Unmoving, Coldness

[Abstract]

Coldness is more often measured by the speed of atoms/particles moving about or at least there vibrations... So what if something was true absolute zero? i mean what if something was not moving at all, i don't just mean the atoms weren't moving, but the electrons weren't moving and nothing that made up anything was moving...without movement would the thing be non-existent?

[James S Saint]

Coldness is more often measured by the speed of atoms/particles moving about or at least there vibrations... So what if something was true absolute zero? i mean what if something was not moving at all, i don't just mean the atoms weren't moving, but the electrons weren't moving and nothing that made up anything was moving...without movement would the thing be non-existent?

The physical is made ONLY of the changing, and thus the moving.
Anything truly having absolutely no changing occurring, cannot ever be physical.

[Khrone]

I think (and this could definitely be wrong) That once electrons would stop moving, without centrifugal force, they would move inward towards the nucleus and eventually touch it.
It would definitely exist, the question is what happens when protons and electrons touch.
My guess is that they stick together and form a quasi-neutron type thing. So you'd end up with huge piles of neutral-ness which would be unlike any matter ever and not even made of atoms.

[Abstract]

Coldness is more often measured by the speed of atoms/particles moving about or at least there vibrations... So what if something was true absolute zero? i mean what if something was not moving at all, i don't just mean the atoms weren't moving, but the electrons weren't moving and nothing that made up anything was moving...without movement would the thing be non-existent?

The physical is made ONLY of the changing, and thus the moving.
Anything truly having absolutely no changing occurring, cannot ever be physical.

I was thinking along the same lines, but what that suggests is that things are made of change it self, not some specific particle...

[James S Saint]

I was thinking along the same lines, but what that suggests is that things are made of change it self, not some specific particle...

That is exactly right, "affect upon affect" or simply, "mutual affect".
The entire universe is nothing but mutual affectance.

[Abstract]

I was thinking along the same lines, but what that suggests is that things are made of change it self, not some specific particle...

That is exactly right, "affect upon affect" or simply, "mutual affect".
The entire universe is nothing but mutual affectance.

If it is all a matter of change then perhaps it is purely a matter of perception as perception seems to be what recognizes differences between instances, i.e. change? If it is pure change, thin the change it self is not made up of a "something" if it is not made up of a something can we clearly say that changes itself is a something beyond that we percieve it to be?

[James S Saint]

If it is all a matter of change then perhaps it is purely a matter of perception as perception seems to be what recognizes differences between instances, i.e. change? If it is pure change, thin the change it self is not made up of a "something" if it is not made up of a something can we clearly say that changes itself is a something beyond that we percieve it to be?

Perception has nothing to do with it.
And "change" IS the something. We have just never seen it that way although thousands of years ago, the ancient philosophers stated it was true; "The material world is an illusion. Only the spiritual world actually exists" ("spirit" = behavior/motion).

[Abstract]

If it is all a matter of change then perhaps it is purely a matter of perception as perception seems to be what recognizes differences between instances, i.e. change? If it is pure change, thin the change it self is not made up of a "something" if it is not made up of a something can we clearly say that changes itself is a something beyond that we percieve it to be?

Perception has nothing to do with it.
And "change" IS the something. We have just never seen it that way although thousands of years ago, the ancient philosophers stated it was true; "The material world is an illusion. Only the spiritual world actually exists" ("spirit" = behavior/motion).

Well the thing I'm concerned about is that some "thing" must be changing in order for there to be change. For say if a void was constantly shifting what would that do...

[James S Saint]

If it is all a matter of change then perhaps it is purely a matter of perception as perception seems to be what recognizes differences between instances, i.e. change? If it is pure change, thin the change it self is not made up of a "something" if it is not made up of a something can we clearly say that changes itself is a something beyond that we percieve it to be?

Perception has nothing to do with it.
And "change" IS the something. We have just never seen it that way although thousands of years ago, the ancient philosophers stated it was true; "The material world is an illusion. Only the spiritual world actually exists" ("spirit" = behavior/motion).

Well the thing I'm concerned about is that some "thing" must be changing in order for there to be change. For say if a void was constantly shifting what would that do...

That is the illusion.
The only thing changing is the affect of changing.
Mutual affect is the only existence.
There is literally nothing else at all except the aberrant effects that mutual affectance brings about as it affects itself; electromagnetic fields, gravitation, quantumization (particles).

[Abstract]

There is literally nothing else at all except the aberrant effects that mutual affectance brings about as it affects itself; electromagnetic fields, gravitation, quantumization (particles).

Yet wouldn't everything be meaningless without perception as perception is what brings about meaning?

[James S Saint]

There is literally nothing else at all except the aberrant effects that mutual affectance brings about as it affects itself; electromagnetic fields, gravitation, quantumization (particles).

Yet wouldn't everything be meaningless without perception as perception is what brings about meaning?

Are you saying that before humans there was no universe?

[Abstract]

There is literally nothing else at all except the aberrant effects that mutual affectance brings about as it affects itself; electromagnetic fields, gravitation, quantumization (particles).

Yet wouldn't everything be meaningless without perception as perception is what brings about meaning?

Are you saying that before humans there was no universe?

Not really, but it does point to the idea that we can't actually "know" that. I might suggest that time though is a matter of perception which would seem evident as we often experience things as if passing by faster as we get older, or when we are interested in something, or maybe when someone gets high... That might suggest that without perception to percieve things, things would really just begin and end instantly at least relative to what there was to clock time...