Existence is existence, so nothing does not exist.
What makes existence existence, though? It just is. But what we can call this, is gravity. Gravity is the ‘binding force’ for all of the universe, but we can simply say it’s just existence and there really is no ‘force’ other than itself making it so.
There is no cause and effect, only gravity. Existence moves and breathes, so it must be binded to itself to be itself.
Fundamental particles can’t exist, because then they would ‘just be’, as existence just is, and they can’t just come from ‘nothing’ or be divided from other ‘particles’ as that would mean they aren’t fundamental. If we can’t break down fundamental particles, then again, they ‘just are’, and they don’t come from anything, so obviously existence just is, and what it is, is gravity.
Science is completely 100% accurate in it’s definition of gravity, but it is incomplete. Science relies on math, mainly, and that it’s major flaw. This is why it can’t see what just is. Science tries to divide and conquer nature, rather than realize it. It is stunted by it’s own self-denial. It is an aglorithm, a system of assumption, and all systems are flawed because they depend on everything outside of it to be perceived to work.
I take it we’re adding something extra to the standard scientific notion of gravity, right? That is, we’re not talking about something that isn’t the usual pull of one massive body on another, right?
How does gravity replace cause and effect, and what does it mean for existence to “breath”?
If I’m interpreting you correctly, I think you’re saying that nothing can “just be” unless it is everything - therefore, any part of existence, if taken in isolation from everything else, can’t “just be”. Well, nothing can really be taken in isolation, not even fundamental particles. You can separate fundamental particles from each other (physically), but they still constitute, together and along with everything else, the universe as a whole. Therefore, fundamental particles aren’t “just are” - rather, they “are because”… because other things in the universe give rise and sustain their existence. They are not independent of existence.
What is your understanding of the scientific definition of gravity? Do you understand Einstein’s theory of general relativity?
You need to develop this further. I don’t see how dependence on math is a flaw.
Same with this assertion. Dividing and conquering, or reductionism, is the primary method by which science confidently aspires to realize nature. You need to explain why this doesn’t work before people can believe you.
I really don’t understand what this means. What do you mean by “everything outside of it to be perceived to work” and how is this a flaw in a system that depends on it - every system, according to you?
Universally, there is no such thing as ‘cause and effect’, because then you’re going to have to reach for the cause of the beginning, and the cause for that cause, and that cause, and that cause, and so on and so forth. It’s really feeble minded to just sit there and say “well the big bang theory is just a theory but it’s the best explanation we have thus far”. Is it really? So how long do you intend to wait? Since you’re in self-denial, how exactly do you expect to realize something when you admit you are dependent on science to think for you?
Because why? Because of the big bang? And these particles can’t be broken down any further which means they just are. “Just because” is a rather circular argument between you and I.
You’re basically agreeing with me. “Other things give rise to existence” - in other words the universe is fundamental to itself. Wow who’da thunk?
It’s the weakest of the 4 forces of gravi…, I mean nature
Math is an estimation tool. In other words, we say 'this much is this much so we can have this much of something" and call it math. In pure mathematics, there’s really nothing to apply it to, so it’s not worth discussing. WE’re talking about applied mathematics here. That doesn’t mean that pure mathematics isn’t flawed, because it is simply an assumption.
That’s funny, because the most respected scientists even say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So what is there to divide? Back to fundamentalism again… how do fundamental particles exist? You’re saying we can’t single them out yet those particles are not fundamental to other fundamental particles. Care to elaborate?
I told you already, science denies itself. It’s like a robot that is taught how to navigate in a house, but doubts it’s memory of obstacles to avoid after being reprogrammed.
A system is dependent on everything else, this is because a system is nothing more than a centralization of production. The reason all systems are flawed is because they all undergo changes, just as everything else, and none of them are ever ‘correct’. I’m not saying a system can’t work, because the system itself assumes that it works, but it doesn’t “work” outside of the system, because it is dependent on everything outside of it to work!
But “it is” is not an answer to my question. Let me rephrase it: I’m asking whether your definition of gravity is meant to be taken metaphorically or literally.
Yes, this is generally understood to be a problem for the idea of “causality” - it’s not new - but the alternative is just as troublesome - namely, that there could be a “first cause” (in which case the problem is how it came into existence in the first place) or no cause at all (in which case the problem is why there seems to be so much regularity in nature). I take it you’re opting for the latter, but I’m failing to see how for you, unlike for everyone else, it’s not problematic.
See, I just don’t understand where you’re coming from here. Yes, BB is a theory - it’s even just a theory - but again, I fail to see any feasible alternative. Personally, I don’t have a problem imagining a metaphysical framework, which is ultimately spaceless and timeless, and sustaining the course of events through time and their interrelations through space. This allows me to imagine both possibilities - that either the universe began with a “first cause” or that there never was a beginning - just an endless series of events, one leading to the next. In other words, the notion that the series of cause-and-effect events is either finite or infinite bears no consequence on its standing on account of some timeless, spaceless metaphysical grounding. I also personally feel very comfortable with BB theory as it seems to account for our astronomical and cosmological observations.
I don’t think this is “feeble minded” - I feel it’s a perfectly rational belief, and that’s an indication of a healthy mind.
BTW, what am I supposed to be “waiting” for? If I’m in self-denial, what is it I’m denying? If you’re going to say that I’m in denial about your theory, I have to tell that I don’t even understand your theory, so I’m not sure how I could be in denial about it. Do I “depend” on science? Sure! If by “depend” you mean using science in order to grasp an intelligible model of the natural world. But that’s like saying a mathematician depends on the rules of numbers in order to understand how they relate to each other in a logical and consistent manner. We depend on these things because they’re justified.
Non-sequitur - I never said every particle’s dependence on the whole is a result of the Big Bang.
But I followed up “just because” with an actual reason. The universe as a whole sustains its parts and the parts sustain the whole. Being fundamental doesn’t exempt a particle from this relationship. Yes, the particle “is”, but it’s not “just is” - it is because of the rest of the universe (on another personal note - I don’t see why there has to be anything fundamental in the universe at all - not necessarily anyway. I can explain this further if you want).
I guess we are in agreement about this. I would like to understand, however, how this ties into your account of gravity. As I said above, I don’t feel my questions have been addressed head-on.
The way you put this almost sounds like a riddle. In any case, it’s wrong. Although gravity is the weakest of all 4 natural forces, this was not Einstein’s theory of general relativity in particular. But you seem to be hinting at the main crux of your idea. You say “the 4 forces of gravi…, I mean nature ”. Interchanging the words “gravity” and “nature” with each other. So what does that mean? That gravity is nature and nature is gravity? Then there wouldn’t be 4 forces, but 3 - gravity is not one of them.
At this point, I really have to ask - giving you the benefit of the doubt, would you be able to explain the theory of general relativity to me in your own words (just a paragraph will do).
You’re an obscure thinker, Spartan. I’m going to have to paraphrase to see if I understand this properly. Are you saying that because there will never be - cannot ever be - an applied mathematical formula for a given physical phenomenon that guarantees infinitely accurate predictions (i.e. there’s always going to be a small margin of error), mathematics can never do any better than estimate? Well, I’ll grant you that. Sure! But to insist, even after having said that, that pure mathematics isn’t flawed is not “simply an assumption”. It is a truth that we are compelled to accept, by the very nature of how we understand mathematics to work (i.e. logically and rationally), as perfectly grounded.
They used to say this, but now they say particles can jump in and out of existence spontaneously but only for extremely brief moments. They call them “virtual particles”.
[/quote]
Sure - I simply mean that one cannot take them into consideration without considering the relation they hold with everything else in existence. This relation is crucial to a full and complete understanding of the essence of the particle itself.
And I told you I don’t understand the reasoning behind this.
What?!?!
That sounds Marxist (just an observation ).
This is still very obscure. The idea I’m hearing from you is that a system fails to perform the function it was crafted for if it is applied to something other than what it was crafted for. This is almost tautological. So my computer won’t function well if I used it to go fishing. A car won’t function well if I used it as a stove. I suppose it’s true that when a system - in this particular case, a naturally evolved one such as ourselves - starts being applied to an environment which it is not optimally suited for, it “malfunctions”. And it is true that everything is always changing. Our environment is always changing in response to us and we to our environment, and therefore, we can never really “fit” within our environment perfectly - as though we were built as an unchanging component to an unchanging machine. What I still don’t understand is where you’re going with this. I don’t see the connection between this idea and the idea that gravity “just is”.
All told, I think your theory is too obscure to be judged fairly. I think you need to develop it further and articulate it in a much more extensive manner.
Just existance as everything being drawn by gravity, but after everything stops exploding and as time ticks on begins imploding.
Like the year 2000 bug- all computers will reset- some might beleive that time itself would reverse, i think time is independant of this event and will act as normal.
P.S. and after it implodes it becomes the certainity of one-except- as far as the one knows.
We can break down everything, you, atree, water ect. into basic building blocks, but you seem to think this has an end, where the atoms everything is made of are a collection and not able to be broken down to one common thing- the thing everything could be made of-.
I can see your version is quite possible, now what makes the “one” version impossible again?
the word fundamental in this sentence is stating a fact, but the fact is we are not certain of anything in the mirco world. (as far as i know, hey hey).
I didn’t read the whole theory, just small parts of it and I see one of the main problems with it being that Science doesn’t intend, as a field of study, to be a discourse of Truth. It is one of efficiency.
What about electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces?
Is this a bizarre reference to quantum gravity?!
This sounds like 18th/19th century science to me! Have you read Schelling or Boscovich or any of the other there-is-no-matter philosophers? Suggesting that matter is really force is a very old idea, and whilst it can be beautiful it does not actually work as an explanation.
And this sounds like a Romantic’s methodology. Go read Schelling and Goethe’s scientific writings; you’ll probably love them. And maths does not “depend on everything outside of it to be perceived”; have you never heard of Kurt Gödel?!
I’m not sure what you’ve construed my view to be, but I don’t think that everything can’t be broken down to one common thing. My argument is about the identity of that one common thing (if it exists), and I’m saying that it can’t be understood without considering its relation to the whole. It can be there, it can be singled out, but it cannot exist all by itself (as if the rest of the universe simply wasn’t there). The “one” view is certainly possible within this framework, and in fact it must be true within this framework. I’m saying that you can have fundamental building blocks (call them “atoms”, “particles”, “monads”, whatever) but their existence is intricately connected to the whole. In order to have parts, you have to have a whole, and in order to have a whole, you must have parts.
As in we can’t know what’s more fundamental than fundamental?
It is. Can you not comprehend what is. No, there is nothing hiding in the bushes for you, it JUST IS. You comprehend that EXACTLY how you read it. That’s it. IT JUST IS.
And the cause of that first cause? Are you going to tell me that THAT cause “just was”?
Wait, you’re asking me to provide you with a ‘better’ altnernative than speculation? How about you stop patting yourself on the back every time you post and actually read and comprehend what I have to say.
Don’t try to complicate things… because you’ll only be… complicating things. It is as simple as knowing that you exist. Gravity IS everything. What we consider gravity in the science field, IS gravity, and even science contradicts itself, because most scientists today agree that gravity is EVERYWHERE and that you cannot have existence without it, but as far being the ‘weakest of 4 forces of the universe’ is contradictory. If this gravity is everywhere, and yet the ‘other 3 forces’ aren’t, what exactly makes you think that those ‘other forces’ aren’t gravity themselves, observably unique in their properties BECAUSE existence cannot be just ‘one big atom’ instead relying on the binding force that is all of existence itself - gravity. In other words, existence needs itself and nothing else.
If you’re in self-denial, then you aren’t, really. However, it’s fear that plagues you.
Mk, so every particle was condensed into this tiny little atom that exploded and gave us the universe. So now all the particle in the universe were actually smaller? If they’re fundamental they cannot change size.
Yes, they are “just is”, because you can single them out. Yet, they aren’t OTHER fundamental particles, which by default, makes them dependent on other fundamental particles to be ‘fundamental’, which means you can’t single them out, because if there was a discernable difference between particles, then you would have what you call a paradox. You say they can’t exist without other particles yet they exist without being other particles. How is the fundamental particle ‘fundamental’ when it requires DISTINCT OTHER types of particles to exist? Since the particles can be singled out, then they exist in their own timezone just as you and I do. So they aren’t really fundamental, because one type of ‘fundamental particle’ isn’t everything else. You can look at it and say “this is fundamental” - yet it isn’t fundamental to other particles… so how is it fundamental? Yes, I know you keep saying that they can’t exist without other particles. I’m saying how can ONE type of particle be fundamental and not exist absolutely everywhere? This is has NOTHING to do with them needing other particles to exist because… ONE type of particle… in your mind… doesn’t exist absolutely everywhere. So it’s not really fundamental, because it would need to exist ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE. In other words, it would have to be every other particle, in all of infinity. Using your logic we would say “the universe is a big fat atom”.
Existence is, is it not? Then it must be attracted to itself. The force you discern from ‘other’ forces as gravity IS gravity, but only because existence must be binded to itself to exist… which means everything is gravity. Everything IS attracted to everything else, be it through nuclear or electromagnetic phenomena. It’s STILL attraction. THAT attraction IS existence. Again, it can’t be just a perfect atom, because we have stars and planets and life. So obviously, the binding force of nature is gravity. There has to be something to connect everything together, and that something is existence, which we can easily call gravity. Existence is attracted to itself, as it is everything. For everything ot be everything, it must be everything = attraction to existence. Even the furthest star from us pulls on everything else.
I don’t really trust Einstein, I never really have. He was a quack and a plagiarist and has been proven wrong on many occasions. I’m not your secretary, you go use google and do the search results yourself. If you say you can’t find any, then the other posters here can correct you. I’m not your secretary.
Uh, yeah… because math IS estimation. That’s all that it is. If it’s not estimation, then it’s pure math, which is self-assuming. It’s not anything, really.
Right, and where do they go? They go into nothingness… and then come back from nothingness… in other words something can come from nothing. Right.
Sure - I simply mean that one cannot take them into consideration without considering the relation they hold with everything else in existence. This relation is crucial to a full and complete understanding of the essence of the particle itself.
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Everything holds everything, and that is what is called gravity. Do not attempt to not quote the above explanation in THIS post as it is written of the last of my posts of why there cannot be fundamental particles. I explained to you already, do not go around in circles with me.
Because science denies it is right, while assuming it is right. That’s the contradiction.
…
Are you Jewish, by any chance?
System does what it is meant to do, but not exactly, and that’s why it needs constant upkeep. It is flawed inherently, because it assumes control is a valid concept.
Read this time and do not attempt to go around in circles with me.
I’m going to tell you, first, that I have no clue. Second, I’m going to tell you that I’m not troubled by the idea of an infinitely extended chain of causes.
I can certainly read, and I did, but as for comprehending, I’m forced to rely on the clarity of your writing.
No, they say you cannot have matter without it.
Then why aren’t we plummeting down to the center of the Earth? Because the ground keeps us up. How does it do this? By way of the electromagnetic force. Ergo, the electromagnetic force must be more powerful than the gravitational force.
Actually, they are.
Well, you’re actually making sense here. Scientists hope to unify the 4 fundamental forces of nature with a “theory of everything” (string theorists think they’ve got it). They hope to show that the 4 fundamental forces are different manifestations of the same underlying force.
Whatever you say, Freud.
As far as I’m concerned, “fundamental” simply means “not composed of smaller/simpler things” - it has nothing to do with size variability.
Again, my notion of “fundamental” has nothing to do with the “oneness” of all fundamental things. I don’t see why something’s being fundamental entails it must be the same thing as all other fundamental things (the same type of thing - maybe - but even then, not necessarily so).
OK, Spartan, after reading this, I’m finally starting to see your vision. In my last two responses in this post, I made it more clear (hopefully) what I understand “fundamental” to mean, and I think this is key. It seems your notion of “fundamental” is different. Moreover, I think I can appreciate it, for I have entertained it myself. It is a valid notion, in my opinion, to treat the whole as a sort of “fundamental” starting point for everything else. It’s like treating the number 1 as fundamental and then breaking it down into fractions vis-a-vis .5 + .5 = .25 + .25 + .25 + .25 = … That’s one way of looking at it. What I’ve been arguing, however, is the alternative view that if 1 is the fundamental unit, maybe it’s a matter of aggregating similar such units and building upwards vis-a-vis 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 = (1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4, 4 + 4 = … In other words, it’s just another way of comprehending the word “fundamental” - namely, to mean “the smallest building blocks”. THE KEY POINT IS: different definitions of “fundamental” lead to different conclusions.
I think this is the one premise that I’m at odds with. If you can convince me that it’s plausible, I think I’d be satisfied that I understand your theory (whether I agree with it is something else). The reason I’m at odds with it is because I can imagine a universe completely void of gravity wherein all matter and energy simply float away from each other - endlessly into the cold depths of space forever. Yet what I’m visualizing in this scenario is, by my understanding, still existence. Therefore, for existence to “be” - that is, for it to be “attracted” to its own identity (which I’m assuming is what you mean) - doesn’t require gravity. The universe would still exist without it.
What you call self-assuming, I call self-justifying. If we can’t depend on self-justifying principles, then we can depend on anything and we might as well become nihilists, skeptics, anti-realists, you name it.
Anyway, I think we’re making progress. If you can just answer my one question for me (about a universe without gravity continuing to exist), I’ll be satisfied.
BTW, your assertion that for one to know reality, one simply needs to see that it just is sounds existentialist to me. Do you follow in that tradition?
i agree
One thing fundamentally means only one thing all things are fundamentally, if you say one thing, it is just as possible there are, as you say, many things fundamentally. (50-50 odds)
Unifying the four forces may show positive and negative charge is everything, like 0 and 1 is everything built from a binary code.
Look at electricity, the positive/charge running to the negative/earth at the speed of light, in frictionless space gravity will accelerate particles toward each other up to the speed of light just like the charge to earth.
Particles with mass would build up speed, and particles without mass would be gravitated instantly to the speed of light.
All four forces may be just electricity, one energy which could be everything, even the energy we think with, if there is only one fundamental energy (50-50 odds) and we are our thoughts, existing with completely individual mind/bodies, but using a fundamental energy making all individuals the same one.
The individual brain is controlling the person but what is a person if not the electricity of thought, the electricity being controlled by the neuron.
The one being controlled by the individual. The one may only exist as the many, and the many may only exist as the one.
Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated.
So:
Maybe then the reference is a fundamental one.
It would have to be both matter and energy, weightless and yet have weight, be able to move without moving, be able to turn into light and back to matter again, and exist in all things yet be only the one thing, it’s quantity would have to be unmeasureable.
Electricity is a mysterious incomprehensible entity which is invisible AND visible BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Also, it’s both matter and energy. It’s a type of low-frequency radio wave which is made of protons. It is a mysterious force which looks like blue-white fire, and yet cannot be seen. It moves forward at the speed of light… yet it vibrates in the AC cord without flowing forwards at all. It’s totally weightless, yet it has a small weight. When electricity flows through a light bulb’s filament, it gets changed entirely into light. Yet no electricity is ever used up by the light bulb, and every bit of it flows out of the filament and back down the other wire. College textbooks are full of electricity, yet they have no electric charge! Electricity is a class of phenomena which can be stored in batteries! If you want to measure a quantity of electricity, what units should you use? Why Volts of electricity, of course. And also Coulombs of electricity, Amperes, Watts, and Joules, all at the same time. Yet “electricity” is a class of phenomena; it’s a type of event. Since we can’t have an AMOUNT of an event, we can’t really measure the quantity of electricity at all… right?
Heh heh.
First you have to prove that fundamental particles exist. You have not yet done that. You don’t get to just say what you want and leave.
Um, no, it’s dense. The reason for the earth’s existence is existence MUST move to continue existing, which will cause discernable objects. There must be soemthing in the universe that pulls on itself. What is there to pull if nothing exists?
So basically, since you can’t ‘separate these forces’ because you say they are EVERYWHERE, they are really just one force.
Gravity.
… which is Gravity. We see solar MASSES as gravity yet most people REFUSE to accept the fact that they are all meant to be there because existence IS and CANNOT NOT be what IT IS… WHICH REQUIRES EXISTENCE TO BE ATTRACTED TO ITSELF WHICH RESULTS IN DISCERNABLE OBJECTS. It’s just like skimming on top of a lake and seeing bubbles. THat’s just an effect of the water itself, ripping through itself. It’s all gravity.
I’m not a cokehead, nor am I a believer in any psychobabble quackery.
Right, so every single particle, which exists absolutely everywhere you look in the universe, was somehow condensed into one single ‘atom’? If they can’t be broken down any further, then how exactly does every single one of them fit into one ‘atom’? See your contradiction? Why can’t we have an ‘atom’ of let’s say… hydrogen… in the present universe… have just as many particles as the entire universe?
See where you fucked up? Lies never work The truth ALWAYS comes out in the end.
If the entire universe of fundamental particles can all fit inside one single atom, then obviously there is NO reason to think that one single atom that exists TODAY in say… a brain cell cannot contain just as many ‘fundamental particles’.
So you see, you’re right. It isn’t about size, because you can continue to break things down, no matter how small.
You are relying on some magical particle that isn’t really anything at all, it just exists, without a measurement or size or anything really, yet we can count them. A fundamental particle just exists, yet you can’t see it and you can’t prove it exists. But you expect everyone to believe it exists, even though your definition of a fudnamental particle is pretty much nothing, even though they somehow have distinctive properties and forces.
FOr your theory to be correct, everything that exists today has ‘absent’ particles OR particles with lots of ‘nothing’ (lots of nothing is oxymoron) in between other particles… especially dark matter, where there are no planets or stars. So basically, there exists ‘nothing’ in those places, according to you and all the other communist sympathizing quacks.
Now again we go around in circles for me to prove to you that nothing cannot exist. Nothing is DEVOID of existence, that IS the definition of ‘nothing’, unless we are using it in a different context that is RELATIVE, such as describing how many fish you caught and put in a bucket. If you caught ‘nothing’ you would then say “I caught nothing”.
Let’s say a big fat hole of ‘nothing’ exists somewhere in the universe. What is making this ‘hole’ absent of existence? If there is a force ‘inside’ of this ‘nothing’… then that automatically makes the nothing something. If there is no force inside this ‘nothing’, what is separating the universe from itself at that point to make that hole of ‘nothing’?
If there is ‘nothing’ somewhere in the universe, then obviously ‘nothing’ exists at all. There isn’t anything in the universe at all. Because you are saying that nothing exists. This isn’t semantics, this is pure common sense. If ‘nothing’ exists, then nothing exists, not anything at all because if nothing could exist anywhere in the universe, then everything would collapse on itself and turn into this ‘nothingness’, because there couldn’t be anything making this hole of ‘nothing’ ‘nothing’. In other words, your theory relies on SOMETHING to become or create nothing.
Basically, your entire argument revolves around ‘nothing’, which is why it’s so easy to defeat, yet you expect me to believe that all of the fundamental particles that exist in the uinverse were somehow condensed into the size of an ‘atom’, and yet refuse to acknowledge that you have NO PROOF whatosever that an atom inside of your brain doesn’t contain just as many particles.
If you can’t prove that a brain cell cannot contain JUST AS MANY particles in the entire universe, then you can’t prove you’re theory.
I was hoping you would at least respond to my ‘universe-without-gravity’ scenario. The rant you did post instead reeks of too much emotional involvement in your theory. It’s resulting in your ability to have a civil and fruitful discussion being diminished. It’s clouding your thinking. I’m not one to judge a person’s idea solely on their writing skills or the clarity of their words, so maybe there’s a coherent idea behind your posts after all. But I’m not getting it. In fact, what little I am getting tells me that you’ve drastically misunderstood my position.
In any case, I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere so I’m done. Feel free to have the last word (and I sincerely hope you consider including a response to my ‘universe-without-gravity’ scenario).
