Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

That's exactly the point. If we define something as a thing that physically exists, then if nothing exists apart from something then it must be a thing that does not physically exist.

But no. Nothing does not exist apart from Everything. They are one and the same Reality. The basic problem is that we, via conditioned awareness, see 'Everything' as real, and 'Nothing' as unreal, when the opposite is actually the case. IOW, Everything comes out of Nothing, 'Nothing' being Pure Abstract Consciousness.

So nothing would be boundless, because it doesn't make sense to give geometry to something that doesn't physically exist. But this doesn't hold if something comes out of nothing. If something forms from nothing, nothing would have geometry. It would be the inverse shape of the something. So our definition of nothing doesn't work, and therefore nothing cannot exist apart from something.

No-thing does not exist apart from Something. They are one and the same.

But now, according to Quantum Physics, we find that what we call 'things' are actually potential. The potential for Everything is in Nothing, just as the potential for light is built into the light switch, the wiring, and the bulb. It's already there, and Everything is already potential in Nothingness. As for geometry, that does not come into place until Everything is actualized. When we say
'Everything' we should actually be calling it 'Form'. It is form that comes from the formless. But because Form is interconnected with all other Forms, meaning that no particular form possesses any self-nature of its own,Buddhism, for example, says:

"Form is Emptiness;
Emptiness is Form."

"...the causes and conditions upon which something depends lack inherent existence as well. So, there is not even a form to grasp on to that is distinct from emptiness. And even the notion of emptiness, insofar as it is a definite conception, lacks inherent existence. Thus, in the end, the distinction between somethingness and nothingness collapses, and the mind opens."
(borrowed from another forum)

[/QUOTE]No, the barrel represents something, that is, all things that exist including space,[/QUOTE]

But space is not a thing, as ordinarily defined. 'Thing' is finite and has limits and form and is accessible via the five senses. Space does not. It is accessible only via consciousness. 'all things that exist including space' is the Universe.

and the hole represents nothing.

No. Your analogy is incorrect. A hole must have material surrounding it to be 'hole'; nothing has no such limiting factor.

So a hole in the barrel is a hole in space, or nothing in something.

If nothing is no-thing, it cannot be inside of something. What you have is simply a void. (ie; devoid of the surrounding something).
What do you mean 'a hole in space'? What defines the hole?

Something is still something without nothing,

Give me an example.

but nothing is meaningless without something. Nothing can't even be defined without something.

...and vice versa.

This is relative nothing vs relative something. Then there is Absolute Nothingness, the negation of all negation, for which there is no opposite. It is the collapse of somethingness vs nothingness into The Absolute.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can't define nothing without making it something.

So the absence of something is also a something? Is an absence a something, or just an absence? Is 0 defined by 1?

 

[viole]

So bottom line, space is material? Does this compute?


If it is 'material' how do you distinguish space-time materiality from solids materiality? I think 'material' has no meaning any longer.

edit: Don't we usually think of what is 'material' as being composed of atoms? Is space-time composed of atoms?

Ok, if you do not like "material", let's call it "physical".

I think space-time is purely conceptual.

Do purely conceptual things change their form and shape near a massive object?

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

Ok, if you do not like "material", let's call it "physical".

That still doesn't make space-time and the world of physical objects the same thing. There are characteristics the material world has that space-time does not.

Do purely conceptual things change their form and shape near a massive object?

Something seemingly does, but may not necessarily be 'space-time', which may be a mirage. The current trend amongst some scientists is away from this paradigm:

"Oxford physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose ... proposed that space and time themselves are secondary constructs that emerge out of a deeper level of reality." Andrew Hodges of Oxford says that "This idea of points of spacetime as being primary objects is artificial."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-new-theory-says-yes-todays-most-popular.html

“Space does not have an independent existence.”

“Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind].”

Einstein

http://blog.theuniversesolved.com/2013/03/13/einstein-would-have-loved-programmed-reality/

And doesn't entanglement mean that space is an illusion?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So is it because empty space or "nothingness" cannot be measured that means it cannot be an actual dimension since dimensions are typically measurable?

Actually, it's more because dimensions are what allow for measurements and "space" (whether mathematical or "physical"). Consider a fairly popular (widely misunderstood) topic from theoretical physics and cosmology: the holographic principle. The similarity between the name and familiar holograms is both informative and misleading. Informative, because holograms embed 3-dimensional information in a 2-dimensional space. Misleading, because people tend to think it means everything is a hologram of the sort one can find in the Star Wars trilogy, rather than a mathematical way of dealing with degrees of freedom in (quantum) physics beyond the standard model, in particular the way the bounds on physical information in spacetime regions.

1D is best thought of as the real number line. In 1D, there is "up" and no "down", no "out" nor "in", just perfectly straight left and right. Next consider 2D Euclidean space (Euclidean space is the kind we are familiar with, and is easier to use as an example for this reason and because the differences between e.g., 4D Euclidean space and 4D Minkoskian space are irrelevant here). This is the space that you gained familiarity with (or perhaps were tortured by) in algebra classes working with graph paper. There is an x-axis, and a y-axis. Theses axis are the dimensions of the space, or at least they define them. There is now an up and a down as well as a left and a right, but no "out" and no "in". Next there is 3D Euclidean space, the one we live in (or at least experience). In order to describe e.g., where you are in this space, or a piece of paper is, or anything (even a point) I must specify 3 coordinates. Any point in, on, near, etc., ANYTHING in this 3D space requires that I specify an x, y, & z coordinate. There is NOTHING in this space that can be described as having 4-dimensions, or 2-dimensions, or anything other than 3.

Yet in both 2D and 3D space, the real line (THE 1D space) is still there. The x-axis in 2D space and 3D space is exactly like the real number line, except every point on it has one or two extra coordinates depending upon whether we are in one or two dimensional space.

Dimensions are the axes or number of coordinates to describe whatever exists in any particular space. In 0-dimensional space, nothing exists (not even an infinitesimally small point) except the space itself. In order for even an infinitely small "point" to exist, it must exist within some coordinate system, some "space" whereby it is a "point". A "point" in 2D has two-coordinates, and thus can't be a "point" in 4D or 1D. You can think of dimensions as simply adding axes to the x,y-plane, not adding "spaces" or "realms" or "entities".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can think of dimensions as simply adding axes to the x,y-plane, not adding "spaces" or "realms" or "entities".

I can sort of see what you mean, but I'm used to thinking of space as just being 3D and therefore finding it difficult to imagine the same space with 4D.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I can sort of see what you mean, but I'm used to thinking of space as just being 3D and therefore finding it difficult to imagine the same space with 4D.

You are not alone. The following comes from my favorite math textbook (although an edition earlier than that I use to teach with), and one I learned from myself:
"higher dimensions are no more complicated than

and

; the lists of coordinates just get longer. But it is not obvious how to think about such spaces geometrically. Even the experts understand such objects only by educated analogy to objects in

or

; the authors cannot "visualize

" and we believe that no one really can."

I was told by physics and mathematics instructors that nobody can really conceptualize higher dimensional spaces, but that one can merely get better at this and/or capable of a more accurate picture. I was lucky: most physicists are introduced to the mathematical objects of spaces (especially vectors and points) in 2D and 3D space. They get used to the models, properties, and "entities" of mathematical physics that exist for 2D and 3D spaces. Then they take a course in linear algebra, abstract algebra, functional analysis, introductory quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, or some other course that throws much of what they've learned out the window and requires that they deal primarily with n-dimensional space (where n can be 2, 4, 100, or ten billion). I came to physics from mathematics, so I began learning about things like vectors and points beyond high school algebra and elementary calculus in terms of arbitrary dimensions.
But this doesn't mean I can actually picture what it means to situate objects in 10th dimensional space even though I'm used to working with spaces involving several hundred or thousand dimensions.

 

[viole]

That still doesn't make space-time and the world of physical objects the same thing. There are characteristics the material world has that space-time does not.



Something seemingly does, but may not necessarily be 'space-time', which may be a mirage. The current trend amongst some scientists is away from this paradigm:

"Oxford physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose ... proposed that space and time themselves are secondary constructs that emerge out of a deeper level of reality." Andrew Hodges of Oxford says that "This idea of points of spacetime as being primary objects is artificial."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-new-theory-says-yes-todays-most-popular.html

The problem we face today in physics is that we have two very successful theories explaining things in their range of applicability, but no unique theory that explains both regimes: the very big, gravitation (relativity) and the very small (QM). Those two theories do not even talk to each other, so to speak. One is pretty classical (relativity, Riemannian geometry, etc), while the other relies on much more abstract geometries (QM: Hilbert spaces, infinite dimensions, etc.). We need such a theory because we have no clue what happens when both regimes apply (strong gravity in very small regions, like in a Black Hole). The sum of all this ignorance is what we normally identify with "singularity", which is just an alias for "no idea".

That is the reason there is a plethora of theories trying to go there. In my humble opinion, we are still groping in the dark. I am not even sure that the most promising extra-standard model theory we have (supersymmetry) is true. If I had to wager a beer, I would say it is not. Not to speak of the other theories which lie far beyond our technological capabilities to validate them or falsify them.

Therefore, it is true that either QM or Relativity, or both, are, at least, incomplete.

Having said that, these considerations do not address our initial contention. I am not aware that any scientist defeated relativity because it is impossible for a surface to exist without external space. It is possible, and that is why relativity is still alive and kicking.

So, independently from relativity being the last word, do you agree that it is possible to have a surface (or, more precisely, a manifold) that does not require an external context in order to exist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Runewolf1973]

How does empty space take up space, and how is it still something? and how do you define 'something'?

By empty space I mean the vacuum of space. It is not possible to have lots of space or area surrounding our universe that is devoid of energy or matter? If you were able to travel to the absolute furthest reaches of our universe, hypothetically you would get to a point where there would be lots of region or space, but it would be empty or devoid of "stuff", energy, or matter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By empty space I mean the vacuum of space. It is not possible to have lots of space surrounding our universe that is devoid of energy or matter?

Technically it is possible for our universe to have "expanded" "into" an infinite space. By "technically", I mean we can create mathematical models that, while they do not have any (empirical) evidence for them, are not in conflict with known physics.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Technically it is possible for our universe to have "expanded" "into" an infinite space. By "technically", I mean we can create mathematical models that, while they do not have any (empirical) evidence for them, are not in conflict with known physics.

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks!

 

[Runewolf1973]

Technically it is possible for our universe to have "expanded" "into" an infinite space. By "technically", I mean we can create mathematical models that, while they do not have any (empirical) evidence for them, are not in conflict with known physics.

I have another question maybe you could answer for me. Just prior to the expansion of the Big Bang, would that singularity, ball or mass of energy have given off light in all directions? Or was any light given off already part of that expansion?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Technically it is possible for our universe to have "expanded" "into" an infinite space. By "technically", I mean we can create mathematical models that, while they do not have any (empirical) evidence for them, are not in conflict with known physics.

As I understand it there is the observable universe which is about 90 billion light years in diameter, but we don't know anything about what, if anything, lies beyond?

 

[Runewolf1973]

To say that space is empty implies solids, which it is empty of. To say that it is 'some-thing' makes it finite and divisible as object.

Nothingness is neither space nor solid.

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that it is not "Pure Consciousness".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As I understand it there is the observable universe which is about 90 billion light years in diameter, but we don't know anything about what, if anything, lies beyond?

The standard view is that the entirety of spacetime "exploded" into existence with the big bang, and expanded into no-thing/no-space at no-time. However, it is mathematically possible (and one shouldn't underestimate the importance of mathematical discovery, as it has been responsible for most of the developments of physics since at least the positron) for the big bang to have sort have happened "everywhere". That is, that space was infinite and the big bang was more or less the manner in which "stuff" separated.
But you are correct. In fact, the most common multiverse theory isn't really a multiverse theory but the view that the expansion of the universe places absolute limits on what can be observed as the universe expands, creating "pockets" of disconnected regions of spacetime which are forever causally disconnected and beyond observation. Inflationary theories turn pockets into "bubbles" in which these disconnected regions aren't just beyond observation, but allow for differing physics.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Inflationary theories turn pockets into "bubbles" in which these disconnected regions aren't just beyond observation, but allow for differing physics.

Yes, that was mentioned in a recent TV documentary I watched about multi-verses. Infinite space with an infinite number of "universes", some of which are similar to ours, some of which are completely different. They also discussed the theory of the quantum multi-verse where reality "splits" each time we make a decision. Mind boggling stuff!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They also discussed the theory of the quantum multi-verse where reality "splits" each time we make a decision.

This is the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. It originated with Hugh Everett III's doctoral thesis, in which he tried to solve the measurement problem (basically, the disconnect between the mathematics that makes quantum mechanics work and whatever it is the math describes) by simply taking the math literally. So instead of the "collapse of the wave-function", he proposed that every possible outcome of any quantum observation actually happened. So, in the famous thought-experiment of Schrödinger's cat, wherein a cat is placed in a box with a vial of poison that is released by atomic decay, and therefore the release is triggered by a superpositional state in which the poison is both released and not released and the cat both alive and dead, the MWI holds that the cat IS both alive AND dead, but is alive in one "branch" of the universe and "dead" in another. These "branches" are totally disconnected, and so constitute in some sense infinitely many universes occupying the same "space". The main issue with such interpretations is that, in seeking to rid quantum mechanics of interpretations by just "following the math", they fail to do so, because they can't explain why we should be in the branch of the multiverse that observes the cat as dead rather than alive. In an attempt to explain how particular quantum states occur without invoking probabilities, the MWI still requires probability to explain why the possible outcomes occur in the branches which result from the splitting of the multiverse that they in fact occur in.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Pure Consciousness".

Maybe one day the physicists will find a "Chopra" particle lurking in the dark matter.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The main issue with such interpretations is that, in seeking to rid quantum mechanics of interpretations by just "following the math", they fail to do so, because they can't explain why we should be in the branch of the multiverse that observes the cat as dead rather than alive.

Wouldn't we also be in both branches, different versions of ourselves?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wouldn't we also be in both branches, different versions of ourselves?

The theory is that different versions of ourselves would be, yes. The problem is that the reason a particular version appears in a particular version is unknown. It is thus just as problematic as why a particular outcome of an experiment in quantum mechanics that is possible actually happens. In the MWI, all the outcomes happen (and the reason it is posited they do is to erase the need to interpret the probabilities of quantum mechanics), but how they happen remains entirely probabilistic. That is, given two possible outcomes of some quantum interaction we observe, and given that one outcome is observed by the "we" of branch 1 and another by "we" of branch 2, there is nothing other than probability to explain why the "we" of branch 1 ARE in fact in this branch rather than the "we" observing the outcome in branch 2. So "just following the math" doesn't work: we can't explain the outcomes even then.