradox goes i guess it's the best we've got... though as i heard someone say once, we are talking monkeys for dogs sake, why are we so perplexed that we can't make sense of it?

the 'solidity' of matter (which i guess may be interpreted as what makes matter qualify as 'existing')is purely dependent on the perspective you're observing 'it' from... in this case of course we are human & we inhabit a specific location in the fractal continuum that we have inherited from the billions of years of our stream of evolution on this planet which has led to our consciousness in an ape body... at this specific location in the continuum relative to the size of atoms & molecules & being composed of these things ourselves, our perspective on a world partly composed of dense amalgamations of atoms & molecules & our specific human neural structures & neuro-chemical makeups which are the product of our stream of evolution dictates that we percieve these dense amalgamations of of atoms (which are almost entirely empty space) as solid...

it makes a great deal of sense that a predatory ape with an oposable thumb & propensity for constructing objects as a means of survival would evolve to percieve a world of un-utterably profound complexity as 'solid' objects... thats all matter 'is'.. as for what anything 'actually' is, no-one knows what the hell is going on... we have some good guesses but they're all relative to the profound limits of the biology of our consciousness & our cultural programs etc which ultimately means they really have no meaning... science is great & explainations are useful but if people think our explainations of the universe tell us anything more than simply how our own minds interpret & structures incoming sense data then i think the whole point of science as a discipline for knowledge is being missed...

Exactly! We have our spiritual self,.. which is that part of us that is "always & everywhere",..... and we have that part of us which is rooted in the physical,... which is subjected to the grind (wear and tear)of our environment....which we measure in time,... explain with science etc.

science did help me to understand spirituality better. It's just another filter to confirm the philosophical/spiritual.

Just the people that dont see the connection between science and the spiritual are missing the point. And there are allot of people that have not been able to connect those dots. Heavy LSD & salvia dose for them... hi hi hi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

outside the universe is a vacuum and 'dimension for expansion' of which matter can enter and create space-time, its empty void, like a blank sheet of paper, endless in continuity waiting to be shaped by matter

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its hard for bacteria living in a toilet to even comprehend out side of that toilet. Let alone other things and even other life.

How does a toilet bacteria even begin to comprehend a blue whale swimming in the ocean?

That the way i look at it.

it's a bit nasty the way that you continually insult incognito.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×